Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute

message: Comments have been moved from the main page where noted, apologies if I've made things confusing for anybody, feel free to edit for clarity as appropriate. Oh, and I don't feel like doing it anymore, so I hope somebody else will finish up the job. FrozenPurpleCube 22:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

message: Re: the comment by User:gaillimh.  How can anyone who looks at the version of the article as returned to AFD by Xoloz claim that this met WP:BLP's unsourced test?  It was far better sourced than the average BLP.  Per WP:BLP, "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion."  If the article is sourced (and this one has been since the very first edit), then it is not unsourced, and that sentence does not apply.  I keep feeling like people are not actually looking at the evidence before they opine, because the BLP delete position is plainly wrong.  GRBerry 02:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's arguable that an article about a subject that willingly participates in the issue that causes the BLP questions is even "controversial."  --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the main concern is this is the only thing the guy's famous for. Sure we have info on Michael Jackson allegedly molesting kids or the Mel Gibson DUI incident, in fact they have their own separate articles distinct from the celebrity page. But this guy isn't a celebrity for anything else. I still don't think BLP applies, as this guy is cashing in. Notability might apply though. -N 02:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Berry, simply because you disagree with my position does not mean that I didn't do my due diligence in analysing the situation, and to state otherwise is a bit silly and also getting a bit personal, no?  This is clearly a boderline case of notability given that the fellow has achieved fame via what is colloquially known on the internet as a "meme".  In these cases, our rule of thumb is to do no harm (the preceding was a direct quote from BLP).  Keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that endeavours to allow eeach and every person to freely access the sum of the world's knowledge; this article surely has no bearing here, and as mentioned, we should always strive to act with basic social graces and not use Wikipedia to further perpetuate this meme, which has brought the fellow some grief.  So, of course BLP applies, both in spirit and to the letter gaillimhConas tá tú? 02:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is eleven independent sources borderline?  We have featured articles with fewer sources with the subject as the main topic than this has.  How is an article on a self-promoting famous person doing harm? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict, multiple times) How can we be doing harm, when he is trying to cash in on the meme?  This was cited in the article, to this article in The Independent, which says "Qian has decided to try to turn his web notoriety into hard cash." (and goes on to say that he hasn't succeeded yet).  It is also a reasonable interpretation of the last pargraph in this article from the UK's Times Online (website for The Times).  GRBerry 03:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Gary Brolsma, anyone? How about Alex Cora, he's only got a page for being a baseball player, he's not a celebrity for anything else, either. Or maybe Paul Anka, who's only a celebrity 'cause he sings good. How far can we take the illogical conclusion on this one? Why are people bothered by this? Because kind people generally don't make fun of overweight people. This isn't random fat dude down the street, though, this is a highly famous individual who, while famous because of his appearance, self-promotes it. It's not even in the same league, and if BLP was created with situations like this in mind, it's an even worse failure than I already thought. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Or Richard Simmons. I mean, seriously. -N 03:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want to say "This person isn't important for anything meaningful" well, that's an issue of notability, not BLP.  BLP is for cases where there aren't reliable sources for the material.  There were sources.  So, that's not a valid argument.  Besides, the real problem here isn't whether this is or is not BLP or anything else, it's the actions taken.  FrozenPurpleCube 03:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The BLP issue

message: If your point is that RFC rarely if ever resolves anything (except letting off steam, which can be useful in and of itself), then I tend to agree with that. However, in a not-so-hypothetical question, what would you do if the ArbCom either rejects your new case, or opens it and draws a conclusion that disagrees with you? Radiant! 13:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Arbcom rejects the new case, then there's no further reason or way to pursue the wheel-warring and inappropriate closures.  I would likely try another DRV, and, assuming it is allowed to go to its proper conclusion and is closed via consensus, go with whatever that ruling ends up with.  I'll re-iterate, as I've said many times already - if the second AfD had been allowed to complete, or any of the following DRVs, or that third AfD, we wouldn't be here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will you accept the result of this RFC if as seems likely there is not consensus to rerun the deletion review?  If not, what will be your next step? --Tony Sidaway 14:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The RfC really can't result in anything like that.  The deletion review (or AfD, really, since that's the state we're supposed to be in at this point) needs to be run to come to a consensus on the article.  Arbcom is almost certainly the next step unless some things occur. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks.  So if you don't get consensus for a fourth deletion review or a fourth rerun of the deletion discussion from this RFC, you'll proceed to apply for arbitration.  Is that right?  If so, what will you do if the arbitration committee either rejects your application on the stated grounds of a request for a mandated rerun of the deletion discussion or deletion review, or rejects it outright? --Tony Sidaway 14:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No consensus is going to come of anything from this RfC, that's not what it's designed for and it doesn't result in anything.  barring the run of AfD or a DRV that was supposed to occur following Xoloz's close, this will end up at Arbcom by my hand.  I can't speak for anyone else pursuing arbitration for the wheel warring.  Now, if Arbcom still rejects it, I'll request a DRV.  If it gets speedy closed, we'll cross that bridge when it comes, but I will no longer have a problem once either a) a consensus result is reached regarding the article, or b) an arbitration result is reach regarding the article and behavior of the participants. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you're saying here and now, that if the arbitration committee rejects your application next time, you will open a fourth deletion review? --Tony Sidaway 14:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deletion review is where to appeal poor deletions.  One would think that, given the extent this has gone, the disruptive elements would allow consensus to be formed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is that a "yes"?  If there isn't consensus here for rerun (which doesn't look likely at present), and the arbitration committee won't grant you a rerun (which could happen, but may not), then you'll try to initiate a retun anyway?  Is that what you're saying? --Tony Sidaway 15:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will attempt to run a DRV if nothing forces one - this format is incapable of actually gaining consensus for one due to a variety of factors.  If the DRV is allowed to run fully, there's no further problems.  If not, we'll cross that bridge when it comes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't hurt me, but I've started another DRV. -N 19:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who thinks the article should exist, this was a bad idea.  The article will either be addressed at ArbCom, or addressed after it's clear ArbCom won't address it themselves.  At this point, it's not going to go anywhere. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Pardon me for sticking my nose in here, but why does it matter where consensus is formed?  If a consensus forms here that the article should remain deleted, what purpose is served by "validating" that consensus at Deletion Review?  I guess I don't understand why the forum matters, as long as reasonable notice has been given.  Badlydrawnjeff, can you explain why it is so important to you that this discussion be had at Deletion Review or Articles for Deletion instead of as a part of this Request for Comments?  Do you believe that the community has inadequate notice of this Request for Comments for a consensus to develop here?  Do you simply feel that this Request for Comments has not resulted in a consensus?  (Apologies if some of the above is asked and answered.)  Chromaticity 14:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isnt the proper forum for it.  If it results in a conseneus, great, but that's not what it's here for. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm disappointed that that is all the answer you're willing to offer.  I thought the purpose of the Request for Comments process was to allow for community comment on any particular situation with the hopes of generating a community consensus on how to deal with the situation.  Am I mistaken?  If I am not mistaken, how is this not a suitable place to have this discussion?  Given that the discussion is here already, how does moving it elsewhere help?  Chromaticity 15:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, because at best, I suppose the hope is that folks (here) will consent to an AFD/DRV, but not to a decision on this article.  FrozenPurpleCube 15:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, that made my brain hurt.  Are you suggesting that there are people who will consent to having a discussion about this article, but will not consent to actually making a decision as a result of that discussion?  What, then, is the point of having the discussion?  Chromaticity 15:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I left out a "here" .  This is because it's an RFC, not a discussion which can be closed with a decision.  There's obviously enough positions being taken here that I'm going to be doubtful about any kind of resolution coming about through this process.  FrozenPurpleCube 16:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that the RFC format is a format designed to prevent the formation of consensus.  It may show that one existed, if the main page comes down one way or another with no significant dissent, but all discussion is supposed to be moved to the talk page.  As it is discussion that creates consensus, the format here will prevent the creation of consensus.  GRBerry 16:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Query for Jeff

message: What? Difficult cases need less discussion? I'm sure someone understands why not allowing review of controversial closures encourages trust, but I don't... -Amarkov moo! 14:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between reviewing a closure and vilifying an admin who closes a discussion the way you didn't want. If you don't understand the difference and why we should treat them differently, then you need to step back and reconsider whether you should be taking part in discussions on such important subjects. —Phil | Talk 15:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the later closures were by consensus rather than by strongarming, there'd be no issue here.  The closure of the second AfD and the denial of any appeals processes stemming from that are the problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if the first AfD outcome had been respected there'd be no issue here. WjBscribe 15:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was respected, and overturned.  Happens all the time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Was there something wrong with the conduct of the editor who asked Daniel to change his mind, and who convinced him of it? Was Daniel not supposed to be open to a well-reasoned argument? I suppose you can say if nobody had said anything, none of this would have happened, but unless you think there was something wrong with asking an admin to change their mind, I don't see a problem with that aspect of this chain of events. FrozenPurpleCube 15:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing wrong with asking an admin to reopen an AfD and Daniel did so. But at that point the AfD could be closed by any other admin evaluating the consensus (something Daniel has agreed is correct). Drini did so - that was a valid close. DRV should not have overturned that close. WjBscribe 15:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should really re-read the first DRV. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't agree, I see no evidence that Drini's close was valid, and DRV was right to overturn it.  Sorry, but all I saw was an admin making the decision "This has had long enough" when a previous admin had just said "Well, I closed this, but then I was told this new thing, so I think this should be re-evaluated".  Compounded with Drini's further actions here and elsewhere, I'm disinclined to accept that Drini did indeed make a valid decision at the time.  Perhaps that's unfair, but when your response to criticism of your decision is under such terms, I'm inclined to doubt the initial decision. FrozenPurpleCube 15:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Not to mention the idea that strong criticism of admins weakens them. This is not so. Criticism of people with greater responsibilities is highly desirable. If they're weakened by it, it's because they're doing wrong. While certainly unfounded criticism can hurt, and can even be harassment and bullying, that doesn't mean all criticism is wrong. There is a reason why Lèse majesté is widely rejected as a legal principle. Sorry, but just because you're an admin doesn't mean you're sacrosanct.  You can be criticized for doing the wrong thing, and that has no more protection than any other editor's actions.  To respond to the above comment, nobody should be vilified.  This only means any criticism should be made in reasonable terms not that it should be prohibited. FrozenPurpleCube 15:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You totally miss the main point of my comment. These closures are judgment calls. In some cases conflicting policies make a closure a close call based on a broad understanding of multiple policies. It is unfair to be critical of admins that use their best judgment in these situations. By constantly reopening discussion where there is not a perfect answer, you undermine the part of the process that allows for thoughtful admin discretion on complex issue. We need to accept these closures until the situation changes significantly. Otherwise, we will go around and around and around in these discussions with out any definitive outcome that is good for the project. FloNight 16:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By refusing to allow criticism, you're undermining the part of the process that allows for dealing with thoughtless admin actions. In this case, the initial closing admin thought the situation had changed significantly. So he validly re-opened it. The response? A closure that did not consider the change in the situation. Sorry, but while certainly endless bickering is bad, the idea that the only way to avoid it is to not allow any criticism at all is even worse. The key, as I said above is reasonable criticism. Which should be followed with a reasonable response. That does not include the equivalent of "Admins are not to be criticized, for such offends their dignity".  Perhaps I'm misreading you, but that's what you seem to be saying.  I'm sorry, but I find that idea very frightening.  It results not in avoiding bickering, but in a chilling effect in reaching consensus.  Be concerned about rational responses to decisions.  That's fine.  But I think you go too far and are now saying "Don't criticize them at all" .  FrozenPurpleCube 16:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly Wikipedia policy allows for discussion. What I'm asking for is self censorship early in the process to avoid time wasting, ill will provoking debates about issues where no definitive conclusion can be reached that will please everyone. Users that repeatedly provoke these needless discussions cause the community and the encyclopedia harm. They really need to stop and think about what they are doing. I hope my comment will help some users reflect about how they handled the situation and will take a better approach next time. That is the point of a Request for comment, right? Take care, FloNight 16:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in so far as any criticism of admin action should be on reasonable terms, that is acceptable to me.  The problem is, when that does happen, the result should not be to forbid criticism, but to respond to it, to address it.  I think the attitude that criticism is bad leads to much harm as well, that it will actually provoke more harm to even give the slightest endorsement to the idea which you seem to be espousing.  Say any criticism should be done after thinking about it, that's fine.  But you seem to be going too far and saying none at all. FrozenPurpleCube 16:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Lots of people become public figures while minors and/or thorugh "no fault of their own" -- they are still public figures. DES (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FloNight's outside view... 

message: I thought RFC was a way to give everyone a voice and enodrse statements they agree on. When someone disagrees on a statement, they just don't endorse, not repeatedly provoke people giving their views calling them liars. There are multiple point of views and people can endorse those they think they're right. But participants are expected not go under each statement they disagree attacking it. If you think a view is erroneous, don't endorse it, endorse those you believe in. -- drini [meta:] [commons:]  16:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't stand for you making false statements about me.  Move the commentary here to talk if you prefer, but I won't stand for dishonesty. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm putting a copy of drini's summary, and the bicker-fest that followed it, here.  The rowing doesnt belong on an RfC. --Tony Sidaway 16:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: DEindent> Yeah well, that's what I meant with "Jeff doesn't listen to many voices if those are the voices that disagree with him". -- drini [meta:] [commons:]  16:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest ceasing your commentary if it's not going to be honest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm being honest. I believe every word of what I'm saying. Just as you're strong on the positions you believe are true. -- drini [meta:] [commons:]  16:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you need to educate yourself, because something's led you astray. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I could say the same about you. But you were disrupting RFC. Everybody has a space to give their views. Should mine be blatantly false, nobody would endorse them. So get over it. It's RFC, people will comment. Not everybody agrees with you. Dismissing voices opposite to you as worthless is not helpful. -- drini [meta:] [commons:]  16:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except I can point out where you're incorrect - I'm still waiting for you to point my inaccuracies out.  But this is telling: "Dismissing voices opposite to you as worthless is not helpful."  If more people believed that, we wouldn't be here.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your whole statement minus the opening part is misleading. SO I didn't endorse it and moved on, unlike you trying to pick a fight with me. -- drini [meta:] [commons:]  16:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which parts, exactly?  Specifics would be good. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll elaborate. DRV is supposed to decide if an AFD was valid and has consensus. You can't accept the 1st AFD being valid AND an overturning DRV being valid. DRV is not "open a second AFD or not", it's "had the 1st one have consensus?". If 1st AFD had consensus, then overturning DRV is not valid. -- drini [meta:] [commons:]  15:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's entirely proper to review a deletion and see if there are mitigating circumstances such as this one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: For those keen to policy and process might like to observe the note "Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse" --pgk 15:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm. No. I think Jeff is directly responsible for fueling the flames of the conflict. He may be upset about it, but that's my view. Feel free not to endorse it if you don't like it. Moreover, 2/3 of my statements have nothing to do with jeff-- drini [meta:] [commons:]  16:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, gee, I wasn't planning to endorse it, I was merely hoping you might consider whether you might wish to write your response in less inflammatory terms.  If you're not, well, that's adding your own fuel to the flames.   FrozenPurpleCube 16:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why. DO I go to the statements of those disagreeing with me to call them liars? Do I provoke them? I just gave MY statement, which I'm allowed to do. And then the bickering from jeff started. -- drini [meta:] [commons:]  16:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are certainly welcome to address any statements you consider inflammatory here on this page, I don't suggest you call them liars, and I don't suggest you provoke them.  But you can say they're mistaken.  Not that I see Jeff's statement to be especially inflammatory, but if you do, feel free to say why.  While I don't think his response was in the most effective terms (in fact, I'd say he should tone down his criticism a tad as well), I also think there are problems with your summary.  I suggest fixing them.  FrozenPurpleCube 16:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I may have overblown a tad.  But I think i'm well within my rights to attempt to salvage what's left of my reputation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeff on drini's summary 

message: Users who would like to point out that re-opening a prematurely-closed AFD does not mean that it has to run for another five days, merely to the end of the original five-day term:
#Phil | Talk 10:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments moved from FrozenPurpleCube  section to the talk page 

message: A comment on the above: "Little fatty".  How would you like to be immortalised as "little fatty"?  As a result of something you had no part in and did not authorise?  Also, if the only sources are news articles, then maybe it's not encyclopaedic after all; how many things in Brittanica are sourceable only from contemporary popular culture news reports?  The fact that lots of people laughed at the subject has never been in dispute, and neither is the fact that the Internet extends the playground to cover the entire globe, what is in dispute is whether that allows us to hhave a biography on someone founded solely on the fact that people mocked the fat kid.  It never was about sources, it was always about the appropriateness of having an article.  Guy (Help!) 13:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are presuming a lot of culturally-centric ideals here. Why don't you ask him what he thinks, or read the articles? Is this another case of admins applying personal feelings/insecurities/reactions to issues that affect more folks than just the admins and letting that bias guide their hands? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Independent reports that the boy's family wants to sue, but it is impossible to locate suitable defendants in this case. --Tony Sidaway 14:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The most recent revisions of this article, by DeLarge, did not even include the man's name so it was not about the person anymore, but about the meme surrounding him. I also do not think that we have the power to immortalize something. That was done by newspapers and tabloids like The Sun, and we are just documenting the phenomenon. Prolog 14:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This would be more convincing if the article had not born the young man's name. Newspapers do not immortalize anything: yesterday's headlines are tomorrow's birdcage liner. --Tony Sidaway 14:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was moved to "Little Fatty" by Night Gyr with edit summary "it's about the phenomenon, not the person", but this was reverted because it created a mess due to all the AFD's and DRV's. It was hard to discuss the naming of the article further, since all the discussions were closed so early. Prolog 14:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Personally I would have preferred redirecting the article to the meme's article. We shouldn't be having bios on people who are famous for one particular incident, especially if it's negative. Johnleemk | Talk 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with you on the redirect, but I'd note that we still have plenty of articles on people who are famous for one particular negative incident - incidents with more negative connotations than becoming an "internet phenomenon".  Yes, I know this is an other stuff exists argument, but it's worth noting nonetheless. JavaTenor 16:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments moved from Prolog section 

message: *Comment: How precisely would you address the administrator misconduct? -N 02:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it is time for you to make your own statement that you feel fits both ;) Just an idea, Cheers! —— Eagle101Need help? 06:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's unfair to characterize using consensus-vetted process to try to bring admins back into the fold vis a vis process, policy and trying not to use so many shortcuts of same that they end up giving the appearance (to many of us) of wheel warring, whether or not that was their actual intention, as a witchhunt. It really bothers me that the folks involved are still pretty much unrepentant and acting like Jeff (and I in some cases) are the problem. I'm following the rules at a time when following the rules could clear up a fair few number of folks' doubts about whether admins really care to be perceived as fair, supportive, custodial users and not power hungry or power blind. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments moved from Amarkov section

message: #: Just waiting for the penny to drop here, Jeff.  Look really hard at what you wrote.  It would be more obvious if the sig was after the comment, btw. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments moved from BigDT section

message: Comments moved from main page:
(endorsment of Nardman's position by me here) though it should be clear that the Admin's decision can be disputed in DRV if appropriate.  If said DRV does occur, it should operate under the same criteria.</nowiki> FrozenPurpleCube
:Groan. No more process wonkery. By "same criteria" I assume you mean yet another fresh admin gets to close it? Maybe. But only if Jeff agrees not to be the one to start the DRV, no matter how much he disagrees with the AfD. -N 00:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, if Jeff objects to the outcome, he gets to make an objection on DRV, the same as anybody else, including those opposed to him.  Otherwise to be fair, we'd have to exclude other people, and frankly, I don't want to do that.  And I strongly oppose your characterization of this as process wonkery, that's the sort of thing that isn't helpful.  To be honest, I'm not even sure this discussion should occur here.  If you'd care to move your comment to the talk page, I'd not object to your moving my response here.  FrozenPurpleCube 01:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not against Jeff, or anybody, making a DRV request. I just don't want him to flame it up anymore if this does go back to AfD and gets deleted again. I suppose he'd be sensible about it though. You're right, it's a non-issue. -N 02:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If an actual result ends up reflecting consensus, I can't complain.  In my entire history, have i ever played that game?  Only once, with Darvon cocktail (I think), and that was more a trial balloon for reviewing a DRV.  I'm "flamed up" right now due to multiple involved administrators deciding that consensus doesn't matter here, and not giving the community a proper voice.  If the second AfD completed, I'd likely be done with this, deleted or undeleted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for moving the comment, and I don't want things to become inflamed either. Since this situation has had problems in DRV before, I figure it's best just to be clear that that's a valid option, but should be done under the same reasonable terms you posited if it does happen. FrozenPurpleCube 02:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments moved from the Nardman section 

message: It seems to me that the assertion that the various debate closings and deletions were incorrect is predicated on the assumption that the closure of the first deletion review was correct. I'm not sure that's necessarily the case. Discuss. --bainer (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discuss from a content perspective or a process perspective? From a content perspective, it was wrong - defendable because of the !votecount and statistics of dubious relevance like "having 1.7 refs per sentence", but wrong, because the article violated WP:BLP as every subsequent review (including this one at time of typing) has upheld. From a process perspective - well, to paraphrase Thatcher, there is no such thing as a process perspective. The only perspective should be "Have we achieved the right result"? --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Suggest you read my statement. ViridaeTalk 02:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a thought 

message: Two words: Brian Peppers. If anybody cares about this incident in six months to a year, then we'll rekindle the AFD and make (another) decision then. Right now, tempers are burning and grudges are wanting to be settled. Otherwise, lets get back to writing the encyclopedia instead of bickering over stupid topics like this. Sean William 01:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Facing the disruption down doesn't seem to be working right now. Thanks to last night's incident, I find it improbable that any easy solution will come out from this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the community has more or less dropped the issue on the article and have moved to the drama that followed the closure. My proposal still stands, although Sam Blanning has an excellent point. Sean William 12:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to proposed solution by Sean William 

message: Per our naming guidelines could someone make a redirect from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ deletion dispute (with lower case "d" in deletion) to this RFC?  It's not worth the hassle of actually moving the pages around, but I just had to hunt down the link because the RFC wasn't there when I typed in what it would normally be called.  Thanks. 75.62.6.237 05:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, just did it.  Mangojuicetalk 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirect request