:Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 21

:{{la|User:Betacommand/Edit count}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:User:Betacommand/Edit count}} cache]|AfD)

This useful listing update of Wikipedians by edit count was deleted unilaterally by administrator, User:Mikkalai, without going through any process or using any of the speedy deletion criteria. The given reason was "blatand disregard of a bunch of people not to publish their names in such lists." Prior to the deletion, no request was made to User:Betacommand to remove names or add placeholders for the users who do not want themselves to be on the list. The similar page, Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits has been kept in AfD three times in the past, the most recent being Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits (second nomination). I think that there should at least be an MfD for this as there is no consensus that these listings must be deleted. Captain panda 00:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

:Comment on nomination: I am one of the two admins who deleted the page. For admins who look through the deleted revisions, you'll see that BetaCommand reverted efforts to remove names or add placeholders. In fact he reverted them using automated scripts that label as vandalism these attempts at honoring the agreement of using placeholders on the original list. So it's clear that BetaCommand intends this list to be a way around that agreement. The fact that the list was kept at MfD is completely irrelevant: there's consensus to keep this list but under the condition that users can opt out of being listed. So if BetaCommand is unwilling to abide by that, he's way out of line. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn Should have at least been listed at WP:MFD as it is clearly not a CSD and there was no PROD notification given. MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This list is in no way related to the job of creating wikipedia. There have been a long and painstaking discussion about the content of the editcount page, and user:Betacommand is more than aware of it. Yet he chose to publish the raw list, which I consider to be a spit in the face of the growing number of those who elected not to play the editcountitis games. Therefore I chose to be bold in the opposite direction. `'Míkka>t 00:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

::A fine argument for a MfD, but this is a DRV. Do you think the deletion was in line with our deletion policies? _{1 != 2} 15:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn, I see absolutely zero reason for it to be deleted, even after reading the above statement. Wizardman 00:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn: No reason to delete it based on your personal opinion (without discussion @ MFD). I see no reason to delete it even if there was discussion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn if you don't want your edits to be counted by someone, somewhere... I guess you shouldn't make edits. Seriously... there was no basis for deleting this page unless Betacommand requested it. Speedy deleting pages in people's user space is unacceptable unless there's an issue like a copyvio or an indisputable attack. --Rividian (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• WP:NOTCENSORED re-created you cannot censor pure facts. β^_command 00:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn (or at this point, since it's been recreated, endorse recreation) - Did not meet speedy criteria, should have taken to MfD instead if they felt it should be deleted. VegaDark (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. Admins cannot delete things simply because they don't like them. Bring it to MFD like everyone else. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn (or, per Vega, permit/endorse recreation; in fact, I imagine that one might close this as moot, with the provision that any editor might, of course, take the issue to MfD if he should like, but I suppose that we might do alright to wait for Mikkalai to confirm that, in the presence of a clear consensus that his deletion was improper, he consents to recreation and does not view the recreation as having been out-of-process) I'd not have imagined that one would need to observe that, inasmuch as administrators act only to implement that for which a consensus of the community exists, our criteria for speedy deletion are to be construed narrowly and that IAR and BB are, except in a very few circumstances (and surely not in any in which controversy might reasonably be expected to entail), not to be invoked relative to deletion (or, really, to any process in which only a subset of editors may partake), but it can't hurt for us to restate that principle once more, as we do here. Joe 04:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn/endorse recreation per above. --Kbdank71 13:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn administrators should not unilaterally delete pages like this. --Hut 8.5 17:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, does not fall under any valid speedy deletion criteria and was not subjected to any deletion discussion. This was an inappropriate deletion. Arkyan 20:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, doesn't fit any speedy deletion criteria. Should have been an MfD. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and format list properly at actual list page (with bots not numbered, as is our practice), rather than in Betacommand's userspace, as per previous updates of said list. Punitive measures should be taken against the deleting admin for abuse of our procedure. Badagnani (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Hold on there...the deleting admin made a mistake, but mistakes just that: mistakes. Unless there's proof they did it maliciously (there's not), he shouldn't be punished...and regardless, this isn't the place to discuss it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and List at MfD. This one needs more discussion by the community. -- Kesh (talk) 02:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• overturn, I see no reason this met CSD criteria. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy overturn I think we have enough now for an immediate overturn. DGG (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Whoever cites NOTCENSORED on this needs a big fat trout slap. This is classical disruption and Mikka made the right call here. There's an agreement in place about removing the names of editors who do not wish to be on the list. You want to argue against that agreement? Fine. You want to go around it by violating it in user space? That's a no go. I wonder whether people arguing here are really aware of how many lengthy, painful, contorted debates it took to arrive at the placeholder compromise in the first place. You're supposed to respect that and not throw gas on the fire by just saying "I can recreate it in user space so screw y'all". Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn This did not follow the correct deletion procedure and it was clearly not a speedy deletion candidate. Woody (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, incorrect deletion procedure. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn No policy supports this deletion. They are just statistics. Try MfD if you think they should be deleted, but I cannot imagine what the argument would be. This is a content dispute and unilateral decisions by admins to use their tools in this dispute is not appropriate. _{1 != 2} 15:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Overturn Deleting on sight is not the proper way to deal with things you don't like. It was in userspace, which makes all the difference in the world. If someone wants it deleted, send it to MfD and see what happens. Enigma ^message 15:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

::Considering the only people who have endorsed the deletion are the two that have actually deleted it, I would say that a speedy overturn would be reasonable, but perhaps we should wait longer for an uninvolved dissenting view. _{1 != 2} 15:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Except that nobody arguing for overturning deletion seems to be taking into account that this page is essentially re-creating in userspace a list in a form that consensus has decided to avoid. Until people participating in this debate take this into account, the deletion shouldn't be overturned. I don't care if it's in userspace: you're not supposed to use that space to go around a painfully crafted consensus. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

::The consensus you refer to was for the page in the Wikipedia namespace, a collective page. Something in the userspace is a different story. I don't think there was a consensus that people's edit counts should be blacklisted from the Wiki entirely if they ask for it, it is a consensus for that one page. Regardless it cannot be denied that this is a content dispute and that unilateral admin action is not appropriate in content disputes. Make your arguments at MfD, and allow a consensus to form then respect and follow it. That is how we handle content disputes. _{1 != 2} 17:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

:::I'm baffled that you would make this argument. Userspace is not your own little playground where you can place things that for some reason or another were deleted by consensus in other namespaces. We would never accept for instance somebody recreating BJAODN in their userspace. An agreement was made that editors who did not want their name on this list would have their names removed. This is even part of the closing note on the previous MfD. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

::BJAODN was a copyright issue, this is not. The closing comments say nothing about prohibiting creation in userspace, the whole discussion was no consensus. Who said anything about a playground? This is a page of statistics, it is not an attack on anyone. If people don't want their contributions to be noted, well I don't know what to say other than Wikipedia is a transparent system. _{1 != 2} 18:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Say what? You made that argument on the original MfDs. Fair enough. But that's not what the community decided to do. Now you're saying "screw the community, this is my preferred version of the list." This is unacceptable, and you know it. If BetaCommand wants to have this list, he can store it on his laptop. If he's placing it there so that others have access to it, then he's unilaterally deciding to disregard community consensus and setting everyone up for another drama-rich MfD where everyone will cut and paste the endless discussions on the matter that were present in the MfDs and on the list's talk page. And if you don't like the BJAODN example, it would be unacceptable to find the good'ol GNAA page recreated in userspace. It would be speedy deleted as recreation of deleted material. In essence, this is what BetaCommand's list is. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

::If that is what MfD decides then fine... but no such decision has been made. _{1 != 2} 01:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn & list at MFD. Should be deleted, but not like this. ➪HiDrNick! 16:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as this is a clearly disruptive page created by an editor who seems to stir endless controversy. Admin discretion allows removal of disruption. Franamax (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

:What is disruptive about statistics? Who was disrupted? The page is tucked away in a userpage, I fail to see how it can disrupt anyone who does not first go out looking for it, then choose to be disrupted by it. _{1 != 2} 18:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

::Until1=2, I think it would be honest of you to disclose that you were one of the staunch opponents of the placeholder solution. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

:Sure, and my position remains the same. I don't see why I need to re-announce that I held this position before but if you want then okay: I have always though it was silly to censor public statistics. People don't own their contributions. Regardless this is a DRV, not an MfD. While a tenuous agreement was made on that page regarding that page's content, that is a far cry from a Wikipedia wide ban on listing edit counts. My primary point is that it is well beyond the discretion of an admin to unilaterally use their tools in a content dispute. I wonder what your past involvement in this dispute has been if any(I don't remember, it was so long ago)?

:I really don't see what any of this has to do with my question about what disruption was caused though. _{1 != 2} 19:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

::The disruption is right here, YABT (yet another Beta thread). I don't buy the you-had-to-look-for-it-it's-your-own-fault approach for a second, all pages on the wiki are public, none of them are tucked away. There's a lack of simple courtesy here, if members of the community don't wish to appear in the count, what on earth is hard about respecting that? Choosing the alternative of beginning a hairsplitting argument about who agreed to what when and how is beyond reason. It's disruptive because the community reached agreement on participation in the list and this is a new attempt to drag up the same old discussion. If the page is tucked away nowhere, what purpose does it serve? It's purpose appears to be making a WP:POINT. It can just as easily be maintained off-wiki. Franamax (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

:My answer to that is WP:OWN. If someone finds you contributions useful then you need a better reason than "I don't want you to use my contribs in that way" to prevent it. These numbers are a matter of public record, and there is no interpretation made. These are just raw facts being presented. I don't think any Wikipedian has the right to not have statistics aggregated from their contributions. And yes, userspace is different than Wikipedia space. One reflects the community, the other reflects an individual. I agree that the community can determine what is acceptable in the userspace, but no such determination has yet been made against this page. That really is my point, it is MfD that decides if it is inappropriate, not a single admin with a point of view.

:The only point I see being made here is that people are so incredibly concerned with their edit count that they just can't stand to have it counted by people who happened to be interested in this public information. _{1 != 2} 02:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn, seems to have been an out-of-process deletion by an admin involved in a dispute. Kelly ^hi! 19:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn (pile-on). Per the arguments above. Process is important. We can't just go around deleting things on sight. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

:{{la|E3value}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:E3value}} cache]|AfD)

First delete because the article was not neutral and lack of references.

Second delete with no reasons because the article was corrected Pipo489 (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment from deleting admin. First and second delete (by other admins) last week were because the article was spammy. I deleted the article yesterday after this rather clearcut discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E3value, where the only one wanting to keep the article was the author of the article. I redeleted the article today as a repost (CSD G4), since it wasn't substantially changed between the closure of the AfD and the reposted version (the only difference I can see is more text in the references section, no substantial changes in the content of the article). The references are all by current or former members of the E3 team [http://www.e3value.com/e3team/], no independent sources have been provided. The reposted version was tagged for spam as well (by yet another editor), but tag was removed by author of the article (despite the bold "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself" text). Fram (talk) 09:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse and salt, correct closure, especially after viewing the [http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:8RvcIYYwdcoJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E3value+e3value&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us google cache] of it. MrPrada (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Correctly closed AFD, correctly performed WP:CSD#G4 deletion. Consider salting if this comes back again. GRBerry 14:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, salt if recreated. AfD closed correctly, recreation speedied correctly. Redfarmer (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• endorse still no good evidence of the term ever being used except by the inventor.DGG (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Good delete. Salt if the author is persistent in recreation. _{1 != 2} 16:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)