Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment Browse history interactively Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:11, 21 May 2007 editBdj (talk \| contribs)19,739 edits +QZ deletion dispute		Revision as of 22:29, 21 May 2007 edit undoBdj (talk \| contribs)19,739 edits →Statement of the dispute: openingNext edit →
Line 6:		Line 6:
	''Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.''		''Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.''
	==Statement of the dispute==		==Statement of the dispute==

	''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''
			The deletion of ] does not reflect our policies, and there is no consensus for deletion, nor any policy that requires deletion. Furthermore, the deletion of the article is of the result of numerous wheel wars, assumptions of bad faith by users involved in the dispute, and an inability of involved administrators to allow a consensus to be formed.

	=== Desired outcome ===		=== Desired outcome ===
	''This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.''
	<!--

			* Specific admins and users held accountable for ] tactics.
	The "what's the point of this again?" bit. Half of the world is going to think it's precursor to arbcom, the other half are probably not going to look to closely since the _point_ isn't clear, and the other half are going to be going for the jugular no matter what.
			* The allowance of a consensus to be reached regarding the article (per the first DRV, there is not currently a valid AfD to point to)
			* Specific users held accountable for ] during the discussions

		⚫	=== Description ===
	So here if someone cough would write out a nice clear concise explanation of what they hoped would happen by raising this, all would be right with the world.

			On ], ], an article about a Chinese person who became famous for the web meme his appearance inspired and he himself cultivated, was nominated for deletion. After the requisite five day period, the discussion was closed as delete by {{user\|Daniel}} (known at the time by his sig as ''Daniel Bryant'', has ] in the period since), but later re-opened by Bryant following an appeal. {{user\|Drini}} closed the discussion again not too long after as delete, citing that the meme might be notable, but the kid isn't. This was appealed at ] on ], and eventually overturned by {{user\|Xoloz}} on the grounds that the subject met all the relevant policies (having multiple reliable sources, the cornerstone of inclusion - one user put the rate of sourcing at 1.7 refs/sentence), and relisted the article on AfD. This discussion was quickly responded to by a number of people before being closed by {{user\|thebainer}} less than an hour after the relisting. I then nominated it for deletion review following an appeal to thebainer which was declined. This is where the issues began, over the course of around 24 hours:
	-->

			* by {{user\|JzG}}, .
⚫	=== Description ===
			* by {{user\|Doc glasgow}}, .
	''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}''
			* by Drini.
			* by {{user\|DESiegel}}.
			* by {{user\|Tony Sidaway}}, not even closed. .
			* by Doc glasgow ("not twice in one day"), by {{user\|Matthew}}.
			* {{user\|Mbimmler}} ("properly closed DRV"), by {{user\|The Evil Spartan}}.
			* JzG, by The Evil Spartan.
			* {{user\|Jc37}}, as an error.
			* by {{user\|Mbimmler}} ("due to consensus"), {{user\|Prolog}}.
			* {{user\|Viridae}}, AfD opened.
			* by {{user\|Nick}} four hours later, citing the alleged previous consensus.
			* {{user\|Viridae}} reopened the AfD, which was then re-closed by Doc glasgow. The page was then deleted by {{user\|Phil Sandifer}} with the summary "This is deleted. No restorations. No full course AfDs. No process or politics. Human decency. BLP. The end," all points very much under debate and discussion.
			* , declined as premature because an RfC has let to occur.
			* , with the closing summary of "trolling"

			The discussion spilled over to a number of project pages, talk pages, and userpages. It's emblematic of the general situation the project is currently encountering regarding the actual role of deletion review, the ability of administrators to use their abilities to shut down useful discussion, and the inability to have a consistent, clear appeals process, without even getting into the specifics of user conduct, which is highlighted by the numerous case of incivility and lack of good faith toward contributors on both sides of the debate, as evidenced by commentary below mine.

			There was no ''process'' problem with the first AfD or the first DRV. The first AfD was properly closed on process grounds, but the first DRV properly noted that there were issues with the result. The article has yet to get a fair re-hearing per the last proper DRV.

			There are many things that should be looked at here - the role of deletion review, the ability for administrators to accurately interpret discussions, whether a group of editors can choose to willfully ignore the policies laid out by a wider consensus by the greater community, the application of ] in regards to subjects who participate in their own fame, and the closing of discussions early, perhaps relevant to ]. '''This is about behavior, about process, about mechanisms, and about content, no matter what anyone else would like to frame it as.'''

			The list of people above are simply people who were involved in the closing/unclosing/deleting/undeleting that I found - anyone extra can be added as they wish. I'd imagine ArbCom can sort that out during the proceedings, but at no point and I saying some of the involved parties are more "guilty" than others. --] <small>]</small> 22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

	=== Evidence of disputed behavior ===		=== Evidence of disputed behavior ===
	(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)		(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

	:#
			Too many diffs to list, so I will use entire discussions where applicable.
	:#
			:# ]
			:# ]
			:# ]
			:# ]
			:# ]
			:# ]
			:#
			:#
			:#
			:# ]


	=== Applicable policies and guidelines ===		=== Applicable policies and guidelines ===
	{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}		{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
			:# ]
	:#
			:# ]
	:#
			:# ]
			:# ]
			:# ]
			:# ]
			:# ]

	=== Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute ===		=== Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute ===

	(provide diffs and links)
			See links above regarding the ArbCom case, the discussions at AN/I, and there are plenty of talk page links, including but not limited to the following: ( )
	:#
	:#

	=== Users certifying the basis for this dispute ===		=== Users certifying the basis for this dispute ===
	''{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}''		''{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}''
	<!-- Please note: If you did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, but agree with the summary's presentation of events, please sign in the next section. Please notify the user, via his talk page, that a conduct dispute has been raised. -->		<!-- Please note: If you did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, but agree with the summary's presentation of events, please sign in the next section. Please notify the user, via his talk page, that a conduct dispute has been raised. -->
			:# ] <small>]</small> 22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
	:#
	:#		:#

Revision as of 22:29, 21 May 2007

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 22:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 10:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC).

QZ Deletion dispute (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

The deletion of Qian Zhijun does not reflect our policies, and there is no consensus for deletion, nor any policy that requires deletion. Furthermore, the deletion of the article is of the result of numerous wheel wars, assumptions of bad faith by users involved in the dispute, and an inability of involved administrators to allow a consensus to be formed.

Desired outcome

Specific admins and users held accountable for wheel warring tactics.
The allowance of a consensus to be reached regarding the article (per the first DRV, there is not currently a valid AfD to point to)
Specific users held accountable for their incivility during the discussions

Description

On 4 May, Qian Zhijun, an article about a Chinese person who became famous for the web meme his appearance inspired and he himself cultivated, was nominated for deletion. After the requisite five day period, the discussion was closed as delete by Daniel (talk · contribs) (known at the time by his sig as Daniel Bryant, has changed his name in the period since), but later re-opened by Bryant following an appeal. Drini (talk · contribs) closed the discussion again not too long after as delete, citing that the meme might be notable, but the kid isn't. This was appealed at deletion review on 13 May, and eventually overturned by Xoloz (talk · contribs) on the grounds that the subject met all the relevant policies (having multiple reliable sources, the cornerstone of inclusion - one user put the rate of sourcing at 1.7 refs/sentence), and relisted the article on AfD. This discussion was quickly responded to by a number of people before being closed by thebainer (talk · contribs) less than an hour after the relisting. I then nominated it for deletion review following an appeal to thebainer which was declined. This is where the issues began, over the course of around 24 hours:

Speedily closed by JzG (talk · contribs), I reverted.
Speedily closed by Doc glasgow (talk · contribs), I reverted.
Speedily closed by Drini.
New review by DESiegel (talk · contribs).
Removed as "silly" by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs), not even closed. Reversed by DESiegel.
Speedily closed by Doc glasgow ("not twice in one day"), reversed by Matthew (talk · contribs).
Closed by Mbimmler (talk · contribs) ("properly closed DRV"), Reverted by The Evil Spartan (talk · contribs).
Closed by JzG, reverted by The Evil Spartan.
Speedy closed by Jc37 (talk · contribs), later reversed as an error.
Speedily closed by Mbimmler (talk · contribs) ("due to consensus"), reverted by Prolog (talk · contribs).
Speedy closed by Viridae (talk · contribs), AfD opened.
AfD closed by Nick (talk · contribs) four hours later, citing the alleged previous consensus.
Viridae (talk · contribs) reopened the AfD, which was then re-closed by Doc glasgow. The page was then deleted by Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs) with the summary "This is deleted. No restorations. No full course AfDs. No process or politics. Human decency. BLP. The end," all points very much under debate and discussion.
I attempt to bring this situation to ArbCom, declined as premature because an RfC has let to occur.
I attempt to try DRV one last time, closed by JzG with the closing summary of "trolling"

The discussion spilled over to a number of project pages, talk pages, and userpages. It's emblematic of the general situation the project is currently encountering regarding the actual role of deletion review, the ability of administrators to use their abilities to shut down useful discussion, and the inability to have a consistent, clear appeals process, without even getting into the specifics of user conduct, which is highlighted by the numerous case of incivility and lack of good faith toward contributors on both sides of the debate, as evidenced by commentary below mine.

There was no process problem with the first AfD or the first DRV. The first AfD was properly closed on process grounds, but the first DRV properly noted that there were issues with the result. The article has yet to get a fair re-hearing per the last proper DRV.

There are many things that should be looked at here - the role of deletion review, the ability for administrators to accurately interpret discussions, whether a group of editors can choose to willfully ignore the policies laid out by a wider consensus by the greater community, the application of WP:BLP in regards to subjects who participate in their own fame, and the closing of discussions early, perhaps relevant to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war. This is about behavior, about process, about mechanisms, and about content, no matter what anyone else would like to frame it as.

The list of people above are simply people who were involved in the closing/unclosing/deleting/undeleting that I found - anyone extra can be added as they wish. I'd imagine ArbCom can sort that out during the proceedings, but at no point and I saying some of the involved parties are more "guilty" than others. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Too many diffs to list, so I will use entire discussions where applicable.

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

See links above regarding the ArbCom case, the discussions at AN/I, and there are plenty of talk page links, including but not limited to the following: ( )

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

badlydrawnjeff talk 22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.