Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maelwys (talk | contribs) at 17:01, 28 February 2007 (→This is vandalism: what article?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ed Poor barnstar

From the DRV page P.S. I've awarded Yanksox an Ed Poor barnstar.--Docg 14:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems unfortunately appropriate. To quote User:Ed Poor:

--AnonEMouse 20:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't really compare this to Ed Poor's actions. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

!!!!! If we had icons I would be lol. The difference of course being that Uncle Ed is one of wikipedia's most loved editors, SqueakBox 20:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And his abuse included desysopping admins Geni, 172, Phil Sandifer and Chris 73. Substantially worse than Yanksox I think. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I was a bit amused to see him speediliy delete VFD. Hbdragon88 01:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Content vs. Google Cache

We've already had one content review request because the article is deleted. Rather than have it repeat, or have further restores/deletions related to the wheel war, I'll post here my answer to that request. 00:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the Google cache version: . The differences I find between that and the last version are: 1) Adds the following text on why his sites are blacklisted on Misplaced Pages in the "Political activism" section:

On October 10, 2006, the NameBase site was blacklisted as spam by the Wikimedia Foundation, preventing linkage to Brandt's non-commercial, research-oriented index pages from within Misplaced Pages articles, and causing existing hyperlinks to be deactivated. The administrators cite redirects from Brandt's site to the Misplaced Pages Review site as the reason behind the blockage. As of early 2007, the redirects are no longer operative, but the blocks are maintained as a hedge to concerns that they might be reinstated.

2) Adds three sub-section headings within "Political activism" 3) The additional citation within that new paragraph is to this diff on meta.wikimedia.org. GRBerry 17:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm

Looks like the overturns are starting to dominate now. So much for WP:SNOW, which along with WP:IAR should be cast into the dustbin of history. - Merzbow 01:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

By my rough count, we're at 62 Endorse, 67 Overturn. There is nothing approaching consensus, and I doubt that there will be. And from what I understand no consensus will mean it stays deleted.--Dycedarg ж 06:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Not all the overturns translate into "keep". Some of the people (me included) are overturning the decision simply because it was grossly out of process, and the out-of-process-ness spawned an ugly wheel war. Looking at the comments again, it's entirely possible that this will be re-listed at AfD (13th time is a charm...?) and burned at the stake there. Unless, of course, the inclusionists come and save poor Daniel's life again. PTO 06:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A no consensus result on a speedy deletion should not default to keeping it deleted. That gives far too much power to people with hairtriggers. -Amarkov moo! 06:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It makes some sense for such to do so when there has been a clear prior process. That's clearly not the case here. Gothnic 06:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral process-related and edit-conflicted comment Actually, DRV requires there to be a consensus to overturn a deletion or debate result (hence "deletion review"). If there's no consensus, the result is usually to revert to the status quo, but there's no prejudice to another filing within a reasonable amount of time. The problem is with the manner of how the status quo came to be, but that's for the RFAR and/or the closer to decide, and I'm not getting involved with that. --Coredesat 06:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

To quote regular DRV-closer trialsanderrors, "The established precedent is that speedy deletions of an article after a keep consensus are considered de-facto challenges to the consensus, so the prior consensus is either upheld or overturned based on the response at DRV. The standard for overturning a previous keep decision and deleting the article outright usually requires near-unanimity." I'd add that the overall purpose of DRV is to determine whether the need for debate has been exhausted. Kla'quot 07:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The consensus was keep, numerous times, prior to the out-of-process IAR deletion. Therefore, in this particular DRV, any result not approaching unanimity to keep deleted should be seen as not being sufficient to overturn prior consensus. - Merzbow 07:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. That's what happens when you don't close enough speedy deletion DRVs. --Coredesat 07:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If there are only a few opinions, we'll relist hoping for more opinions to establish consensus. (There are a few such on DRV right now - could you go help determine what to do with them.) While not relevant to this case, I add the following for completeness sake: no consensus at deletion review when reviewing a deletion discussion close defaults to leaving that close untouched. GRBerry 18:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of this makes me really sad

Quoting from above: "Some of the people (me included) are overturning the decision simply because it was grossly out of process".

Wow. What a waste of resources. Big controversies are harmful to our community: they make enemies out of friends and they drive people into entrenched positions from which they can not adapt to change. Because people who take the time to really consider something don't wish to waste the time making the same argument over and over again prolonged arguments drive control away from people who are issuing carefully considered neutral judgments and into the hands of people who are just mindlessly pushing their party line.

Sure, be upset that someone broke process.. complain, call for his head, etc... But forcing us through yet another debate to simply make a point is like cutting yourself because your parents won't let you have the keys to the car. It's not just disruptive, it is unhealthy, and self defeating. --Gmaxwell 08:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

But discussing the process is the purpose of DRV, isn't it?. If that is not the case here, then it should be explicitly stated that this discussion is not about process, but an AfD in disguise. It is great that people are taking great pains to argue this, but they should do it at a place where it is not appropriate for others to nullify their arguments with a single technicality. Pomte 08:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point of my statement. Take a step back for a moment: There is discussion happening. Obstructing it simply so that it can later be moved someplace else will prolong and increase the harm caused to everyone involved. It doesn't matter if the discussion is happening here, or on the village pump, or on Talk:Main_page, or on the mailing list... it's happening, and some people are choosing to make things worse because of they think process demands that they do so. However, I can promise you that if ever you see a policy effectively telling the community it must cut itself, the policy is inaccurate and should be either ignored or amended. Misplaced Pages is not a suicide pact. --Gmaxwell 09:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. SlimVirgin

There is a difference between discussion at DRV and at AFD. At DRV, "no consensus" means keep deleted. At AFD, "no consensus" means keep. As such, people may quite reasonably have preferences over the venue quite apart from their personal opinion on the best resolution. In this case, process really does matter. I'm pleased the debate is here at DRV, because I want this poison gone. But, I'm under no illusion as to why people wheel-warred about where to have the debate ... they're trying to affect the practical outcome. So, let's not pretend this isn't a blatant power-play, because it is. Derex 09:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I recently questioned a deletion review that had no consensus but was returned to AfD rather than kept deleted, and I was told the policy had changed, and that no consensus no longer meant that it should stay deleted. Did I misunderstand that? SlimVirgin 19:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, GRBerry says in the section above that 'no consensus' leaves a close unchanged. However, the link GRBerry posts in the section below says that a 'qualified majority' takes it back to AFD. I assume that's the real policy. So, by listing it here first the de facto standard becomes a 'simple majority' for delete. An original AFD listing would have required the much stronger, standard of 'consensus' for delete. In effect, Yanksox managed to dramatically change the deletion standard with his speedy by making DRV the venue, given that many people are 'voting' here on merits rather than on process. Derex 20:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

...Which is precisely what they should be doing. Process is useless in situations like this, that is, where it obstructs progress. Picaroon 20:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That explains what I've always though about deletion reviews, Gmaxwell. Instead of pushing things away towards another forum or postponing them for another time, we need to have the discussion that needs to be had when it comes up, which happens to be right here and now. Picaroon 20:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As so many have observed, many of the people arguing to Overturn the out-of-process decision, not necessarily to Keep the article. It's a different question. Also don't worry about waste of resources, those who don't want to participate in the subsequent AFD don't have to, and those who do won't necessarily be taking that time out of editing valuable articles. And don't worry about "party lines", this isn't Kelly Martin vs Geogre, there are no "parties" here. "I am a member of no organized party. I am a Democrat." -- Will Rogers. --AnonEMouse 20:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure there are party lines, just not exactly the same people. The party lines are as always "result before process AKA whatever it takes as long as I like the result" vs. "transparency breeds quality AKA process-wonkery". Zocky | picture popups 15:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. I'm often a "result before process" mouse meself, but in this case the result is days of disruption involving hundreds of good editors, a wheelwar of ten administrators, three desysoppings, an arbcom proceeding, and while it does seem likely the article will get its AFD, it's not at all clear whether it will be kept there. Just a drop or two of process could have gone a long way. :-( --AnonEMouse 15:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly the point of the other side - not following process causes bad results more often than following process. Nobody would be willing to invest the extra time and energy into transparent process if they didn't think it's worth it. Zocky | picture popups 15:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is vandalism

Frankly, anyone voting 'I agree this article should be deleted - but restore it because of an 'out of process' deletion" ought to be ashamed of themselves. It is utterly disgraceful. You agree that the article is inappropriate for Misplaced Pages, yet you want an inappropriate article restored in order to make some point to admins about process? That's frankly disruption. Knowingly and wilfully inserting inappropriate material into Misplaced Pages, is the definition of vandalism. We block vandals. You wish Misplaced Pages's content to be compromised by the inclusion of an inappropriate article. Don't disrupt wikipedia to prove a point. Not even a good point. Slap Yanksox, call for his desysopping, but the integrity of wikipedia's content MUST take priority in ALL debates. If that is not primary in DRV, then DRV should be deleted quickly for vandalising Misplaced Pages.--Doc 15:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So you would prefer they vote 'Yanksox did the right thing but punish him for it'?

Instead they are writing 'I, personally, currently, think this should be deleted, but believe that I can convince the community of this in an AFD, or maybe even be convinced, otherwise.' That seems a far more measured opinion than the histrionics stated by many. For goodness sakes, other than this debate, what has happened that made this matter urgent enough to deserve such disruption? The article was around for 2 years, surely 5 or even 12 more days isn't going to make or break the Misplaced Pages. --AnonEMouse 16:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No. If you believe this article is inappropriate content for wikipedia - don't ask for the restoration of inappropriate content. It is really that simple.--Doc 16:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am going to quote WP:PI, because it says what I want to say in better words:

Sometimes a process can be a pain in the neck. Some processes demand that editors go through several steps to achieve a result. Some can be cumbersome or time-consuming. Some do not deal with particular situations as rapidly as a person might wish. Sometimes going through the process seems unlikely to give the result that a person desires. In all these cases, there is a temptation, sometimes a strong temptation, to act unilaterally, to simply "fix" the problem as one sees it. Often this is technically possible on Misplaced Pages. Sometimes many people will support it.The problem with yielding to this temptation is that it damages the overall structure of Misplaced Pages. It throws sand in the gears of the project. When people see others acting outside of process, they may be convinced that they ought to do the same; or they may be convinced that their individual voices and views will get no respect or consideration. If everyone acts outside of process, there is no process, no organization to our efforts. Then we do not have a collaborative project; we have chaos. The primary goal of Misplaced Pages is to write an encyclopedia, and any process is only a means to that end. Even the community of Wikipedians, important as it is to some, is only a means to that end. Often following a process takes more time and effort in a particular case than acting unilaterally. Sometimes following a process will give a poorer result in a particular case. But fairly often acting outside of process causes strong and widespread dissatisfaction, which consumes far more time and effort than any saved by avoiding the process in the first place.

PTO 16:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Good process can be useful. But it is not important for its own sake. Any process what has people calling for the re-insertion of material they believe to be inappropriate is seriously fucked.--Doc 16:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Any solution that calls for ticking off long term, valuable members of the community just to save a little time is seriously fucked. There is no deadline applies just as much to removing articles as it does to creating them, unless WP:CSD#G10 applies. While our most valuable resource is editorial time, we lose more editorial time by losing a valuable redular contributor than by holding a hundred AFD discussions. GRBerry 16:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Wrong. There is never a deadline to restore articles, however bad articles can damage the encyclopedia, particularly ones on biographies of living persons. We don't restore crap to keep editors happy. We don't play with biographies like that. I've no quarrel with those who feel this article belongs on wikipedia (although I disagree), but replacing biographies on living people, if you agree that they are inappropriate, in order to satisfy in-house processes, wiki-laws and petty power-games about IAR, is myopic and morally offensive. We are building an encyclopedia and we have responsibilities that are greater than process adiction. This is shameful - unethical - and hypocritical. Frankly, there is more than once way to lose good editors. --Doc 16:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd hate to lose you, Doc, but we can't run an encyclopedia solely governed by threats of leaving. Let's get back to constructive discussion. Just curious, which parts of the article do you believe violate Misplaced Pages: Biographies of living people? --AnonEMouse 16:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Doc, have you noticed yet that there is a difference between, "I believe this material is inappropriate" and "I know this material is inappropriate?" Kla'quot 17:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But how are we supposed to decide the merit of an article, and whether or not it should be kept, if the article has already been deleted so that only admins can see it? That article was deleted and restored so many times during the DRV that half the people on there had no choice BUT to vote on process, because there was no article to see. Now that it's restored, and we can actually read it, then it's possible to talk about whether or not it's appropriate for Misplaced Pages, but the DRV wasn't the appropriate time to have that conversation. Unless of course you intend that DRV discussions should be "admins only" and leave out the rest of us? --Maelwys 17:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Policy governing the close

People are having questions over the policy governing the close. I refer everyone to Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy#Restoring the page (for admins). We already have (at least) an order of magnitude more opinions than the typical deletion review gets, so this is unlikely to be relisted at deletion review in order to run 10 days here. GRBerry 14:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

my comment...

Was that the right way to do it? I just blew away my original bit with google searches and replaced it with the list of sources to show it's keepable/not speedy criteria meeting. Let me know if I need to edit it further, please. thanks. - Denny 23:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is on first

We have a place to discuss article deletions; but instead of discussing this deletion there, the article was deleted and discussions were closed preventing an open discussion on the merits of deletion. So now discussions are being held where the process of deletion discussion is supposed to be held so the comments range from we don't need no stinkin' discussion to IAR to invalid process to BLP to noteability to he'll leave us alone to no he won't instead of either a discussion of the merits of deletion or a discussion of the merits of the process. What a mess. And of course the rules for closing the !vote are different for the delete forum versus the process forum so holding the right debate in the right forum counts. Since both issues (delete or not; and is the process valid or not) were discussed in both forums everyside wins and we both keep the article and delete it. Several times per day apparently. What a mess. WAS 4.250 01:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hilarious! Kla'quot 04:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well good luck to whoever has to make the decision tomorrow as to what to do next, SqueakBox 04:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

When to close?

It looks like the posting of the signpost article is bringing another wave of contributors to the discussion. This review would normally have had a five day run and be ready to close less than 24 hours from now. If people have strong opinions about whether to let this run longer so that those learning about it from the Signpost can contribute, please post them here. GRBerry 16:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't want this to be a consensus decision on when to close the DRV, just an opportunity for those with strong opinions to voice them with reasoning. Trying to take the time for a consensus decision would foreclose any possibility of closing at the typical time. GRBerry 16:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I would advise letting it run for another 72 hours (i.e. until 08:25 UTC, 30 February 2007) to give the people who've seen the signpost article time to comment on it. The total time elapsed would thus be almost exactly one week. -- ChrisO 16:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

30 February? Please no, it'll run for ever. But I do support 8.25 UTC on March 2nd, SqueakBox 17:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks for the correction... <takes coat and exits hastily> -- ChrisO 17:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Let it run until people get tired of making comments or !votes on the page. Drain this swamp of its passion. Let people have their say. Let's actually let people talk without telling them to shut up. Or maybe you'd rather people go to the arbcom case pages and comment on the validity of the article there instead? (and be told it is not relevant to the case) Isn't one of the problems here that anytime a deletion discussion on this article gets started it gets shut down? For once, let it run its course. Do we have a rule against encouraging discussion until consensus is found? Think about it. WAS 4.250 19:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be good to fix a date and time even if that is the full 10 days or whatever. I think the other important question is who closes it. It clearly will be a controversial decision whatever it is so it needs to be a trusted community member, SqueakBox 19:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe a few of the regular DRV closers are planning to make a combined decision. Trebor 19:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Who closes

Since it has been asked. I and User:Doug Bell are the current regular closers of deletion review. I've asked a few times if anyone thought we were too biased to close; once on WP:ANI and once on a talk page of the ArbComm case. So far, I've heard no such feedback. We've also had User:Xoloz learn the new templates for closing, in case he is needed. Our current plan is that Doug and I will do a joint close, and if we don't both read the discussion the same way, we'll call in Xoloz to help us decide. (If we don't need him, we'll leave him clean in case this comes back soon.) User:Trialsanderrors is another past regular DRV closer that (I think) hasn't participated in the review, but since he said he was departing DRV due to a lack of time, I'm not expecting him to jump at this one. In theory, any admin that hasn't participated in the discussion (or gotten involved in the ArbComm case) could close the discussion once the five days are up, even if others have plans to do it at a specific time. In practice; I'd be surprised if an admin with no prior interest in deletion review jumped to close this tar baby, and I think almost all the other regulars at deletion review have opined in this review. If Doug and I do it, we'll do it at a time we both can discuss it.

We'll slap notes saying in effect "joint closing in progress, further opinions will be read, please offer further opinions below this line/at the bottom" at the top and bottom of the discussion while we sort it out. We don't live in the same timezone (and have lives), so it may take a few hours to close. I spent about five hours closing the last really contentious DRV that I closed; see the review hereof an article on a harassment case. There part of the difficulty was that the standard action would be effectively contributing to a speedy delete-DRV overturn-AFD keep cycle that was on its second trip around the cycle, and we needed to find a way off that cycle. Here the difficulty is a lot more opinions to evaluate; plus coordinating a joint close. I'd hope we can close it faster than that, but outside a particular couple hours a day I can't devote my undivided attention to Misplaced Pages.

If anyone thinks one or more of us are too biased to be the closers, please let us know beforehand. I'd rather bow out gracefully than be slammed after the fact for being biased, and I suspect most others would also. If any other admin was planning on closing this or wants to join the joint close, please let us know. GRBerry 20:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like arbcom to play some kind of role in the choices involved in closing this tar-baby. WAS 4.250 20:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

They usually stay out of content/policy disputes and limit themselves to user conduct disputes. But sometimes things are blurred. The ArbComm case is at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war. There has already been one request on one of the talk pages for their involvement, feel free to raise the question again. The case is moving a lot faster than the typical case, at least IMO. I can promise to read all of it again before closing. They've just recently started work on the proposed decisions page; with 15 arbitrators active (none recused) it will take eight in agreement to pass a particular point, plus the process of closing the case. So far only three have opined. Proposed principles 1, 2, 3, and 3.1 (alternative to 3) would appear to be relevant. Feel free to highlight any other items on the proposed decision page that you think would apply. GRBerry 20:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone (I don't remember who) once brought up the possibility of what happens when two tar-babies get into a fight. I don't know what exactly the analogy would be here, maybe if somehow the Brian Peppers dispute got connected to Brandt somehow? JoshuaZ 21:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

For better or worse I don't think it was a coincidence that Daniel Brandt got speedied soon after all the Brian Peppers nonsense. IronGargoyle 22:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be willing to close. I have not weighed in on the matter at all and really have no strong feelings, nor have I made any comment (other to compliment Messedrocker on solution II and his continued attempts to find common ground on divsive issues... even if it didn't catch on). IronGargoyle 21:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I was originally going to say I'd do it, but alas I decided to !vote on the drv, so I'm out. I can try and look for a well-respected user who hasn't touched the debate at all, but that may end up being suspicious... hmm...--Wizardman 22:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Note to all: While any help and extra bodies to serve as shields in any food fight that may follow the closing is appreciated, getting too much help is going to make the logistics more difficult. I don't think that we need to actively start recruiting people, but I do think that disclosing up front who will be involved in the closing is a good idea. —Doug Bell  22:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No Consensus - A Question

If this vote ends up being no consensus (and I do think that's about to happen) will the article be relisted or will it stay deleted? Indiawilliams 22:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, let's not prejudice the outcome just yet.  :-) Seriously though, I doubt we're going to just slap a "no consensus" on this. I'm just speaking for myself, but I think we'll need to determine what should be done in an affirmative manner rather than letting the outcome default to some result. Any other approach is a disservice to the people that have been involved and who have commented here. —Doug Bell  22:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

DRV normally finds a basis for decision with narrower opinion balances than other forums. Some closers even consider a 3:2 (clarify: not a ratio, 3:2 with 5 total opiners) division of relevant opinion from qualified editors enough basis to close one way or the other. Part of this is because the typical review gets 10 or fewer total opiners. This obviously has far more opiners. See Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy#Restoring the page (for admins), Misplaced Pages talk:Undeletion policy#Switch to consensus, plus discussion on this page in Misplaced Pages talk:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt#Hmm. GRBerry 22:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC) (slightly clarified) GRBerry 23:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've done a quick'n'dirty tally which indicates that overturns are significantly leading deletes - I'd say it was about a 60:40 ratio at the moment. Though of course we shouldn't get into the habit of thinking that this is a straight headcount, it's also worth noting that even the deletionists aren't disputing that the deletion was seriously out of process, which of course is the central question that DRV is supposed to answer. -- ChrisO 23:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there was absolutely no reason to have this debate if it's only to determine whether process was followed. It's prima facia a serious breach of process to speedy something that has survived a ten AFD's. I doubt anyone at all has defended the process here. Derex 23:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Approx. 104-70 at the moment. - Denny 23:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If it was deleted so blatantly out-of-process, why is it in DRV at all? Why doesn't it just get relisted at AfD? --Milo H Minderbinder 23:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. I just know I found 44+ sources either about or citing the guy before I gave up and could have found probably another half as many again. I got tired of copy/pasting. All the fighting does seem silly. I guess it'll just go to afd, one last hurrah, then he stays if he's notable or goes if he ain't... I don't care either way, I just put out the links and my opinion... - Denny 23:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Good question but it hasnt and so the only real question is "what next?" and how will people deal with what happens next. Hopefully Jimbo's reaction to last week's events will ensure that we all remain calm and civil and dont engae in warring whatever the outcome, SqueakBox 23:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is also worth noting that only about 25% of the 100+ for overturning are advocating the article also being sent to AfD. IronGargoyle 03:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have asked Yanksox at User talk:Yanksox to formally agree to the restoration of the article, which in theory should lead to a quick DRV close. Since Yanksox appears to be offline, DRV closers may also consdier whether this counts as an agreement to restore: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Yanksox Kla'quot 01:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Better to let this run, let emotions calm down, than to act on anything with a shred of doubt. Yanksox isn't an admin right now, and can't undo his own action. Lets not push the envelope on this one, people are upset. GRBerry 03:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. I see Yanksox is back online but declined to comment on this anyway. Kla'quot 03:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather let the community sort it out. I can't stress how much I believed the deletion was justified, but not the methood I took. Yanksox 04:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

100 club

I found that 100 club, this situation just qualified this evening. About 170 total opinions. - Denny 23:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Closed

As I said above, any uninvolved admin could close this even though others were planning on doing it later. That has happened. While I hadn't reviewed the discussion in as much detail as required to close it, the full close description fits with my general sense of how the discussion was going. The unusual step in the close is the decision to defer the AFD listing for a week. While I think that is a good idea, I'm not sure I'd have been bold enough to do it myself. But at there wasn't as much of a wave coming from the signpost as I initially thought, I'll express full support for the decision to close and for the closure that has actually happened. GRBerry 14:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Week's delay before relisting at AfD

Although I think the reasoning behind the close is generally right, I find the postponement of the AfD unnecessary and counterproductive. It should be noted that those who ultimately think this article should be deleted include not only the endorsers but also some of those who sought to overturn the decision on procedural grounds. The article now cannot be deleted until 12 days have elapsed at the earliest: 7 days + 5 days at AfD. The controversial material will therefore exist undeleted for longer. And this debate that has been highly devisive to the Community will be prolonged.

Given the novel nature of this close it raises the question as to whether this condition is actually effective. Is the decision of the admin who closes a DRV as to a time for relisitng in fact binding on other editors? WjBscribe 14:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think he didn't really have another choice, the AfD relisting HAD to be delayed if it was going to be done properly. If he outright deleted there would be protests, if he outright kept there would be protests, if he immediately put it on AfD then it would've just been a rehashing of the DRV. This gives time to really see one's viewpoint and to find the best argument possible. No excuses for using WP:IDONTLIKEIT now, you got time to apply policy, and apply it well one way of the other.--Wizardman 15:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not aware of any precedent for a delayed AFD, so obviously no precedent on whether or not it is binding. But given that we've already got an Arb-comm case involving wheel warring and edit warring related to the deletion of this article, I can't recommend anyone would choose to override that aspect of the decision.

A more relevant question is whether the delay is a good idea. In contentious cases, creativity is often a good idea, as it finds options that people can compromise on. Giving time for such creative proposals to be aired and thought about is a good thing. Even if everyone forgets the creative idea(s) offered in the deletion review, and no more come forth, this is probably a good idea.

Will we have a better AFD discussion if we wait a week than if we do it now? People are emotional, so more time will help them calm down and move on to other concerns. The ArbComm case will get closer to closing, so that we'll have a better sense of their thinking (and yes, some of their proposed findings would be relevant to the AFD. I see good reasons for waiting, I don't see any strong arguments for doing it right away. The lack of any recent AFD started by an editor in good standing is a fairly strong argument that it isn't urgent to have the article deleted. GRBerry 15:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Arb case is moving along towards closure already. It could easily be closed in another two or three days, although if something comes up that could be delayed. This is almost as fast as the Pedo wheel war case which closed in about 6 days. NoSeptember 15:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The "controversial" material had existed for quite a while before this started, so another couple of weeks doesn't make much difference (anything which people feel strongly violates WP:BLP can be removed at anytime, of course). I think the delay will probably help. The debate will be put on hold for a week, giving people a chance to cool-off, and hopefully a more objective debate can occur. Trebor 16:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)