Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 3

As a non-admin, I should be allowed to keep lists of admin actions that I think are questionable. The only tool that non-admins have to check admin behaviour is WP:CONSENSUS. Without being able to keep such lists on-wiki, it is near impossible to build such consensus. There is plenty of evidence that a large number of non-admins think that admins should be more accountable, for example perennial proposals Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Reconfirm_administrators and Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#It_should_be_easier_to_remove_adminship. As for the technical grounds for this DRV, I think that User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads did not have authority to delete under G10, as it did not "disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass". It did not disparage, as it was polite as I could make it. It did not threaten, merely bore witness. It did not intimidate - there was no demands made of the admins listed. It did not harass - I did not spam links to the page, or direct anyone to the page. --Surturz (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: After a bit of research, I now also think the page is also exempt from deletion as per WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions.". You cannot criticise an admin action without naming the admin and/or linking the action. --Surturz (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:User pages very clearly states "Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." (emphasis mine). It does not appear as though you are preparing this information for use in an iminent RFCU. You can easily keep this material locally on your computer. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G10 and G4 because the deletion process was not correctly followed. G10 is for "libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced." This was not material intended purely to harass or intimidate, and the fact that it may have had that effect does not justify a speedy deletion. That would be for the community to decide, it's not a matter for one or two people to decide on their own personal judgment. G4 is for "a page deleted via a deletion discussion", which this was not. The two deleting admins clearly overstepped their authority and a clue-level adjustment is appropriate here. Of course, as always when DRV overturns a speedy, there should be no prejudice to a subsequent deletion discussion. If there's an actual consensus to delete this material then it certainly should be deleted. But not until.—S Marshall T/C 14:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

endorse deletion You may keep such a list privately, on your own computer, where it isn't in violation of Wikipedia policies. Your singular opinion that some admin action is "questionable" is not, of itself, justification for this list. If you are woried about an admin action, get community input via WP:ANI on that singular action or on that specific administrator. However, indefinitely maintaining a "shit list" of the perceived faults of others has long been disallowed at Wikipedia. WP:UP#POLEMIC has been enshrined as a principle for a long time; the fact that I am an admin myself (which I'm sure will be used by the OP to indicate that I am a second-class citizen at Wikipedia and that my opinion shouldn't count here) has no bearing on the fact that that principle exists and has long had wide community support. If you want to get WP:UP#POLEMIC changed to allow you to create and maintain this list, please do so with a community-wide discussion at Wikipedia talk:User pages. However, as long as WP:UP#POLEMIC stands, this is a clearcut violation thereof, and needed to go. --Jayron32 14:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which CSD do you think applied, Jayron32?—S Marshall T/C 14:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one. If you can clearly explain how encyclopedia articles become higher quality because this list is being maintained in the userspace, I will instantly change my vote and request an overturning of the deletion. Your note about the fact that a deletion discussion did not occur in this case has been noted, and I think it is a good position for you to take. I support your right to hold the opinion that one was needed, however though I have given your arguement much thought I do not think it, of itself, outweighs my prior feelings on the issue. I am not dismissing your opinions as invalid, S Marshall, I value them and considered them. I don't think that it is enough to yet convince me that the deletion should be overturned for merely bureaucratic reasons, per WP:BURO. But if you can convince me that the list the user was maintaining has at least some potential in making the encyclopedia better written, more accurate, or in some way a better product for the end user, I will change my vote. Again, I value your opinion in this matter, I just still hold a different one. --Jayron32 14:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing about this page that required immediate speedy deletion without the courtesy of discussing the matter with the editor involved. Lists like that should be reserved for direct dispute resolution preparation, however there was no attack language, merely disagreement with admin actions. The heavy handed over the top reaction to this page should not be endorsed. As a practical matter unless I could be convinced that there was actual DR in the future I'd probably support deletion at an MFD. It would be advisable for Surturz to maintain this type of list offline. That does not diminish my disapproval of the process used here.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. First of all, S Marshall's analysis is sound. Second, it simply looks bad for a page which supposedly documents bad admin behavior to be summarily suppressed by admins absent seriously abusive content. A laundry list of admin decisions a user disagrees with may not be terribly helpful in many eyes, but it's less likely to damage the project than actions suggesting that criticism of admins is being suppressed. Third, and most important, the page did not fall into the category of indefinitely maintained lists of grievances. It was deleted less than eighteen hours after being created, according to the available article history. I don't know what Surturz would have done with this page in the long run, but a user who's been editing for five years with a clean block log deserves more of an assumption of good faith than appears to have been afforded here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time (first two times) I've ever been disciplined by an admin, actually. How newbies navigate through the morass of policy I have no idea. I had trouble filling in the template thing for the DRV :-)--Surturz (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Surturz. I wouldn't like you to feel you had been "disciplined" (makes me feel like Madam Whiplash. If I delete a page, it's because the page needs deleting - if I need to take action against a user, that's what the block button is for. I have no problems if your intention is to examine admin powers and how these can be used in a way that causes problems - although do remember that admins are both human and volunteers. The problem is with your presentation. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - It's not anything resembling a set of RFC's, it's merely a laundry list of complaints with no purpose other than firing shots at other users. In short, it's an attack page, and is not allowed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse; this is a "these admin are bad" list, and those have no reason for being on-wiki outside of dispute resolution. If the intent is to document instances of problems for some future RfC, this can be achieved just as easily by storing this on the editor's own computer rather than to make a "wall of shame" on-wiki. — Coren ^(talk) 15:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've seen several people claim this page was an attack page, but other than saying "it is an attack page", could you provide a quote or basis for this assertion? I've looked at the page history and from what I can tell, the last version of the page doesn't sound like an attack at all. Before ruling against Surturz, please actually provide a rationale for how this page constitutes an attack. Primarily this should include arguments that show how the content on this page can "disparage or threaten" a specific admin (per WP:ATTACK). -- Avanu (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - There is a clear difference between an actual attack page, and a page created to help someone in maintaining accountability for those in power. Lèse majesté is a crime that hopefully we won't see arrive at Wikipedia. Between the extra leeway that we grant users in their own userspace, and the fact that merely recording the acts of those in power that a person finds questionable, this seems like something that would exempted from the WP:ATTACK page, or at least given a wide berth. And in this specific case, I see nothing rising to the level of an actual attack aka to "disparage or threaten". Is there an admin that feels this is a threat? Or do they feel disparaged? If so, that might be something to discuss personally with Surturz, but as far as I can see, this page is unbelievably mild, and mainly consists of a few diffs. -- Avanu (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The "holding admins to account" defence is bogus here. In Wikipedia the point of outlining a complaint or a dispute is to resolve it. Thus disputes should be on talk pages where they can be resolved through discussion, or taken to noticeboards or to one of the multiple dispute resolution mechanisms. Simply recording grievances in userspace, with no attempt to discuss or take matters forward is not holding anyone to account or resolving any dispute, it it simply cowards flinging faeces about - and you don't get to do that on these servers. If you've got a grievance that you want the community to consider, bring it on. But the alternative to putting up is shutting up.--Scott Mac 15:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restore and send to village pump for approval to create an official page of record for all questionable admin actions. It's high time someone let them know they're here for the community, not for their own egos. a community based check should be built into the system by default. icshtaM(talk) 16:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tin-Pei-Ling-Kate-Spade.jpg

Per discussion here, I would like to Overturn or Speedy relist because of concerns over the circumstances of the original nomination. I am the uploader, but I was never informed (which is the standard protocol listed under WP:FFD by the nominator user:202.156.13.11, a suspected sockpuppet and currently blocked for edit warring and disruptive behaviour.

Problems with the original process.

The IP used by the nominator is part of a wide string of IPs that have been wikihounding me and could possibly be linked to the Singaporean government and/or People's Action Party: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geneva2011, as well as the edit war it attempted to conduct there. The nominator also appeared to making a bad-faith nom out of revenge, because the nomination date coincides with the same date government-copyrighted photos were removed and deleted from the article Vivian Balakrishnan for copyright problems. The licensing given for the photos on the Vivian Balakrishnan article was "own work", but the uploader would not explain how he or she gained the privileged perspectives or high resolutions used in the photos, use the OTRS system, or address any copyright issues beyond blanket reverts, violating the 3RR rule in the process; in the end the user used webmaster privileges to change licencing for the image on a politicians' website (before the incident, copyright on that website was "all rights reserved"), which seems to be strong evidence that "public relations management" was involved. On the same day of the dispute, the nominator listed this image that I uploaded for deletion.

Problems not addressed by the original discussion.

Now, on to the discussion. Ultimately, the image was deleted not because of the original grounds of the nominator, but because of the BLP concern of "recentism", but I was never allowed to respond to that discussion, having never been informed. The perspective was a very famous photo distributed for Tin Pei Ling and shaped the public impression of Tin Pei Ling, to the extent that a nonpolitical, television magazine effectively commented on the image. To the extent that the image was widely-seen and distributed, I believe it deserves to be commented upon in the article. I have temporarily undeleted the image in the meanwhile, so the community can judge its merit.

elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC) }}[reply]

Endorse deletion, while acknowledging the concerns about the bad-faith nomination and lack of notification. Being one of the delete voters in the original discussion, I can now state that I would have upheld that vote even in the knowledge of Elle's counterarguments presented above, so I think the outcome should be upheld. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the outcome here is to restore there are various other issues which would need to be resolved. Making a collage of images in this way shouldn't be done. In the sense of NFCC requirement of minimal use it would be unlikely that we'd permit three images, we can't get around that by pasting the images together into one image, it is still three separate images. The licensing claim of it being distributed for the publicity use seems false/not evidenced - appearing in a magazine doesn't equal distributed to all manner of press for broad usage. In fact the text states one of the images was "leaked", so hardly something deliberately distributed for publicity. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, the magazine is merely the symptom of the fact that the image was already widely known, i.e. the magazine was parodying the pose, which was already well-known to the extent that it almost deserves to be covered on Wikipedia (see Read my lips, no new taxes). In the very least I can go back to the revision of two images, but the topic is that of the famous "pose" (which was widely circulated to support certain claims about Tin Pei Ling's attitude to life -- a quick google search will show this, since it was covered in a wide variety of press sources), and the pose was spoofed in a television magazine. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Btw, I used "promotional" since it was the freely-seen cover to a magazine that would have been sold on the street and in the stores. The leaked photo is not the promotional image; the spoof is. The leaked photo is a "historic" photo. I argue the photo is sufficiently notable and historic in and of itself, to the extent that the government commented on it repeatedly over the course of two months, such that we can claim fair use. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Endorse" deletion. La goutte de pluie is engaged in a political campaign against the PAP, a political party in Singapore. Her edit wars, and the uploading of an image which she does not have the copyright for a part of her campaign. She alleges bad faith, but a review of her own edits reveals her own bias. 220.255.1.162 (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our main job at DRV is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed, and in this case it clearly wasn't. Clearly. A tit-for-tat nomination by a sockpuppeteer using an IP address who failed to notify the original uploader and therefore denied them the opportunity to participate in the debate. We can't possibly endorse this. Speedy overturn and restore, but without prejudice to a fresh nomination by a good faith user.—S Marshall T/C 11:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

overturn relist if anyone can be bothered. Agathoclea (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endose deletion. S Marshall's process analysis is convincing, and ordinarily I would agree with it. But the NFCC violation is so clear that I think it would justify summary removal of the collaged image. The copyrighted parody images can so easily be adequately reported in text that there's no basis for including them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3 August 2011

User:Surturz/AdminWatch

File:Tin-Pei-Ling-Kate-Spade.jpg