Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 16

16 November 2012

Wikipedia:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian

Wikipedia:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closer made a rapid SNOW close (< 24 hours) in the face of multiple reasonable allegations of canvassing. Consider that the reason for the apparent rush of similar opinions was the canvassing.

The closer appears to have taken an emotional approach to the matter, and flatly refuses to discuss. As such, he should have left it alone.

Many opined that the page was an attack page. This was illogical, considering the content of the page was a simple, calm summary of the most basic facts. There was no content that was remotely an attack on anyone. Mere hours before the close, the nominal attackee reconfirmed that he doesn't consider it so. In contrast, the alleged attack remains accessible, and the unacceptable category remains functional, containing 32 pages.

Some said the page amounted to a recreation of something deleted by the CfD. This is a weak claim as a major motivation for the deletion of the category was that it failed the usercatergory guideline.

The merits of the essay include: It is directly focused on a Wikipedian matter. It is relevant to the standard of conduct that the community expects of Arbs, It is relevant to the question of treatment and action against prolific but troublesome editors. It is relevant to the desire of some wikipedians to ustilise user categories and of others to tightly restrict the uses of usercategories.

These things were barely touched at the MfD, which was dominated but vocal sudden arrivals who appear to me to have emotional investment in the background story.

Some consider that the matter is a waste of time. In this community, we do not dictate to others on how they should contribute. The uniterested should ignore it. If everything related to the past incident were not raised in a public forum (compare Streisand effect), then it need not be seen by anyone who doesn't care.

I believe that the close should be reverted, with the closers comment converted to a !vote.

Given that many individuals consider the subject taboo, I suggest userfying to User:SmokeyJoe/A usercategory flurry in October 2012, blanking and full protection for three months. The valid issues involved are long term, and there is no rush to conclude anything. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse valid SNOW closure. In the first 24 hours 20 people said that the page should be deleted. Only 4 said that the page should be kept, some using very weak arguments ("this page is allowed based upon established precedent and policy"). Several other people expressed opinions arguing that the page doesn't warrant an extensive discussion, or advocated some solution they didn't necessarily agree with in order to avoid an extensive discussion. It was obvious that a full discussion would result in the page's deletion and there was no reason to keep it open for that long. The deletion rationale was based in policy, and disagreeing with that rationale is not an issue for DRV. The closer did not take an "emotional approach" - they merely made the (entirely reasonable) comment that editors' time could be better spent elsewhere. Userfication would not be a good idea, as it was clearly against the opinion in the discussion, wouldn't resolve the underlying issues, and its presence in userspace would violate WP:UP#POLEMIC (it is clearly " statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities", "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws", and "negative information related to others"). Hut 8.5 08:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse - I was not canvassed and I iVoted WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND/WP:NOTFACTIONS/WP:POINT at the MfD. This entire blow up (categories --> CfD --> DRV --> CFD --> essay --> MfD -->DRV) was over Arbitrator Jclemens posting a 20 October 2012 opinion in an official capacity as an Arbitration Committee member ("all we do here is acknowledge that Malleus has never been a Wikipedian")[1]. If that were the ArbCom holding, yes, then essays, etc. could be developed. However, it only was one Arbitration Committee member's view and then was only one sentence among many posted during that Arbitration Clarification and Amendment request. It now is 16 November 2012, almost a month since the event. Jclemens indicated that it "wasn't intended as a personal attack."[2] The issue has been memorialized at CfD twice, DRV twice, MfD, Jclemens' talk page, and probably several other places. I think it's time to give creating categories, essays, user pages, etc. in furtherance of this issue a rest. As for the MfD close, I agree with Hut 8.5. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• What's this got to do with writing or improving an encyclopedia? Yup, we could send this back for another AFD and waste more time, or we could forget it. Cluestick the person who brought this to DRV and endorse.--Scott Mac 17:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• "In this community, we do not dictate to others on how they should contribute." I disagree with that. In fact, that's exactly what guidelines and policies and pillars do. The first pillar is particularly relevant in this case: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We understand that you (and others) disagree with Jclemens' statement from a month ago. We get it. There is no need for a category or an essay (or a user page) to memorialize your disagreement, nor are the continuing attempts to express that dissent conducive to the first pillar. Everyone's opinions about Jclemens have been heard and noted. Now let's move on with our lives and do something constructive, keeping in mind the real reason that we're all volunteering our time here. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 17:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I have nowhere made any statement in support or disagreement with Jclemens' statement(s). I do note that they were an interesting development and that the community's reaction is interesting. Document events of interaction between ArbCom and the community is in the projects interest. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It's already documented on the arbcom page where it was originally posted. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 19:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Existence in the huge page history is not documentation. The page here discussed contained a link to the diff, which I find very hard to find, neutrally contextualised mainly by Dmries, a record of the unacceptable user category, and a link to three deletion discussions. I agree that the deletion discussions were time not well spent. What exactly was wrong with the content. If I am able to find the diff again, if I record it, will you want to revdel my record of it? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

For goodness sake, the unfortunate remark has been discussed endlessly - the implication of "OMG diff censorship" is nonsensical. But we discuss contentions to resolve them on wikipedia, we don't memorialise divisive remarks and criticism of them. But we've been over this argument endlessly in the countless deletion discussion. Isn't it time to put down the stick and walk away from the horse carcass?--Scott Mac 01:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"What exactly was wrong with the content." See the 20 delete votes from the MfD for the answer to that question. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 02:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Arghh. Do you really ask me to give critcism of nearly every delete !vote? It is easy. It would be lengthly. Why it was not an attack page. Why it was not backdoor. Why it is not re-creation. There are simple clear answers to each of these. But that debate is not my interest, or anyone else's, it's just what hasty time-limited discussions force us into. I am not interested in the details of JClemens first statement, or in commenting on it further. What is interesting is that an isolated misstatement can produce such a result. It's the meta discussion that is interesting. There are real issues of incivility that are long running and corrosive. Some expect ArbCom to be decisive. However, on a hint of decisive opinion and there's angst, the evidence analysis deleted on the first step, and the Arb forced into BradSpeak. It's so frustrating that the the essay was deleted before it even got started. I just noticed that Uzma Gamal provided the original diff above. Nice, but that was just a spark, and to provide a wider meaning, much more context is required. I get that you're not intersted. Will someone just email the deleted content to me then please. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• For fuck's sake It doesn't even matter what the category is supposed to mean any more. The point has been made long since; let it stay deleted, and let us never again speak of this black hole of bitterness and utterly pointless drama. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

UFC_on_Fox:_Evans_vs._Davis

UFC_on_Fox:_Evans_vs._Davis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article being deleted is confusing even by the standards exhibited on what it takes to make an MMA event notable lately. The two top fights on the card were Rashad Evans vs. Phil Davis and Chael Sonnen vs. Michael Bisping. These fights were considered title eliminator fights at the time and Evans & Sonnen won those fights and went on to get main event title shots at UFC 145 and UFC 148 respectively, with the Sonnen-Silva rematch drawing over a million buys.

It really doesn't seem like the WP:MMAEVENT policies for what makes an MMA event notable are being followed with the indiscriminate deletions recently. Really, I haven't seen much interest in improving the pages in any way, simply in deleting them, and what is deleted seems to be very arbitrary and confusing. Byuusetsu (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. No argument asserting an improper close. This forum isn't for rehashing the AfD procedure just because one disagrees with the outcome. Closure seemed to follow the consensus of the discussion, handicapped by the rampant socking and SPAing typical of these MMA-related procedures. Scottywong (correctly) discounted such input. BusterD (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)