| Revision as of 12:33, 4 July 2009 editFrei Hans (talk | contribs)743 edits →Telepathy and war← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:58, 4 July 2009 edit undoPablo X (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers21,600 edits →Telepathy and war: EnddorseNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| I would like the article restored, with its edit history. I would like to continue working on the article. I am willing to consider using what may have been undue and unreasonable criticism of the article to improve it in the eyes of questionable administrators and users - although I contend that such improvements might pose a challenge I am willing to work in good faith on the article. ] (]) 12:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | I would like the article restored, with its edit history. I would like to continue working on the article. I am willing to consider using what may have been undue and unreasonable criticism of the article to improve it in the eyes of questionable administrators and users - although I contend that such improvements might pose a challenge I am willing to work in good faith on the article. ] (]) 12:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Endorse deletion''', the decision was sound. Accusations of vandalism, sockpuppetry, "un-wikipedia-like agendas", bad faith, editorial bias etc are extremely subjective - irrelevant "sources" and speculative or irrelevant content was removed from the article. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">].</sub> 12:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:58, 4 July 2009
< 2009 July 3 Deletion review archives: 2009 July 2009 July 5 >4 July 2009
Telepathy and war
- Article was vandalised before deletion. Large blocks of well referenced content were repeatedly deleted by the same user and another user who appeared to be associated with that user. Up to 17 references from reputable sources were removed. The two users (Verbal and Papa November) then claimed that the article was poorly referenced and badly written, and so should be deleted. I would like to think the deletions of citation and reference material were made out of a genuine a desire to improve Misplaced Pages - if mistakenly - except that the conduct of the respective users over time suggested to me that repeated deletions and reversions to versions with very little content were motivated by un-wikipedia-like agendas. Before the article was deleted, at least two repair bots tagged the article, one citing "possible vandalism".
- The users who proposed deletion of the article engaged in acts of bad faith and what appeared to be edit warring, including reversions to versions with few references and almost no material and "biting" and baiting a relatively new editor.
- The article was supported by other users who became interested in the article and who began working to improve it, as far as they could between repeated content deletions and reversions to versions with few references. The article was nominated for rescue.
- User page histories show that the users intent on removing content have displayed an editorial bias in reverting and removing content from other Misplaced Pages pages as well. The users who campaigned for the article's deletion seemed to link to and quote a lot of rules and Wiki regulations during discussion but seemed themselves to have difficulty operating in good faith, constructively and with neutrality.
- The articles for deletion discussion was closed and the article removed by an administrator whose own editorial conduct was called into question. The closing administrator's behaviour was found in an arbitration case to include edit warring and sock puppetry. It is possible that the decision to delete the article and close discussion that the article generated, was made by an administrator who could have engaged in sock puppetry specifically connected to the article's original vandalism.
I would like the article restored, with its edit history. I would like to continue working on the article. I am willing to consider using what may have been undue and unreasonable criticism of the article to improve it in the eyes of questionable administrators and users - although I contend that such improvements might pose a challenge I am willing to work in good faith on the article. Frei Hans (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, the decision was sound. Accusations of vandalism, sockpuppetry, "un-wikipedia-like agendas", bad faith, editorial bias etc are extremely subjective - irrelevant "sources" and speculative or irrelevant content was removed from the article. pablohablo. 12:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)