Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 11

message: I attempted to add an argument for the undeletion nomination for the HD-DVD AASC code, but Wikipedia's spam filter blocked me from editing, citing the header as a blacklisted number. I'm going to assume that whoever added the numbers to the filter did not realize the discussion would be affected. Please fix? Zeality 06:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HD-DVD Note

message: *Moved to Wikipedia:Deletion review where it will receive more attention. >Radiant< 09:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi]]

message: *I find myself in general agreement with Jeff. DRV was creatred explicitly to be a reveiwd of procedural error -- I had a had in thsoe debates, so i know -- and it still claims to serve that function in its heading. But many of the instances Jeff poitns out are cases whre there clearly was procedural error, but DRV didn't act on it because of judgment by some editors about the content. This is, IMO, a problem. DES (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Do you think it's more beneficial for deletion review to focus on process rather than product?  I see it as more valuable as a sanity check on AFD decisions than a "let's make sure the right forms were filled out" check.  Friday (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Usually, if it gets to this point, it's one and the same.  It's more beneficial to make sure we made the right decision than to assume the right decision was made, and when we're not on the same page on what our intent is, there's no way to figure that out.  This isn't the forum to figure out whether the right product is resultant, though - that's for AfD or CSD to decide.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *If it doesn't exist to determine the right outcome then it should never change the outcome. Sure have your trial against those who you think didn't follow the nomic rules well enough, but don't push wrong results onto the project because you've found some personal fault in the person who made the prior changes. --Gmaxwell 20:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *But that's exactly what we're trying to prevent - the wrong result.  Yes, there are a number of problematic editors outside of the DRV issue, but it doesn't change the fact that the structure of DRV in practice a) doesn't reflect what DRV is intended to be, and b) doesn't cause the proper results. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *(ec) If the purpose of DRV is not purely as a procedural check, but as a reality check and a further discussion of the merits of the deleted article, then perhaps the text of the project page should change to reflect that reality.  I would also note that talking about "the wrong result" without addressing the fact that we're using different definitions of "wrong" is unlikely to be helpful. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *But if that occurs, we lose a vital forum for appeals, and it becomes a secondary AfD.  We don't want that, either, right? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm not sure I know what we want, but I don't think we want a disparity between what the page is for, and what it claims to be for.  Which of the two needs to change is an open question, I suppose. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well i for oen think that the purpose section now has it about right, and the problem is that people aren't adhering to it. I explain why at soemlength below DES (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *I agree on the disparity issue - it's a drum I've been pounding for a few months now, which is why I did this research.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thank you for doing it. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Jeff, could you provide some examples of endorsed deletions that should have been kept?  Not just sent to AfD, but actually kept. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'd point you to the page I linked in my original comment, I have detailed information in there.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I read that, although I stopped when I got to Brian Peppers in popular culture.  I simply could not find one instance where the discussion established that the article should have been (although I could not read the original articles).  The one on Dean Roberts (criminal) came the closest. (BTW, [[Melissa Scott (pastor) now redirects to Eugene Scott.) ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break

message: *It is my view that the proper process, the "forms being filled out" as Friday puts it, actually help ensure that the right result is reached for the project. For example, there is a review on the page now where the page being discussed in an AfD was never tagged with a deletion notice -- no one who edited that page would have known that it was being proposed for deletion, unless s/he happened to search the AFD subpages for it routinely. And that this did prevent interested editors from finding the discussion is shown by the fact that none of the editors who had commented on the previous AfD (which resulted in a Keep) commented on the more recent one. How could any AfD discussion under those circumstances be a valid way to measure or generate a consensus? AfD is not supposed to be a star chamber or walled garden. Yet a number of editors expressed the view that this didn't matter, with such comments as "valid AFD, bureaucratic arguments don't cut it." and "valid or not, due to it having a snowball's chance overturning the Afd is a waste of everyone's time." Is it really a mere bureaucratic detail to inform untested editors of a discussion? Is it so very clear that something tat was kept at a previous AfD doesn't have a snowball's chance now? Similarly, in a number of cases speedies that concededly are beyond the bounds of the speedy criteria are endorsed because people think they wouldn't survive AfD, or shouldn't. But the speedy criteria are quite narrow for a good reason. No article (or page) should be deleted with only one or two sets of eyes on it except in fairly narrow circumstances, and part of what people trust the admins to do is to follow consensus, including the consensus that stuff is not to be deleted without discussion except under very clear and narrow circumstances. If invalid speedies are routinely endorsed here, than more admins will make them, and simply by the law of averages, more poor deletion decisions will be made, because admins are human. Unless people start to patrol the delete logs instead of AfD, and routinely review every speedy, which would be a far greater burden than taking such things to Prod or AfD in the first place. If stuff that doesn't fit a CSD really doesn't have a snowball's chance, why not use Prod? What's the rush? And if people aren't reminded to use speedy only where it should be used, the speedy criteria will become a dead letter, and the rule will be "anything that any admin thinks should be deleted will be" That is not operating on consensus. Furthermore, following the proper process, and correcting procedural mistakes when they occur, improves transparency greatly. Those editors who do want an article that shouldn't in fact be hare can see why, and any future admin has an AfD debate to point to if the article is recreated. Similar arguments apply to other purely procedural issues that come up, but are not always attended to, her. DES (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second section break

message: I'm establishing a rebuttal to the notion that DRV is somehow horribly broken, at User:FCYTravis/DRV is not broken. FCYTravis 01:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you prefer me to discuss them inline there? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to wait until I was done, but GTBacchus broke the ice, so go for it. FCYTravis 03:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry if that was premature... you're welcome to remove my comment and finish, if you prefer. :/ -GTBacchus(talk) 04:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, don't worry about it. The ball's rolling now :) FCYTravis 05:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did this discussion go? I was curious as to how it evolved. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He chose to delete it, once some bad blood resurfaced and it was clear we're on opposite ends on this.  His userspace, his choice. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's too bad. I hope we find a way through this that doesn't make or keep lifelong enemies. I didn't come here to find enemies. :) --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DRV is not broken 

message: Given that there is a problem what do we do?  In the meantime, can the closers actually close these using consensus parameters instead of vote counts?  That might start the ball rolling a bit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is, also, the need to make sure that editors feel they're getting a fair shake on these.  If we're seeing "IAR deletions," (and while I have ill will toward IAR, this would be the case regardless), and we're simply allowing a pile-on when someone challenges them in good faith, it really hurts the project on a personell standpoint, especially given that an IAR deletion requires one to say "standing community consensus doesn't matter."  We need to be able to deal with those properly if we're going to consider them acceptable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: So how do we fix this?

message: Please see Wikipedia:Categories are different from articles. -- Kendrick7talk 20:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Soliciting [[WP:Essays|WP:Essay]] feedback

message: Okay, so now that we're aware of the problems, I propose the following changes.  some are not changes - we often do this already.  But we need to add protections into the language here to better our chances of getting it right:
# In reviews of speedy deletions that are obviously improper, and are not for reasons of protecting the project (i.e., copyright violations, slander/libel, legal liability, etc.), the articles should be restored upon notice, and dealt with through the proper channels.  The actual content should not be at issue during these reviews.
# In reviews of speedy deletions that are not obviously improper, or deal with issues that were good faith out-of-process deletions that do not fall under the previous reason, the reviews should last for at least five days and have a clear consensus to uphold the deletion, or it should be undeleted.  The actual content may be at issue during these reviews.
# In reviews of XfD processes, the review should last for at least five days and have a clear consensus to overturn the decision of the closing administrator.
Obviously, the language should be cleaned up, but it half reflects current practice (which, while improper at the moment, probably works better), and half better reflects the ideals of consensus that everything else on this project uses, and better reflects the intent of deletion review.  Thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using our heads 

message: The article Qian Zhijun was listed at AfD after being on here with a fairly contentious discussion which was closed with the decision to undeleted and list of AfD. The afd was then closed as a delete less than one hour after it was opened, this completely ignoring the decision reached here (I'm not sure I can call it a true consensus, given the degree of contention). IMO this was completely inappropriate. A discussion here resulted in a decision to list on AfD in an attempt to achieve consensus, and the discussion was reclosed without there being enough time for even those who were known to be interested to express a view, much less for consensus to emerge. I am appalled. I call for this to be overturned and not relisted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun (second nomination). After I posted this to today's DRV log, the posting was [removed], the removal was reverted and the discussion was then marked closed. i think that it is imprroper for soemone who was involved in the debate of this article to close the AFD page so very early, and it was and is improper to attempt to prevent discussion of this closure on the  Deletion review page. Serious complaints by established editors are not generally closed here in this kind of way, nor should they be. If process doasn't matter, why should anyone refrain from wheel-warring? DES (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ingnoring recent DRV decision 

message: I'm specifically looking at this case - which looks like a slam-dunk reversal of the speedy, particularly in view of the admin's non-response to a challenge, I'd like to propose the following:
::In the case of speedy deletions, where the deleting admin is asked for an explanation (by a talkpage note) and does not respond within 48 hours, any admin who believes the content has validity may simply undelete it. Any type of response by the deleting admin should mean a DRV is required (however invalid it may appear in somone's opinion) as we don't want wheel wars, and items should only be undeleted under this provision if the undeleting admin sees validity in the actual content. This isn't to be used for process wonking.
My aim is to eliminate reviews of deletions where no-one is likely to turn up to defend. DRV like AfD should be for cases of disputed decisions - not slam-dunks. If the deleting admin turns up later with a good reason - then it can go to AfD. The same basis prod works on.--Docg 21:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This might work fine, but why? We needed PROD because AfD was getting too backlogged. There isn't any such situation here at DRV, and I stand by my philosophy that discussion is inherently better than non-discussion. -Amarkov moo! 22:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if there is actually something to discuss. But looking at the 'debate' I cited - this is effectively what's happening - stuff if getting immediately undeleted. So it is probably defacto. Forget it.--Docg 22:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I thought that any admin not mere could, but in general ought to, agree to a good faith undelete of a speedy for improvement. If it goes to DRV it usually means someone is either being really stubborn, which is usually wrong because speedies should be for obvious rejects, & a rapid undelete and close is appropriate,  or someone is trying to force us to follow every step when they know damn well its absurd, and then perhaps a rapid DRV close makes sense. DGG 06:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prod in reverse? 

message: This is getting bloody ridiculous. I've no view on the content - but we're getting DRVs twice a week and it is becoming disruptive. If everyone sane agrees that this has been given a fair crack of the whip, I propose a six month moratorium, during which we simply remove any appeals as trolling. How does that sound? (If it hasn't had a fair discussion - then let's have one more - and then a moratorium.)--Docg 15:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should ahve one fair assessment (as a lot has changed since the last AfD/DRV), and if it's not successful, we can move on without people complaining that their voices aren't ebing heard.  Why squelch discussion unnecessarily? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it wouldn't hurt, and might help, to let the article have another AfD, considering that new sources have appeared.  An AfD can decide whether we can write an encyclopedic article, and if not, then we've got that AfD to point to. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur.  Radiant believes that consensus hasn't changed, but I think it's only fair to run a full DRV or AfD for the benefit of those of us who haven't caught up with Radiant yet.  Once we've given the sources proper consideration, I'll happily support a moratorium on further DRVs if the sources are found to be insufficient. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded.  If a new DRV has a consensus (i.e., not a headcount) that the new sources don't constitute anything, I'm all for a moratoriam.  But not before. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Do you believe that the previous DRV(s) were decided on headcount rather than consensus? >Radiant< 13:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, nearly all of them are. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's NOT trolling to repeatedly discuss something IF NEW EVIDENCE COMES TO LIGHT, which it did here! Besides, that Chinese gas station guy deserves an entry, as he is notable enough. Let people discuss him, or The Game game as often as they like. Do we really want to go to arbitration over this?? No! So the answer is just allow discussion of it. --Flexwick32 09:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Game (game) 

message: This article was speedy deleted as non-notable.  The deletion was upheld at DRV (WP:DRV#16 May 2007) but the article got recreated again anyway, with no further claims of notability and no further references.  I placed a db-recreated tag on it but User:Aecis removed it claiming that since it had never gone through AfD, db-recreated was not appropriate.  Then why should we ever have a DRV review on a speedy deletion, if all I have to do is recreate the article, even if it's identical to what it was before, and force the discussion to go to AfD?  Corvus cornix
:If there hasn't been substantial change in the article, whatever speedy criterion applied the first time would generally still apply. The only time this type of re-creation would survive is if it was a borderline speedy and the second reviewing administrator disagreed with the first, in which case the article probably ought to be on AfD anyway. This is not, however, an endorsement of the practice of re-creating speedied material without trying to improve it so that deletion would no longer be justified. Newyorkbrad 22:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But if we have to go through AfD in cases like this, then a user is perfectly justified in recreating the article over and over again because db-created is not a valid deletion tag and the article hasn't gone through AfD.  Corvus cornix 22:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a unique instance, isn't it?  How often does this turn up, really?  But no, db-recreation is not valid, but if it's identical, the original reason for it being speedied would still qualify if that reason was originally appropriate.  I just looked at the discussion - the DRV never upheld anything, it was speedy closed because he apparently wasn't arguing for undeletion.  So since the original speedy wasn't actually upheld, recreation is entirely improper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm... when you say improper I think you mean proper? TerriersFan 00:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a long day. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Whyville]]

message: Why is this still here? This crap didn't deserve five days of fame, let alone another five. Someone blow the whistle already. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was initially closed by Sr13 (diff), and reopened by the same admin (diff).  We allow admins to reopen their AFD closures, I see no reason to not allow them to reopen their DRV closures.  (We've previously tested and rejected the idea of holding a DRV to review a DRV.)  GRBerry 13:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:UBX/Suicide]]

message: Alright, where do we get a "deletion review review"? This looks to have been closed against a pretty clear consensus to undelete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After having looked through the discussion, there simply was not anywhere near a sufficient consensus to speedily close the debate. Accordingly, I've reopened it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And to answer your question, for "deletion review review" go to the admin noticeboard, and/or the ArbCom. >Radiant< 12:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Crystal Gail Mangum

message: See here.  This doesn't really phase me (although I think it better reflects what we need to be doing), but, especially in the context of this from a few weeks ago, it's an interesting aside.  Regardless, I'm pretty sure we're all on the same page of strength of argument rather than votes, and a lot of issues from the previous weeks could be avoided with this in mind. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting development 

message: This process is the time for someone who feels they have been wronged by the deletion process to have their time to air concerns.  Sure, in a lot of cases, the right outcome is obvious ... but for crying out loud, half of the time, the reason the issue is here is because process wasn't followed - snowing it doesn't help things.  Unless the nomination was clearly in bad faith or the nominator withdraws his nomination, can we stop snowing them? --BigDT 05:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inexperienced in matters regarding AfD and this whole review thing.  Could you explain what you're talking about? Unschool 10:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SNOW ... I'm referring to early closing of discussions. --BigDT 13:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, it's getting beyond obnoxious lately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, in most cases. Speedy closures should happen here only if the nomination was in bad faith, is withdrawn, the deletion has been overturned, or there is no deletion to review. -Amarkov moo! 00:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or there are no new arguments and it's just an attempt at re-arguing the xfD.  Corvus cornix 01:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) I don't quite agree with that: The recent DRV on my speedy of List of Muslims involved in a crime, or for that matter a certain one from February, were rightly closed early rather than waiting 5 days or more of drama. But early closing should not occur when there is valuable discourse still ongoing; for example, some useful points are being made in discussing my deletions of a pair or articles this weekend, and I would prefer not to see that discussion closed too soon.  Note that calls for the deleting admin to be reprimanded, suspended, desysopped, or taken out and shot are not part of what I consider the valuable discourse. Then again, I might be biased.  Newyorkbrad 01:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might add that early closings discriminate against those who don't live *in* Wikipedia.  Many contributing editors visit every few days.  I had a closing take place within eight hours of it's opening, while I was asleep!  Ridiculous.  Process should be allowed to run it's course.  And calls for admins to be reprimanded are deserved when the admin uses their power to subvert the process. Wjhonson 02:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I must note that compromise is easier when folks are less catty. You could stand to not mention Darvon Cocktail at all, given that it's still clearly a sore point with the folks you're taking issue about (i.e. me, among them). Good faith negotiations need to go both ways, which includes folks on all sides (i.e. including you) being nice. Sincerely nice, not just pretend nice. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 04:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with standing in the middle ground is that people on both sides can and will consider you to be wrong. That shouldn't stop people from trying, though. Yes, SNOW is abused at times, and no, never SNOWing is not the solution either. The trick is to SNOW with care. If you IAR something and nobody objects, arguably that was a good invocation. The point is that this trick is, well, tricky. >Radiant< 15:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Malcolm: I was one of the people arguing "overturn and relist" for Darvon Cocktail, almost to the bitter end.  If that one still rankles, it's because I feel that Jeff's actions ended up undermining my credibility!  And furthermore, I think it harmed our cause of trying to reign in some of the overzealous admins.  That one could have been a great example of how out-of-process deletions can cause more problems than they solve.  Instead, it's become a textbook example of how some people refuse to accept compromise or consensus.  You think it's still a sore point?  You're absolutely right!  But I'm not on the outside making fun; I'm on the inside, lamenting.  And Radiant: thank you.  I have no intention of giving up the middle ground.  :)  Xtifr tälk 01:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we please quit snowing these things? 

message: Who's going to step up and do the right thing here?  Three disruptive closures in a row. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's merely 2 reversions of you trying to unclose my original close. That's different from 3 closures. For three closures, you'd have to open three DRVs. Why don't you try that instead? ^demon[omg plz] 13:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might have to.  Are you going to disruptively close them again? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll close them. Disruptively? Well, if you say so, I know it must be the opposite. Daniel 13:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll note that the closing admin for the AfD told me to bring it here.  And yes, disruptivwely - good faith challenges to AfDs should never be early closed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and no-one - especially those who are paramountly involved in the debate as you are - should revert an administrator's close of the debate. Not on, Jeff. Daniel 13:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bullshit.  Disruptive closures should be reverted on sight. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm with Jeff on this one, you don't get to short-circuit the decision AND shut down discussion of it by throwing the 'I'm an admin' flag. Remember, if WP:SNOW is opposed you're probably not doing it right. There's no way that AFD should have ended in any manner but no consensus. -- nae'blis 13:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The article is deleted. That is the right thing. Trying to edit war the discussion open to force your point of view on anybody and everybody is most certainly the wrong thing. Nick 13:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is improperly deleted.  Deletion review is the forum to discuss improper deletions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Give me 10 legitimate outside sources that establish notability (not in regards to the meme), and I'll unprotect and undelete right now. ^demon[omg plz] 13:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does this "ten" number come from?  Either way, be aware that some of these do mention the meme, but still establish notability outside of it:    ("#2 in the state"),   ("Will vault in the US Junior Track and Field meet"),  (story only about her),  (breaking Freshman record),  ("national best for sophomores," "among the top pole vaulters."),  (while a reprint of the Post article about the meme, notes her five national records),  (primarily about the meme, but notes her sophomore record and her state rank).  That's nine ten without counting repeats and other attention.  I can't count.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First and foremost, most of those links were from the same site. Secondly...how is coming fourth in a state high school pole vaulting tournament considered something notable? I won 3rd place in my state's individual improvisation competition with theatre in high school. Do I have an article? ^demon[omg plz] 14:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Get photographs of your gorgeous body plastered all over the internet, and we'll see. ;) --Docg 15:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I see you've gone on Wikibreak, but I suppose shame on me for thinking you'd be taking this seriously. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Allison Stokke

message: The recent events involving "HHO gas" has convinced me that some process in needed for dealing with the requests to unsalt a page.  The March 14 DRV log includes a request to unsalt HHO gas and Brown's gas and other related titles on the basis that "this topic needs to be covered in some form or other".  As a result HHO gas and Brown's gas were unsalted, and within two weeks new articles appeared and recently were once again deleted on the basis of a lack of reliable sourcing.  The articles are once again salted, and I hope they stay that way for a while.
It seems to me that salting should be taken as prima facie evidence that a title is not appropriate for Wikipedia, most likely due to some difficulty in creating an acceptable article on the topic.  It seems to me that if someone wants a title unsalted, that they should be required to create an article on it in their user space and to demonstrate that it deals with the issues that have resulted in the historical deletion of said article.  A simple "this should be covered" should be wholely inadequate to obtain unsalting.  I also advise that the editors who participated in the prior deletion discussions be invited to review the candidate article.  Obviously I doubt that I would change my mind on HHO gas, but if there was some national scandal involving HHO gas or one of its variants or something else that gave it genuine notability I would change my mind on this issue, and I think that others would show similar flexibility in the appropriate circumstances.
In short, let's require that a real case be made for unsalting and that an acceptable article be ready to go into a salted slot before unsalting occurs. --EMS | Talk 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsalting pages 

message: Every time I've seen an article get put up for deletion review, the DRV just fills up with the exact same arguments that were made in the AfD.  I thought DRV was for commenting on the process itself, not the article.
It would be nice if such comments could be removed to keep the DRV uncluttered and prevent rebuttals and counter-rebuttals from spiraling out of control and taking over the page.  AfD is for deciding whether the article should stay or go.  DRV is for deciding whether the AfD was processed correctly.
(Also, was there a point in time in which only admins could comment on DRVs?  I thought that was the way it always worked, but it is apparently not.) — Omegatron 21:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't, though, because the people who do that insist that since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, there may be no focus on process at all. -Amarkov moo! 23:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So we just let it continue as an ochlocracy? — Omegatron 00:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you can solve the problem of people insisting that their opinion is sometimes just right, and everyone else's is irrelevant. I know that I can't. -Amarkov moo! 23:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm afraid you're wrong.  My way is obviously the best, and I'm going to use my admin powers to prove it. — Omegatron 23:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DRV is not AfD 

message: It's come to my attention that several pages (all of them) reguarding the 'Order of the Left Handed Path' have been deleted sometime in the last 2-6+ months. They once had a fairly flowery page up that connected to 'ordo sinstra vivendi', 'OLHP', and satanism.
(in general, they're a satanist group that focuses on deception)
I know that wikipedia admin 'elonkna dunnin' is of the order, though i do not know if she herself deleted it. I'm mostly interested in having the pages undeleted & have admins pay more attention to internal politics (& motives) for various parties.
any help would be greatly appreciated. -the good guy, with eyes
:To do start a deletion review simply follow the steps listed here.Bassgoonist 17:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OLHP/Satanist deletion 

message: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_June_21#ISUCF.22V.22MB has reached a fairly clear consensus, but has not been closed by an admin. I'm just curious why most reviews from the day before and day after have been closed, and this one hasn't (and no one has added to the discussion in several days). Bassgoonist 17:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 days? 

message: when there's an afd and there's a clear consensus to keep, you can renominate the article for deletion. what happens when there's a clear consensus to delete or merge? starting a new afd seems inappropriate since you're actually trying to keep it - not delete it.
in looking at the drv's, it seems that most are for articles that were speedily deleted or for ones for which the alleged consensus is debatable. i don't see any for articles where you disagree with the consensus, hands down, and for which you have a new argument that you believe might sway.
any ideas? 209.209.214.5 06:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If new information comes to light, and that may plausibly affect the outcome of an xFD discussion, then DRV is appropriate. Otherwise, no, because you would go in a xFD -> DRV -> xFD -> DRV cycle ad infinitum, if the only reason to revisit the debate is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  drv when there's a clear consensus but when you disagree with the outcome 

message: I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.  What happened to all the deletion reviews between June 4 (archived) and June 27 (main page)?  Am I missing something painfully obvious here? Drewcifer3000 21:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You just need to transclude the listing for the day. For example, to archive the debates for 5 June, one would add  to the June log. Anyone is welcome to keep an eye on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recent and see when the whole day's worth of debates are closed; once this is done, then the day's listing can be added to the relevant monthly log (no changes are necessary to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recent, it's an automatic listing). --bainer (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've set up the July page, going back to the system Trialsanderrors designed, where we just move a comment line up the page as each day closed.  DRVBot was approved as a bot to manage the daily/monthly logs, but it hasn't made a contribution yet.  I'll go nudge the operator.  GRBerry 19:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 4 - June 27 

message: Someone deleted the Hapa girls image at the Hapa article. Should I report this? Should I request undeletion? What should I do? Does anyone know why this article on the topic of mixed race was deleted? July 10 signed: --69.234.214.122 17:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone deleted the image at the Hapa article 

message: I know that it isn't kosher to do this, but could I get a speedy undeletion? Mario Party DS has been confirmed and has a video. Here is Nintendo's EU release list to prove it:  - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what use anyone would have for the pre-April versions that were deleted, seeing as those would consist mainly of rumors. I'd support a speedy unsalting, though. -Amarkov moo! 18:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I meant, but I didn't know a better term. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mario Party DS 

message: ... is pretty hard to follow, as it's a list of deleted articles. Anyone mind if I reformat it, as it's an excellent candidate for re-building in the vein of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. This will make it a lot simpler for editors to list their articles and request articles, as well as greatly simplifying admins in handling requests. As it is, it's a bit of a mess and is difficult to maintain and respond to requests. At the very least, it needs editable sub-sections. I'm thinking it could look like this very easily, which also makes a very useful navigable Table of Contents;
========
Requesting undelete of the above article for reasons of whatever - Alison ☺ 07:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: - userfied to User:Alison/whatever (or declined or emailed or whatever) - Alison ☺ 07:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: makes sense to me. DGG (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format of [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review]] 

message: Requesting undelete of the above article for reasons of whatever - Alison ☺ 07:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: - userfied to User:Alison/whatever (or declined or emailed or whatever) - Alison ☺ 07:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: makes sense to me. DGG (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{la|Example article}}

message: More dates in the twilight zone: the page has July 18 to the present, and the July archive has July 1-8. Where can I find July 9-17?--Fabrictramp 19:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As discussed a few sections above, just update the July archive page to include the other days that are complete.  For July, that means moving the end comment line up N days.  There is no DRVbot running, so it is up to the human editors (this means you) to get the updates done.  GRBerry 12:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would gladly do it, but I've read the appropriate section above about 5 times now and it still makes no sense to me.--Fabrictramp 13:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And I see that someone has already fixed it. Thanks!--Fabrictramp 23:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 9-17 in the twilight zone 

message: I did not make this a request on the front page of this as I have already saved the article to a sub page. I just wanted to know if it was OK to merge some of the referenced content from the deleted article "Straight pride" to a section "Opposition" in the "Gay pride" article. I have added the suggestion to the talk page but wanted to be sure and ask before doing so.--Amadscientist 23:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of some content from deleted page 

message: The way this page is operated, it is not an effective at ensuring that admins respect the will of the community. The admins that closed a debate are allowed to restate their position. Other admins then back them up on the grounds that admins have more or less unrestricted authority to do whatever they like. The debate on this page is then closed by an admin, who has an inherent bias to favor admin rights. This page preserves an illusion of openness and equality, but it does not ensure that the will of the whole community is acted on. Golfcam 19:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I agree with the underlying logic, never mind the conclusion.  Since becoming an admin, I've offered a higher percentage of "overturn" opinions here than I did before I became an admin (the pre-admin endorsement percentage was over 80%).  GRBerry 19:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with GRB--one of the virtues of being an admin is that one already is an admin, and can take perhaps a broader perspective. I feel just a little more  comfortable in saying overturn now also, when I think it is appropriate. I also have wider experience, and think I know much better when it is and when it isn't appropriate. The immediately practical way to deal with problems here is for more people to come and discuss the matters raised, and not just when they are concerned over one particular article. Stay around, for in general everyone is i fact listened to.  DGG (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It just isn't true that everyone is listened to, at least not all the time. There may be some good admins, but there are enough who think that admins as a class are entitled to boss the project to make it a waste of time for non-admins to contribute. You appear to be two of the more reasonable admins, but the fact that even you show a complete indifference to the high-handed attitude of some of your fellows is sufficient to demonstrate that non-admins should not have any faith in the process. I see complete blindness to the arrogance of the oligarchy across all the admin pages. Even the introductory page about the role of admins is a comical whitewash that just pretends that they all live up to high standards and act as servants of the community. Some do, but overall they act as an overclass. What I see in discussions here is an arrogant celebration of this power: "We can trample over the rest of you, so we will." Golfcam 16:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oligarchy in action

message: If the outcome of a deletion review is too relist an article at AFD (or user page/template at MFD), does the article get recreated to allow users to view it before they comment at the XFD?  Sasha Callahan 14:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  If BLP was an issue, we are usually very conservative and protect it blank, with the history visible.  Otherwise, the article is returned to normal status, and can be edited and improved during the AFD.  Focused effort may help determine the outcome of the AFD; see WP:HEY.  GRBerry 14:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relisting Question 

message: I would like to see a chart on DRV success rates, like who has the most deletions overturned (not including prods) etc. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 19:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 9#December 2006 Deletion Statistics, which offers part of what you are asking.  I don't know of any analysis by acting admin or by proposer.  In December roughly 30% to 33% of controversial items were overturned.  (Controversial = not PROD and not with consent of deleting admin)  GRBerry 20:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info 

message: Following on from this CFD, and the previous DRV (here) is it possible to restore all the sub-cats that were deleted and repopulate the articles with a bot? Lugnuts 15:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring sub-cats +re-populating articles 

message: Greetings. :Image:Oneill.jpg was nominated for deletion, based on the suspicion that the image was not actually in the public domain. I deleted it, based on this reasoning, and the deletion was overturned here. I am not objecting to the decision, but I would like some feedback about how we should deal with images that are probably (but not certainly) in the public domain.
This image was published in 1936. It could still be copyrighted. If any of the following are true, then it is in the public domain:
* If it were previously published before 1923, then it's PD. But there's no evidence it was.
* If it were first published without a copyright notice, then it's PD. But there's no evidence either way.
* If the copyright was not renewed in the 27th year after its first publication, then it's PD. According to User:Kenosis, it was extremely rare for a copyright on an individual photo to have been renewed (before 1977). But it could have been.
So we have a situation where a great image is probably in the public domain, but it might still be copyrighted. Notably, the Nobel Foundation website is quite cagey about whether they claim copyright on the images. They imply that they do, but don't say so outright. This image was, after DRV, kept. How far should this go? Should an image created in 1976, that may or may not have been published without a copyright notice, be kept? Should a similar image to the one above be kept if a party explicitly claims to hold the copyright? I'm really looking for feedback here. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quadell, thanks for the note about this conversation on my talk page. I add one more important statement about the US Copyright Office search. I stated on the image page, on the IfD page, and I believe also in the DrV page, that I myself did a search, a fairly time consuming one in fact. It came up empty.  As I've also explained, not only did virtually no one renew copyrights on photos in the US Copyright Office, as a practical matter there was no need to, because unlike today, making high-quality copies was extremely difficult, so the main issue back then was who owned the negative. ... Kenosis 15:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The template  exists. It was deprecated for some reason I have been unable to find out. I suspect some combination of "people will abuse this template, we must require them to find out the information!" (not realising that information, no matter how 'free' we want it to be, can sometimes just get lost), or copyright paranoia along the lines of "we must err on the side of caution if we don't know enough about the image, as otherwise we might get sued!". Both these concerns are valid for recent (last 30-50 years) pictures. I suggest that this template be resurrected for much older pictures (70+ years) where a search has been conducted and we suspect public domain but can't conclusively prove it due to lack of records due to the age of the image. On the other hand, it might be easier to design a new template for these cases. Oh, and the deletion review talk page gets very little traffic. I suggest taking this back to IfD/NFCC. Carcharoth 15:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not use ? I know it says it is deprecated, but why was it deprecated? Carcharoth 17:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh my goodness. You did create it! I'm always telling people to investigate properly, to look at page histories, and so on... :-) What do you think of the way the tag has been used? Have a look at the images in the category it populates: :Category:Public domain unless fair use images (564 pics). Have people misinterpreted the way it was meant to be used? What should be done with those 564 images? Is it better to systematically deal with them, or to let IfD gradually deal with them piecemeal? Carcharoth 20:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd say less than 10% of our ostensibly public domain images actually have the documentation needed to prove that they really are in the public domain. You have to establish a publication date and usually none is given. Even the death date of the author isn't present half of the time. Haukur 22:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But until recently, whenever disputed, such images would be deleted. Now we're going with a brand new strategy: to have an image removed, it's no longer enough to dispute the lack of PD-evidence. We need to prove the image is not PD. --Abu badali (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was the volume of IfD nominations the same back in 2004? The impression I get is that until recently the volume of nominations was low enough not to attract a lot of attention. Now that the volume has stepped up, the number of controversial nominations have increased as well, hence all the fuss. Anyway, what's with all this proving a negative nonsense? Those opposing an image ask those wanting it kept to prove that it is "not copyrighted", and those wanting it kept ask those opposing it to prove that it is "not public domain". What should be asked is the other way around: "prove it is copyrighted" and "prove it is public domain". Often, the answer is that neither can be proved. What then? Think of it as three sets of images: (1) A set of images where it can be shown that the images are still in copyright (NB. an organisation or person attaching a copyright symbol to an image doesn't necessarily mean they hold the copyright to that image); (2) A set of images where it can be shown that the images are public domain; and (3) A set of images where there is not enough information to tell either way. What is needed in case 3 is common sense and not copyright paranoia. Carcharoth 01:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyright commandeering is also interesting. Carcharoth 01:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The Foundation's position was never one of exploring the corners of copyright law. We used to assume something is copyrighted in the lack of evidence otherwise. We don't want copyright claims to popup after we have 10.000 burned DVD shipped to schools in India or Africa. But most of the users just think about the website... so a takedown notice is really not something to worry about. I propose the creation of the image tag . --Abu badali (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno, I'm a bit leery about endorsing a tag that would basicaly say that something is public domain because the random user who uploaded the image could not find any proof it was copyrighted (I've seen too many "it says copyright 2004 so it's expired now" type statements to blindly trust the expertice of all our users on copyright issues). Unless we set up some kind of copyright investegation team and somehow actualy got them a small budget to pay for the copyright office looking into things I fear such images would rarely get a second look, and even so there will likely be far more images than we could ever afford to have checked out at the rate of 75$ per hour... --Sherool (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your reasoning. But the fact is, we are currently accepting those images. Any user can claim that an image's copyright wasn't renewed and now you'll have to pay the 75$ to have it deleted. --Abu badali (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, you do realise that this only applies to a subset of historical images? The ones taken in the last x years can't have a claim of "copyright wasn't renewed". Not sure of the value of x, but hopefully someone will clarify. And I see I used the paranoia word above as well. I apologise here for that, as well. It is a common phrase I see used, and I wasn't intending to offend anyone. Carcharoth 17:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it really something to be decided by the community? Shouldn't the Foundation be consulted about that? I don't mean only the nobel images, but the whole class of  images. There are many suspect copyright claims (like those from Nobel) around, but is the Foundation willing to dispute it? Is it willing to ignore them until a takedown notice arrives? --Abu badali (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images probably in the public domain 

message: Hi can we review this article? I want more infomation on the organisation. Thanks! 211.28.78.74 18:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: gnaa