Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 14

This article was speedily deleted for G11: "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". However, Mawashi Protective Clothing is an organization that should be considered notable, because it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Here are some examples:

Thereby, if you consider these external source of information as reliable, could you consider undeleting this page? I will be waiting for your comments, and thank you for your consideration. Shareitnow (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review ' DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was not deleted by lack of a claim to importance, though it could have been; it was deleted as being exclusively promotional, and incapable of improvement through normal editing. I delete a great many promotional articles, and usually a promotional G11 speedy deletion is an article making purely advertising-style or Press-release style vague claims supported only by flowery adjectives, rather than giving information; as is obvious from inspection, this one is different: it's a mere product list making no claims at all besides that the company makes the products listed, and their plainly stated suitability for certain uses. But Wikipedia is not a product catalog, and there is no encyclopedic information present. I'm not entirely sure this meets the usual understanding of the G11 Promotional criterion. But I am sure that in its present form it could not possibly stay in Wikipedia--the need for this sort of material is adequately served by the company's web site. Of the references given, the only one that could be used for showing notability is the 3rd, which is a full article in a reliable news site about one of the products; the others could be used, but do not show notability : the 4th is too unsubstantial; the first two merely show the product was considered by the Canadian government for development support; the 5th is a listing of a presentation at a trade show. I think the article could be rewritten and might have a chance at AfD--but not in its present form. It might be better to start over. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Understood. Could I have the opportunity to rewrite the article by giving substantial information more suitable for the Wikipedia encyclopedia? Shareitnow (talk) 8:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Userfy to Shareitnow to give him the chance he seeks. The article should be brought back to this page for re-assessment before it can be moved to the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 11:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I started a draft of the revised article on my sandbox, could you please give me feedback on it? The draft page is accessible here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shareitnow/sandbox Thank you! Shareitnow (talk) 9:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am very tempted to nominate that draft for deletion right now. Unless you rewrite it completely to remove all the sales nonsense (for example, you do not "offer solutions") it will not be accepted. Yoenit (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul J. Alessi

This article was speedily deleted for CSD G4: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.". The description of the criteria required for deletion via this rule are as follows: "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)."

I would like to appeal this deletion. The original cause of the deletion of this article was CSD G12: "Unambiguous copyright infringement.", as the prior author of the article had only copy/pasted information from other websites. I did a major revision so that the article had no such violation; all of the writing was original, no copy/pasting. Yet it was still deleted under CSD G4. I have both the original author's old and my new scripts saved to my computer, if anyone would like to confirm and review that they are indeed substantially different.

Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Trismosin (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The CSD G12 was in 2009. It was deleted at AFD in 2010 for not establishing notability.[1] Was the version recently deleted different from the 2010 version? I see you have informed the deleter, Fastily, of this DRV. I think you should have also tried to discuss the matter with him before DRV. Thincat (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, I have both the 2009 scripts and 2010 scripts on my computer. Mine was a substantial rewrite. It included a rewritten bio, reference links, a full filmography, etc... As for discussing it with Fastily first, I was following the instructions on his talk page. There's a section at the top that says "Are you here because I deleted your Article or File? If so, please click here.". For the reason for deletion provided, he gave the following instructions -- [2], which told me to talk about it here. --Trismosin (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are absolutely right. My apologies. Despite Fastily's seeming reluctance to have people raise such matters on his talk page (unless he made a "mistake" etc.), very many people raise issues there and he sometimes reverses his decisions. Anyway, in this case you were indeed referred here directly which I think is a shame. At present I am more persuaded by what you say than by Fastily's deletion rationale. Thincat (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for that. I had put a fair amount of effort in to fixing that article so that it would comply with Wikipedia regulations, and was rather disappointed when I saw that it had been taken down this morning. I hope the decision will be repealed. I'm willing to fix any issues in that article that may have warranted its deletion. It seems a shame to throw the entire thing away for small discrepancies. Again, thank you for your time and consideration. --Trismosin (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored the entire history for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As said above, the most recent AfD in 2010 was for lack of notability , not copyvio. The career is not in a field where I can judge, but there seems not to be significant additional accomplishments in the current version as compared to the one deleted in the 3rd AfD. The material has been moved around, and some of the excessive early bio shortened, though an non- encyclopedic section on personal life remains. But it does meet the requirements for G4--I cannot see that the notability concerns were addressed. Here's the comparison: [3] Possibly the career would be judged notable if the AfD were done over. Possibly there is something additional to say. It would help to say now clearly what it is. (Of course, Fastily should have explained this in the first place; usually his deletions are well-justified, and when he does give a full explanation, they are usually both convincing and helpful). DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, how would I go about improving the notability? I don't mean to seem impertinent, but there appears to me to be a fair amount more verifiable information on this page than some of the others here on Wikipedia. For example, this one. --Trismosin (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - it's not just verifiable information, it's verifiable information that shows notability according to WP:MUSIC]], which is the applicable part of the notability guidelines. Normally, what does it best reviews or articles about the person in references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. There are a good many articles in Wikipedia that do not meet the guideline adequately, and the appropriate thing to do is to try to improve them and delete if not improvable, rather than adding another to the list.71.125.252.218 (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I'm willing to make whatever improvements are necessary. I just need to be pointed in the right direction. What sources are acceptable references? I had a few from IMDb up there, but an administrator removed them citing that "IMDb is not a reliable reference". --Trismosin (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

articles in newspapers and professional magazines are best. IMdB is not considered reliable. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Is there anything else I should work on fixing, or is that the article's only issue? --Trismosin (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salvador Tercero

The AfD was closed early due to speedy deletion as G7 (author requests deletion). In this particular case, I believe the article was a useful article on a notable recording professional, and that the subject of the article pressured the author into requesting deletion (edit summary read "deleting bio due to unauthorized info"). It would set a disturbing precedent if we allow biographical articles to be deleted just because their subjects don't like them, without any discussion. (Note: I did not discuss this with the closing administrator because I want to establish a broader consensus around the issue of G7 cases similar to this one, although I did invite them to participate in the discussion.) Dcoetzee 03:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse with no prejudice against immediately recreating the article, just as G7 would, in almost all cases, bear with it no similar prejudice. G7 lets the author of an article request deletion of his/her article so long as no other editors have made meaningful contributions. The article's author retains that "right," as it were, until the article's deletion would involve deleting someone else's work. While I certainly agree that biographical articles shouldn't be deleted just because their subjects don't like them, in this case the biographical article is being deleted because the author's article requested deletion. That should be a cut and dry distinction with no room for subjective judgment or inference, just like G7. If someone else wants to write an article on Salvador Tercero, that's fine and dandy. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the speedy because the terms of G7 were met (I am assuming what has been said about the history). The risk of deletion due to improper pressure is mitigated because anyone is able to recreate even using the material verbatim, with proper attribution. The licence to do this is still in effect. The article visible in the cache could reasonably have been speedied as "no indication of importance". Thincat (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. G7 exists so authors can correct their mistakes before they become permanently embedded. I have declined G7s when I think the topic is worth writing about and can be written about; I have deleted them when it seems better that the article should never have been started or needs to be re-started. It should not be regarded as an entitlement. This is especially true when the reason is given as here. If the original author feels it unwise to continue, they can of course do not have to continue, but someone else can take over. Subjects requesting the deletion of their own article should never have been included in BLP policy as other than a very exceptional case. I've closed a few such as delete when there really is reason to make an exception because of hopelessly disproportionate coverage that would violate Do no harm. But most of the time, it's mere embarrassment--which,though real enough, is not something we can consider without it shading into the much worse situation of the subject disagreeing with the contents of the article. When there is reason for the subject to validly disagree, the proper procedure is OTRS, which I think handles all justifiable cases sympathetically--though the justifiable cases are a relatively small proportion of the complaints. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that what is meant by "in good faith," in the G7 description? Otherwise, I can't really see anything in G7 that backs up making the kind of judgment call you're describing, DGG. But my question is a sincere one: if that's what is meant by "in good faith," then perhaps you have a point. Also entirely possible there's some other factor I'm not considering. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible that the scenario Dcoetzee suggests was right, i.e. that the subject had a way of putting pressure on the author. It's also possible that the information in that article wasn't in the public domain; maybe the author was a friend, relative or employee of the subject. In such circumstances, we definitely do want the author to be able to retract something they come to view as their mistake. The risk is that someone could suffer negative consequences as a result of their editing activities. We can't eliminate that completely, but I think that we need to protect our contributors to the maximum extent we can.

However, there's a balance to be struck. Some editors, such as me, choose to use their real name for editing Wikipedia. Others, also such as me, put personally identifying information on their userpage and unequivocally indicate that they are adults. By doing so we are voluntarily accepting the consequences of their edits; we're effectively waiving the right to retract. But some editors are children, some are vulnerable people, so if we don't know who the editor is, our default position should be to assume that we need to protect them as much as we can.—S Marshall T/C 22:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using G7 is not a safe way of satisfying do no harm, because it is too easy to re-create the article, deliberately or inadvertantly. If there is a true BLP problem, the article should be deleted under an appropriate reason, (either G3 vandalism or G10, abuse of the subject). The reason for this does not need to be made public on Wikipedia-- WP:OTRS exists for the purpose of dealing with these matters confidentially, and those of us who work there will always do what is necessary on a genuine case (although the majority requests there for deletion of material are not justified by WP policy, and the request is declined, with a full explanation). DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, did you fully understand me? My remark was basically about protecting the author, not protecting the subject.—S Marshall T/C 12:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was intrigued by Ginsengbomb's question above about whether G7 lent itself to the "judgment call" DGG described, so I dug up the history of CSD#G7 to see if I could come up with an answer. The collapsed text below is pretty long, but it informs my opinion in this DRV, so you may want to read it.

The History of G7

Ratification and early development of G7 (2005-2006)

G7 was not one of the original criteria for speedy deletion. It originated as one of many potential criteria proposed for addition in January 2005. Of those, only three – the items which would later become G7, A3, and A4 – were ratified by the community. G7 was ratified by a vote of 156-21. The newly added criterion provided for the deletion of:

Any article which is requested for deletion by the original author, provided the author reasonably explains that it was created by mistake, and the article was edited only by its author.

On January 16, 2005, SimonP did the honors of adding the three new criteria, including the earliest version of G7. Our understanding of G7 can be informed by some of the instructive comments which were made around the time of the vote.

MarkSweep wrote, “If you see a valid article listed for speedy deletion, you can try to prevent its deletion by editing it (it may still get deleted for unrelated reasons). Also the original author nominating it is supposed to 'reasonably [explain] that it was created by mistake'. Ideally, trying to explain that a perfectly valid article should be deleted would not come across as a reasonable request, so it cannot be deleted under the proposed policy item.”
Dori wrote, “This is a matter of courtesy. Even if the article is perfectly good, if no one else has edited it, and the author regrets his decision to put it here, we should honor it. It's just a matter of being a good host of information. People should want to contribute here, it should not be trap of any sort. Once someone else has contributed to it, even if to correct a single spelling, then we can no longer delete it as a matter of courtesy. It doesn't have anything to do with 'owning' it. The author has the copyrights. Due to the GFDL we are legally OK with keeping it. I argue that it would not be morally OK.”
Thryduulf noted, “If someone else was going to add something to it, they can recreate it themselves.”
Skysmith explained, “If the writers realize their mistakes and want them corrected, all the better.”
Isomorphic noted, “Of course, we are not obligated to delete an article just because the author requests it.”

As these comments demonstrate, the crux of G7 when it was ratified by the community was the “mistake clause,” which read, “provided the author reasonably explains that it was created by mistake.”

Even in 2005, there were already complaints about the CSD being too byzantine. On November 24, Radiant! removed the mistake clause as part of his broader attempt to make the entire policy page simpler. There was a thread on the talk page about his changes, but it did not include specific discussion of the removal of the mistake clause. On December 20, 2005, David Levy restored the mistake clause, “the lack of which changes [the criterion’s] meaning to something radically different than what was intended.”

On January 9, 2006, R3m0t added a blanking provision to G7 for the first time, after this talk page discussion. This marked the end of the early development of G7; it would be static, with both the mistake clause and the blanking provision intact, for over a year.

Major changes without discussion (2007)

On February 11, 2007, Steel significantly changed G7 by removing the mistake clause. Steel did not explain or discuss this edit anywhere on-wiki, nor was the edit prompted by any on-wiki policy discussion that I can find.

I looked at Steel's deletion log to find an impetus for his edit. On February 11, 2007, he deleted the following pages under G7:

19:17, February 11, 2007 Steel (talk | contribs) deleted "Eric Grete" ‎ (CSD G7)
19:19, February 11, 2007 Steel (talk | contribs) deleted "Greenfield school" ‎ (CSD G7)
20:22, February 11, 2007 Steel (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Antigay.png" ‎ (CSD G7)

That last one preceded his edit to WP:CSD by only 13 minutes, making it the likeliest candidate. As best as I can tell without the ability to view deleted edits, the image was associated with a userbox which Steel was also deleting. At 19:49, he deleted Template:User homophobia under T1, “divisive and inflammatory.” He informed the userbox’s creator, User:PatPeter, of the deletion, prompting a hostile discussion. It appears that PatPeter recreated the userbox in his userspace (at User:PatPeter\User homophobia); Steel deleted it under T1 at 20:08. It appears that PatPeter then recreated the userbox a second time in the same location. What happened next I cannot say without access to deleted edits; however, at 20:22, Steel deleted the userbox under U1 (user request) and the associated image under G7. It’s possible that PatPeter tagged the pages for deletion; it’s possible that he blanked one or both; and it’s also possible that Steel interpreted this comment as a request for deletion. Regardless, after these deletions, Steel made no further edits and took no further admin actions before making his edit to WP:CSD. So why did he make the policy edit? My educated guess is that the file he had deleted did not strictly meet G7 because it was not “mistakenly created,” so he sought to change the policy so it would be less restrictive. His edit was not reverted, and thus it became ingrained in the policy.

On the next day, February 12, 2007, Ais523 added to G7 a requirement that deletion must be requested “in good faith.” According to his edit summary, he did this “to address the reason why the bit just removed from G7 was there in the first place using a different method.” It does not appear that this was discussed, but it was not reverted and thus became ingrained in the policy. It’s safe to assume that “in good faith” was meant in the standard Wikipedia sense of the phrase, i.e. without malice towards the project.

In a brief April 2007 discussion, an editor expressed concern about the removal of the mistake clause. Two administrators responded, indicating that they had no problems with the “in good faith” wording.

Exceptions to G7 are carved out (2008-2010)

Without the mistake clause, G7 was at least technically far more expansive than it had been when the community ratified it. In the period 2008-2010, five exceptions were carved out of G7.

On July 24, 2008, Rossami added an exception for redirects created after page-moves.
On August 9, 2008, Ned Scott added an exception to the blanking provision for pages in userspace, in the wake of these two discussions.
On November 20, 2009, Dank added an exception to blanking provision for categories.
On December 12, 2009, Davidwr added an exception to the entire criterion for articles with other substantial contributors to the associated talk page/
On May 27, 2010, JamesBWatson added an exception to the entire criterion for user talk pages.

During those years, there were a few discussions on WT:CSD which provide important clarifications of G7:

November 2008: A group of administrators concludes that admins can decline to delete under G7 articles which were not contributed to Wikipedia by mistake. They extend this principle to allow the undeletion of articles which were previously deleted under G7, upon request of a potential contributor to the page.
February 2009: There is a general sentiment that G7 should not be used in instances where deletion is contested. However, the examples used in the discussion are bad-faith requests, so the problem of contested good-faith requests is not really examined here.
March 2009: Again, there is some sentiment that G7 deletions are a “courtesy” that does not have to be extended to contributors. However, the ethical problems with “forcibly tying [a contributor] to a biography unwanted by the subject” are raised, and some editors acknowledge the appropriateness of deletion in such cases. This discussion is directly relevant to this deletion review.

Since 2010, G7 has been more or less static.

So, the original intent of G7 was to allow contributors to request the deletion of pages they created but now regard as mistakes, and even though that clause was removed from the criterion in 2007 (by a single administrator, without discussion or explanation), it’s still an important undercurrent running through our understanding of G7. If an editor adds an article to Wikipedia and comes to regard that as a mistake, administrators are encouraged – but not obligated – to kindly extend them the courtesy of deleting it. In this case, the editor who contributed the article came to view it as a mistake when Salvador Tercero expressed displeasure at being the subject of a Wikipedia article. The editor in question did not want to be associated with a living person’s unwanted biography, so viewing his creation of the article as a mistake is entirely reasonable. The whole idea of G7, I believe, is to allow our contributors relief in these kinds of situations. This discussion is particularly relevant here; there is support for deleting under G7 when a contributor does not want to be associated with a living person’s unwanted biography. It’s the ethical thing to do.

Dcoetzee is concerned that this deletion "would set a disturbing precedent [to] allow biographical articles to be deleted just because their subjects don't like them." No such precedent is being set. Any editor is welcome to create a new article on Tercero if they see fit to do so. The precedent that this discussion will set is whether or not G7 can be used as relief for users who do not wish to be associated any longer with their sole authorship of an unwanted BLP. At this point, I think it would be unethical to undelete this version of the unwanted biography and forcibly tie its creator to it. Before the article on Tercero was deleted, any editor could have invalidated the G7 request by substantially editing the article, but now that the deletion has been carried out, we should let sleeping dogs lie. I strongly endorse the speedy deletion, and I think that this deleted version of the article should stay that way. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Stop at Willoughby is I think correct about the history of the guideline. But I think he is totally wrong, as diametrically wrong as possible, about the desired result. Even temporarily removing an article because the subject does not like it is a corruption of the concept of NPOV, and thus opposed to one of our foundational policies. In any case, no discussion at a single DRV sets precedent for anything. Wikipedia does not follow precedent in that fashion. The long continued series of consistent consensus can set precedent to a certain extent, at least temporarily. There are too many DRV results at variance with each other on almost everything conceivable for us to say that we set precedent here. In any case, endorsing a speedy is meaningless when anyone can re-create it, though anyone who does ought of course to independently check the material. Of course, if there is a true BLP issue, I count on people to tell me, but nobody has done so. If nobody does, I will assume there is not, and it is just personal preference. If we honor that, we descend to the who's who level. In the context of making an encyclopedia , it's unethical. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, sorry for being a little misleading. I didn’t mean to use the word “precedent” to imply something binding; as you said, no single DRV sets that kind of precedent. I only meant that when situations like this arise in the future, users can look back and see how a similar situation had been handled previously. As for the merits, I guess we should agree to disagree on how this G7 tag should have been handled, given our diametrically opposed positions. We do have some common ground, however. Like you, I think that Wikipedia shouldn’t allow biographical subjects to “opt out” without unusual reasons. (I want to be clear that my vote was not based on an inclination to let Salvador Tercero opt out. My vote, again, is to grant an editor his request to no longer be associated with his sole authorship of an unwanted BLP.) I think we also agree that this would best be resolved by simply waiting for an interested editor to recreate the article. Please correct me if I’m wrong. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just recreate the bloody thing already This whole discussion is silly. What happened already happened and whether the G7 deletion was valid or not doesn't matter, anybody is allowed to recreate the article. Just do that and we can get back to the discussion at hand: whether this guy is notable. It seems like a good A7 candidate to me. Yoenit (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yoenit, respectfully, some things on Wikipedia are clearly bureaucratic, and deletion reviews interpreting our overly legalistic criteria for speedy deletion are at the top of that list. But I agree that this should be resolved by simply allowing any interested editor to recreate the article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jaume Cañellas Galindo

I closed this AFD as delete per no significant coverage in sources. Two users, User:Samen54 and User:Winterfree2000 (not blocked at the time) requested that I restore it. I suggested they create drafts of the page in their userspace. I had an es.wiki sysop who is familar with en.wiki notability and reliable sources guidelines review the sources and the article and confirmed that it met en.wiki guidelines and I restored the article. Later, User:EEng, User:Kinu, and User:Xtv have all approached me with concerns about restoring the article ranging from article does not assert notability, users must be socks, and sources are not reliable. This has become a bit of a mess now so I'd appreciate it if I could get a wider review. v/r - T P 01:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wouldn't the simplest thing be to just nominate it for AfD again and discuss it there. ? DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TParis is specifically requesting review of his undeletion. I for one don't see anything wrong with it. The new sources weren't discussed at DRV before TParis restored the article, but TParis had a Spanish-language editor confirm the adequacy of the sources. I think that's a perfectly fine substitute, so I endorse the undeletion. I offer no opinion on the notability of the subject. Any editor who thinks thinks that this article doesn't meet our notability guidelines may nominate this article for deletion at WP:AfD. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bittergrey/CAMH_Promotion

This user-space list of diffs seems to have been speedy-deleted without discussion. DGG, the nominator, had elsewhere stated that he was not neutral and "too involved"[4]. The list was less than a week old. I was gathering the diffs to have a more objective answer to a question asked to me at WP:COI/N.

I understand that a non-neutral admin might not like what the diffs conveyed, especially when viewed collectively. I also understand that since they are diffs, not RS's, what they convey should not be edited into mainspace articles. However, I believe this user-space list about a Wikipedia-related matter does not require deletion, much less speedy-delete without discussion. BitterGrey (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just take a look at it. (If you're not an admin, I can email you the contents). Accumulation of material for attack on another editor. Does anyone thinks I should send it to MfD to call attention to it,which I suppose is what BG is trying to accomplish? Does anyone want to take the responsibility for blocking the person who's been accumulating this? As BG says, I'm too involved to do that myself, and certainly too involved to act as a mediator. But I'm not too involved to delete an attack p. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, would you care to detail why those diffs are really so dangerous? Diffs keep us anchored in what really happened. Regarding "accumulation of material for attack on another editor," this is an assumption of bad faith, a violation of WP:AGF. An admin should know better.

Also, please provide diffs for your comments on my talk page, DGG. I'm pretty sure you've made at least two errors[5], but can't be sure since you didn't provide any diffs.

As for attack pages, DGG, I notice you haven't deleted these two[6][7].BitterGrey (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since diffs are often, and reasonably, demanded for dispute resolution, it can be appropriate to create relevant lists. However, precedent seems to be that some such lists should not be kept on-wiki and I can go along with this. In this case a second admin performed the deletion. If BitterGrey has now lost his work, DGG should be (and I think is) willing to email it to BG for maintenance offline. Thincat (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three seconds. Fastily made 42 deletions in that two-minute period and is currently being discussed at ANI. Regarding this diff list, there was no discussion, and no indication that he gave more than 3-seconds of thought to the deletion. He probably went just by DGG's conclusion, not realizing that DGG wasn't neutral. Unlike DGG, I won't assume a hostile intent: Fastily's deletion was probably in good faith, but not given enough thought.

My preference would be to keep the list on-wiki, if only to keep DGG and friends from calling it an 'off-wiki attack.' Of course, this history should be available: I think attempts to hide this history are indications that someone has something to hide. BitterGrey (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- At this point, after the attack on my neutrality above, I agree that I should not take any further admin actions. Like many others involved in this subject, I started out neutral--not just neutral, but initially ignorant of the issues. Having learned the issues, I remain sympathetic to all parties involved. But having dealt with the people, and tried as hard as I could to keep a matter that involve not just on-wiki but RW charges affecting personal and academic integrity, I have remained I think on the whole neutral until now, though not from now on. Now experiencing the attitude of one of the people involved, it is clear that my efforts at urging restraint have clearly not succeeded. (I should explain that this is not a case of people resorting to off wiki action to support editing here, but the opposite--a RW debate (if debate is not too polite a word) that has carried over here). I therefore suggest to BG that I will restore the page if BG wishes to promptly proceed to try for a proper resolution of the matter, presumably via RfC, though I expect it will go further. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, please learn the difference between quoting what you wrote (with diff) and an "attack." This antagonistic negativity isn't helping anyone. If you are willing to restore the page, that would be great. However, given the breadth of the patterns that emerged, I'm not going to commit to any particular timeline to 'fix' everything. Rushing to do so would be, at best, disruptive. My goal is transparency: I used Wikipedia histories to build a bigger picture - something anyone can do if they put the time into it. No secrets, no accusations, just history. If Wikipedia collectively knows about that history and the consensus is not to care, that would be fine. Of course, that should be the collective decision, not yours or mine. BitterGrey (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collecting diffs of this sort without using them has normally been held to be an attack. The general feeling has been it leads to increased disharmony. Viewing it that way isn't my private decision, it's part of the practices i'm supposed to be enforcing. either you want this resolved, or you want to continue to build up resentment. There are only two proper things do with disputes of this nature: to ask the help of the community to settle them, or to not let them interfere with the editing. In the one case, you want the diffs to use them in a regular process. In the other case, you don't need them on-wiki. Your choice. To insist on having them here without wanting to use them shows a desire to continue the sort of hostility that amounts to personal attacks. You brought this here. I always recommend acting as if everyone were friends to a certain extent for the sake of the encyclopedia, and not pursuing matters. That remains my advice. But if you can't do that, or even if you don't want to do that for whatever reasons, that's why we have the procedures for resolving the conflicts. I don't think it reasonable to have it both ways: to encourage dissension, but refuse to settle it. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "You brought this here."[8] and "a RW debate (if debate is not too polite a word) that has carried over here"[9]. DGG, please substantiate or retract your diffless statements. Again, I think you need to get your facts straight. This is an on-wiki matter about Wikipedia content. BitterGrey (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete- No discussion. Nominator has been "too involved"[10] for several months, mistakenly seems to think this is RW problem, and is not assuming good faith. Deleter did so in 3 seconds.BitterGrey (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: while patrolling CAT:CSD I saw that page (and two similar ones) tagged as attack pages, and thought about them for more than an hour. As more than seven hours elapsed from tagging to deletion, a number of other admins must have looked at them too. When Fastily deleted them, I was drafting a reply declining the speedy, saying that I did not consider they fell within the definition of WP:CSD#G10, that they could be taken to MfD under WP:UP#POLEMIC, but that even there I thought, as they were less than three days old, their author could mount a defence under the clause that says "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." DGG, is there more than meets the eye here? Why do you think that clause does not apply? JohnCD (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted my deletion, and have sent it to MfD for a community discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bittergrey/CAMH Promotion. I have nominated it, but will not be discussing it further. (I think the clause does not apply because the user has said, above, they will not commit to using it promptly) DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I still expect you to support or retract your negative comments, specifically "You brought this here."[11] and "a RW debate (if debate is not too polite a word) that has carried over here"[12]. This is an on-wiki matter about Wikipedia content, and admin powers do not include license to hit-and-run. BitterGrey (talk)

Question DGG has started another deletion discussion while this one hasn't formally closed yet. Could I ask a _neutral_ admin what the likelihood of an "undelete" closure would have been? Given DGG's mishandling of things, his diffless insinuations, and that he is now outside even the letter of Wikipedia procedure[13], I'm getting a really bad feeling about the upper authority structure at Wikipedia. Specifically, I'm hesitant to let him dictate a less favorable "relist" outcome. BitterGrey (talk) 05:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Undeleted and listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bittergrey/CAMH Promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bittergrey/CAMH Promotion as a WP:POINTy nomination. This discussion needs to be completed first. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List at MfD. The page is not a clear attack page. It may, however, violate WP:UP#POLEMIC or be otherwise undesirable. XfD is the place for discussion of the merits of the page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:"The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." The list of diffs was only three days old when first deleted, and I'm not a full-time Wikipedian. My concern is that DGG and friends (who are full-time wikipedians) will try to keep me bogged down in multiple deletion discussions and equally pointless deflections to preclude me from doing any good in a timely manner. BitterGrey (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either endorse outright or move speedily to MFD and delete it there. User is clearly less interested in dispute resolution than in keeping this publicly viewable for as long as possible (see his edits to the MFD, or the current header on this userpage). There's nothing here that couldn't be edited just as easily offline. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, the intent there was to synchronize the concurrent speedy and non-speedy deletion nominations, to try to reduce the amount of debating. Given that the list has only existed for three days (excluding time deleted) and already has two deletion nominations, I had hoped to discourage new nominations for deletion, at least for the next couple days.BitterGrey (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Would others approve of offline development? I'm willing to do so, but (as stated before) would prefer to develop this on-wiki, if only so that DGG and friends can't label it an 'off-wiki attack.'BitterGrey (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. While there are some procedural oddities here. I regard the page as a clear example of an appropriate G10 deletion. If you want to start an RfC you may do so, but you may not gather and present accusations in userspace this way. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I agree with DGG and Eluchil404. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DGG acted to implement relist[14].

Endorse. I commented above. G10 deletion looks appropriate to me and nothing in this DRV changes my view. Had the page been only an annotated series of diffs I would have thought MfD appropriate. Thincat (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Might I ask what changed your mind? It is still an annotated list of diffs that an involved admin is trying to delete. Were DGG's "procedural oddities" that persuasive? I'm also curious about the sudden chorus. BitterGrey (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BG, I did what I thought would satisfy you. it was my intent that this be closed since I relisted it elsewhere. I apologize for not making that clearer, but I didn't want to close this, since I've agreed to do no admin function respecting you. I'm glad someone closed the MfD, since it shouldnt be at two places . DGG ( talk ) 15:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, When is this 'now-I'm neutral-now-I'm-not' dance ever going to end?

You've been non-neutral in this issue since some time in 2008. When I got involved in 2011, you "banned" me without due procedure[15]. (You retracted that suddenly too[16].) Are you concerned that a real truthtelling will find out something you don't want known? Now I regret that, in the little time I had to spend developing this list, I didn't spend more time documenting your role in this tangled mess.

Again, support or retract the growing list of undiffed negative comments you have made against me. BitterGrey (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to BG "what changed your mind?": I can now see the page in question, previously I could not. My change has been from uncertainty to "endorse", not from "overturn" to "endorse". Thincat (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sudden chorus of editors and IPs voting to endorse a position DGG no longer supports[17] seems to be due to my edit at the other discussion[18]. It has been described as a "boldfaced, all-caps rant"[19], perhaps rightly so. The truth is I've never had one of my user pages deleted, much less double-delete proposed by a "too involved" admin (his words, not mine[20]). The procedure I read said this shouldn't happen, and so didn't give me any guidance about what to do. (Attack pages against me have been let to fester for months, with one nearing its first birthday. Not sure if any of those ever got deleted.) I don't enjoy arguing and was hoping to head off multiple, active deletion debates. BitterGrey (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Bittergrey, the diff you provided seems to suggest that DGG still thinks the page should be deleted. Also, for what it is worth, my endorsing deletion of it had nothing to do with the second diff you provide. It is best not to make assumptions about other editors' motives. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm confused. The DRV was opened because it was felt that DGG deleted something out of process. DGG admitted he may have been in error, reversed his speedy deletion, and put it up at MFD to obtain consensus on whether or not deletion was warranted. And that nomination was then closed as pointy? I don't get it. Once he reversed his decision and allowed it to go up for discussion, why was this DRV not closed and that MFD not allowed to continue? If the page was worthy of being kept, the consensus at MFD likely would have reflected this. Close this DRV and re-open the MFD, and allow it to proceed for the full time, is all I can really say here, based on what I can see. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been less problematic if this discussion had been closed before the other discussion had started. All we know for sure is that procedures were not followed. This fiasco was, at best, poorly handled by an admin who is, in his own words, "too involved[21]". "Pointy" is putting it mildly: I would consider any use of DGG's administrative ~~powers~~ authority against me since he declared non-neutrality in 2011 as abuses of that ~~power~~ authority. BitterGrey (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once the MFD was opened, this DRV should have been closed as moot. Period. There is no need to keep thwacking at this dead horse when the admin admitted he made a mistake and turned the deletion decision over to the community. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) BitterGrey, to be fair, DGG did not use admin powers against you in this case: he did not delete these pages, he tagged them as G10, which any user could do, and left them in the CSD list for another admin to decide about. He used admin powers to undelete them in order to take them to MfD, but you can't say that was using admin powers against you. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. Technically the "ban" didn't involve admin powers either - it just would have been laughable if a non-admin did it. I seem to have missed the admission of wrongdoing, or the retraction of any of the wrong statements he's made in this discussion. As for the renomination, it seems to have brought a chorus for 'Endorse', while before the trend seemed to be 'relist' or maybe even 'undelete,' so it wasn't necessarily an act in my favor. BitterGrey (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bittergrey, there are good reasons why you don't get to make a laundry list of diffs and accusations in your own userspace. You're publishing dirt about someone in a place they may not see, and/or may not feel they have the right to reply. Your laundry list of diffs and accusations belongs in some kind of text document on your own computer, or any other kind of unpublished state, until you actually lauch an RFC. Do you see?—S Marshall T/C 11:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree on multiple points. "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner.". As for inviting others to contribute, the only invite I was able to get out before the deletion is here. Please note that there is no "except you" statement, and assuming one is yet another violation of good faith. That is also an example of my use of the list. I had hoped to use it conversationally on talk pages instead of building it up as some massive out-of-the-blue "attack". Less disruptive for Wikipedia, and less work for me. Given the multiple undiff'ed accusations that I had not planned to use the list above, I'll add a redundant and boldfaced link to that instance where the list was already used. I regret that others don't take the time to gather diffs like I have tried to. BitterGrey (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a huge difference between collecting a handful of relevant diffs in userspace in preparation for a full RFC, and writing a massive tract about a particular user on its own separate userpage. Wikipedia's general policies about content that's defamatory towards a named person do apply in your userspace, and everywhere else on the whole site. (Famously, Gwen Gale once deleted an entire AfD on grounds of BLP violations.)—S Marshall T/C 19:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its interesting that nobody has yet commented on the validity of the assertions. If it is true that Cantor's name cited in large part due to self-citations, then he might be guilty of a pretty severe WP:NOT violation; using Wikipedia as a means of self-promotion. The proper thing to do with this evidence is to discuss its validity and whether or not he breached WP:NOT. Deleting the page without discussion of the evidence on it just serves to bury what might be legitimate criticism. FWIW I think the undeletion was a good move and the early closure of the MfD unjustified. Them From Space 21:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]