Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 23

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 July)

23 July 2006

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Out of process, against consensus deletion and salt the earth of an article and its talk page on the fallacious grounds that the topic is not notable despite being referenced in several major publications and being a very popular wiki, as if notability were actually a policy, and on grounds of verifiability. There's no reason to think this page couldn't have been trimmed dramatically and still been appropriate on Wikipedia. Stanfordandson 08:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• The AfD the above user is talking about is here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. I heartily endorse this proposal. The loss of the Encyclopaedia Dramatica article to wikipedia is a true void in this great encyclopedia. Daloonik 08:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn as and as per nom. Stanfordandson
• Weak overturn. Redwolf24 (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted article never established any notability, failed WP:RS severely.--MONGO 09:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • A mentioning in the Guardian does not fail WP:RS. Besides that, RS is a guideline. Redwolf24 (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The "mention" is that ED has a picture of Bush with some letters on his forhead...so what? You're going to tell me that that represents some kind overview of the wesbite. Please.--MONGO 10:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:V requires that article have reliable sources. WP:V is a policy. WP:RS is a guide on what is an RS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 09:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted AFD not a vote - closing admin did not refer to "notability" in his reasons for deleting. Hipocrite - «Talk» 09:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I do not believe my vote will count, so I just want to comment that I think the talk page and archives should remain visible and all versions recovered. I also think votes should not count, except for those who perform the deletion review as this is not just a big AFD all over again. Hardvice 09:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I would recommend bringing this to the arbitration committee, it's the only way we'll get a final solution agreeable to all parties. This'll just be a rehash of the AfD and we'll get some more insults flung around by both sides and we won't get anywhere. Redwolf24 (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  I would second Redwolf24's proposal. I would also recommend that if ArbCom were to decide the keep/deletion of it, they should also consider some similar websites at the same time -- I believe all of Wikipedia:Parodies should be considered for deletion at once. That does not mean that they must be kept or deleted as a group -- but what it means is that if some are kept and others deleted, then they need to be considered as a group to determine relative notability, and also to determine where the cutoff should lie. --SJK 10:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  Much of it may have to be anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  This is not an ArbCom matter. They don't do content decisions. If the article's subject were to suddenly become a significant website there would be no problem starting a new article. Until that happens, the community consensus reflected on the AfD is valid. NoSeptember 13:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  ArbCom may very welll have to deal with a number of issues surroudning the occurrances of the last week, and the AfD will certainly have to be part of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  True, ArbCom may have to become involved in a case about bad editor behavior and some evidence may be about the ED article and related debates, but their sanctions, if any, will be against editors. They won't make rulings on the content of the article or if it should exist. We could throw a dozen controversial DRVs a week to ArbCom if they were foolish enough to get involved in such things. NoSeptember 14:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  As per NoSeptember. We will not say whether this article should be kept or deleted; ArbCom is not DRV. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted' Closing admin gave it much thought and put it bluntly and came up with a good choice. Also this is not a vote we don't vote on Wikipedia. This is a disscussion on whether ED should be recreated or not Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 09:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This was actually closed twice, by two different admins. It was first closed by admin User:Mailer Diablo at 17:34, 22 July 2006 ([1]), who moments later reverted his closing on the grounds that it was too early. Approximately one day, and about 20 revisions later (sounds like a lot, but its not in proportion to how heated and many-revisioned this debate has been), it was finally closed by User:Nandesuka. What concerns me is that one admin closed it as no consensus, then the second closed it as delete. Was the 20 revisions between the first admin and the second sufficiently persuasive to turn a no consensus into a delete? Or would Mailer Diablo closed it as no consensus a second time, and Nandesuka closed it as delete the first? This leaves the impression (right or wrong) that the conclusion was delete because of the admin who happened to close it, and that if another admin had have closed it, it would have been no consensus. That impression does not give one great faith in the AFD process. --SJK 09:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Usually people complain that admins all think the same, and call us a cabal or a hivemind, and then they complain when we show that we don't? Ha. Endorse deletion, AfD is not a vote and Nandesuka's excellent reasoning leaves little more to be said. 'No consensus' would have been within the admins' discretion, but 'delete' was the better choice. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Well reasoned close by Nandesuka. --Tony Sidaway 11:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, kudos to Nandesuka for taking this one on. Astroturfing aside, this subject is essentially ignored outside of its own community. Just zis Guy you know? 12:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, from having looked at the history of edits on this article Nandesuka could have additionally cited "vanity" as this article was a good example of vanitycruft having been edited on by a majority of Encyclopaedia Dramatica editors. That said his reasoning regarding unverifiability and original research best corresponded to Wikipedia policies and was very sound particularly in view of the spamming and conflicts of interest surrounding the AfD itself. (→Netscott) 12:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Close discussion: We are absolutely not for re-running a contentious AfD at the very same time that it runs. This AfD resulted in many postings on the administrator's noticeboard for abuse, and the dang thing is still open. Wait at least a week before trying to unleash the hosiery hell here, too, please. Geogre 12:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  Geogre, User:Nandesuka closed the AfD, that's why this DRV is open. (→Netscott) 12:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  I saw that, later. I still feel like this whole thing is just part of an argument. I'd so much prefer it if there were a cooling off period before people start complaining. That AfD was a mess, and an extremely noxious one, and now DRV is being proposed as the next battleground. I suppose I endorse deletion and ask, sincerely, that people come back to DRV after a couple of weeks. Geogre 15:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  I still think much of this could have been avoided if Netscott didn't insist on refactoring for no good reason. The multiple instances of bad faith and refactoring alone should sway people, and I'm shocked no one's bothered by it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  I refactored and moved commentary to the talk page in efforts to keep the AfD to a reasonable size and assist subsequent editors from having to wade through reams and reams of text to add their views. In cases where I attempted (ultimately fruitless efforts) to remove commentary the text I attempted to remove was either completely irrelevant or redundant (from the talk page). Because I had no success in moving commentary that ordinarily should have been included in the talk page of the AfD I did the next best thing and put it in a collapsible section (as User:GTBacchus subsequently did with source discussion). These efforts were anything but "bad faith". Still, as you're an Encyclopædia Dramatica adminstrator the appearance of a conflict of interest on your part is very evident. (→Netscott) 16:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  And yet when people protested, you continued to do so either way. It's also a shame that you bring your bad faith here concerning those of us who also edit/have edited at ED - that has nothing to do with whether we feel it's worthy for inclusion here, and I challenge you to review my other 5000 edits here and see if you think I'm working out of some nefarious position. Your refactoring changed the debate tremendously, and you should have reversed it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  Well, I can say that I learned a very valuable lesson on this AfD and that is when faced with a similar AfD in the future I will specifically request that parties (ie: User:MONGO and any other Wikipedian attacked by Encyclopædia Dramatica as well as ED editors) recuse themselves from such a discussion. (→Netscott) 16:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  Out of curiosity, you have said this at least three times now. Why not directly ask MONGO (ED article on him), Jeff, Hipocrite (ED article on him), and Tony Sidaway (if he pops up, was involved in this, and I saw he has an ED article too when just checking), to all recuse themselves from this debate right now? rootology 17:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  I don't know where you get your information from, but I have created no content on Encyclopedia Dramatica. None. I am not involved in it in any way. --Tony Sidaway 07:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  Sorry for any confusion Tony, I didn't mean that you had added content to ED (if you say you didn't, good enough for me--I hadn't even thought that). I meant as there's been an article on you there for a while. Sorry if I sounded confusing in how I wrote that above. rootology 07:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  Sorry, reading back again and looking at context I see what you meant. I think that asking editors to "recuse" simply because of the actions of a third party would be wrong in the context of a troll site. The "articles" on that website were created not to inform but to express malice and childish spite, so it doesn't matter whom they're directed at. --Tony Sidaway 08:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  You created the ED attack page about me on the 22 of July, root. I will procede to create ED attack pages on all the keep voters shortly, thus disqualifing them from commenting. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  Funny, if you had actually asked both sides last time, maybe one less complaint could be lodged about the process. Whoops. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  I will specifically request that parties (ie: User:MONGO and any other Wikipedian attacked by Encyclopædia Dramatica as well as ED editors) recuse themselves from such a discussion. A remarkably bad idea, since it would make gaming the discussion trivially easy. --Calton | Talk 05:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  For whatever it may be worth, I was troubled, somewhat, but I saw more an inelegant effort than an attempt to hijack anything, but I also felt that both houses deserved a plague. It would be good if people would recuse themselves from voting, if they're involved parties. It would be nice if people offered a view but did not offer that view as a vote, and then not get into argument and rebuttal and... Oh, I suppose we're sort of doing that here, aren't we? Some time away from the passions would do everyone good. Geogre 17:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• While I do appreciate the well-detailed rationale, the points by the "keep" voters were not totally described properly, and that kind of bothers me. It ignores the media attention it has recieve, however scant it may be, it ignores the fact that WP:V is not, in fact, violated by this article, and the points that do could very well be dealt with as they had been prior to the flap, it completely ignores horrid, horrid actions by User:Netscott to hide and move discussions and rationales by established editors, including his nifty little blacklist. And need we go into the horrible bad faith actions and rationales from start to finish by people who should most certainly know better? It was obvious from the start, thanks to completely crazy stuff going on, that a fair hearing was impossible, and to delete based on that is incredibly disappointing. Relist and monitor closely and give it a fair hearing if we're going to actually delete this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I voted to delete two AFDs ago because of lack of sources and that it had been a long time since the AFD before that one. I voted to keep on this AFD being disputed because the AFD had been too soon because the AFD was done not about the site's notability, but about people's personal feelings toward the site and most importantly it was too soon since the last AFD, and it was odd to me that they did not understand "revenge is a dish best served cold". If the AFDer had waited for a few months, my vote would have been different. I also agree that there was tampering with the AFD. People found sources during the AFD and this changed the AFD and everyone was too busy to revote. The article was protected so nobody could add the sources or rewrite the article (which I think it needs) and so people looked at the article and not the sources. I further think the admins should block the people who edit warred for maybe an hour at a time rather than protecting the article. And on the AFD itself, sources were constantly hidden on the talk page. I have seen things deleted as a result of AFDs and then later put back up because of added notability. If the site gets in the paper again, then it will likely need reviewing. The AFD before this end looked like it would end in delete, but the administrator who closed it, said it ended in no consensus. Hardvice 13:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but don't salt the earth. I completely agree with whoever closed it, but ED has notability and mimimal verafibility within the LiveJournal community. Add a blurb about it to the LJ article. Crazyswordsman 13:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• It ignores the media attention it has recieve, however scant it may be... Whoops, shot yourself in the foot there. it ignores the fact that WP:V is not, in fact, violated by this article Strange new meaning of "fact" there: "fact" is not a synonym for "assertion". Keep deleted, keep protected. --Calton | Talk 13:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not at all shocked you think i've shot myself in the foot based on the facts of the situation. Media attention is media attention, someday you'll understand that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Media attention is media attention, someday you'll understand that. I do understand that: what you don't seem to have understood the whole non-trivial coverage thing -- and the implicit admission that the coverage is, indeed trivial. Whether you are shocked at or inured to being caught in a blunder is irrelevant. Someday maybe you'll understand that "Because I said so" and "things, essentially, made up in school one day aren't encyclopedic. Hell, maybe someday you'll understand the meaning of the word "encyclopedic" -- though your involvement with ED suggests otherwise. --Calton | Talk 05:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, a good closure. Let's redirect some of all this energy to working on productive things now. NoSeptember 13:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, keep protected. Totally valid close, with a good explanation by Nandesuka. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 13:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Good work by the closing administrator. Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (and keep protected as it wasn't verifiable this week and it won't be verifiable next week) as AfD and closure followed process. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, keep protected As far as I can tell from the article at the time of its deletion, virtually nothing could be verified by relable sources (books, mainstream media) other than possibly that it exists. WP:V is not optional. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn The rough "count" was "no consensus". What bothers me is what the closing admin set as the criteria that the article was (and must be) based on unverifiable claims, original research, and no reliable sources. Let's examine that.
  1. Nothing in the article was unverifiable. The editors at the article had repeatedly gone over each and every single sentence for verification. Because this website is unliked, people would insert {{fact}} tags on sentences that had already been fact checked. The talk page had three archives of this being done repeatedly.
  2. Nothing in the article was original research. It may have been based on source based research, but as the NOR policy dictates, source based research is a requirement of writing a good encyclopedia. There were no novel interpretive statements in the article! Even I (who people are saying wrote it out of vanity) removed unsourced or interpretive claims. Any quotation or motive (such as why the site was created in the first place) was directly attributed, and sourced, to the person who made the quote.
  3. Nothing in the article was unsourced. As said before, every single sentence had a source, as a review of the talk pages and archives would indicate. WP:RS is very clear - an article about a subject can use the subject as a source about itself. (View the Uncyclopedia article, the first 20 sources are itself.)
• So, the close was done not on examination of the claims in the delete votes, but simply on the claims themselves, many of which were made by people with an axe to grind. What kind of anti-policy double standards are we going to propagate here? SchmuckyTheCat 15:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  SchmuckyTheCat, you are an editor at Encyclopædia Dramatica (and likely an adminstrator there). After the original article was deleted you recreated it. When it was subsequently speedy deleted under an alternate spelling you re-created it again under another spelling (ostensibly to get around the recreation clause of speedy deletion policy) and then recreated the alternate spellings as redirects. In light of those facts the word vanity is extremely applicable as is the word vanitycruft. (→Netscott) 15:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  OH NOES! I have an account on a website you don't like. Attack the message, not the messenger.

  I certainly did recreate it, it was first created in the first week of EDs existance and had zero notability (though I noted it soon would in that AfD). Six months later the site was one hundred times larger. When circumstances change there is no issue with re-writing a previously deleted article. I used none of the first article as basis for the second - it was not a recreation of deleted material. And, that which is why the re-written article survived that AfD as a keep. SchmuckyTheCat 16:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. A borderline notable article which invites edit wars, persons of a more trollish nature (due to the nature of ED), and AfD nominations every so often? It seems to be more disruptive to the community than it is beneficial to the encyclopedia. I voted delete on the second nomination: "Wikipedia is not a web directory and Wikipedia articles are not advertisements. . . . The website itself centers on non-notability, so any description thereof would be non-notable. The history of the website isn't notable, the content isn't, and thus an article wouldn't be (and isn't). The site is notable, IMO, but not more than dicdef." And if somebody wants to know what this "Encyclopaedia Dramatica" thing is, they can Google it and find it theirself. --Keitei (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• comment - regardless of what happened/happens to the article, the talk page should not have been deleted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It's normal practice to delete talk pages (and redirects, etc.) of articles that will be deleted. What's the point in keeping a talk page while deleting its article? --Conti|✉ 17:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • When the site gets itself in more newspapers and satisfies everyone of its notability, if those talk pages are lost, then people every single edit war the article ever had will start all over again. You know how much arguments furry fandom (for others, see articles in lame edit wars) has had. Do you want that to be started all over again? Hardvice 17:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The talk page can always be undeleted (and preferably moved to an archive) if ED becomes notable, so I don't see any problem here. --Conti|✉ 17:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I personally think it should have all edits restored and then protected as an archive. Hardvice 17:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and end the drama already. It was a bold call to close the AFD and a correct one. Antandrus (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong overturn no valid reasons for deletion were cited and no consensus for deletion attained.  Grue  15:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Unverifiable is a reason for deletion, and the closer rightfully saw strong consensus the article was unverifiable, with no counter arguments presented. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion the closer made a valid decision and a very hard one as well. Whispering 16:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse: This was a hard one and the closer did a good job. Too often people look at long Afds and just slap on a "no consensus" instead of doing the work they're supposed to do. I'm quite glad to see this one wasn't done that way. Friday (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Just noting that the person who originally traced back to as the root of this whole fiasco actually edited this deletion log review to change it's content, but the person who filed it reverted it back. Is it proper for these to be edited by people other than the filer? rootology 17:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, keep protected per Starblind. Kudos to closing admin per Friday. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Good call by Nandesuka. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, just because the AFD doesn't go your way doesn't mean you're automatically entitled to a second run at DRV. --Cyde↔Weys 18:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • So i'm assuming you haven't read the comments above? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Just because AfD doesn't go your way you're not entitled to relist it for deletion over and over again (not directed specifically at you, but in general). This article survived two A/VfD's and should've been closed as speedy keep as nothing has changed since the last unsusccessful nomination.  Grue  07:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • There are no binding decisions on Wikipedia and articles can go through AfD as many times as is necessary. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Another reason to restore talk pages, even as archives: People will eventually be using the article's talk page again to discuss and debate if new sources they find or that get printed are notable. It would be a HUGE help to have the talk page back because there was discussion on it before. Second, once the talk page is used and will get messy when restoring the old versions; it might look ugly, or everything will be lost. Hardvice 18:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion in current form due to a rather convincing closing rationale. If relisted on AfD, it must be done under strict sockpuppet/tomfoolery protection, keeping all extraneous confusing-as-heck-to-read stuff out of sight, and with the condition that all editors participating in the AfD will gather around every five comments to sing the Happy Kittens Under Sun and Rainbow Song, and something out of Yellow Submarine. In short, Let's Not Fight And Do This In Calm and Orderly Fashion. ☮ ✌ ♥ --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I doubt their were sockpuppets, just that their were many newbies from LiveJournal who are new to wikipedia. 71.112.141.236 21:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Per deletion policy: a) "Please do not remove any statements from any deletion discussion," itals from the page. Not only were statements removed from the deletion discussion, but they were removed by the nominating party. b) "In general, when someone has listed an article for deletion, anyone else may comment on the request." Furthermore, along these lines, "Anyone except blocked users is welcome to participate in nominating articles for deletion or discussion of existing nominations." The hiding and removing of discussion information from the main page violated this. c) At the AfD main page, "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article," which was done or discussed within the debate. At no point does it say that such disclosures be discounted or dismissed or otherwise. It's also fair to note that no one involved with the Wikidrama at the article were asked, required, or apparently volunteered to give such information, either. These are three important parts of the AfD process that were circumvented or outright ignored. If these processes were followed, even I could have likely endorsed the closure, but this was obviously a failure on many levels, and should be treated as such. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  Also, someone has again edited this post here by the originator to again alter their original statement. Does that "rule" apply to this page, and to the person who did it? rootology 02:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure based on policy cited by paticipants and judgement of weight of discussion. Eluchil404 22:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure, closed properly. AFD is not a vote, and this is a great example of why. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure. per Hit bull, win steak. --Aude (talk contribs) 00:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, endorse deletion and keep protected. Drama/shit-stirring website designed to offend anyone they like without regard of consequences, they don't cite their sources (some guy's blog isn't a source - a blog is not a source and I'll tell you why: Anyone can say anything they like about anyone they wish, make up stuff, embellish facts and anyone will believe it - which is true in my personal experience with blogging), the article is constantly edited by ED admins which is a conflict of interest and doesn't reflect neutral bias (oh and they attack others who they don't like who create accounts on their site). Quoting Cyde, "Just because the AfD doesn't go your way doesn't mean you're entitled to a second run at DRV". Oh that's not a reason? "Per MONGO, Cyde and others", then. — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 01:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)}

  Why is it that people keep citing a conflict of interest on the part of ED editors, but not on the part of WP editors who are targeted by ED? -- nae'blis _(talk) 14:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• comment: as the rules were cited above that no one is to edit these deletion requests, can I please get comments from other edits on why MONGO has edited this again? He cites personal attack, but given the general hysteria on both sides his edits of this nature--this is not attack, observation of fact--has generated, shouldn't he not do that? What is the actual policy on this--Stanfordandson's original entry has at least twice been edited/manipulated now by someone else. Thanks. rootology 05:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  I see the posted of this deletion review has been blocked by MONGO for 48 hours. Just observing, if it has any bearing on the review as I don't see it mentioned. Thanks. rootology 05:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  I removed it twice as it was harassment of me. The purpose of the deletion review is to determine if the article was deleted based on the arguments, and it was, since the article cannot be reliably referenced. Your ongoing mischaracterizations are tiresome to say the least. A quick look at the block log of Stanfordandson is clear indication that the primary purpose of this editor is disruption and harassment. I suggest, (and this is the last time I am bringing this issue to your attention) that you stop harassing me and mischaracterizing my motives and instead aruge about the merits of the issue. ED is gone, and I see little chance that it will be undeleted until it can be reliably referenced.--MONGO 05:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted for now. The article was nominated for AFD and turned into a warzone in response to some personal attacks made against Wikipedia admins on ED. Specifically, the precursor to the AFD was the promotion of Encyclopedia Dramatica's article on User:MONGO to the front page, and a large number of the delete votes came from users who were upset at Encyclopedia Dramatica for doing so. (Such arguments that the site exists solely to attack and defame Wikipedia contributors were commonplace, but this isn't true in the slightest.) The website is notable, has a relatively high Alexa rank, and is verifiable. However, I believe that the best response for now is to allow the decision to remain, and review it again in a few weeks' time when tempers have cooled a bit on both sides. --12.169.174.254 06:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and salting, oh $DEITY_OF_WORSHIP, not this again! --Deathphoenix ʕ 11:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and salting, there is nothing new being presented here in this deletion review that negates User:Nandesuka's well explained reasons for deletion. As for the contention that this was against "consensus", AfD is not a numbers game. The admin made a decision based on the arguments and opinions expressed. There is nothing out of process about that. WP:SALT was the right choice because hopefully once this DRV ends everyone can take a deep breath and move on rather than rehashing this until the end of time.--Isotope23 12:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, that's not entirely true. Plenty about the process is being presented, it's either being ignored or dismissed, which is rather disturbing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I think it is entirely true... All we have now is a small handful of drama queens on both sides of the argument slinging bad faith about willy nilly. Disagree if you want, but this discussion has ceased to have much value.--Isotope23 16:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Wow, that's a pretty crappy way of putting it, no? Answer me this: do you believe that the AfD was handled according to the process? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Question: Does having a DMOZ entry affect things? DMOZ Entry The site has one. Hardvice 13:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, keep protected. Angus McLellan hit the nail on the head with his concerns regarding verifiability. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse decision, deletion, and protection - valid afd and decision. Good work Nandesuka. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted The article was created out of process, not deleted. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 23:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • How so? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• OVERTURN deletion and re-run AfD if necessary. Multiple reasons: The AfD was concluded early. The original reason for deletion was stated at 01:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC), by User:Netscott, and SysOp Nandesuka closed it at 05:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC). Accoridng to Deletion lag times, the wait should be at least 5 days after a rough consensus. It was closed 4 days, 4 hours and 2 minutes into the AfD. Therefore, it wasn't allowed to run its course. While I don't necessarily disagree with Nandesuka's rational (BTW, I am an editor on ED, though I haven't been too active there for awhile), and applaud the effort he made to wade thru the whole AfD, as stated above, there were errors made, changes made in the AfD by the original nominator, and the AfD was closed early, against Wikipedia policy. Based on everything, the AfD should be re-run, CIVILLY (if that's possible in an AfD, as all but one of the AfD's I've participated in have been anything but civil).--Azathar 01:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  Just noting that this one was actually closed early *twice*. The first time was a no consensus keep, and the second a delete. rootology 01:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  Counting hours is the epitome of process wonking. --Cyde↔Weys 02:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  "Process wonking" or not, it still was closed almost 20 hours early, and who knows what could've happened in those 20 hours. Hence why I said the AfD should be re-run, and re-run for the FULL 5 days. I also said that I didn't necessarily disagree with the SysOp who closed the AfD, it still wasn't allowed to finish properly.--Azathar 04:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, but that's what AfD closers should do. Since DRV is about process, and not about notability (as some "voters" still seem to think), I suggest that this debate closed immediately and ED's AfD re run from scratch.  Grue  09:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  Thats what I said above in both my initial opinion and my response to Cyde :) I don't understand what you mean Grue by "that's what AfD closers should do" however?--Azathar 12:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  I meant counting hours, so to not close the debate early, thus giving a valid case for DRV.  Grue  14:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, non-notable attack site. Catamorphism 06:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, the content of the subject of the deleted article is immaterial to a deletion review. Process was followed and the decision was within reasonable admin discretion. The fact the site sucked hard is irrelevant. Proto::type 10:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • How so? I'll also note that Tony tried to close this discussion out of process, and that no one has addressed the many issues at the AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The process wasn't followed though, It was closed early, apparently TWICE. How is that following process?--Azathar 12:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Nandesuka read the arguments, made a rational decision, and explained it clearly. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per Grue; extremely fractious AFD with bad-faith behavior on both sides (the entire "Conflicts of interest" header is just the biggest example, plus sockpuppetry and admins editing a locked article). The idea that you can just keep re-running AFD until you get the Delete result you want, per Sam Blanning, is as unpersuasive as trying to rerun it here. -- nae'blis _(talk) 14:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Wow, what a slugfest. Endorse closure keep deleted, awesome close by Nandesuka, full marks there, thanks for taking on a hard case. ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, this has now been closed completely out of process by two different people. This is after the AfD was closed early twice, after the AfD was refactored improperly, and that's only the tip of the iceberg. When can we expect people to stand up and look for things to be done right here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  And re-opened out of process by someone involved in the debate. I'd look elsewhere. Mackensen (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  I just want to register here my sadness and distress that the misconceived review of this overwhelmingly endorsed deletion has been dragged out needlessly, giving comfort to the trolls who built the article and whose only wishes towards Wikipedia are pure malice. It has been obvious from the first day of this review that the deletion was in order and represents the consensus of Wikipedia. A small number of editors placing "process" as a god before all others have wastefully and, I suspect, spitefully, thwarted every attempt to give this now needless and pointless discussion an end. Wikipedia process is being abused here to serve the ends of an entity that has no love of Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 11:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  Your endless talking points of "troll, troll, troll" have at this point adequetly displayed your biased and partisan nature on this matter. Perhaps you should pipe down now, as a troll yourself. rootology 15:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  Your pathos is ridiculous.  Grue  12:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  This isn't serious, is it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  Nope, it's a bizarre Kafkaseque torment designed to drive all good editors mad. Good to see the accusations of ridiculous flying around; if someone could just scream "DRAMA!" I think we'll be all set for the day. Mackensen (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  You'd better believe that it's serious. Count the endorsements. Keeping this discussion open at this point can only serve the trolls. --Tony Sidaway 12:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  You forget that we don't simply count things anymore. If you read arguments for and against, you'll understand that there are absolutely no reasons to keep the article deleted.  Grue  12:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  Well, Grue, then I guess you'll need to ignore every single Wikipedian here who disagrees with you. When you follow through on your convictions and undelete the article (against the will of DRV, which *is* a vote), please be prepared for the possibility that the obvious rightness of your actions will not be obvious to everyone. Mackensen (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The AfD was properly conducted and properly closed. -Will Beback 12:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  A typical template vote. How about explaining us why is was properly closed despite the strong evidence to the contrary?  Grue  12:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  Obviously he agrees with the closer's rationale. I imagine you've read it. Mackensen (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  The one that goes by the side of "a vast number of editors who argue persuasively that this article does (and must by its nature) consist of unverifiable claims, original research, and no reliable sources" despite the fact that every sentence in the article was sourced? Yeah, sure.  Grue  12:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  Please source the statement that bantown announced their hack of LiveJournal on ED. Do so without conducting WP:OR. Please note that a link to an encyclopedia dramatica page with the words "their [bantown's] sight" on it is proof that the author of that link is not a WP:RS (Encyclopedia Dramatica is not run by BanTown). Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  Is that statement crucial to article's existance???  Grue  13:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  If the statement were verifiable, I would have supported keeping the article in stub form. It is also evidence that your earlier statement that "every sentence in the article was sourced" was not fully accurate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  No such strong evidence exists. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  Read Azathar's post above.  Grue  12:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  You mean the one with all the bolding? That's the evidence? Color me unimpressed. Mackensen (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  The one I wrote that I bolded, so everyone would see the times and not lose them in the paragraph. If you don't believe the times, go and check them yourself at the AfD. IF DR is suppose to be a procss review, then the correct process wasn't followed.--Azathar 00:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  How is an AfD closed nearly a day early properly closed? How is an AfD where the nominee refactored discussions from people he wanted recusals from properly run? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Perhaps this is a perfest illustration of a case that needs to go to arbitration, as a clear example of a (small) handful of administrators overstepping their bounds, rights, and priviledges, in what they have now (thanks to diff histories) demonstrated as nothing more than a McCarthyesque witch-hunt for trolls. Also, not (again) that I'm expecting an answer--why aren't these same admins "fighting like hell" to get rid of Wikitruth? The ED site lampoons and satirizes everything. Wikitruth exists specifically to expose the identities of Wikipedians, and torch them and the WP project. Why aren't these same people in a display of good faith pursueing that other site with the same vigour? rootology 15:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  They did. They lost. They moved on. Mackensen (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  Link to arbitration for wikitruth? Couldn't find it. Also, info on it could be relevant here. Or perhaps this really all is just admin payback because an outside site gave a couple of admins virtual black eyes? I dunno. rootology 16:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  [2], [3], Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikitruth. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks, Hip. Your link on admin actions also perfectly illustrates my above point about Tony's unilateral bias here. Note the 13:21, April 27, 2006 revision by RN of his actions. He clearly has problems with any sides criticial of WP, to the point he'll create incorrect statements, as seen in his edit summary of "protected Wikitruth (Attempts to circumvent Foundation-mandated bar on linking", which is immediately reversed by RN with "unprotected Wikitruth (Administrator gave a foundation action as the reason for protection as well as "content problems" - however, content problems are not grounds for protection, and Raul has stated that this is not (yet) a foundation action. Therefore, it should stay unprote)". I think Tony for now on this case can be discounted as his simply trolling. rootology 16:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  Actually, the issues here have not yet gone to arbitration. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  I think he means wikitruth. rootology 16:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  My point, which you apparently didn't understand, is that no consensus was found for deleting the article on Wikitruth, so it was kept. This wasn't for lack of trying. There wasn't an arbitration case because Arbcom doesn't handle content disputes. Mackensen (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)\

• Endorse deletion. I can accept the reasoning of the closing admin and I don't think there is any problem with the way the closing was handled. DRV is not AfD. DRV is to comment on the merits of the process, not the merits of the article. (p.s., I can't believe this is the first time I'm reading about this AfD/DRV). Pepsidrinka 01:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll ask you, as well: If DRV is about the merits of the process, why do you endorse the early closing of an AfD that featured, among other things, an out-of-process refactoring of certain opinions? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The rationale provided by the closing admin is perfectly valid. All of the reasons given in this deletion review are nonsensical. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - After all this smoke and fire, I think we deleted and salted an article about a perfectly valid topic. I think a balanced, encyclopedic article about Encyclopedia Dramatica can be written and should be written. Yes, there's some really nasty defamatory stuff up there about Wikipedia admins. There's also really nasty defamatory stuff about Wikipedia admins at Wikitruth, and we have an article on it. It seems I'm swimming against the tide, however. FCYTravis 02:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Closing admin gave a perfectly valid reason for the article's deletion, and I whole-heartedly agree with his decision. tmopkisn ^tlka 03:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I think Nandesuka analyzed the evidence well, and made a perfectly good judgment call based on the discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Why do you believe the evidence was analyzed well when it failed to address the keep votes properly? Why do you endorse a deletion that was closed early by Nandesuka, and refactored improperly by the nom, both in direct opposition to basic deletion policy? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: We are now entering our fifth day of this DRV. I will note that multiple questions regarding the process of this AfD have been raised, and none have been answered, most notably regarding the multiple refactoring and early closings in direct opposition with deletion policy. Is this about process or about something else at this stage? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and ban the overturnists from the project. Rebecca 13:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • So you feel those of us who are requesting for the processes to be folowed be banned? What are you endorsing, exactly? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)