Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 16

techophilia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page depicts a group which has more than 300 user and is famous across the NCR region of India Voxedup (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - A quite correct application of speedy deletion criteria for non-assertion of notability. A student tech group? Really? I'm sorry, but go make a blog or a facebook groupTarc (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – Proper A7 deletion. No assertion of notability as well as a general lack of verifiability. –MuZemike 16:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Correct speedy deletion of a student group with no minimal claim to significance that would make them a potential encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Colonel Warden/RIP (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing administrator admits that this is an out-of-process deletion. It is my understanding that the closing administrator is not supposed to argue himself but weigh what was argued by other users. The closer argued that not consenting to the deletion of your userpages is disruptive (is arguing for a keep automatically uncivil now?) that it had no purpose (those in favor of keeping were a majority and dissagreed) and that it was a personal attack, despite the fact it's a simple list of user names. Those might be valid arguments in a delete !vote but not in a closing administrator's remarks: they should stick to the facts and obvious extensions of consensus. Despite ample bad faith among the deletion supporters there was no valid reason other than they felt offended by a list of editors that have left the project that had interactions with the author. In the absence of any overwhelming reason the closing administrator should have looked at the consensus, which was at worst no consensus. The administrator vastly overreached to impose his preference by caveat. WP:IAR does not mean that rules should always be ignored, but that they should not be followed contrary to common sense. This is not a "common sense" deletion it was a very contentious MfD debate which should not be ended by admin override. As a side note I am not the page's author however I did participate in the MfD. I have no personal stake in the DRV here except that I think allowing such deletions is in poor taste and sets a highly questionable precedent. HominidMachinae (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Endorse deletion- closing admin got it right. Colonel Warden revealed the nature of this page as an attack page when he started edit warring to keep the name of a non-departed enemy on it. When asked what the purpose of it was, and whether that purpose could be served by having a file on his computer, Colonel Warden could not provide a convincing or satisfactory answer. The fact is that the page was divisive and seen by many editors as a vehicle for dancing on the graves of people CW didn't like. There are times when consensus goes against mere strength of numbers. This was one of those times. Reyk _YO! 07:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the edit warring the Colonel seemed to have been unaware that Bareck was Jacks news account. As the list included at least 3 former wiki friends, the suggestion that its an attack page fails AGF and no credible argument was advanced as to why the Colonel isn't entitled to good faith. So the numerically superior view reflected consensus. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my closing, I do believe that an assumption of good faith ought to stretch to cover the initial creating of this page (and maybe just to the edit warring). However, it is at breaking point beyond that.--Scott Mac 16:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, a pragmatic approach and an elegant solution to Colonel Warden's evasive wikilawyering. Per Reyk, Colonel Warden's insistence on including a non-departed user (especially despite their wishes) is illuminating. pablo 08:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Closure was certainly correct. The page was demonstrably, by the content of the debate and the surrounding actions, a poor thing to retain here and we are well rid of it - Peripitus (Talk) 09:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There are no legitimate grounds for a "hit list" to be hosted on Wikipedia, particularly if any of the subjects on the list object to it. Bringing this to DRV when the result is a foregone conclusion is getting close to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. – iridescent 10:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a perfectly reasonable DRV. There was a stunningly blatant super vote against consensus from someone who was most displeased at the Colonels success in getting a Middleton article to DkY. Further aggravating matters were two of your fellow arbs, who despite being heavily exposed to Jacks charm and good humour due to the case theyre currently presiding over, had the gall to argue strongly in his favour when they clearly should have recused. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you've just argued that the Colonel is entitled to our assumption of good faith (and I agree) but apparently I'm not entitled to the same assumption from you? "someone who was most displeased at the Colonels success in getting a Middleton article to DkY". For the record, I hadn't clocked that the Colonel was responsible for that and, even had I, it would not have affected by judgement - but, of course, that would be assuming my good faith, rather than assuming (without evidence) my vicious propensity for revenge.--Scott Mac 16:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its a question of appearances. You were arguing for deletion at the recent Middlenton AfD against the Colonel who created the article and whos view prevailed. Theres no question you objected to the DyK. Its good to avoid the appearance of revenge which is partly why your supervote invited a DRV. For the record I never doubted your impartiality, as you seem to be of high integrity, just excessively confident in your ethical judgment. Id usually be more careful not to risk others making inferences from my comments, especially about generally excellent contributors like yourself, Brad etc, but you guys don’t seem to be extending the same courtesy to my good friend the Colonel! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I explicitly DID extend the assumption of good faith to your "good friend". The essence of assuming good faith is looking beyond the "question of appearances" (especially when they are simply your own negative portrayals) and dealing with the issues. Dredging up unrelated issues and speculating that they may have bearing on the debate is the tactic of smear and bad faith, despite your protestations to the contrary.--Scott Mac 17:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Youre right about the essence of AGF. But folk in authority ought to be able to think in more than one dimension at once; its not wise to ignore the question of appearances. And one of the related "issues" is your open lack of caring about both sides of this little conflict. If youd be more sensitive to the views of both sides, you may have been able to create some genuine concensus and persuaded the Colonel to agree the page is no longer a net postive. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think lots of people tried to persuade the Colonel of exactly that. Since you are now reaching for things to attack me with, and using AGF as a weapon to assume the worst of me, I think I'll disengage. I can no longer assume your good faith.--Scott Mac 17:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - its a shame user:ColenalWarden didn'tjust move it to his own computer himself. Off2riorob (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Closers comment nothing much to add to my closure. It is just possible to assume good faith (although poor judgement) in creating this. The excessive wikilawyering to retain such a page, without utility, shows a fundamental (and perhaps wilful) misunderstanding as to what community means, and the object of Wikipedia processes and guidelines. They do not exist for their own sake, or to allow people to play games with them for no possible benefit to the project. When they are used as such it is time to ignore the rules (which is policy) and to tell people to stop being dicks.--Scott Mac 11:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Despite being a huge admirer of the Colonel, fully accepting the clear and credible reasons he gave for the page, and very disappointed at the one sided views on offer here. Some of the editors who feel its an attack page are clearly good faith, and so Scott's correct on one point, the page is divisive and doesnt seem to be a net positive. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse DRV reviews the close, which was carefully reasoned. I'm satisfied with the reasoning being within policy, in good faith, and carefully balancing the responses at xFD, which is what DRV is about. We do (rarely) expect users to make decisions that are for the betterment of Wikipedia even if not anticipated by the letter of policy; Scott Mac convinces me that he has carefully reviewed the concerns for and against and that he reasonably concludes this is a rare case for being one of them. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Detailed rationale: To review this decision is also to review the evidence that an exception is required (we aren't 1/ policy wonks, 2/ a suicide pact, or 3/ blind). These 3 edits convince me there is an above average chance the closer has correctly read this: in this deleted edit a user is added under present and past usernames. At least one past username is long retired and the user has gained the trust of a number of well respected users who concur that he has tried to "make good" the past (see various ANI/RFAR threads). The user removes themselves from CW's list and asks to be left off and is forcibly reverted and re-added together with their past account names. The self-removal is repeated and the page creator edit wars to prevent the user removing himself. The evidence and behaviors (together with other evidence noted in the xFD) suggest that concerns related to the motive for the page are plausible, the page is not clearly serving a valid purpose and its effect is that of an invalid purpose (and given the controversy I am unconvinced that this list cannot be kept off-wiki per WP:UP: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors"), it is clearly divisive, and one user has asked to be "left out of it" suggesting they don't see it as neutral. The judgment by the closing admin is therefore tenable, and deletion "with a dash of IAR" is indeed a valid close. Therefore respecting the closer's action as being within reasonable expectation of a thoughtful close. (Disclosure: I am not 100% familiar with all the background but familiar with enough to believe this is a reasonably accurate post) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC) )[reply]

• Your three links to CW's deleted page history entries can't be read by regular editors, FT2. — Becksguy (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that's the nature of deleted revisions, I'm sorry. But any admin would be able to confirm they show what is described. More complete description added. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The administrator who closed this exemplifies everything that is harmful to the future of Wikipedia. A ruthless administrator who continues to abuses his authority to push an extreme agenda which he has admitted: shrinking wikipedia to an "encyclopedic paper size". This conflicts with Colonel Warden's and other editors more tolerant and expansive view of wikipedia, and indeed it conflicts with WP:PAPER itself. Unfortunately this is not the first time nor that last that "The administrator vastly overreached to impose his preference by caveat." The only reason this administrator is still an administrator is because he has a vast network of powerful allies who share these same extremists harmful views. The MFD itself was closed early by typical fiat common by this group, at that time the !vote was roughly 15 keep - 11 delete - 1 merge. I await the typical backlash for these comments by the same small group of extremist editors. Okip 14:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I one of these "extremists"? You'll notice I !voted to keep at the original MFD. But I still that the closer acted appropriately, in my view, aned endorse the close, even though my stated view in the one MFD I contributed was the opposite to this decision. Not assuming everyone is in a conspiracy would be good - most people aren't. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Okip might like to review this article. This DRV is about the MfD, if you want to examine my conduct in general then please consider a more suitable venue.--Scott Mac 14:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Okip is angry at something to do with wikipedia but that doesn't excuse him sporadically returning from his retirement to attack contributors. Okip hasn't made a single edit to a wikipedia article for over a year. Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure per several comments above include Scott MacDonald (closer), Peripitus, and Iridescent. I note Scott MacDonald's offer to e-mail the page contents to Colonel Warden if he needs them. I recommend early closure of this DRV. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain what would justify an early closure here? Hobit (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that spending a week discussing this issue is absurd. One of the project's most precious resources is the community's time and attention, and it should not be squandered in this manner. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tend to agree, though I find much of the fault with the nomination of a user page after it had been already kept and with the out-of-process deletion. In any case, I'm one of those people who think having fair processes is key to keeping users here. I think lots of people leave because they feel they are being bullied/streamrolled in the corners of Wikipedia. To allow it in such a visible place sets a very bad precedent that is harmful to Wikipedia. As a lawyer I'd hope you'd agree that the perception of fairness is sometimes nearly as important as actual fairness. I think we can disagree if the result was fair or right, but agree that closing contested discussions early often doesn't feel fair to the losers. It's a case of changing the rules midstream. I'm fine with it when there is an actual reason for the rush, but I don't see it here. Hobit (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would think that experience indicates, when the community is divided on a matter like this, efforts to abort discussion and force a resolution by fiat almost inevitably result in greater division, greater "squandering" of time and effort, and otherwise inflame the problems that the actors involved intend, or claim to intend, to reduce. I would hope that the almost uniform repetition of this effect, time after time, will taken as evidence that a substantial part of the community finds resolution-by-fiat to be more damaging/divisive than the underlying problems, indicating there is no consensus for taking them under applicable policies, and that such actions will be more determinedly avoided in the future. In plain language, it simply doesn't work, and it gets folks more upset than the original discussion would have. That what was recognized, I though, in the ArbCom decision I mentioned above, and it's disappointing to see people wikilawyering and otherwise dancing around and away fromthat well-reasoned conclusion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm afraid your reasoning is just as faulty as the $75 trillion dollars claim of damages of the RIAA [1]. Do you really think people spend their time on this as a substitute for doing something useful? Tijfo098 (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse because the close was well-explained and an entirely valid reading of the specific and general consensus. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 15:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and snow close this DRV. Scott Mac should be applauded for his efforts to end the drama created here by certain users on a daily basis. I'm unsure what interest a 2-month-old user would have in starting this DRV rather than allowing Colonel Warden to make that decision. Seems rather inappropriate. —SW— ^express 17:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The closure was well-reasoned and grounded in policy. I've got no beef with Colonel Warden, and can even AGF that the list was created with the best of intentions, but the fact is that, regardless of its intent, the contents could have been, and indeed were, "viewed as attacking other editors" by multiple editors in good standing. Deletion was the right call here. 28bytes (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion may be the right call (though I disagree). Can you justify the clearly-against-policy speedy here? Hobit (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• weak overturn I'd rather not have this page around. But I strongly cannot endorse this deletion. The fact that a previous MfD ended without deletion makes an out of process deletion extremely problematic. The last MfD was in September. Another MfD of the page would have been perfectly fine. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn It probably wasn't worth bringing this here for the sake of the page , which is relatively trivial, but it certainly was in order to object to the outrageous close as attack page, which it was not. It simply listed the names of a few WPedians from various camps on deletion issues. I'm sorry to have to say this, but the deletion request was essentially a personal attack, and I see supporting it here as either failing to understand it as such, or as supporting the attack on people one disagrees with. I correct the closer's statement above as follows: "It is just possible to assume good faith (although poor judgement) in creating nominating this. The excessive wikilawyering to retain delete such a page, without utility, shows a fundamental (and perhaps wilful) misunderstanding as to what community means, and the object of Wikipedia processes and guidelines." DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CW edit warring to keep a User on the page when they objected is a clear reason to delete the whole page. All such lists are nothing but trouble. Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • (to DGG) Couple of things. A deletion depends of the merits of the page and the strength of argument for deletion as revealed through the debate - not on the precise wording of the nomination or (generally) the motivations of the nominator. Thus most of your reasoning is irrelevant - since it is a criticism of the nomination, of which my closure makes no comment. Second, if you read my deletion reasoning, I reject (assuming good faith) the notion that the page was intentionally created as an attack - yet I accept (again assuming good faith) that many people might reasonably interpret it to be such. The clincher is that its continued existence serves no purpose (and the creator has not given a valid reason for its retention) other than to cause disruption. Our "rules" do not exist to keep things that serve no current purpose (whatever the original motivation in creating them) other than to disrupt. If the "rules" do point in that direction - then insisting they be followed is by definition "disruption to prove a point" and ignoring the letter of them is explicitly within the IAR policy. by Scott Mac

IAR is not intended to give scope to allowing deliberate provocation of an editor by a confirmed sock puppeteer. I recognize you thought you were doing well to terminate the discussion by any means available, but you should have found another way, such as using NPA to throw out the nomination. It was not a good faith nomination. It was the nomination that was created to disrupt. (I think it might have been possible to get the Col. to withdraw the page by some quiet negotiation.) DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You absolutely are right, that isn't what IAR is for, so you'll be delighted to know that isn't what I used it for. Perhaps the nomination was a personal attack, perhaps it was bad faith. I really don't know or care for the purposes of a close. If you think the behaviour of the nominator needs examined, then let's do that via a discussion of behaviour elsewhere but- we don't keep pages to punish nominators. The state of mind of the nominator was not something I gave any thought to at all - and nor should I. Various editors in good standing interpreted this page as being an attack, and I assumed their good faith, just as I did that of the creator. Do you now care to address the relevant issues of my closure?--Scott Mac 20:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a shot at it. What number (or percent) of people must view a page as "an attack" before it can be speedy deleted as one? How clearly does it need to be an attack page? I'd argue that if opinion is split, a full MfD is the way to go. Do you disagree? Hobit (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse snow close I brought this to DRV for the same reason that I originally posted to the MfD discussion. I got the sense that an innocent user was being ganged up on by a group of savagely uncivil editors trying to delete an innocent userpage. However now that enough people who are being civil and are not related to people embroiled in the list controversy have seen this and by far most endorse deletion, it is obvious my interpretation of the situation was mistaken. No need to prolong the drama in my opinion. And to clarify I meant to disrespect to the closing admin: a DRV to confirm you made the right choice should lay the issue to rest forever, I simply had procedural questions here. HominidMachinae (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, though DGG made an excellent point and it would be considerate to leave this open for another 12 hours in case the Colonel wishes to have his say. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose any snow close of this DRV. It's clear there is an ongoing discussion with sufficient opposing votes to render WP:SNOW inoperative. — Becksguy (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and reopen discussion. Because the discussion ran for only about half the prescribed period, the community was closely divided, and active, substantive discussion was ongoing, no substantive close could be valid. Therefore, only the claim that this was a valid G10 can justify deletion. The use of G10 in this context is questionable at best, and, more important, use of G10 here apparently is strongly disapproved of, if not outright barred, by a relevant ArbCom decision on such use of userspace.
  
• In the Tobias Conradi arbitration, the ArbCom set out, unanimously, a set of principles to be applied to matters of questionable material in userspace. In particular, while ArbCom said that laundry lists of "lists of fault-finding diffs, users described as "problem users", negative postings, and other matters of a generally uncollegial kind" were not appropriate if they created "some kind of perennial 'hall of shame' or list of 'disapproved, shunned or negatively viewed users'." The3 MFD diwscussion, cut short, had generally and correctly focused on whether the disputed page fell under that description. But ArbCom went on to say that "administrative deletion" was to be "avoided" unless the matter was "egregious" or "agreed [to] by usual processes." (There is a third exception, not relevant here, regarding off-page linking to material available in page history after being removed from a current page.)
  
• Therefore, the G10 deletion, which is clearly "administrative deletion," fails. The case is not "egregious," as evidenced by the fact that the page survived a prior MFD on similar issues and the fact that the community was clearly divided in the cut-short recent MFD. The division manifested in the recent MFD also clearly had not reached the stage where deletion was "agreed [to] by usual processes." With standard "administrative deletion" not allowed in this case, all that remains is whether IAR is an adequate justification for the deletion. I believe that IAR can never, standing alone, be a justification for an administrator's disregarding a relevant ArbCom action.
• I understand that Wikipedia does not run by precedent alone, that ArbCom does not unilaterally set policy, etc, etc. Those principles are most relevant when evaluating community consensus, and least relevant when evaluating the exercise of adminstrative authority. Administrative authority (like Arbcom authority) is to be used for two reasons, to enforce or implement WMF policy, and to enforce or implement the consensus of the Wikipedia community, usually as expressed by policy or guideline. Unilateral use of administrative authority, in a manner inconsistent with the expressed exercise of ArbCom authority, is probably never appropriate, and certainly requires both rare and exigent circumstances. This deletion fails that test. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• When arbcom wrote those things, I seriously doubt the intention was to provide a ground to allow people to retain quite useless pages in the face of objections, and at the cost of disruption. Do you want me to ask them? Whether it was an "administrative deletion" or a simply close is yet again one of the pedantic distinctions through which IAR is designed to cut. Our precidents and processes are there to serve the core purposes of the encyclopedia, not to allow people to prolong arguments that move precisely in the other direction.--Scott Mac 20:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any reasonable way to maintain this was a "simple close," given that discussion was ongoing and the standard discussion period was barely half-over. I do think ArbCom intended to strongly deter unilateral administrative action in this area, given the examples of heavy disruption which had resulted from past disputes, most prominently with regard to userboxes. I think ArbCom might well have preferred allowing "quite useless pages" to remain in preference to allowing the sort of ill will that may fester after deletion by fiat. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on policy and Arbcom:

The Tobias Conradi case was in 2007. Arbcom's words were eventually incorporated into user pages guidelines. The guideline is stable and clearly states: "in other namespaces [than mainspace] there are restrictions aimed at ensuring relevance, value, and non-disruption to the community" and covers "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors" (even if that is not its purpose, the issue is if it can be perceived as such). This list, though strictly speaking only an uncommented list of usernames, was widely felt to be a list of opponents or disputants of some kind and be an implied attack on other users or "laundry list" by listing them in a list of some kind of "wrongdoers" or "graves to dance on" or "past opponents". Right or wrong, that is the feeling that a significant number of people had from it. It was sufficiently problematic that one person listed there sought to be removed and the list creator edit warred to keep them on it. Usual processes include nomination at xFD, second nomination when matters resurfaced, closure by IAR (which is a "usual process" when applied correctly, though not a usual occurance), and DRV to discuss the correctness of the close. The close represented the closer's understanding of consensus and community sentiment, and it looks like it has been received as an appropriate and thoughtful balancing of policies and priorities, as witness the significant number of endorsers - including users such as myself who actually !voted "keep" at the MFD, and the DRV nominator who has said he's now satisfied the DRV can be withdrawn since it was not as he believed when he drafted it.

In brief I do not see a breach of any Arbcom ruling (please do ask them if unsure), and this is in line with normal process and completely within long-standing userspace guidelines. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overrule per nom and DGG. This would be a harmless user page, before it was publicized. The deletion is a horrible precedent. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion Page ran afoul of a number of guidelines. Deletion was a great way to remove a divisive, borderline attack page without drama or dragging its creator through the mud. -- ۩ Mask 21:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I hope that almost all of us can agree that the goal here has to be to reduce the politicization of deletion processes. I think that some people participating in this debate on both sides have been guilty of doing the opposite. I do think that somebody else should have closed the MfD; I think it might have been better (might have been) if the MfD had run its course. But ultimately, administrators have to have some way of reducing cycles of increasing political tension short of blocks (which historically haven't helped). Given that this page fairly clearly had an inflammatory intent, it is well within administrative discretion to delete it. Chick Bowen 23:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Humm, the last MfD strongly claim to the opposite conclusion about the intent. Further, folks like kww (certainly not an ally of CW and someone who is very familiar with CW) felt that there was no such intent. Could you explain how you can so clearly see this intent? I'll not deny it's possible, but I find that intent unlikely given who was on the list. Hobit (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This looks completely clear-cut to me. By my reasoning:-

  1) The purpose of DRV is to determine whether the deletion process was correctly followed; and

  2) The closing admin admits that the deletion process was not correctly followed; and

  3) Good faith users object to the deletion; therefore

  4) We have absolutely no choice but to overturn.

  I can't agree with Chick Bowen's view at all. The goal isn't to "reduce the politicization of deletion processes". It's to check the process was correctly followed, and remedy if not. And I can't agree with FT2's view, because an IAR speedy would only be appropriate if there were some pressing reason why the content needed to be deleted now, and there simply isn't. And I can't agree with Reyk's view because it's predicated on the assumption that this was an attack page, but I don't see a consensus to that effect in the actual debate. In fact, what we have here is an IAR speedy deletion in a situation where there was no consensus to delete. We can't let that stand.—S Marshall T/C 23:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not commented on the speedy or snow aspects anywhere, and have not stated any view for or against them at all - so this "disagrees" with me on a point I haven't given any view. I commented on the end product only, with which I agree, not the exact process by which it got there. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I have all due respect for what you say, FT2, your recommendation, if implemented, would have the effect of permitting, and tacitly approving, the speediness/early close/snow closure/whatever other justification was used to terminate the debate and implement the closer's preferred conclusion in this case. That's why I can't agree with it.—S Marshall T/C 07:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't 'recommended' anything or suggested an 'implementation'. either. I've said that in this case, I'm content with the end result being valid via the wiki principle of "product over process". As pointed out above I !voted to "keep" so my view on the close can hardly be any reflection of personal wishes in the matter but a pure assessment of the close, its likely reasonableness, and the likely effect (if any) of the 3 days it cut short. None of which makes me think that this did harm. A sole argument that process wasn't followed is not a strong basis for an argument in wiki terms; "product over process" has been a principle in discussion closure since forever. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you say that, but I'd invite you to compare what you just said with what's written in the box at the top of this page (point #2, just under "challenging deletion decisions"). And I'd also invite you to ask yourself whether it carries weight, at a deletion review, to say either "endorse because I agree with the outcome" or "overturn because I disagree with the outcome". My position is that these arguments carry very little weight. It's a common meme that DRV is not AfD round 2.

I do have reasons why I think Colonel Warden should be allowed to keep this material in an unindexed space that aren't process-based, but in fact, at DRV, process-based arguments are often the most effective ones, so I'm working with the best tools that I have...—S Marshall T/C 09:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's informative. We do agree DRV isn't an xFD version 2 rehash. Procedurally WP:DRV covers speedy deletions and xFD closure errors which are substantial. This clearly wasn't a speedy deletion (4 days debate and weighing up points is not in any way a "speedy" deletion even if a CSD reference was cited in the rationale). I tend to judge "substantial" by whether the process issues are likely to have prevented xFD from fulfilling its aim. The aim of xFD is to gain wide publicity for an informed debate, and allow enough time (usually 7 days) for views and consensus to be shaped. For reasons stated elsewhere I feel that while undesirable, the aim of xFD was not thwarted by the early close, hence the procedural issue was not ultimately "substantial" - it didn't have a practical effect. This was not a snap close after 18 hours following unilateral "pile-on". It was an extensive debate and it seems unlikely to me that another 3 days would have changed the validity of the given close. We may differ, but I hope this explains my view as you have explained yours. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I still need to challenge your position on that, because I view the statement that "This clearly wasn't a speedy deletion" as rather untenable. The close was three days early (which, by itself, is often sufficient to overturn at DRV). It cited a speedy deletion criterion. The debate was ongoing, it was contentious, and good faith users might well have wished to contribute further. They would have expected to have more time to phrase their remarks. There are good faith users who choose to keep an eye on the "in closing" lists, and add their opinions to the more contentious ones, on day seven. They have been denied the chance to comment. Our deletion processes, if correctly followed, would have allowed this.

In short, on the facts, I can't agree that this is anything other than a speedy deletion outside process.—S Marshall T/C 11:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Per S Marshall. This whole thing is silly and frankly everyone almost all of you endorsing should be ashamed. Anything kept by a previous discussion is ineligible for speedy deletion barring issues like copyright or other newly discovered problems. Period. This would appear to be a simple attempt at winning a race to close and that strikes at the heart of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. On the merits this A) This list causes little harm. B) This list has little use. C) This wasn't worth the dramaz to delete, have around or speedy. Certainly I think those of you endorsing should try to take two steps back and see how you'd feel about this if it wasn't CW involved. I'm having a very hard time seeing how this can be viewed as anything other than personal, especially given the split nature of the discussion previous to the speedy. Hobit (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fact check needed. This was not speedy deleted; it ran for 4 days as an MFD rather than a full 7. Would you like to classify my stance as "personal"? My only input at MFD was to "keep" (as stated before), yet I feel the close was valid and endorse it. Others have routinely taken care to comment on the content not the creator too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was speedy deleted. G10 per the closing statement. Did you miss that? Hobit (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The citing of a speedy delete criterion may or may not reflect what actually took place. A deletion which ran for several days via MFD and was closed with a full rationale that considers all views (rather than citing a CSD criterion and nothing else) is not a "speedy" deletion whatever the closing statement might say, even if it looks to CSD for part of its rationale. Again, product not process - the same close 3 days later would have been much the same both in policy compliance and substance. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, you are claiming that the closing admin was mistaken in his rational and meant something other than what he said? I find that difficult to understand, let alone how you could then endorse that. But, granting that for a moment, what justifies the early closure? Was it a SNOW candidate per WP:SNOW? In general IAR is a bad thing to use unless either consensus was crystal clear (which I don't think you can claim it was) or if harm would occur by not using IAR (which doesn't appear to be claimed by the closer in any case). Could you explain what you see that justifies the early closure? Hobit (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is purely on the product of the MFD, not the process by which it was reached or the exact wording of the rationale. I'm not that concerned if it was closed a few days early, there was considerable discussion and the rationale was well described. The process does not appear to have had an effect that was likely to have harmed the project or significantly changed the likely outcome (eg, compared to likely result of same admin closing it after 7 and not 4 days). The closer's rationale could be expressed equally well or better without referring to IAR or CSD -- so those are not core to the decision to delete. IAR is at best just part of his reason for performing the same close early that he could validly have done after another 3 days. That's process not product. What counts most is the decision related to the page, which got considerable discussion and a thoughtful close. I'm ok with that. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see a valid reason for the early close? If so, could you spell it out? On the other side, I do have an issue with early closures. My worry is the "race to the close". We've been very (very) careful about not closing AfDs early in part for just that reason (there was a glut of early closes a number of months ago and a long discussion about why this was a bad idea). Hobit (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a need for an early close, but I'm not convinced at all it prejudiced the debate. It's not like it was closed after 18 hours after one side had a "pile-on" or anything. Admins differ in approach and such, so I'm prepared to accept that with the ANI thread and drama, an admin made a judgment to shut it down early based on the significant responses at that point and a clear careful explanation of the reasons why he felt ultimately deletion was better. As I said, I might myself have left it open or !voted "keep" but I'm satisfied that the debate was a fair one and the close careful enough, to not demand a re-opening on procedural grounds. Others may differ, of course. As for the principle you raise, I agree in general, early closes are best avoided, mainly because they do inevitably raise drama and (if very early) sometimes suspicion or opposition. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like we pretty much both agree on everything other than how important it was that the closure was done outside of standard policy. We both agree that early closes are generally a bad thing and (I think) that there was no need for one here. I see that as exactly the kind of thing DrV should overturn (per our mandate to see that things are done properly and fairly), you see a final result that is acceptable and therefor need not be overturned. It comes down to the question if an early closure is simply being bureaucratic to overturn, or if it is a clear wrong that must be righted. I'm not sure how you can justify an early closure here if you think the general principle has any merit at all, but I guess that's why we are on opposite sides of this discussion. I will say I'm still greatly worried by your denial that this was a speedy delete via G10 given that is what the closer stated was going on. Ah well. For the record I would have no real problem with the deletion of this (though I would prefer keep) had it been closed after the full 7 days. Hobit (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The page seemed harmless, but I didn't actually vote in the MfD, just offered a few opinions, but it seems that the MfD was clearly trending towards delete. Predictabnly, the ARS folk and the gaggle of interested parties that usually bloc-vote right alongside have showed up, though. Tarc (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• While we're mentioning "interested parties", I can't help noticing the anti-ARS bloc-vote has also showed up in force and bloc-voted...—S Marshall T/C 07:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite a bit of difference between bloc-voting to support a little wiki-buddy and bloc-voting to uphold policy and common sense. Not that I'd expect you to see that. Tarc (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And you don't see any irony in that at all, do you? :)—S Marshall T/C 13:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The irony in what, you about lose yet another DRV? :) Tarc (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to procedural closure  Any other outcome encourages yet more abusive and disruptive nominations, and part of the closer's own position would be stronger with a procedural close.

  Analysis shows incoherency in the closing.  Is this

1. a delete by consensus,
2. an early closure using G10, or
3. IAR?

Case (1) Why does the closing list a "delete" closure and defend the positions of those who wanted the page deleted, but then closes the discussion early?  Was there a threat to Wikipedia to continue the discussion?  For my own part, I was not allowed to reply to the most recent comment under my !vote for a procedural closure.  Claiming a delete consensus and then immediately self-reverting to an early closure claiming a speedy process has the appearance of an agenda to support the nomination.  (This appearance is not part of the G10 itself, which explains part of the support for the G10.)

Case (2) is an early closure using speedy delete G10 criteria, which comes from Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Early_closure subsection "Speedy delete", which states, "...the nominated page unambiguously falls under at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion, particularly criterion G10 (attack page)..."  It is absurd to argue that the G10 was unambiguous when this page has already survived an MfD with a "snow keep".

Case (3) IAR, is that it is the best thing for Wikipedia.  How can supporting a personal-attack nomination be the best for Wikipedia?

Note that the G10 requirements under WP:CSD do not by themselves require that the attack aspect be unambiguous, so by declining to procedurally close the MfD before asserting G10, the closer has weakened his/her position.  My personal opinion is that in overturning to a procedural closure with a null outcome, to leave the G10 deletion standing, as a standalone administrator deletion supported with IAR, and subject to a new and independent DRV.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Milowent pasted a copy of the deleted page to his user page, User:Milowent#User:Colonel Warden/RIP. Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That is clearly inappropriate. Nominated for speedy deletion under criteria G4 (recreation of deleted material). N419BH 06:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• LOL, Flatscan, how did you find that? I cut and pasted that recently to remind me to look into what the hell everyone is going on about, before the google cache of the page (which is where I got it from) expired. Scott deleted it and I don't intend to re-post it onwiki, I now posted it off-wiki for my interest.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went to your user page from an unrelated discussion. I give a little more detail on your talk page. Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  There are repeated rumors of edit warring above before the nomination, for those of us that cannot see the edit history, by what definition is this being called edit warring?  There was edit warring between the nominator using his IP address and a third party after the nomination, right?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a quick glance at the history I see five logged-in users and one IP editing this page over the last week, for a total of 24 edits from May 8 to May 14. Chick Bowen 04:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many times did CW revert Barong?  Is there a basis to call this edit warring?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • CW reverted three times. Then there is a lot more editing and reverting by other people. I have no opinion about what to call this, but merely trying to answer your reasonable questions. Chick Bowen 05:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking - it was more than this. After the initial addition 5 attempts were made to remove it prior to MFDing the page (2 as an IP, 3 as an account, clearly the same person) and the self-removal was reverted by CW 4 times:

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• FT2's table is inaccurate in several ways. In particular, it omits some of Barong's incivility. Here's a corrected version:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs) 2011-05-22T07:33:14 (UTC)

So those claiming the page-owner was "edit warring" claim that 4 reverts in 9 days in your own user-space is edit warring?  Is there any basis for such a claim?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm inclined to say this should be overturned, I certainly disagree with the way that the deletion was handled. But honestly, the page really added nothing to the project and caused a lot of drama (perhaps unfairly), so I think that the best thing to do would be to drop this and move on. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn While I think the closing admin did what he thought was best, ultimately it was improper to speedy delete instead of basing a decision in full on the discussion. The correct remedy is to reopen the deletion discussion for a short period of time and have an uninvolved editor make a decision as per policy. At this point, I think the page is stupid but what's the point of having all these policies and procedures if we're just going to wing it? I know some people are in favor of winging and ignoring all rules, but that normally results in injustice like it did here. One single admin's personal opinion does not outweigh the sum of all of our ours. EdEColbert^{Let me know} 05:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The closing admin summed up the original discussion perfectly. Whether or not it was originally intended as troll/attack a number of editors feel it is one, and the owner's refusal to remove it seems more pointy than anything else. N419BH 05:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Just look at what we have here; claims and counter-claims of bloc-voting, some agf-related doublethink, yet another comeback from the battleground king, a quite stunningly irrelevant WP:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR from an established admin, a overlong and subjective summary of other people's !votes …
  This all seems to me to reinforce the view that the original page was disruptive and divisive and the decision to remove was a good one; the encyclopaedia is much better off without it. pablo 09:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Given that the page was kept uncontroversially at the initial AFD only a few months back, it might be better to infer that the recent deletion nomination was the real cause of the disruption. Certainly many of the comments here are made in good faith, but it's hard to escape the feeling that the real heat here was generated by an ongoing, pre-existing dispute centered on personalities rather than encyclopedic value. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Beside the point, which is that there was disruption.
      You could also argue that the nomination was precipitated by Colonel Warden's insistence on adding and re-adding an active editor (thus clearly not 'resting in peace' ) to his little list against that editor's express wishes.
      The deletion was a bold and sensible attempt to reduce that disruption. pablo 08:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion – such "Hit lists" are de facto attack pages which serve no purpose in the betterment of the encyclopedia and as such was a proper deletion; going through the process for the sake of process is not going to change that. –MuZemike 16:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that it was a snow keep last time around, could you explain how you can be certain a normal closing of this wouldn't have resulted in the material still being here? It's pretty hard to call it a clear attack page when it was kept last time around... Hobit (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Absurd: Aid memoirs? Hit lists? Everything related to the discussion of this silly list has been absurd. Let the whole thing die, we really have better things to do.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like reposting the list? –MuZemike 20:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I removed that and Milowent has accepted it. I think it was a perfectly good faith action on his part.--Scott Mac 20:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, me reposting the silly list (surely a vicious attack!!) is included.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During a DRV, it's customary to temporarily restore the page under question, unless it's a BLP or copyright violation, per WP:DRV#Temporary undeletion. CW's RIP user subpage is clearly neither, and several editors have expressed an interest in the original content and history relative to participating in this DRV. — Becksguy (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having previously seen the material during the last MFD and now from Google cache, I can attest to the fact that it isn't a BLP violation, isn't a copyright violation, nor is it an attack page (and therefore does not meet the requirements of CSD G10). I also noted that the deletion log for the page [2] shows the second MFD as being closed as delete, instead of the speedy deletion, which is yet another irregularity.

The content of the page itself was simply a list of usernames. Some of those individuals got along with Colonel Warden while others did not. Many of them are indeed memorable figures and I can understand the reasoning behind the page creation. I really don't see it too much differently from Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians, with the exception of WP:MW not listing blocked users.

While the "RIP" title might be considered by some to be somewhat contentious, and the page would probably be better off named something else, I don't see how the actual content of the page could be considered an attack. (The MFD close itself states "I am speedy deleting this under CSD G10, with a dash of IAR. Now, let me explain. Technically, this may not actually be an attack page. [...]" [3]). --Tothwolf (talk) 05:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist No opinion on the content of the page, but this was an out of process speedy deletion, plain and simple. The MFD was still in progress and speedy deletion is being misused here. The comment of "Alternatively, I am amiable to overturning this closure, and allowing you to place {{db-author}} in the page yourself." [4] further shows the speedy deletion was improper as it clearly shows the deleting admin is casting a "super vote". I find some irony in the deleting admin having signed [5] Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse and yet doing this exact sort of IAR speedy deletion. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Clearly an out of process speedy deletion. Agree w Tothwolf, EdEColbert, and Hobit that this is not acceptable.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question for closer Could you explain what justified the early closure? G10? IAR? Something else? Why would waiting for the full 7 days have been the wrong thing to do? Hobit (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Closer appears to have ignored the arguments for keeping, and the discussion was closed prematurely right in the middle of discussion before the seven-day period was up. Administrators are supposed to consider the merits of the argument and while this may in some cases cause controversy, they should avoid needless controversy by steamrolling opinions they disagree with. If there are arguments on both sides, presented in good faith, it is much better to stick to the timetable, not interrupt the debate out-of-turn, and in any case the closer needs to explain himself much better than this, otherwise the "hack through and do it now, process by darned" admins are given an undue amount of power. Considering that CW's opponents, such as Kww, argued for keeping indicates that this was nowhere near as clear cut as Scott Mac thought it was. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please re-read the close. This close was a proper application of policy. Wikipedia's processes and conventions exist to improve the encyclopedia, they do not exist to be used to retain material that (by anyone's estimation) does not help the encyclopedia and has become (whatever the initial intention of the creator) a source of disruption and dissension. To insist that the page be kept, not because it is any way helpful (it is quite the opposite) but because it technically doesn't violate "attack" or "userspace policy" or even because the closing admin didn't follow the rule on timings, is itself a violation of policy. It breaks Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Further, as much as the guardians of process here hate IAR, IAR IS policy. IAR is specifically for cutting through rules that prevent an obvious improvement to creating an encyclopedia. Many of the "keep votes" on the MFD were based on a misreading of policy here, and thus can be discounted. If DRV is about upholding policy, then surely it must uphold this close. Because policy does note allow technicalities of process to be used to keep stuff that's become counter-productive to our key aims. If this closure is overturned, and because of process technicalities, either another MFD is caused, or a divisive (and useless) page is kept, then policy will have been violated.--Scott Mac 08:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This debate's been full of opinion statements made in the emphatic declarative, and they're getting shriller and more strident as time wears on. I would particularly take issue with the phrase "This close was a proper application of policy". Actually, while editors are encouraged to ignore the rules in their efforts to improve the encyclopaedia, our custom and practice is that use of the administrative tools is more circumspect. We elect admins to enforce the rules, not to ignore them. This isn't to say that there are no circumstances in which an IAR speedy would be appropriate—I can construct scenarios where I would approve of it—but this certainly wasn't one of them. A debate was ongoing, and there was no consensus at the debate.

      I rather suspect that this debate only came about because a user didn't want his former name associated with his current one. In my opinion, the right to vanish only applies if you've actually vanished. If you're still editing, then I think it's entirely reasonable for editors to want to associate your name with your previous edits, and to keep track of your changing Wiki-identity in their userspace. Using MfD to hide your previous identity is definitely not okay unless you're vanishing. I'm pleased that this debate has publicised the associations between certain accounts.

      Personally, I'd prefer it if everyone—and certainly everyone who edits BLPs—displays their real name, location, and date of birth on their userpage. It might encourage a bit more of a responsible attitude to the Wiki. I reluctantly accept that some Wikipedians are children, or vulnerable people, who need to hide their real life identity. I do not accept that they get to change their Wiki-identity like they change their socks.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • But your argument boils down to citing a set of rules and processes in order to defend the retention of a perfectly useless page that was causing disruption and ill-feeling. That is explicitly not what our processes are designed to allow.--Scott Mac 11:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't speak for S Marshall, but I think the problem is the following "Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be able to do that at all times. In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus." I've yet to see a clear justification of breaking the "discussions last 7 days" rule. Hobit (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • My point (which is in addition to others that I've made during this DRV) was that it's not a "perfectly useless page", because among other things, it's CW's record of the associations between different accounts belonging to the same people. My position is that he's legitimately entitled to keep track of that information in his userspace.—S Marshall T/C 13:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Perhaps CW can look them up over at facebook, then. User-space isn't a personal rolodex. Tarc (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Do you think users should be able to switch accounts at will, Tarc?—S Marshall T/C 17:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't have the slightest idea as to what that means. Tarc (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Why do you think Barong nominated the page for deletion in the first place? Was it perhaps out of an innocent and righteous sense of outrage on behalf of his dear departed wiki-chums?—S Marshall T/C 19:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. As the deleting admin himself pointed out within his reasons for deleting, the deletion was a) out of process, and b) based on a technically incorrect reading of CSDG10. Dolovis (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn purely on procedural grounds (I would have !voted "delete" at the MfD). This was an inappropriate use of G10. Especially in the context of a running AfD which was obviously trending towards "no consensus", it was inappropriate for one administrator to privilege his own judgement above that of the community. Thparkth (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn It should've run for seven days as the rules state. You can't just ignore the rules because you felt like it, or you feared someone else might close it differently than you would if you didn't beat them to it, or whatever reason he had in his mind at the time. Dream Focus 16:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good job assuming good faith in your assumptions of the closer's intentions. —SW— ^comment 16:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is getting to be a bit difficult to assume good faith when we've not gotten an answer about why there was a rush to close. I'm hopeful that we'll get an answer about why waiting a few more days wouldn't have been acceptable. I hope you'll agree that an IAR action should come with a justification. There was, in the closing statement, a justification for the deletion, but not one about why IAR was used to speedy a page that's not eligible for a speedy --or-- closing a debate early (which ever it is he's done, it seems unclear to a number of people myself included). Hobit (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you manage to assume good faith without my immediately answering every question? Look, this is rules thing again, isn't it? Yes, it could have waited two days- and in hindsight it might have given less excuse for people to rule-pick on it. But my point is that our "rules" and processes simply don't exist to allow people for inexplicable (or incredible) reasons to insist in retaining matter which can easily be removed off-line, and objectively serves no purpose other than to be a source of distraction and disruption. To restore such material on the technicality that I didn't wait long enough is again to disrupt the encyclopedia to prove some point - and is a clear violation of Wikipedia's principles. You are simply missing the point of my closing even by asking the question?--Scott Mac 17:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scott, I feel that having a reason given for the early closure would be helpful and given you've responded to other issues (including this), I hope you'll find the time to explain why waiting wasn't the right thing to do sometime soon. As far as I can tell you've not yet given an answer. You've explained why you shouldn't be overturned (just a rules thing, IAR is policy) but not what justified the early closure in your mind. The only reasons I can see are A) to reduce drama B) the page was so bad that having it those extra days was damaging to Wikipedia or C) you wanted to be sure you got to be the one to close it. None of those seem like good reasons given the situation (and AGF), so I'm hoping you'll clarify. Hobit (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Noting that I've responded to Hobit's similar question to me, above. Mentioning it here only because that addition higher on the page might be overlooked otherwise.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion. Restore page and continue MfD to actual consensus (which might have ended up with CW's agreement to simply remove the former account name of a known puppeteer and account abuser... but we'll never know). 15 months ago in my own failed RFA, one of the biggest worries of those who voted against my receiving the tools was a concern that I "might" ignore consensus and close AfDs based upon personal opinion, rather than upon proper application of policy or guideline. In Scott Mac's close of the MfD, I see exactly that fear realized in another. His own closing statement grants that the page was not a violation of applicable policy and guideline, and yet his too-early close of an ongoing discussion that looked to be a non-consensus keep did not allow the prossesses set on place to be followed. Circumventing that process, and substituting guideline with a personal opinion, has resulted in more disruption than did the mere prior existance of a userspace page consisting only of names of closed accounts. Userspace subpages are never required to be "encyclopedic". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Overturn The page should have been deleted. But such a divisive use of WP:IAR, when the exact same outcome could have been achieved with a lot less drama simply by following process, is not something I will endorse. TotientDragooned (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Switch to Overturn after reading and reflecting on Hobit's excellent point above. TotientDragooned (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit makes a very valid point. WP:IAR is set to allow such action if it improves the encylopedia: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I cannot see how deleting a non-indexed, short list of inactive user accounts improves the encyclopedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Bad close, non-applicable speedy, much as stated in the close. Closer should have !voted just like everybody else. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist for another seven days. A lot has been brought up here, but it is mostly tangetial to a proper MfD discussion. Reserve closing to a completely uninvolved admin. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorseand trout CW for causing drama. Scott was right by the definition of WP:UP#POLEMIC "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." CW created such a page where several editors felt there was a negative vibe. Thus qualifies under CSD 10 which allows deletion upon sight. Scott did what the letter of the law advises. Could the MFD running the course continued a few more days? Probably, but so far I see alot of I dont like how the close was handled but nobody seems to be reubuting the close on policy based merit which DVR requires The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A) but nobody seems to be rebutting the close on policy based merit which DVR requires From the top of this page: "2. Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions." I think we generally have agreement that this was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions ("If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations."), so DrV overturning is quite reasonable on that basis. Do I think there are good arguments to keep? Certainly. Am I arguing them here? No, this isn't MfD2. The arguments belong in MfD not DrV (where they were made).
  • B) WP:UP#POLEMIC isn't part of the speedy criteria, nor should it be. WP:UP can be a reason to delete things, but not, in-and-of-itself, a reason to speedy. The bar for G10 is higher than "can be viewed as". Frankly lots of things "can be viewed" as an attack page. G10 is for things that one can expect reasonable consensus would agree is an attack page. Just like all other speedies, it's for clear cases The prior speedy keep of the same material and the on-going MfD make it pretty plain no such consensus could be reasonably thought to exist. Keep in mind speedies are for clear cut things. This wasn't that (again not just my opinion but the previous MfD result and the MfD discussion). Again, the relevant passage from WP:CSD applies to G10s as much as any other speedy:
    • Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations.
  • Hobit (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • • But your argument still boils down to citing a set of rules and processes in order to defend the retention of a perfectly useless page that was causing disruption and ill-feeling. That is explicitly not what our processes are designed to allow. And now you will restore a perfectly useless page and doom the encyclopedia to more distraction and disruption because some "rules" weren't followed. This is the antithesis of Wikipedia's core policy.--Scott Mac 20:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • First of all, I and others don't think there was a need, in policy or any reality, to delete this. Was it helpful? Not really. Was it worth deleting? No. The point we became doomed to distraction and disruption was when you speedied this. Before that we just had a highly-attended MfD. Now we have drama. Secondly, as far as I can tell you still haven't explained why it was so pressing to delete this out of process rather than waiting a few more days. It seems a reasonable question. Hobit (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's misrepresenting the facts. What you'd had was an edit war (see above), and two MFDs, none of it discussing anything that had any bearing on the encyclopedia, all because instead of removing a useless page, CW insisted in proving some point by retaining it. All that distraction had happened before I came along. What I saw was sane editors saying "it is useless, now disruptive, let's delete it" and others saying "it is useless, but there's no rule against it, and technically CW it isn't..." (which is using rules to retain something that had become unhelpful, which is an abuse violating WP:BURO). Now, perhaps I could have been patient and waited two more days because of some other rules. Maybe with hindsight that would be better. But bringing this useless page to DRV was obly going to cause more disruption to prove some minor point - and restoring it even more. It will simply end up back on MFD - and cause even more disruption. Well, on your head be it. Overturn it. I wash my hands of it. Upholding rules and process obviously matters more than worrying about whether they are being used to further disruption, trolling and deliberate provocation (which is exactly what CW is doing by insisting in keeping this on-wiki). Make you process people - but the resulting disruption is on your head.--Scott Mac 21:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • In reviewing the edit history of the page, only edit warring I see is from User:Jack Merridew while using 125.162.150.88 and Barong. Edit summaries used by Jack such as "unseemly grave-dancing" [6] "yes, we know you're a wp:dick, colonel ;)" [7] (followed immediately by an MFD [8]) are not helpful. Further self-described trolling by Jack was also disruptive: [9] [10] [11] [12] "see prior edit summary; trolling Bish's comments, now ;>" [13] "fix ;)" [14] "but i don't care ;>" [15] Is this the edit warring you are describing?

              I see something small turned into large scale trolling/disruption from Jack which spilled over to User talk:125.162.150.88, ANI, and even Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification with a MFD even being used. If this is the type of behaviour Jack is going to continue to engage in, I see a community ban in his future. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) Hobit - I've already noted above why I don't consider this to be a speedy deletion. Even if the closer cited a dozen CSD criteria, the reality is this was a lengthy several day debate and a balancing of arguments. DRV's coverage of speedy deletion is because genuine speedy deletions don't have any process beyond "admin see / admin delete". This one well and truly did. A closer is entitled to early close a debate for good cause. The closer believes, honestly and in good faith, that good cause existed, and you believe honestly and in good faith it wasn't needed. My point to both of you is "product over process" - and 4 days debate with careful reasoning and encouragement by other policies to look at the broader picture (WP:UP and other arguments cited) convinces me not that it was "perfect" but that in the broader picture the close was a reasonable one. Hence endorse. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per Hobit. Scott keeps saying that this is "a perfectly useless page that was causing disruption and ill-feeling." However, this does not in this case adequately justify summary deletion under G10, IAR, or any combination thereof. As anyone who frequents MfD knows, perfectly useless pages are routinely discussed and, after a period of seven days has elapsed, deleted by an uninvolved administrator. There should generally be a good reason for closing a MfD discussion early. In this case, Scott cited "CSD G10, with a dash of IAR" when deleting the page. Did G10 apply to this page? According to our speedy deletion policy, pages should only be speedily deleted "in the most obvious cases." So, was this an attack page? Evidently, there is disagreement over whether it should be interpreted as such; the page survived a previous MfD, and there was significant disagreement in the MfD about whether the page was an attack page. Given all of this, I think that this deletion cannot be justified under G10. Now, Scott wrote in his closing statement, "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The technical definition of an attack page, or the details of the userspace policy, do not exist for people to wikilawyer about them, or worry too much about their precise definition. They certainly don't exist to allow the continuation of something that has no purpose and has become disruption, in order to defend some vacuous technical point, and keep a page the only conceivable benefit from [what] could be achieved by non disruptive means." This reasoning, used to justify ignoring the rules, is fundamentally flawed. In Wikipedia's deletion processes, we operate under the principle that the closing admin interprets the consensus of participants in discussions and don't substitute their own opinion for that consensus. In deleting this page because he thought it was disruptive and worthless, even when many participants in the MfD (and the previous MfD) disagreed, Scott was violating that principle. IAR should not be used to justify such controversial actions, period. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn -- I still cannot see how this constitutes an attack page. Any drama and disruption resulting from this page has been generated entirely by the deletion process and the rather high handed action of the closing administrator. Seriously, there must be better things to do than carry on about rubbish like this. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly.

"But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said.

"Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?" said its father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, "He hasn't anything on. A child says he hasn't anything on."

"But he hasn't got anything on!" the whole town cried out at last.

The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, "This procession has got to go on." So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn't there at all.

--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 11:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Tothwolf: These edit summaries were responses to other people's edit summaries, and make more sense in context. Tothwolf, a recent ban motion failed to pass at ANI only a short time ago. Any by the way, everyone, the RIP page was restored by the deleting admin a couple of hours ago, so this discussion should now be closed. Unless you wish to continue arguing for a full week; in that instance I would be happy to re-delete the page for you so that due process can be served. </mock> --Diannaa ^(Talk) 01:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Becksguy has above referenced WP:DRV#Temporary undeletion, which states,

Admins participating in deletion reviews are requested to routinely restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}}

template, leaving the history for review by non-admins.

So maybe I'm wrong but I have assumed that the undeletion was so that we could look at the edit history in detail. 

Unscintillating (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The {{TempUndelete}} template has now been placed on the page under discussion. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Speaking as somebody who was on the list, I know for 100% fact that my presence there was intended as an attack. He originally had the attack list under a different (obvious) name to that effect, and there was a fuss kicked up about this AN/I (?), so he just renamed it to this to try to hide the fact that it was still an attack list, but the function is/was the same. Just because he renamed it to hide the fact doesn't make it not still an attack list.Rememberway (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  And your name is now not on the list? Was it removed because you asked for it to be, or was it because you began editing another's userpage without discussion? And if the list has been renamed, and as of its previous snow keep was not considered an attack list, why should we assume in bad faith at a later date that it must somehow still be? It seems that the only unchanging thing on Wikipedia is personal opinion of another's intent. I see a list of a few closed accounts on a page that says absolutely nothing negative or positive about any name on the list. Period. So what makes the listing of a few inactive accounts on any user's non-indexed subpage an attack, if no attack is being made? Last I heard, WP:AGF had not been rendered historic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rememberway's talk of a different name for the page in question seems to be 100% fantasy - perhaps he is confusing it with something else? The details of his own case may be seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wolfkeeper/Archive. We perhaps do need another page to keep track of editors who start new accounts to evade sanction. Is there some general community resource for this? Colonel Warden (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Good question... We have Wikipedia:Long-term abuse, but it is primarily used for indef blocked or community banned individuals who continue to abuse the site and other editors. That does seem to be an area not really handled by either Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians or Wikipedia:Long-term abuse. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Need more dramaz. The vanishing act of User:Barong in front of ArbCom wasn't satisfying enough; nor was the 5:6 hung committee. Clearly more user-centric discussions are needed between the old hands. Just think of that child in Africa! Or of the Wikipedia Review. I fear they may run out of topics. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Appears to now be moot as the deleting admin has restored the article. Not clear to me if this should be relisted or dropped. I'm personally okay with either. Hobit (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Trouts all around!

  1) To Colonel Warden, for 1a) keeping it online at all, and 1b) under such a name rather than something unquestionably neutral like "retired editors with whom I've interacted"

  2) To the closer, for shortcutting a process that did nothing but inflame the drama.

  3) To those calling for Colonel Warden's head, using this as a pretext. The best thing to do with a wiki-personality you don't like is to ignore them and work on a different area of the encyclopedia.

  Overall, this was pretty doggone pointless, although I appreciate how it clarifies the scope of IAR: IAR is for mainspace ("the encyclopedia") or for something that directly threatens the existence of the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Like Best overall summary to date. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I had supposed that RIP was simple and bland but, in the spirit of Jclemens comment, I have renamed the page "Inactive accounts". Colonel Warden (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Be aware that after this is closed, I will probably delete the page again myself. Scott MacDonald's action was completely correct; we will not have pages like this on this project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, really? Tijfo098 (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this because as most popular electee of arb com, you carry derived powers of a god-king? You are "right", there is no need to have the consent of the community? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the saying... Don't go poking hornets' nests? Just sayin... --Tothwolf (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two perhaps naive questions. 1) Brad --I read into your note that your take from this conversation is that the consensus is probably that the page should be restored; otherwise, there would be no page to delete. Am I reading your post correctly? 2) Do you have a supervote? If I recall correctly, Jimbo does, but perhaps others do as well and I'm not up to speed. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. As someone who finds the Colonel's shortcomings a matter for wry amusement rather than outrage I wandered along fully planning to express steadfast neutrality. It's somehow a little reminiscent of the storm in a teacup about Jack Charlton's "little black book". Along the way I also found myself endorsing Jclemens remarks (above). I do however think NYB's statement needs some clarification. If it had been made by some neophyte admin I might have been tempted to remind them on their talk page that attempts to coerce (or by extension otherwise influence by the use of authority) the actions of editors "through threats of actions outside the Wikipedia processes, whether onsite or offsite" was potentially subject to a block. Doubtless I am missing something and I would appreciate a clear explanation. Who, specifically, is "we"? Ben MacDui 11:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That read like a majestic plural to me; my understanding was that Newyorkbrad was claiming to speak either for Arbcom or for Wikipedia as a whole. If so, the politest assumption is that he'd been drinking alcohol.—S Marshall T/C 12:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • like Ben MacDui, i was looking at the "ScottMac dramafest" with amusement; oh is he acting out again? the disappointing thing is the endorsement of his actions by NYB. it tends to undermine the credibility of arbcom. if you want people to edit in article space, then you should not reward drama in wikispace. i support the comments of DGG above, when you ignore his advice, you could look like an idiot (just saying) Slowking4 (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The MFD discussion should have gone on for seven days, and the original closer was wrong in closing it early. However, the page seemed to exist for nothing except creating drama, and I read it as an acceptable closure under G10. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Just wond'rin if there are any more pointless ways than this that people could be wasting so much time that could be put to better use? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The question at stake is of whether Wikipedia is a community-run project, or it is subject to the better judgment of elites. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• (ironic e/c)Indeed. More effort has gone into agonising over this little internal sideshow, than ever went into examining how this editor got away with getting a BLP violation on the Main Page where a subject had a trivial DYK factoid on his supposed independent notability hung from a tabloid source containing barely 20 words on that, while the rest was a hit piece all about his more famous relations. A failure traceable directly to his regular habit of over-inflation of sources at Afd, an issue I believe has already been the topic of an Rfc/U, which he appears to have evaded and avoided. It's unbelievable. 6,800 readers saw that disaster. How many have read this silly RIP list? 68? MickMacNee (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, there are, there are. This doesn't approach the scale of the hyphen vs. en-dash argument. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So much for people's wish to respect process too. Twice now I've had to remove the Colonel's false claim on the page's own talk page that this review has been closed with an 'overturn' result. Now, people were claiming that this page has a completely benign non-disruptive non-divisive reason for existence yes? Explain that then. MickMacNee (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There do indeed seem to be some behavioural issues. Unfortunately, dispute resolution doesn't work. We won't do punitive blocks. People try punitive MfDs, and then out-of-process punitive deletions. There is a problem, and it is not the list of names. I ask the Colonel: Please be more careful. Is MickMacNee's statement correct? I would say that misleading is far more disruptive than vandalism, and we block indefinitely for repreated vandalism. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I put an {{ArticleHistory}} on the talk page to record the page's history. This only provides 3 options for a DRV event: "endorsed", "relisted" or "overturned". The latter seemed the best of the three as Scott Mac seems to have overturned his close by restoring the page in question. This action was again out of process so, of course, it's hard to get an exact fit with a template which is expecting more normal events. Perhaps Mick can tell us whether he still supports the Petition against IAR abuse which he started or whether he now favours such anomalous action? Colonel Warden (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not interested in telling you anything until you drop your Ostrich routine over infinitely more serious policy/procedure issues than what happens to your 'aid memoire'. Maybe you need another sub-page to help you every time your memory seems to fail you then. MickMacNee (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• @Colonel Warden, could you also please explain why you removed the {{TempUndelete}} template from the page? Since we don't have one that says "The deleting admin restored the page and stormed off" it seemed the most appropriate available template. Yet you have removed it? Thanks --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing for Colonel Warden to have done. {{TempUndelete}} implies a seven-day restoration for the purpose of DRV. Scott's edit summaries and subsequent, ah, language imply that this restoration is not just for the period of the DRV. This doesn't seem like a situation where a standard template is appropriate. If you absolutely insist on adding a header box of some kind to Colonel Warden's userspace, then I would suggest a custom one. Or you could simply leave the Colonel's userspace alone and do something else.—S Marshall T/C 21:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, S Marshall, but I was more looking for Colonel Warden's rationale. It seems a reasonable enough question. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• MOOT - The closing admin, Scott MacDonald, restored the page. From the Deletion Log: ( 21:58, 20 May 2011 Scott MacDonald (talk | contribs) restored "User:Colonel Warden/RIP" ‎ (48 revisions restored: restore useless trolling page, which will cause further disruption, because process matters more). Thereby overturning himself, as he noted at [16]. Later, Colonel Warden moved the page to User:Colonel Warden/Inactive accounts. Since the closer has reverted himself, overturning the DRV, and the user has renamed the page and therefore removed any cause of action from the page, this DRV is now moot and should be closed. The horse is dead, lets all drop the stick and move on. — Becksguy (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing admin's comments I undeleted this because I was taken aback at the heat here, and the insistence of the letter of process over the result. In retrospect that wasn't good, because I again short-circuited this process in an annoyance at process - I could redelete it, but that's just likely to cause more problems. Sorry. I'm really past caring about this, and saying no more. The person closing this should do as they see fit, it can either overturn the deletion and allow the page to remain, or endorse deletion and re-delete the page. Either will be a not unreasonable close of a contention DRV. I suspect if it remains more drama will occur, but I'm bowing out.--Scott Mac 08:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Meh, the heat was largely from ARS Wiki-buddies. You can view it all as one meta-vote rather than a true measure of many people opposed. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Scott, will we get an explanation as to why you felt you felt the need to close the MfD early? I could have missed it in this large DrV, but I don't think you've done that yet. Hobit (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Hobit has posed an important question, directly above. The answer to Hobit's question is one that is of interest to me as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, and re-deletion. It's toxic-wiki bullshite. The project is best rid of such things and would be a better place wo/Colonel Warden and about half the 'editors' seeking to retain this bit of trolling. This is what project failure looks like. Have fun riding teh bomb. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perfect example of why I stepped in as an uninvolved editor originally to stand up for the page. I see plenty of accusations against colonel warden, but the only people I see actually *acting* incivilly, making personal attacks and being rude are the people arguing for out-of-process deletion. HominidMachinae (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That IP address has recently been used by User:Barong aka User:Jack Merridew, who is subject to Arbcom sanctions requiring him to edit only with one account, but has withdrawn his agreement to this condition and now appears to be editing in despite of the Arbcom sanctions. He created the original MfD in the first place, an action he was not entitled to take with that account. It's essential that we don't reward him pulling this stunt by giving him what he wants.—S Marshall T/C 22:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• To be fair though, ArbCom have majorly dropped the ball here; they gave JM certain advice and then held it against him when he acted on that advice. I do not blame anyone for refusing to play along with such a shitty situation. I would do the same. They cannot agree among themselves whether the old restrictions are still in force and, if so, whether or not to lift them. Unless and until ArbCom can put together a coherent position without contradicting themselves JM should be granted the same rights and freedoms as any other editor; if ArbCom can only dither, blather, procrastinate, vaccilate and equivocate then we are better off pressing on without them. Reyk _YO! 23:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, we could "press on without" Arbcom, and disregard their restrictions, and let Arbcom-sanctioned editors go about removing material in a good faith editor's userspace, and close MFDs three days early to make sure those sanctioned editors get what they want regardless of what the good faith editors want, so as "to be fair". Or we could decide it's better to obey Arbcom and follow the normal process, and look to give the good faith editor what he wants even if that might be a bit disappointing for the Arbcom-sanctioned editor.

  Look, Reyk, any dispute involving Colonel Warden's userspace that was started by Jack Merridew was always going to divide along party lines. There's a significant group of deletionists who were always going to vote and argue in favour of Jack Merridew (or who don't care about Jack Merridew but enjoy the idea of discomforting Colonel Warden). And there's a significant group of inclusionists who were always going to leap to the Colonel's defence (or don't care about the Colonel but definitely do care about Jack Merridew's return). We haven't got a consensus, so the risk is that the close of this debate will be a compromise rather than a decision. I'm trying to reduce this risk by emphasizing that on the one hand we have a good faith editor who's also a prolific content contributor, and on the other hand we have an Arbcom-sanctioned editor who's using multiple accounts and IP addresses to get what he wants.—S Marshall T/C 23:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a gross distortion of what actually happened. You make it sound as though JM was trolling around in CW's user space looking for stuff to vandalize. Bollocks. JM saw his name on a list that he, and plenty of other good faith editors, see as a "hit list". JM has the right to object, sanctions or no sanctions. Part of the nastiness surrounding this whole JM situation is that every time he wants to do anything, right or wrong, editors like you jump up squawking "Sanctions! Sanctions! OMG Sanctions!!!1! Don't listen to anything he says because OMG OMG OMG OMFG SANCTIONZ!!!!!!!" What an unhelpful attitude to take. I could go further and say that JM's technical prowess, which for the past two years he has shared with anyone on request, and excellent article work, speak to his good faith now. Nothing like the mustache-twirling pantomime villain you seem to want to portray him as. And that things like Colonel Warden's RFCU show him to be evasive and contemptuous, nothing like your picture of him. But I know it's not that black and white; I do know that barring editors from commenting on issues that concern them by name is not acceptable. Sanctions or no sanctions. Reyk _YO! 00:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If User:Jack Merridew isn't trolling, he certainly is doing a bang-up job of impersonating a troll. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(who's channeling I/Okip et al's bad-faith. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 06:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Doubtful. With all your reincarnation experience, a séance would be far more up your alley. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion. This subpage is a scorecard of some kind; whether they are friends or foes is immaterial. It's a list of people Colonel Warden wants to note that he has outlasted; it's gamesmanship, and is not condusive to building an enycyclopedia. Whether the original deletion discussion was cut short or not is immaterial, imho. The subpage should be deleted. Reyk, that was an insightful summary.--Diannaa ^(Talk) 01:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your "scorecard" hypothesis is not supported by the actual names on that subpage. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the thing they all have in common is that they are gone, and Colonel Warden is not. The list, if it were just a memory aid, would be just as useful off-wiki, stored as an e-mail or even a word document with hyperlinks. Why store it on-wiki? Because it sends a message. What's the message? It's a scorecard. That is my opinion, and if you do not agree with it, fine. I think it is a valid opinion. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 14:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • While this isn't XfD round 2, unless you are going to argue for the deletion of Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse, you can't argue for the deletion of Colonel Warden's userspace list. If we go with your logic, all of these are "scorecards" of some sort. In terms of intent, there is no difference between WP:MIA and Colonel Warden's userspace list. WP:MIA cannot take the place of Colonel Warden's userspace list either, as it is and will always be "incomplete" and happens to contain only a few of the editors Colonel Warden finds memorable. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I see your point, but I still don't think I have expressed my point very well, so I am gonna add a little more. Colonel Warden, when asked why he had created the page, said it was for a memory aid. If that is the case, why not move the material off-wiki as suggested? Colonel Warden was asked to remove the list to his hard drive, and several people offered to e-mail it to him. Once he learned the list was causing disruption and drama he could have moved the list elsewhere in order to resolve the matter peacefully and quickly. But he chose not to do so. So this is why I question whether that was the true purpose of the page. It has now been around two weeks since the original MFD nomination and teh drama continues. Some people are not making posts about the original deletion decision or about the value of the page under discussion, but are making attacks on other editors, particularly 125.162.150.88, so this thread has become a toxic mess; all this drama could have been avoided if Col. Warden had simply tagged it for deletion early on. The other two pages that you mention are not in user-space, they are in wiki-space, so the comparison is tenuous; I look at the LTA pages often while doing recent changes and vandalism patrols. --Ninja Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Similarly, had Jack Merridew disengaged at any point and never MFD'd the page in the first place, we wouldn't have had any of this drama either. As Jclemens said above, Trouts all around!

            Colonel Warden shouldn't have to move this list off-wiki nor re-justify his reason for creating it. In the first MFD he said: "These are all editors that seem to have retired and so I created this page as a way of remembering them, as their contributions will fade in time and it can be difficult to remember account names exactly. There is no particular slant to this list other than the fact of retirement. For example, my relations with User:Firefly322 and User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles were reasonably pleasant. There's possibly a few more editors I should add to the list but I've just been adding names as they come back to me." [17] I can relate to some of this too, I mass-db-u1'd everything in my userspace when this happened, however things never should have gotten to that point in the first place.

            While we are getting a little off-topic, I too make use of WP:LTA, however like WP:MIA, WP:LTA is also very much incomplete. If you spend much time around WP:SPI you'll begin to see why. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

            • Yes, LTA is incomplete. I am leery to add "tells" I have discovered about Grawp, for example, as he will just make use of the information himself, negating the usefulness of posting the info on-wiki. As far as the RIP page goes, I think we will have to agree to disagree, as I have not changed my opinion. --Ninja Diannaa ^(Talk) 17:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Regarding the nominator's intentions, I am pretty sure that after repeated attempts to get his name off the list he decided to nominate it for deletion as a way to bring the matter to the attention of the wider community as he plainly feels pretty strongly about this kind of stuff and this page in particular. Whether it was his intent to stir up drama or not I don't know, but drama would be a foreseeable outcome, as it seems to be the usual way of interacting for some segments of the community. Are the nominator's motivations usually part of the delete discussion? or just the merits of the page? I haven't participated much in this field so I don't know what's usual. I will post some more later if I can think of a better way to word this. --Ninja Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • The perceived intent of the nominator is often called into question in deletion debates, can be relevant in the case of mass nominations but is generally a crap argument. pablo 20:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • ... but the status of the nominator as someone who, per clearly-stated Arbcom decision, shouldn't be editing with that account, is a bit more substantive.—S Marshall T/C 21:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You are mistaken. Arbcom's stance on this is not clear at all. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • And even if it were, people cannot be prohibited from commenting on pages that mention them by name. Reyk _YO! 22:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Arbcom's stance in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jack_Merridew_ban_review_motion#Final_decision is final, near-unanimous, and crystal clear. I think that you and Reyk have a point when you say that subsequent remarks by individual arbs have been lamentably unclear and contradictory, but I rather think that the reason they have not retreated from their "final decision" is because there is no consensus in Arbcom to change it. The final decision Arbcom has written down is the one we must take seriously, unless and until the Arbs or one of their clerks unequivocally indicates that there is a consensus in Arbcom to change it.

                          Jack Merridew's comments seem quite welcome, to me, but welcoming his comments doesn't extend to allowing him to use MFD as dispute resolution, or therapy, or whatever that nomination was, when he's disobeying Arbcom sanctions. The way I'd understand it is that he's got a voice but doesn't have the standing and entitlements of a good faith editor.—S Marshall T/C 22:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I won't try to defend Arbcom over the delays, which I agree have been extensive. Equally, it's not my place to censure them, and I won't try to anticipate or second-guess their decision in that ongoing discussion. My position is that Arbcom's most recent decision continues to apply until they change it. My position is also that Jack Merridew is not entitled to create on-wiki drama with any of his accounts, and that using MFD as dispute resolution is one of the things that he specifically isn't entitled to do.—S Marshall T/C 22:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you reading that? His right to create drama has been withdrawn? He is specifically not entitled to use MFD as dispute resolution? Sorry, I don't see that written down anywhere. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is only allowed to edit from one account. And the account he nominated this with isn't that one. I don't think it's overly relevant to this DrV (I would argue that his !vote could be ignored though in both this DrV and the MfD, but frankly that doesn't matter much given the attendance at both). His history of harassing others (which got him banned for quite a while) might allow us to read something into his actions here (much as you have chosen to read things into CW's actions), but I think that's a bit of a stretch too. Guessing others motivations is rarely productive and even less commonly helpful. To quote a very wise man "by their deeds you shall know them". Let's focus on what people do, rather than ascribing motives. Hobit (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion- The close is carefully considered and well justified. Given the number of editors speaking for deletion, the closer was correct to ignore arguments based on the nominator. NYB has given adequate justification for the early closure above. Kanguole 09:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You feel that wasting people's time by keeping it open is a reason to close early? People get to pick what exactly they spend time on and no one is forced to participate. I'm really not seeing that as a justification... Ah well. Hobit (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. People are going to participate in discussions as they choose to do so (if they are aware of them). Leaving a discussion open the normal (or even longer) length of time isn't going to waste anyone's time. Now, if one wants to discuss a real waste of time, retaliatory XfD nominations are a very good place to start. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • As opposed to the amount of time you wasted telling others to stop wasting time telling others that we shouldn't waste time? Tarc (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]