Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 9 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bikasuishin (talk | contribs) at 10:52, 9 February 2008 (→User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:52, 9 February 2008 by Bikasuishin (talk | contribs) (→User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< February 8 Deletion review archives: 2008 February February 10 >

9 February 2008

User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex

User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|MfD)

Strong overturn. MfD against an WIP private yet well-sourced and referenced userpage with roughly 140kB still pretty much at stub status compared to what it was supposed to develop into. The MfD's closing admin justified her closure by arguments put forth by Calton and Coredesat that were instantly refuted by a multitude of established editors and admins everytime those "arguments" were posted as those were debunked arguments against a mainspace article (of only 40-60kB) only sharing the title with what MfD closing admin has now decided to delete, and on top of that, those were arguments only valid for mainspace as explicitly stated by policy. Not to mention the deleted userpage had been created long before the particular AfD was opened on mainspace article that was very controversially closed as delete. Even the deletion of mainspace article was patently illegitimate because that second AfD had failed to provide any new nomination rationale as without a new nomination rationale any new AfD is invalid from the beginning, which is one of the many reasons why established admins such as User:John, User:Grue, User:DGG, User:Tango, User:Coren, User:@pple and others, called the closing admin Keilana's entire ability to proper judgment and fulfill her duties as an admin into question for her unwarranted personal decision to delete the mainspace article for which she was even incapable to provide any rationale for until several days later when an involved member of the delete party shoved a rationale onto her which boiled down to WP:IAR (DRV closing admin Mackensen quoted a vague unsubstantiated claim that nobody had been able to provide any rationale or refs for, even though repeatedly requested to do so, and that there was absolutely no consensus over). After that illegitimate decision, the same people went with an MfD after a different piece in private userspace which happened to have the same title, and the only "arguments" the MfD's closing admin quoted were stating that the mainspace article had been deleted. Consensus, logic, and following policy look different. --TlatoSMD (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse deletion for the 27th time. DRV is not AfD2, and should not be a habitual response to an AfD close you disagree with. If there is a process problem, i.e. consensus was interpreted incorrectly/involvement by the admin in the discussion/early closure/etc. then DRV can correct that. If the outcome simply didn't go your way, that is not what DRV is about. Avruchtalk 08:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm disappointed to see that when you canvassed for votes on this DRV you didn't include me - I've participated in every discussion about this page since the initial AfD that resulted in a delete, but didn't get your 'neutral IAW WP:CANVASSING note' anyway.
  • 08:30, 9 February 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Allstarecho‎ (→FYI - Userpage banner) (top)
  • 08:29, 9 February 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:XDanielx‎ (→Collaboration) (top)
  • 08:27, 9 February 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Bikasuishin‎ (→Hi Bika!) (top)
  • 08:26, 9 February 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:@pple‎ (→Tết) (top)
  • 08:25, 9 February 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Pairadox‎ (→Tardyness)
  • 08:25, 9 February 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Ssbohio‎ (→Directing my attention elsewhere) (top)
  • 08:24, 9 February 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:HolokittyNX‎ (→Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB) (top)
  • 08:23, 9 February 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Digital Emotion‎ (→Corruption) (top)
  • 08:22, 9 February 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Homologeo‎ (→Opinion Valued: ACS userpage) (top)
  • 08:22, 9 February 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Homologeo‎ (→Pro-pedophile activism)
  • 08:38, 9 February 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:VigilancePrime‎ (→Happy Valentine's Day!) (top)
  • 08:36, 9 February 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Aditya Kabir‎ (→Sitakunda Upazila) (top)
  • 08:34, 9 February 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:PeaceNT‎ (→Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.) (top)
  • 08:33, 9 February 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rich Farmbrough‎ (→Barnstar) (top)

Avruchtalk 08:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. This might be your 27th time Avruch, however you you still can't change the fact there were and are 130 established admins and editors entirely opposed to your opinion. Don't paint your personal opinions as "consensus" just because some admins controversially agreed with you and are now therefore under attack by their peers. And the reason why I have not included you is that I still have to see you following logic or policies, or applying policies only within their strictly defined reach, on this issue. I have included Relata refero below even though they voted for delete just as you did. As much as I remember Relata stated that even the federal government of the United States of America disagree with you, Avruch, whom they claimed to be in contact with over this particular issue. I must also voice great concern with you calling "canvassing" what is verbatim referred to as "neutral, friendly notice" by policy, which was even quoted at the top of each notice. Are you feeling overwhelmed with better arguments and too many people against you, or why did you revert those? --TlatoSMD (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: I apologize, I see now that you didn't revert them. The one editor who removed my notice has stated he has done so because he feels too frustrated by POV-pushing in favor of your opinion. --TlatoSMD (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
EDIT EDIT: I see, now Guy is running around like a headless chicken and doing what I have warned Avruch not to do. --TlatoSMD (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I'd like to hear from the closing admin before I consider this further. Certainly her stated rationale is not sufficiently explanatory. (I urged deletion.) Relata refero (talk) 08:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse. No policy or process faults have been identified with the close, the nomination by TlatoSMD above does not address the reason for deletion. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Faulty rationale in whose opinion? You are inherently biased. Take a step back. There's nothing faulty about my close at all. It is perfectly within the bounds of policy and process. ~ Riana ⁂ 09:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The side in favor of delete regarding this personal userpage was so desperate because all their rationalizations, if they bothered to give any at all, were torn to pieces that towards the end Avruch and 12noon's only resort left was to plead changing policies just for this one MfD's sake (they did so in the MfD itself as well as on SSB's talkpage). --TlatoSMD (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment from closing admin - this didn't take too long, did it? I'm not going to go down the NPOV in userspace path, or quibble about minor variances in what I'm going to group under pedophilia. I'm concerned that this thing repeatedly crops up, a vast majority of the community is in uproar about it, and that people feel it's completely OK to store it in their userspace and expect not to receive fuss over it. Policy says that things can be stored in userspace if there is a reasonable expectation that it can be worked on and improved. This cannot. It has not been considered acceptable by the community and probably will not be. It has been judged a POV fork with a biased title and has been deleted as such. The only purpose it can serve being stored in userspace is pissing people off. It's certainly done that, it's outweighed its usefulness, and now we can all get on with it. ~ Riana ⁂ 09:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's not a good enough rationale. There may well have been a consensus to delete - as I said, I believed it was a POV-fork in its current state - but it doesn't seem like you read the discussion. A very disappointing statement. If the "community is in uproar" then the way to fix that isn't through this sort of administrative action. Relata refero (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Your blatant lying indicates that you are far from being unbiased Riana. There has never been anything like a remote consensus to even just delete the mainspace article which happened to share an identical title with what you have now chosen to delete. You stand against almost 11 dozen(!) established editors and admins being entirely opposed to a decision that was illegitimate and invalid by policy to begin with, and yet you have the audacity to ramble and parrot fabrications about "community consensus". You even try to excuse your arbitrary decision by obscenely referring to "pissing off people", which shows even more how little you ought to consider yourself qualified for entering into this matter. --TlatoSMD (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note that blocked TlatoSMD for 12 hours for the above personal attack. Spartaz 10:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. This is not another round of MfD, it's a review of process. The MfD was properly decided, by strong consensus, with around 75% of the 48 or 49 commenting editors recommending deletion based on policy. There is no good reason for this DRV because there is no way the MfD could have been closed as anything other than delete, based on the count and content of the comments.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    Comment The one-line opinions you're quoting, if they bothered to refer to policy at all, were so poorly founded and informed that they were all referring to a policy officially legislated as not applicable on userspace. That's no valid consensus, that's just partisan noise, to quote SSB. --TlatoSMD (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete (endorse) with fire and block TlatoSMD for about a month for being so blasted disruptive about this matter. Viridae 09:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is the very first AfD, MfD, or DRV I have ever started on the English-language Misplaced Pages. The very fact that so many people, including a number of established admins, back me up or share my party in such polls ought to teach you better. You are defiling your very own status with such a blatant assumption of bad faith even towards your own admin peers. I therefore demand an apology. --TlatoSMD (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse The nomination reads to me like an attempt to refight the AFD and prevuious DRVs on this article and misses the point of the MFD. The community has already decided they do not want this article in main space right now so there is no prospect of any userfied article being moved back. Therefore, keeping the thing on a user pace is outwith policy. We are only be reviewing the MFD here & I can see no other outcome from the discussion with consensus measured against policy then deletion. Spartaz 10:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The nominator was just issued a 12-hour block. Hopefully it'll give him time to cool down a bit, as he was visibly upset and didn't really mean what he said. Can we at least wait for him to come back? I wouldn't say that the deletion was clearly out of process, but the closing rationale is a bit lacking, isn't it. That was yet another contentious debate, and a closing rationale showing that the closing admin has indeed weighed all arguments fairly would have been appreciated. Bikasuishin (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Youth Offending Team/Glossary

Youth Offending Team/Glossary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_GLOSSARY_NOT_A_DICTIONARY 4 commentators stated it was a dictionary whilst entries were at the 'A' section, and before B and subsequent sections were added. 1 user stated 'Inappropriate' because she had already deleted 2 articles on 31st January on the (incorrect) assumption of copyright violation. I accepted that 1 article (A Manual) was better suited to Wikia. The Glossary was reinstated with positive help from RHawaorth, but without support from Deb, who appeared unwilling to read the revised version and also proceeded to delete Feb 8th additions, whilst claiming not to know the reason for deletion, when asked for clarification as to why those additions were not shown. Despite spending inordinate amounts of time responding to Deb's post hoc reasons for 31st Jan deletions, I was accused of wasting her time, when all that was required was cessation of harrassment of a newbie, in favour of the help and goodwill offered by others ie RHaworth, JimfBleak and SGGH }} SJB (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

'Comments

  • Please clarify the 'misuse of subpages', thanks.
  • Wiki's definition of Glossary - A glossary is a list of terms in a particular domain of knowledge with the definitions for those terms. In this case the domain is Youth/Juvenile Offending, hence the subpage article.
  • As stated above, I have a page on Wikia for the Manual. Could the deleted Glossary be transferred over to that space please ?--SJB (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)