Manhattan Brewing Company – Deletion overturned; listed at AfD. – Xoloz 02:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Manhattan Brewing Company (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Unknown to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wittym (talk • contribs) It was deleted for not asserting importance. It actually did assert importance ("the Manhattan Brewing Company pioneered the brewpub concept in New York City. The first working brewery in the city for many decades") but was probably actually deleted for being unformatted, uncategorized and unreferenced. --W.marsh 20:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Conditional undelete Nomination is a complete non-sequiter, but I do think this subject is notable enough for an article. I'd like to see a better one than the deleted version, without adversting tone ("entrepreneural visionary") and with sources. Do that and this is... golden. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] As W.marsh noted, it did claim importance. That claim, however, I find completely unbelievable; given the History of New York City includes European settlement back to 1613; every pub brewed its own beer at that point. The History of beer tells us that industrialization of beer brewing did not commence until the late 1700s. Absent a reliable source for the claim of notability, which the article conspicuously lacked, this wouldn't survive AFD. If such a source appears during DRV, send it to AFD, otherwise endorse deletion. GRBerry 20:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] I think it refers to brewpubs in the modern sense. See Brewpub. It's not wholly unbelievable that this might have been NY's poineer in that field. Sourcing for such a statement is definitely needed, though, no disagreement there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] This looks like a solid source. The NY Times says it was "the only working brewery on the island [of Manhattan]" as of '91. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] & the article words it properly "first working brewery for many years"DGG (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Undelete and list at AfD - simply fails to meet the A7 criterion. TerriersFan 22:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion as-is; whether it's relisted or not it badly needs to be rewritten. This is an advertisement, stocked with peacock terms. No prejudice against creation of a sourced, NPOV version. Chick Bowen 23:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - the condition of the article is not a ground for its continued deletion - the question is does it meet A7? TerriersFan 01:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] It meets G11. Chick Bowen 01:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Undelete, restore, and improve: As a Manhattanite I can vouch for notability, although the article as written needs a bunch of work. Newyorkbrad 23:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relist. The article was speedy-deleted, but there is a possibility of notability. The article will need some verifiable, reliable sources though—and in a hurry, before the 5-day AFD process is completed. ●DanMS • Talk 04:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Undelete - It appears to me from W.marsh's quote above that there was an assertion of significance or importance, which takes this out of A7. -- DS1953 ^talk 17:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Undelete Not a correct use of Speedy. it should have been clear to the admin who deleted it. The admin who deleted itshould review WP:CSD. DGG (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Recreate if someone wants to. Why bother undeleting uninformative fluff? Wickethewok 02:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Manhattan Brewing Company – Deletion overturned; listed at AfD. – Xoloz 02:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Unknown to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wittym (talk • contribs)

It was deleted for not asserting importance. It actually did assert importance ("the Manhattan Brewing Company pioneered the brewpub concept in New York City. The first working brewery in the city for many decades") but was probably actually deleted for being unformatted, uncategorized and unreferenced. --W.marsh 20:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional undelete Nomination is a complete non-sequiter, but I do think this subject is notable enough for an article. I'd like to see a better one than the deleted version, without adversting tone ("entrepreneural visionary") and with sources. Do that and this is... golden. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As W.marsh noted, it did claim importance. That claim, however, I find completely unbelievable; given the History of New York City includes European settlement back to 1613; every pub brewed its own beer at that point. The History of beer tells us that industrialization of beer brewing did not commence until the late 1700s. Absent a reliable source for the claim of notability, which the article conspicuously lacked, this wouldn't survive AFD. If such a source appears during DRV, send it to AFD, otherwise endorse deletion. GRBerry 20:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it refers to brewpubs in the modern sense. See Brewpub. It's not wholly unbelievable that this might have been NY's poineer in that field. Sourcing for such a statement is definitely needed, though, no disagreement there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This looks like a solid source. The NY Times says it was "the only working brewery on the island [of Manhattan]" as of '91. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

& the article words it properly "first working brewery for many years"DGG (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete and list at AfD - simply fails to meet the A7 criterion. TerriersFan 22:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as-is; whether it's relisted or not it badly needs to be rewritten. This is an advertisement, stocked with peacock terms. No prejudice against creation of a sourced, NPOV version. Chick Bowen 23:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the condition of the article is not a ground for its continued deletion - the question is does it meet A7? TerriersFan 01:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It meets G11. Chick Bowen 01:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete, restore, and improve: As a Manhattanite I can vouch for notability, although the article as written needs a bunch of work. Newyorkbrad 23:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. The article was speedy-deleted, but there is a possibility of notability. The article will need some verifiable, reliable sources though—and in a hurry, before the 5-day AFD process is completed. ●DanMS • Talk 04:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete - It appears to me from W.marsh's quote above that there was an assertion of significance or importance, which takes this out of A7. -- DS1953 ^talk 17:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete Not a correct use of Speedy. it should have been clear to the admin who deleted it. The admin who deleted itshould review WP:CSD. DGG (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate if someone wants to. Why bother undeleting uninformative fluff? Wickethewok 02:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

User:Yogidude/Swami Shankarananda Saraswati – CSD G4 speedy deletion overturned; returned to mainspace and referred to AfD. – Xoloz 03:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Yogidude/Swami Shankarananda Saraswati (edit \| [[Talk:User:Yogidude/Swami Shankarananda Saraswati\|talk]] \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Administrator Steve has indicated the page needs to go through the deletion review process. TheRingess nominated the page for speedy deletion minutes after it was posted on the grounds that it 'appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted...'. As editor of the current page I assert that it is not a repost of deleted material. It perhaps has a common subject. But the current article contains none of the original articles material as was used as criteria to delete the original page. Incidentally I agree with the action to delete the original page, it was very short on factual content or verifiable citation. I respectfully request that the page be restored. Yogidude 13:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn G4 deletion WP:CSD#G4. The new article is significantly different than the old 3 sentence stub. It uses multiple sources, none of which are the one that was present in the old article. Whatever else it may be, it is not substantially identical, which is required for G4 to apply. GRBerry 13:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] overturn, per same logic as GRBerry. JoshuaZ 16:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] ~~Keep deleted.~~ While I applaud the author's research efforts, I feel that the coverage from sources is very bad. The sources are mostly self-published and thus not reliable. There is an interview, but the interviewing publication seems extremely highly specialized towards this particular area, and in any case, interviews aren't reliable for sourcing facts, just statements. This might be better discussed at AfD, though: I don't see the harm in moving it back and starting a new debate. The old version was not at all like this one. Mango juice^talk 18:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] In fact, one of the seven references cited could perhaps be argued as self-published, the other six are by independent sources. In which case the seventh appears in a completely independent, highly regarded, (some would say authoritative) publication. Perhaps there is some confusion in the presentation? The three items appearing under the heading 'Bibliography' which, while listing books published by the person who is the subject of the Bio, are nevertheless not directly cited in the body of the article as references. In which case it may or may not be more appropriate further distinguish them in some way. Irrespective of the outcome of such consideration, the fact remains that the new article is completely different from the earlier one of the same name Yogidude 21:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Changing to overturn. Yeah, I may be being overly picky here. I'm concerned about the lack of biographical coverage, but there is coverage of his work at least. Mango juice^talk 15:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn deletion, tag the article if there are any major flaws, but since it was not the same article it does not qualify for G4 and should be given a chance for other editors to improve it. IPSOS (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn deletion. As it's significantly and substantially different from the preceding deleted article, G4 wasn't applicable. Mango's argument for keeping deleted would make an excellent argument for deletion in an AFD; this is not AFD. Neil ╦ 09:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn deletion. As noted above by several editors, G4 wasn't applicable. -- DS1953 ^talk 17:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

User:Yogidude/Swami Shankarananda Saraswati – CSD G4 speedy deletion overturned; returned to mainspace and referred to AfD. – Xoloz 03:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Administrator Steve has indicated the page needs to go through the deletion review process. TheRingess nominated the page for speedy deletion minutes after it was posted on the grounds that it 'appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted...'.

As editor of the current page I assert that it is not a repost of deleted material. It perhaps has a common subject. But the current article contains none of the original articles material as was used as criteria to delete the original page. Incidentally I agree with the action to delete the original page, it was very short on factual content or verifiable citation. I respectfully request that the page be restored. Yogidude 13:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn G4 deletion WP:CSD#G4. The new article is significantly different than the old 3 sentence stub. It uses multiple sources, none of which are the one that was present in the old article. Whatever else it may be, it is not substantially identical, which is required for G4 to apply. GRBerry 13:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

overturn, per same logic as GRBerry. JoshuaZ 16:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep deleted.~~ While I applaud the author's research efforts, I feel that the coverage from sources is very bad. The sources are mostly self-published and thus not reliable. There is an interview, but the interviewing publication seems extremely highly specialized towards this particular area, and in any case, interviews aren't reliable for sourcing facts, just statements. This might be better discussed at AfD, though: I don't see the harm in moving it back and starting a new debate. The old version was not at all like this one. Mango juice^talk 18:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, one of the seven references cited could perhaps be argued as self-published, the other six are by independent sources. In which case the seventh appears in a completely independent, highly regarded, (some would say authoritative) publication. Perhaps there is some confusion in the presentation? The three items appearing under the heading 'Bibliography' which, while listing books published by the person who is the subject of the Bio, are nevertheless not directly cited in the body of the article as references. In which case it may or may not be more appropriate further distinguish them in some way. Irrespective of the outcome of such consideration, the fact remains that the new article is completely different from the earlier one of the same name Yogidude 21:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to overturn. Yeah, I may be being overly picky here. I'm concerned about the lack of biographical coverage, but there is coverage of his work at least. Mango juice^talk 15:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion, tag the article if there are any major flaws, but since it was not the same article it does not qualify for G4 and should be given a chance for other editors to improve it. IPSOS (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion. As it's significantly and substantially different from the preceding deleted article, G4 wasn't applicable. Mango's argument for keeping deleted would make an excellent argument for deletion in an AFD; this is not AFD. Neil ╦ 09:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion. As noted above by several editors, G4 wasn't applicable. -- DS1953 ^talk 17:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Alfian_Sa'at – Partial restore. – Nick 07:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Alfian_Sa'at (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Article was deleted due to "BLP concerns"; when asked, deleting admin cited "exceptional circumstances" warranting its deletion that apparently can't be disclosed. As the editor who created the article, I recall no contentious or libelous information on the article, and without any idea of what was originally wrong with the article, I cannot recreate it to conform to whichever policy it ostensibly violated. I thus move for undeletion and clarification on what is wrong with the article so I can fix it. ryand 11:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] I see in the history a bunch of edit warring over material asserting some things about the sexuality of the subject. The primary participants appear to have been User:InfernoXV (adding material) and some IPs and newly registered editors. The first edit by InfernoXV appears to have been on June 18, and the prior version of June 14 (by User:Dirtybutclean) does not appear to have any BLP issues at all. The only other major section added since then was a couple paragraphs on the subject's name. As part of criteria for deleting BLP troubled articles is that the deleting admin has reviewed every version in the history and determined that every version fails BLP, the deletion should be overturned, as there are BLP compliant versions. However, since it has been deleted, why not simply partially restore versions through June 14, 2007. GRBerry 13:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] That's not the only problem with the article, unfortunately, and it isn't actually to do with the content per se. The best compromise would be to undelete a couple of versions which are free from any BLP issues, but with the strict understanding that none of the previous editors should be permitted to edit the page, given the conflict of interest which exists here. Nick 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] oh dear god, just overturn clearly notable as a person, even when we do have BLP concerns about factual issues we generally just revert and if necessary delete those reversion. If necessary partially restore per GRBerry's comment above. I presume that Nick will keep a close watch to make sure that the people with COIs do not make any serious edits to the articles. JoshuaZ 16:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] overturn The BLP policy should be applied strictly, but only within the limits set by the policy. DGG (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn per the others. This is a BLP issue that can be solved by editing, deleting the whole article was not necessary here. If after the article is restored, BLP-violating edits become a continuing problem, I would rather see harsh blocks applied than deletion to avoid the issue. Mango juice^talk 18:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn deletion as improper. any needed reversions, selective deeltions, protections, or editor sanctions to deal with past improepr edits, or prevent future ones, can then be applied. I might add that i can't see any good reason why the deelting admin was so reticient when questioned about the matter on his talk page. DES ^(talk) 21:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and restore - then clean up any BLP issues. TerriersFan 22:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Undelete to June 14. I don't see anything too bad before then. Chick Bowen 01:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Alfian_Sa'at – Partial restore. – Nick 07:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Article was deleted due to "BLP concerns"; when asked, deleting admin cited "exceptional circumstances" warranting its deletion that apparently can't be disclosed. As the editor who created the article, I recall no contentious or libelous information on the article, and without any idea of what was originally wrong with the article, I cannot recreate it to conform to whichever policy it ostensibly violated. I thus move for undeletion and clarification on what is wrong with the article so I can fix it. ryand 11:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see in the history a bunch of edit warring over material asserting some things about the sexuality of the subject. The primary participants appear to have been User:InfernoXV (adding material) and some IPs and newly registered editors. The first edit by InfernoXV appears to have been on June 18, and the prior version of June 14 (by User:Dirtybutclean) does not appear to have any BLP issues at all. The only other major section added since then was a couple paragraphs on the subject's name. As part of criteria for deleting BLP troubled articles is that the deleting admin has reviewed every version in the history and determined that every version fails BLP, the deletion should be overturned, as there are BLP compliant versions. However, since it has been deleted, why not simply partially restore versions through June 14, 2007. GRBerry 13:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the only problem with the article, unfortunately, and it isn't actually to do with the content per se. The best compromise would be to undelete a couple of versions which are free from any BLP issues, but with the strict understanding that none of the previous editors should be permitted to edit the page, given the conflict of interest which exists here. Nick 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh dear god, just overturn clearly notable as a person, even when we do have BLP concerns about factual issues we generally just revert and if necessary delete those reversion. If necessary partially restore per GRBerry's comment above. I presume that Nick will keep a close watch to make sure that the people with COIs do not make any serious edits to the articles. JoshuaZ 16:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn The BLP policy should be applied strictly, but only within the limits set by the policy. DGG (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per the others. This is a BLP issue that can be solved by editing, deleting the whole article was not necessary here. If after the article is restored, BLP-violating edits become a continuing problem, I would rather see harsh blocks applied than deletion to avoid the issue. Mango juice^talk 18:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion as improper. any needed reversions, selective deeltions, protections, or editor sanctions to deal with past improepr edits, or prevent future ones, can then be applied. I might add that i can't see any good reason why the deelting admin was so reticient when questioned about the matter on his talk page. DES ^(talk) 21:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore - then clean up any BLP issues. TerriersFan 22:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete to June 14. I don't see anything too bad before then. Chick Bowen 01:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Ipjobs.co.uk – Deletion endorsed. – Sr 13 21:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ipjobs.co.uk (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` not an appropriate candidate for speedy deletion. article is neutal and factual. it discusses a web based business in a factual manner but is not promotional as such - such articles are allowed by the guidelines 87.112.22.106 09:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, advertising for a NN A7 site. >Radiant< 10:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] endorse promotional material exclusively.DGG (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. I'll agree that this wasn't THAT promotional in tone. But the business is so NN, the article's existence can only be for promotion. This article wouldn't stand a chance at AfD, and CSD A7 would apply, too. Mango juice^talk 18:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. I don't see anything notable about this organization. Not likely to survive AFD. ●DanMS • Talk 05:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Ipjobs.co.uk – Deletion endorsed. – Sr 13 21:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

not an appropriate candidate for speedy deletion. article is neutal and factual. it discusses a web based business in a factual manner but is not promotional as such - such articles are allowed by the guidelines 87.112.22.106 09:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, advertising for a NN A7 site. >Radiant< 10:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse promotional material exclusively.DGG (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I'll agree that this wasn't THAT promotional in tone. But the business is so NN, the article's existence can only be for promotion. This article wouldn't stand a chance at AfD, and CSD A7 would apply, too. Mango juice^talk 18:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I don't see anything notable about this organization. Not likely to survive AFD. ●DanMS • Talk 05:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

User:Rfwoolf/Evidence – Deletion endorsed, per the Black Falcon compromise. I will make available to the user the historical content of the page, solely for the purpose of the filing of an RfC. The consensus below does support the notion that information may not dwell endlessly on-site for the sake an RfC never actually filed. However, given the lack of clarity in process, it is reasonable to allow the user access to the content for its stated legitimate purpose. – Xoloz 03:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Rfwoolf/Evidence (edit \| [[Talk:User:Rfwoolf/Evidence\|talk]] \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`MfD`)` See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rfwoolf/Evidence Should be relisted for the following reasons: (1) User Rfwoolf was compiling evidence for possible RfC. (2) User who submitted for deletion was the subject of said RfC. (3) Debate was closed less than a day after it started. (4) The debate was 6-4 to keep (all from registered users) when it was abruptly closed. ~~Frankly, this speedy closure stinks...~~^{see this} ATren 10:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] (1) no he wasn't, this is a half-year-old issue; (2) yes, and so?; (3) yes, because of speedy deletion criterion G10; (4) MFD is not a vote count, and the aforementioned CSD trumps MFD. Endorse my deletion, this was an attack page. We speedily delete pages that have no purpose other than to disparage their subject. This was an obvious example, and we don't need such nastiness. Also, if this really had been an RFC, it would have been deleted ages ago per RFC policy - we delete uncertified RFCs for good reason. >Radiant< 10:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] "the aforementioned CSD trumps MFD" - I don't think so. See my extract from WP:CSD above. If there is any doubt, other deletion processes trump CSD. I think copyright infringement and WP:BLP are exceptions. --Richard 17:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Since when is compiling evidence with diffs considered an "attack"? This is an especially broad interpretation of WP:NPA. ATren 11:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] The page had no purpose other than to disparage its subject. That makes it speedily deletable, per WP:CSD. >Radiant< 11:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] "...had no other purpose..." - Can you not see this page was a Request For Comment - materially so in its opening paragraph. Your tunnel-vision claim that it's an attack page completely fails to acknowledge this. You are appearing rather biased on this issue. Rfwoolf 11:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ths act of compiling evidence in the form of diffs is not "disparaging". Come on. Is it any wonder that attack sites are cropping up to document this stuff~~, when people here are so eager to squelch well-presented criticism of the actions of admins~~^{see this}? ATren 11:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Within closing admin discretion and frankly the way Rfwoolf has been behaving over the last 24 hours, I haver lost any sympathy for him that I might have had. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] "The way Rfwoolf has been behaving over the last 24 hours..." - what on earth are you talking about? He politely but firmly pointed out what he believed to be a hypocritical stance by an admin, and even after he was subjected to a vicious personal attack ("shut the fuck up you whining twat") he remained civil. ~~This double standard we apply to admins is getting quite tiresome.~~^{see this} Regardless of past disputes, Rfwoolf did nothing wrong here, and it is incorrect of you to insinuate so. Jeez, the way people are acting, you'd think Rfwoolf is the personal attacker here... :-( ATren 12:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] If you are an impartial user (and I hope you are), you are to assess Deletion Reviews on a case-by-case basis. Even if Rfwoolf has behaved badly in other cases and on separate issues (and I'm not saying he has), you are obligated to assess this case of deletion on its merits without factoring irrelevant content in. Your philosophical question remains: 1) Did the deleted page "serve only as a purpose to attack a user?" and, 2) Does the content of the page satisfy you as being RfC material? (As an admin has already pointed out, formulating an RfC post in one's userspace is allowed although slightly uncommon. Rfwoolf Endorse An attack page. User:Rfwoolf's recent actions have been trollish and User:ATren's outrage on his behalf is growing as wearisome as it is incomprehensible. Eusebeus 12:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] All right, please explain the difference between an RfC and an attack page? Please explain why RfC drafting should not take place in userspace? Your logic and reason is welcome on this one. Rfwoolf 13:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yes, incomprehensible that I would object to an admin telling another user to "shut the fuck up you whining twat". Incomprehensible. What is this place coming to when an admin cannot unleash a scathing attack without being called on it? ATren 15:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn The MFD should have been closed as "no consensus". There is a difference between an attack page and a draft RFC which collects evidence in support of conduct in violation of policy. The policies in question here are WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Allowing this to continue as a WP:RFC may result in closure of this dispute. The response on WP:ANI and on the user's Talk Page have already indicated that many (including myself) think the editor should drop it. However, it is up to the editor to do this voluntarily. Forcing him to drop it is censorship. Continuing to suppress the plaintiff's complaints could result in it boiling over into an WP:RFARB with this deletion being cited as evidence. Stop trying to squelch dissent even if it is overblown. Let the man have his day in court. --Richard 13:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] So you're essentially saying that unless he voluntarily chooses to drop it (which he already stated he won't) he can "have his day in court" by bringing it up repeatedly in any process he can think of. Interesting view. >Radiant< 14:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Er, from the horse's own mouth: I never stated I won't "drop it". I'm also not sure what "it" is - there's a whole lot of issues here: a SALTed article, userpage censorship, and 5 personal attacks -- all by JzG. This deleted article User:Rfwoolf/Evidence deals with the userpage censorship. Will I "drop that?" I don't know -- all I know is that I should have the right to collect evidence on an abusive admin should I wish to hold him accountable. To prevent me from collecting evidence would I feel be censorship. Rfwoolf 14:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Deletion - Unless someone can point out the precedents for a) prohibiting the use of userspace in this manner, i.e. collecting evidence for an RfC, and b) the declaration that the act of filing an RfC is a personal attack, this seems like a pretty disgusting display of an abuse of power. Tarc 15:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] So you're saying that we should allow blatant attack pages (such as this one) as long as the author simply claims he's collecting evidence. That would be a nice loophole, but WP:CSD says otherwise (and incidentally there's plenty of precedent for deleting attack pages). >Radiant< 15:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] I'm sure there is plenty for deleting attack pages, but where's the precedent for declaring an RfC-gathering page to be a personal attack? Tarc 15:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] "Blatant attack page". I mean 'cmon, even on a very worst-case scenario it isn't a "BLATANT" attack page. I imagine even the most biased of admins couldn't call it "blatant". Anybody that's, well, literate can see it isn't any way blatant. It's an RfC. Then you confuse attack pages with RfC's. Smells like something that the Arbcom would love to hear about: Wikipolicy: Are all RfC's attack pages? Rfwoolf 15:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Deletion vote by involved editor - if I'm allowed to, I obviously strongly vote for an overturn Rfwoolf 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, inappropriate use of user space and the closing admin was within their discretion to axe it as an attack page. Using a temporary user page to collect evidence is one thing, but it looks like the user was planning to run a private little "pseudo-RFC" there. Just isn't appropriate. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Nothing but an out of date attack page. Nick 15:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. Although I personally disagree with the closure (speedy deletions should be such that "reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion"; there is no such agreement in this case), I won't call for it to be overturned yet. In the hope of avoiding even more pointless drama, I will quote something from the userpage guideline: If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so. Now, it's nowhere near clear that there is consensus that the material should be removed, but there is obviously opposition to allowing it to remain. So, I ask that Rfwoolf agree to the removal of content. If there is anything on the page that he wishes to preserve (perhaps for a future RfC), he may do so by saving it to his personal text editor (e.g., Notepad) or word processor. As the version of the page cached by Google is not up-to-date, I also ask that Radiant temporarily restore the page for Rfwoolf if he so requests. There is no good that can come from everyone 'sticking to their guns' in this case and any non-compromise outcome will only perpetuate the problem. If the deletion is overturned, we'll have another MfD and more infighting to look forward to. If the deletion is endorsed, it'll seem like a cover-up and censorship. Please let's not unnecessarily make this more of a big deal than it already is. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] comment This is why I keep all my nasty difs and partially formed RfCs on my hardrive. I really don't understand why anyone does this at this point. Black Falcon's solution seems highly reasonable at this point although it doesn't seem to be an attack page to me. JoshuaZ 16:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn It was not an attack page. There was nothing said there that is inappropriate for WP or out of context. If it is appropriate to say that an admin abused his power in a RfC, it is permissible to prepare an afd with that contents in user space. Further, saying an admin abused his power is not an attack in the sense of NPA-it is criticism, fair or unfair, & I quite expect that those unhappy with what I might do might say similar things--it's part of the rhetoric. The reaction to that is to be very sure one did not abuse one's power, and then ignore it. Stretching the BLP policy to permit speedy removal of such material is particularly unjustified. DGG (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] THIS DELETION REVIEW HAS GONE OFF THE RAILS. Deletion reviews are supposed to be about the process of the deletion decision, NOT about whether or not the deletion was justified. IMO, the deletion was not justified based on the merits of the case, but more importantly for the purposes of this discussion, it was not justified because it was an "out of process" decision. From WP:Deletion review This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the AfD debate. This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content. From Wikipedia:Attack page A Wikipedia article, page, category, redirect or image created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject is an attack page. It should be noted that this guideline is not meant to apply to formal good faith reports on a user's conduct or pattern of behavior made in accord with policy. For example, a request for comment filed in good faith would not be considered an attack page. From CAT:CSD If there is any doubt at all, switch the article to a process like Wikipedia:Proposed deletion that allows time for others to review the proposal. Looking at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rfwoolf/Evidence, it's clear that there is doubt since the discussion was running towards "No consensus to delete". IMO, Radiant! inappropriately short-circuited the MfD process in order to follow a "Speedy delete" decision which runs against both the guidelines outlined above. My recommendation is to restore the page and re-instate the MfD and let it run to conclusion. If editors below wish to express an opinion on the MfD, then let them do so. A consensus may yet form to delete the article but the correct place to form that consensus is at the MfD, not here. It should be clear, however, that process has not been followed in this case. Let's get this whole deletion process back on the rails. --Richard 17:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Or at worst, relist. There's a reason improperly-certified RFCs are routinely deleted: not closed, not marked as inactive, but deleted. I think it's fine for someone to start collecting information towards an RfC they aren't ready to file yet, but our practice of deleting them goes to show we don't tolerate the existence of this kind of page for long periods of time. If Rwoolf decides to put forward an actual RfC, I wouldn't mind temporarily undeleting the page so it can be moved to an RFC. Mango juice^talk 18:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong Overturn - The MfD should have been closed as No consensus. Further, looking at the page in question, it was not a CSD G10 attack page; nowhere did it contain personal attacks on Guy. What it contained was a list of diffs detailing a legitimate dispute. As I haven't been involved with the dispute, I can't comment on who is in the wrong, but this is certainly not a case for deletion. Indeed, this whole thing has done nothing more than escalate the dispute further. Walton^One 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong overturn - This overturn is based on the deletion process it was ran through, not the justification. I feel that Radiant! misdetermined consensus, as there was simply no consensus, but used it as a basis to promote her own beliefs about the justification of the deletion of the ~~article~~ subpage. The G10 was nonsense, it wasn't an attack page; it was evidence. I've kept subpages before to hold evidence, although I only use them to hold the information until it's transferred to the proper forum or subpage. There's also nothing to keep the editor from copying and pasting the data onto a page of Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, or the like. I feel that this, however, should go through a second MfD to determine the real consensus, since the admin determined improper consensus. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse per Mangojuice, whose comment I suggest everyone re-reads. – Steel 20:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion per Mangojuice unless the user actually plans to file an RFC. Otherwise, it's essentially an attack page, and deletion was the right move. --Core desat 21:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn as per Richard. Process was improepr, this isn't the place to debate the merits. DES ^(talk) 21:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn not a blatant attack page by any reasonable definition. Editors have a great deal of latitude in their userspace for material that helps in writing the encyclopedia. Drafts of good-faith RfCs fall well within that, whether or not we agree with their merits or likelihood of success. Vadder 23:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strongly endorse deletion and I have to admit that I had actually formatted a closure of this DRV and came very, very, very close to summarily closing this as endorsed and deleted without further discussion. I have hesitated only to see if others agree with this path. Newyorkbrad 23:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Valid interpretation of G10; evidence belongs in an RFC where it can be questioned, not in userspace where it is merely a one-sided gripe: i.e., an attack. This was within process. Chick Bowen 00:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sigh more drama. Black Falcon's argument is particularly cogent; if the community lets one know they would like something in your userspace deleted, you should consider deleting it. I agree. Plus, no one actually needs to post stuff on-wiki; just keep it on your desktop. Further, Mangojuice's comment is spot-on; we don't allow RFCs to sit around forever precisely because this is what would happen every single time; similarly, we should not allow RFCs (in userspace) to sit around forever. So endorse deletion. --Iamunknown 17:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] As Richard has rightfully pointed out, deletion reviews on a Speedy-Delete are about process, not content. In other words, you may rightfully agree that the article should have been deleted, but, do you agree that the article should have been speedy-deleted? If so, you can only agree based upon the G10 Attack Page criterion, so specifically, you can only endorse the speedy-deletion if you "agree the page was an attack page, and should have been speedy-deleted". Your comments don't seem to say any of that - you instead refer to keeping RfC pages around for too long. If that's how you feel, vote to overturn the speedy-deletion, and vote for 'delete' on the MfD page when it reopens Rfwoolf 18:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Herewith is the policy that was violated regarding the relevant speedy-deletion of the article User:Rfwoolf/Evidence 1.0 - The Wikipolicy that was applied: (From Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#General_criteria) (Speedy-delete reason was:) "Attack pages. Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile")." The incorrect application of it: The deleted page clearly did not just "serve no purpose but to disparage JzG". In fact it claimed to be a Request For Comment (or RfC). It was very very civil. It also was fair to the subject (JzG) by saying that any feedback is made without prejudice because the subject (JzG) hadn't yet been called to the page. 2.0 - The Wikipolicy that was applied: From Wikipedia:Attack_page: "It should be noted that this guideline is not meant to apply to formal good faith reports on a user's conduct or pattern of behavior made in accord with policy. For example, a request for comment filed in good faith would not be considered an attack page." The incorrect application of it: The deleted page was clearly a good faith report on a user's conduct or pattern of behaviour. 3.0 - The Wikipolicy that was applied: Also from Wikipedia:Attack_page: "A Wikipedia article, page, category, redirect or image created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject is an attack page." The incorrect application of it: Once again, the deleted page was not "created for the sole purpose of disparaging..." JzG. It was in fact a Request for Comment. 4.0 - The Wikipolicy that was ignored: From Category:Candidates for speedy deletion: "If there is any doubt at all, switch the article to a process like Wikipedia:Proposed deletion that allows time for others to review the proposal." The violation of it: Clearly there is doubt by several editors and admins, both on the original AfD, and on the Deletion Review, as to whether the article should be deleted, or even speedy-deleted. Rfwoolf 17:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Proposed Compromise The more I think about it, the more stupid this discussion seems to me. I'm not calling any single editor one of us, just all of us collectively are going about this stupidly because of the yes/no nature of the discussion. The current "vote" tally seems to be 9 endorse, 8 overturn which shows that there are strong sentiment on both sides of this question. A point that has popped up a couple of times in this discussion has been "Should be an RFC, not in userspace". How about we just offer to Rfwoolf to restore his text if and only if he intends to turn it into an RFC in short order (i.e. within 3 days or a week?). If an RFC is not created within that period of time, the page will be redeleted as a speedy using the original MfD and this discussion as justification. The man has a right to issue an RFC. I think the consensus is clear that, absent an RFC, the page should not exist in userspace. (I disagree with that consensus but I'm more interested in compromise than in insisting on my personal POV). --Richard 17:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse per Iamunknown. These kind of pages help no one. Eluchil404 18:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] As Richard has earlier rightfully pointed out, deletion reviews on a Speedy-Delete are about process, not content. In other words, you may rightfully agree that the article should have been deleted, but, do you agree that the article should have been speedy-deleted? If so, you should only agree based upon the G10 Attack Page criterion, so specifically, you can only endorse the speedy-deletion if you "agree the page was an attack page created solely for the purpose of disparaging its subject, and should have been speedy-deleted as such". If that's how you feel, vote for endorse, otherwise vote to overturn, and you can always vote for deletion based on content when the MfD reopens. Rfwoolf 18:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, relist and be more civil. I don't see consensus that this was an attack page, so the MfD should have been allowed to run its course. And knock off the namecalling. -- But\|seriously\|folks 18:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. Although I distinctly prefer my original suggestion (temporarily undeleting to allow the page to be copied to Notepad), I believe the deletion itself was unwarranted. I do not agree that the content of the page justified a deletion per CSD G10 for various reasons already noted by others and, if nothing else, because there is substantial disagreement about the validity of the deletion, which implies that MfD is warranted). In fact, the early closure may have backfired in terms of perpetuating what seems to a rather unproductive debate. I once again urge Radiant! and Rfwoolf to consider the suggested option of temporarily undeleting the page and saving it offline. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as an attack page. I'd be ok with the idea of taking it offline, though. --Kbdank71 20:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Evidence pages are routinely deleted as attack pages. Arguments about "out of process deletion" are misguided, as process follows practice and not vice-versa. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] File the RFC. I'll bring the popcorn. It'll be 48 hours of people saying "oh, an audacious attempt my good fellow" for the attempted textual goatse, then people will laugh and suggest he goes away and does something useful with his life, there's a good chap, then when it's deleted JzG will probably want a copy to frame in his userspace (as the subjects of failed RFCs are allowed to do) - David Gerard 00:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yeah! Beat down that troll! Mock him for daring to follow policy! Block him for civil discussion! And then, for good measure, frame a copy of the public stoning for JzG, so he can gaze upon his favorite whining twat whenever he needs a chuckle. I'd say that most of you long term users should know better, but I'm now convinced that common decency and civility is dead around here. ATren 00:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] I cannot emphasize enough how disgusting the sentiment is that is displayed in Gerards' comment above. This coupled with JzG's noted and linked-to obscenities is putting a very dark and ugly side of the wikipedia on display. Good show, boys. Tarc 05:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] On the other side, to rwoolf; you could short-circuit this witch hunt by simply filing the RfC now. What's the holdup? Tarc 05:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Hmmmm... could the fact that he's been blocked by User:Steel359 have anything to do with it? The longer this drama runs, the curiouser it gets. Curiouser and curiouser. Who's the Mad Hatter? The Red Queen? Me, I call dibs on being the Dormouse. --Richard 05:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion I understand the occasional need (on a very temporary basis) to use userspace to compile diffs to determine if an Rfc is warranted, but what are we talking about here...? Rfwoolf was involved in the article Anal stretching which was deleted a long time (7 months ago) and tried he to recreate it a number of times...ah...okay. So JzG is a bad admin cause he deleted this article? Rfwoolf badgered JzG about the deletion then. Also, in petition, Rfwoolf pitched a bitch about it in his userspace and JzG removed the bitching and protected Rfwoolf's userpage...okay...well...the message was that if you are going to complain about an article being deleted, make sure it is an article that really was worth having to begin with. Any Rfc based on this issue was probably going to just be a magnet for everyone that has ever had a gripe about the mean, vile evil JzG and a waste of everyone's time.--MONGO 11:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Should not have been deleted as it is ok to compile such content in user space. For instance many users here have even, including above me MONGO on [1] which seems to have been fully deleted of Wikipedia now as I cannot find a deletion log. Some cases take 5 minutes to prepare, some longer, let him have his day in court. Further this was obviously not a speedy candidate. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] It's fine to work up an RfC in user space, but this sat unmodified for six months until Woolf chose to re-ignite his ludicrous dispute last week. The same, incidentally, applies to the disputed article, which he left hanging around unedited in his userspace for months. It's fine to use userspace as a scratchpad, it's not fine to use it as an end-run around policy, which is what Rfwoolf was doing. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] I disagree, It does not seem like an attack page, just a gathering of information regarding their confrontation with you it appears. Much like MONGO's was not an attack page, or so he argued against me that it was not. As I stated and it seems you did not disagree with, some cases take longer to build. My understanding is that you are an admin, after seeing the response of other admins in defense of other admins, I am not surprised that one person would look to have as solid as a case as possible. I am not sure what the problem is anyway, unless you are running around breaking policy, there should be no content for the page right? Stating you do not agree with a decission is fine, noting dif's of what you feel are policy violations is fine as well. Saying "Person X is a (expletive deleted)" would be an attack page. Also the fact that you came back from what appeared to be a break just to delete a page they requested be undeleted is also odd, as if you are watching this user. I would also like to point out, that while I have no trouble writing an article in a few days, some people do not have the time, or are working on multiple things, finding sources for the article mentioned, I would think, would be difficult. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yes, some cases take longer to build, but that rather implies that they are being built. This wasn't. It sat unedited for nearly six months until Rfwoolf chose to reignite the long-dead dispute last week for God alone knows what perverse reason. His dispute itself is completely and unambiguously without merit. The article was deleted throgh process, his repost was deleted under WP:CSD#G4 and endorsed as such. The "gathering of information" about other editors is permissible as a way of working up an RfC, it is not permissible to create laundry lists of grudges and leave them hanging around in user space (ArbCom has said as much, I believe), and it is certainly not permissible to write up your side of the story, missing inconvenient facts like your reposting of deleted articles in substantially identical form, and not bring it to RfC where the wider context will be seen. Put simply, Rfwoolf has taken nearly two years to make under a hundred edits to mainspace, and has caused at least two orders of magnitude more server space to be wasted on debates about his frivolous complaints than he has contributed to the encyclopaedia. The time has come for him to put up or shut up. Preferably the latter, but if the former he should be prepared for a rough ride, as noted above. The word "troll" accurately describes his actions to date, as a contributor to the encyclopaedia he is without doubt a substantial net negative, and this deleted page is one of a number of facets of his vexatious and counter-productive editing. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Have you ever considered that leaving the page, since you say it does not contain anything worthwhile, would have saved "server space" which I did not know Wikipedia was short on. The constant watching and deleting of this users "stuff" by yourself is what is driving this drama. If you had left the page alone, one that you say will never be used, and does not actually contain anything, that precious server space would have been preserved for something else ... again not that I ever heard server space to be an issue. As for comments like "The time has come for him to put up or shut up. Preferably the latter ..." and calling another editor a net negative etc. These are all unnecessary and particularly hostile and in violation of WP:NPA, which I am sure you as an admin are already aware. While there is no problem calling a spade a spade if you feel that way, instead of violating policy you simply could goto RfC against them, or Arbcom for that matter. However my point being, the drama over this situation is more based on you deleting content then them creating it, as only you had a problem with its existence, and now the community has to discuss your actions and the closing admins. Do not take this as against you, or for him, just your argument of lost kb's on a server of TB's seems pointless, further the wasted space is not due to the kb's it took up to sit there, but the wasted bandwidth and additional kb's being used to maintain this discussion. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Remind me to ask you the same next time you are the subject of a baseless complaint and attacks. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] I already have been. In the month I have been here I have created 5 articles and every week I have had violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF on my talk page. This di dnot lead me to cursing people out however. --SevenOfDiamonds 01:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Please note that this is a Deletion Review about the speedy-deletion of an evidence page or RfC page, about whether it was an attack page, and whether there is consensus about such. Bringing in the count of edits to mainspace, or the deletion of an entirely separate article is an entirely separate matter, and says that you are sidestepping the issue implementing straw-man tactics. Rfwoolf 00:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] It's a review of the deletion of a grudge list which sat untouched for six months before you decided to rekindle the dispute last week. The merit of the thing is informed by the fact that you have virtually no edits other than trolling, and that your complaint is itself baseless since the article deleted was indeed a substantially identical repost. The fact that you have continued the trolling here also informs the debate over the merit of your grudge page. You could easily have repaired the appearance that you are a troll of no value to the project by actually contributing some worthwhile content to mainspace, but since your trolling and canvassing edits outnumber your mainspace edits at least ten to one I think that is unlikely to happen. Feel free to go back to ED or wherever you came from. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] And judging by the hostility once again being displayed here, I say to you: feel free to go back on wikibreak. ATren 14:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for bringing your grudge out for another airing. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] OK, keep blaming on everyone else: grudge holders, trolls, ED users, everyone except JzG. Like we are somehow responsible for your incivility. For what it's worth, I looked through some of Rfwoolf's logs from January until now - I don't see much evidence of this "trolling" you speak of. Maybe he's a little immature sometimes, but I don't honestly see bad faith. A lot of his non-mainspace posts are on places like the reference desk, not on others' talk pages, and almost none of it has to do with anal stretching. His only crime here seems to be reacting too loudly to trollish comments like "shut the fuck up you whining twat" - but, to be honest, that would get me riled up too. So, JzG, why don't you stop citing misleading edit counts and making vague troll/grudge-holder accusations and actually respond to Rfwoolf's evidence rather than trying to suppress it? Goodness knows, he has meticulously researched and documented his complaint - if you're correct and he's a worthless troll, then provide the diffs that prove your point. Isn't that the way it's supposed to work? If he's as trollish as you say, it should be easy to find diffs to support your case, so what are you waiting for? ATren 15:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Several days later, and several long comments from JzG, but he never bothered to provide a single diff to support his case... just ad hominem attacks and vague unsubstantiated accusations of trolling. It would seem that JzG's definition of troll is "a newbie who disagrees with me", because I've looked at Rfwoolf's history and I can't find any blatant evidence of trolling. ATren 23:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] "..your complaint is itself baseless since the article deleted was indeed a substantially identical repost". --You're not listening, are you? This deletion review has nothing to do with the recreation of Anal stretching. This Deletion Review is about an Evidence page concerning my userpage and your censorship of it. Please stick to the topic at hand Rfwoolf 12:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] No, you're not listening. You are allowed to work up an RfC in user space, you are not allowed to maintain a grudge list. You left it unedited for months, adding to it only when your frivolous complaint was again dismissed. The page is worthless as part of the process of building an encyclopaedia, a process in which you appear to be playing no part. The use of the word "censorship" almost without exception indicates a baseless complaint, and this is no exception. You created a baseless complaint page about your baseless complaint, and then you complain about its removal, which complaint is also baseless since the deleted page has no merit and was clearly not being worked up as part of the dispute resolution process, which is the only acceptable reason for keeping pages like that in user space. All the distractions in the world are not going to fix that, and the more you troll about it the worse your troll-to-edit ratio gets. Your response to errors being pointed out is, repeatably, to repeat the errors as if no such correction had been made. This is clearly no exception. The sooner you are banned the better. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] This type of response is a glaringly obvious example of why an RfC was being filed against you in the first place, and why some here are using their personal dislike of this rwoolf person to color their reasons to endorse an obviously-fraudulent speedy closure. Tarc 20:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] So you say. But as it happens, no RfC was filed. You just created a grudge page and left it hanging about in user space for six months, which is unacceptable. Not a surprise, you've not worked on mainspace to any measurable extent either. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Doesn't matter if it was filed or not, you calling it an attack page does not make it so. DRV should be a review of process, rather than you re-hashing the AfD. Looking at the process of the AfD, it is quite plain to see an abrogation of administrator authority. BTW, nice argumentum ad personam tactic at the end there. Classy. Tarc 12:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Incidentally, Guy is not the only person calling it an attack page, so you calling it not an attack page likewise does not make it so. --Iamunknown 13:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Actually, it already is so, I don't need to "make" it. As I asked in my very first post in this mess, where is the precedent that an in-progress RfC is classified as an attack page? The answer is that there is none, which is why this was an improper closure that should be relisted. Tarc 17:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] An in-progress RfC is not to remain in-progress for six months without endorsements. Thus it should have been deleted anyways. --Iamunknown 17:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Tarc, yes it does matter, uncertified RfCs are deleted for a reason. This was not even an RfC, it was just a statement of one side of a dispute missing inconvenient facts like its having been rejected every time it was aired anywhere. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment: The air of vexatious excess (I won't say abuse) of process here remains. I've still seen nothing to suggest that I shouldn't have gone with my first instinct of early-closing this as endorsed two days ago. Newyorkbrad 02:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Early-closing this DRV? Where editors so clearly disagree about the appropriateness of the G10 speedy deletion? Come on ... :) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - clearly a speedy delete as G10; the page was being used to perpetuate a dispute, not resolve one. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion for reasons amply stated already, SqueakBox 17:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. I'm not particularly interested in reading an article about "anal stretching" myself, but I'm also not happy about admins misusing CSD, either. CSD is supposed to be for clearcut, noncontroversial deletions. Yet Radiant, with full knowledge that a debate had begun in which several people had already rejected the proposition that the page was an attack page, went ahead and speedied it. I also agree that it was not an "attack page" as defined by G10. An attack page is not any page that happens to be critical of someone, but one that is virulent. "That admin is an arsehole with a tiny mind who should shut the fuck up" would be an example of a G10 attack page. Laying out one's case in a reasonably civil matter is not, because then fair-minded people can differ about whether it is constructive criticism, free discourse, or an attack. I myself think it's perfectly fine to tell your side of the story about a dispute on a userpage, as long as you remain civil about it. CBM commented above that evidence pages are routinely deleted under G10. On the other hand, many aren't. My take is that evidence pages that are rants are not protected from G10. But just as you don't get a free pass by calling an attack page an "evidence" page, evidence pages are not automatically attack pages that can legitimately be speedy deleted. I'm also not swayed by the argument that this is a pseudo-RFC that shouldn't be kept around indefinitely, and Rwoolf should put up or shut up. First off, I don't have a problem with him telling his side of the story, whether it's in the form of an evidence page or not, as long as he does so civilly. And even if this case does not become an RFC, he may want to piggyback his case onto someone else's RFC. Let's be real here, it's only a matter of time before an RFC about an admin as controversial as Guy gets certified. A vocal faction of the community believes that Guy does the Lord's work, putting troublemakers in their place. Many others feel that he is an abrasive, rougish admin. If Rwoolf were to put this up on RFC and fail to get it certified, it would not be due to a lack of dissent, but because dissenters are waiting for a more appealing issue than "anal stretching" to make their stand. In closing, let me say that neither party has covered themselves in glory in this affair. Rwoolf has been dogged in his push to get his article, and it's not clear that he would be willing to accept an ultimate verdict from the community that this topic is unsuitable. On the other hand, I think some of Guy's actions have not helped. First, in the original AFD there was enough support for the article to at least raise the possibility that a better referenced, better written entry might pass, which raises the question whether the topic should be indefinitely salted. Also, some of the participants argued that the relevant information is already in "butt plug," so why isn't there at least a protected redirect? It also appears that Guy deleted Rwoolf's draft version for being in the wrong namespace; why not just move it into his userspace? Also, while the evidence page reflects one side of the story - which Rwoolf actually noted in his introduction - Guy has apparently not even considered taking up Rwoolf's offer to let him respond on the page. Also, while I understand being uncomfortable with having a page of criticism hanging around, Guy's reaction has been counterproductive. If Guy had kept his cool, this subpage would still be languishing in obscurity, and anyone who stumbled across it probably would have laughed it off as the griping of a tendentious editor with a strange obsession about anal stretching. Instead, by lashing out with profanities, he has disturbed editors concerned about incivility, and in pushing to get it deleted, he has attracted far more attention to it than Rwoolf's own efforts. --Groggy Dice T \| C 17:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] The simple fact is that Rfwoolf reposted viurtually unaltered a deleted article which was userfied to help him rework it, then made the most hysterical fuss when it was (quite properly) deleted under WP:CSD#G4. The subject is irrelevant, it was an utterly unmbiguous speedy deletion under one of the least controversial speedy deletion criteria, and he has done pretty much nothing else since but bitch, troll and forum-shop. Every time he has done so, his complaint has been rejected for the simple reason that it is baseless. He got the article userfied to be "worked on" and proceeded not to work on it. He has had every opportunity to demonstrate some attempt to build the encyclopaedia, and has not done so. His main space edit count remains under 100 in over 18 months, slightly over one edit per week, and that includes the deleted article, to which he "contributed" the removal of, I think, one sentence, plus a move back to mainspace. His "research" in support of the article yielded articles which I know, as a former manager in a surgical device manufacturing company, are discussing something else entirely, a fact which was pointed out but ignored. Actually by then he seems to have lost interest, until he saw an opportunity to get under my skin. Well done Rfwoolf, you certainly managed that, by reasserting your baseless complaint at a very bad time. The correct response to this kind of egregious fuckwittedness is to ban the troll. Instead we have a small group of grudge-bearers and some perplexing troll-enablers perpetuating the "debate" over something that is, as noted by several long-term contributors above, actually blindingly obvious. Unfiled RfCs that don't even follow the RfC template get deleted, summarily, and for excellent reasons. Vexatious complaints by non-contributors ditto. And I can't stress this strongly enough: nobody misused CSD and any point. The page deleted this time was Rfwoolf's statement of his side of a dispute, which side was comprehensively rejected every time he raised it, it was a laundry list of grudges as seen, and sanctioned, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi. He left is hanging around in user space for six months, where if he'd filed it as an RfC it would have either turned into an RfC on his own behaviour and likely led to a block, or would have been rapidly deleted as meritless. The dispute lay dormant until Rfwoolf chose, for whatever reason, to rekindle it last week. Rfwoolf has contributed approximately the square root of fuck-all to the encyclopaedia (remember that?) but has consumed a truly gargantuan amount of the community's time and effort in rebutting his querulous complaints. This page was no exception. The careful formatting and awesomely precise selection of only those facts which suited his argument are in stark contrast to the total lack of any discernible effort he has put into mainspace. This is not even a case of "fuck process", because process was clearly followed: unfiled RfCs are summarily deleted for good reason. Rfwoolf states that this was an RfC in the making, but that is complete bollocks - at no point did he attempt to follow the RfC template, at no point did he attempt dispute resolution, because wherever he took his dispute he was told it was baseless. The reaosn he was told this is because... it was baseless. If you get an article userfied to "rewrite" it, remove on sentence and bung it back in userspace, it is not really a surprise when it gets deleted under WP:CSD#G4. That's what happens to reposts of deletded content. He had months to fix the deleted article, he did not fix it. He had months to file an RfC, he did not file an RfC. He had months to make contributions to the encyclopaedia, he did not make contributions to the encyclopaedia. And this debate is a perfect example fo the kind of shit that is making this project joyless for those of us who are prepared to actually take on the occasional hard case, because even the blindingly obvious easy cases now bring crowds of malcontents to cheer the trolls on. This one debate is several times the size of all of Rfwoolf's mainspace edits added together. Which is precisely what he wants, I am sure, since he is a troll and nothing else. So thanks for taking the time to give succour to this worthless waste of other people's time, but please understand why I don't think much of it. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Guy, ... at various parts in this DRV, you have provided a relatively thorough account of Rfwoolf's inappropriate behaviour. Should he have mixed together the issues of deletion of a page, removal of content on his userpage, and the appropriateness of content on your userpage? No. Should have bothered you about this issue as much as he did (or at all)? No. Should he have at least stopped posting to your talk page after you told him to effectively fuck off? Absolutely. Should he have been blocked? Probably. However, you seem perfectly content to completely overlook the inappropriateness of some of your actions. The fact of the matter is that you attacked him twice, first by telling him to "shut the fuck up you whining twat" and then "go away and take your tiny mind with you". Now you've labeled anyone who has disagreed with you "grudge-bearers", "perplexing troll-enablers", and/or "malcontents". Rather than being perplexed by us supposed troll-enabling malcontents, you should consider that you are exhibiting some of the very behaviours of which the so-called grudge-bearers have accused you. If you have been baited and/or lost your temper, I will ask you (for the third time) to please consider disengaging from this issue for a while. If the speedy deletion was valid, it will be endorsed. If the "evidence" page was inappropriate, it will remain deleted. If Rfwoolf is a troll, he will be handled. Nearly anyone else who had done what you did would have earned a block. Please consider that and refrain from further personal attacks in your comments. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] A quick response - While I certainly appreciate Groggy Dice's rather constructive and quite insightful feedback on the issues like the Anal stretching article etc, it must be stressed that this DRV is not about the Anal stretching article - it was about an Evidence page which concerned my userpage being censored and protected by JzG. More over, JzG's rebuttle is that my complaint on that isssue is "entirely baseless" - which is an extreme surprise considering User:Jossi disagreed, and unprotected my userpage and allowed me to put back my comments. Groggy Dice was also right to point out the irony here - an Evidence page which nobody was really paying any attention to - is now the centre of attention. I'll also thank Groggy Dice for reading the opening paragraph of the Evidence page because very few people have managed to acknowledged the very civil and relatively respectful tone of the Evidence page, thereby making it not an attack page. JzG's ad hominum attacks remain irrelevant as ever-before. "Rfwoolf says he's right be he can't possibly be because he hasn't contributed much to Wikipedia". So in closing, Groggy Dice is right to point out that the evidence page was not an attack page. His comments about the Anal stretching article I of course agree with, and I can re-table that issue some other time if I find it necessary, for example by rewriting it and tabling it for Deletion Review - which is what everybody has said I can do if I want to. And FWIF, Groggy Dice is also correct, the Anal stretching article doesn't need to be indefinitely SALTed. Typically articles are only SALTed for a month or so, unless there's long-term reasons, such as consensus that the article shouldn't exist to begin with, not consensus that the article read like a how-to-guide or didn't have referenes. But I re-iterate, the Evidence page in question has nothing to do with Anal stretching article Rfwoolf 01:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

User:Rfwoolf/Evidence – Deletion endorsed, per the Black Falcon compromise. I will make available to the user the historical content of the page, solely for the purpose of the filing of an RfC. The consensus below does support the notion that information may not dwell endlessly on-site for the sake an RfC never actually filed. However, given the lack of clarity in process, it is reasonable to allow the user access to the content for its stated legitimate purpose. – Xoloz 03:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rfwoolf/Evidence

Should be relisted for the following reasons:

(1) User Rfwoolf was compiling evidence for possible RfC. (2) User who submitted for deletion was the subject of said RfC. (3) Debate was closed less than a day after it started. (4) The debate was 6-4 to keep (all from registered users) when it was abruptly closed. ~~Frankly, this speedy closure stinks...~~^{see this} ATren 10:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) no he wasn't, this is a half-year-old issue; (2) yes, and so?; (3) yes, because of speedy deletion criterion G10; (4) MFD is not a vote count, and the aforementioned CSD trumps MFD. Endorse my deletion, this was an attack page. We speedily delete pages that have no purpose other than to disparage their subject. This was an obvious example, and we don't need such nastiness. Also, if this really had been an RFC, it would have been deleted ages ago per RFC policy - we delete uncertified RFCs for good reason. >Radiant< 10:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- "the aforementioned CSD trumps MFD" - I don't think so. See my extract from WP:CSD above. If there is any doubt, other deletion processes trump CSD. I think copyright infringement and WP:BLP are exceptions. --Richard 17:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is compiling evidence with diffs considered an "attack"? This is an especially broad interpretation of WP:NPA. ATren 11:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The page had no purpose other than to disparage its subject. That makes it speedily deletable, per WP:CSD. >Radiant< 11:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "...had no other purpose..." - Can you not see this page was a Request For Comment - materially so in its opening paragraph. Your tunnel-vision claim that it's an attack page completely fails to acknowledge this. You are appearing rather biased on this issue. Rfwoolf 11:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ths act of compiling evidence in the form of diffs is not "disparaging". Come on. Is it any wonder that attack sites are cropping up to document this stuff~~, when people here are so eager to squelch well-presented criticism of the actions of admins~~^{see this}? ATren 11:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Within closing admin discretion and frankly the way Rfwoolf has been behaving over the last 24 hours, I haver lost any sympathy for him that I might have had. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The way Rfwoolf has been behaving over the last 24 hours..." - what on earth are you talking about? He politely but firmly pointed out what he believed to be a hypocritical stance by an admin, and even after he was subjected to a vicious personal attack ("shut the fuck up you whining twat") he remained civil. ~~This double standard we apply to admins is getting quite tiresome.~~^{see this} Regardless of past disputes, Rfwoolf did nothing wrong here, and it is incorrect of you to insinuate so. Jeez, the way people are acting, you'd think Rfwoolf is the personal attacker here... :-( ATren 12:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are an impartial user (and I hope you are), you are to assess Deletion Reviews on a case-by-case basis. Even if Rfwoolf has behaved badly in other cases and on separate issues (and I'm not saying he has), you are obligated to assess this case of deletion on its merits without factoring irrelevant content in. Your philosophical question remains:

1) Did the deleted page "serve only as a purpose to attack a user?" and,

2) Does the content of the page satisfy you as being RfC material? (As an admin has already pointed out, formulating an RfC post in one's userspace is allowed although slightly uncommon.

Rfwoolf

Endorse An attack page. User:Rfwoolf's recent actions have been trollish and User:ATren's outrage on his behalf is growing as wearisome as it is incomprehensible. Eusebeus 12:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, please explain the difference between an RfC and an attack page? Please explain why RfC drafting should not take place in userspace? Your logic and reason is welcome on this one. Rfwoolf 13:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, incomprehensible that I would object to an admin telling another user to "shut the fuck up you whining twat". Incomprehensible. What is this place coming to when an admin cannot unleash a scathing attack without being called on it? ATren 15:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The MFD should have been closed as "no consensus". There is a difference between an attack page and a draft RFC which collects evidence in support of conduct in violation of policy. The policies in question here are WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Allowing this to continue as a WP:RFC may result in closure of this dispute. The response on WP:ANI and on the user's Talk Page have already indicated that many (including myself) think the editor should drop it. However, it is up to the editor to do this voluntarily. Forcing him to drop it is censorship. Continuing to suppress the plaintiff's complaints could result in it boiling over into an WP:RFARB with this deletion being cited as evidence. Stop trying to squelch dissent even if it is overblown. Let the man have his day in court. --Richard 13:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're essentially saying that unless he voluntarily chooses to drop it (which he already stated he won't) he can "have his day in court" by bringing it up repeatedly in any process he can think of. Interesting view. >Radiant< 14:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Er, from the horse's own mouth: I never stated I won't "drop it". I'm also not sure what "it" is - there's a whole lot of issues here: a SALTed article, userpage censorship, and 5 personal attacks -- all by JzG. This deleted article User:Rfwoolf/Evidence deals with the userpage censorship. Will I "drop that?" I don't know -- all I know is that I should have the right to collect evidence on an abusive admin should I wish to hold him accountable. To prevent me from collecting evidence would I feel be censorship. Rfwoolf 14:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Deletion - Unless someone can point out the precedents for a) prohibiting the use of userspace in this manner, i.e. collecting evidence for an RfC, and b) the declaration that the act of filing an RfC is a personal attack, this seems like a pretty disgusting display of an abuse of power. Tarc 15:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying that we should allow blatant attack pages (such as this one) as long as the author simply claims he's collecting evidence. That would be a nice loophole, but WP:CSD says otherwise (and incidentally there's plenty of precedent for deleting attack pages). >Radiant< 15:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sure there is plenty for deleting attack pages, but where's the precedent for declaring an RfC-gathering page to be a personal attack? Tarc 15:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Blatant attack page". I mean 'cmon, even on a very worst-case scenario it isn't a "BLATANT" attack page. I imagine even the most biased of admins couldn't call it "blatant". Anybody that's, well, literate can see it isn't any way blatant. It's an RfC. Then you confuse attack pages with RfC's. Smells like something that the Arbcom would love to hear about: Wikipolicy: Are all RfC's attack pages? Rfwoolf 15:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Deletion vote by involved editor - if I'm allowed to, I obviously strongly vote for an overturn Rfwoolf 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, inappropriate use of user space and the closing admin was within their discretion to axe it as an attack page. Using a temporary user page to collect evidence is one thing, but it looks like the user was planning to run a private little "pseudo-RFC" there. Just isn't appropriate. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Nothing but an out of date attack page. Nick 15:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although I personally disagree with the closure (speedy deletions should be such that "reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion"; there is no such agreement in this case), I won't call for it to be overturned yet. In the hope of avoiding even more pointless drama, I will quote something from the userpage guideline:
If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so.
- Now, it's nowhere near clear that there is consensus that the material should be removed, but there is obviously opposition to allowing it to remain. So, I ask that Rfwoolf agree to the removal of content. If there is anything on the page that he wishes to preserve (perhaps for a future RfC), he may do so by saving it to his personal text editor (e.g., Notepad) or word processor. As the version of the page cached by Google is not up-to-date, I also ask that Radiant temporarily restore the page for Rfwoolf if he so requests.
- There is no good that can come from everyone 'sticking to their guns' in this case and any non-compromise outcome will only perpetuate the problem. If the deletion is overturned, we'll have another MfD and more infighting to look forward to. If the deletion is endorsed, it'll seem like a cover-up and censorship. Please let's not unnecessarily make this more of a big deal than it already is. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment This is why I keep all my nasty difs and partially formed RfCs on my hardrive. I really don't understand why anyone does this at this point. Black Falcon's solution seems highly reasonable at this point although it doesn't seem to be an attack page to me. JoshuaZ 16:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn It was not an attack page. There was nothing said there that is inappropriate for WP or out of context. If it is appropriate to say that an admin abused his power in a RfC, it is permissible to prepare an afd with that contents in user space. Further, saying an admin abused his power is not an attack in the sense of NPA-it is criticism, fair or unfair, & I quite expect that those unhappy with what I might do might say similar things--it's part of the rhetoric. The reaction to that is to be very sure one did not abuse one's power, and then ignore it. Stretching the BLP policy to permit speedy removal of such material is particularly unjustified. DGG (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THIS DELETION REVIEW HAS GONE OFF THE RAILS. Deletion reviews are supposed to be about the process of the deletion decision, NOT about whether or not the deletion was justified. IMO, the deletion was not justified based on the merits of the case, but more importantly for the purposes of this discussion, it was not justified because it was an "out of process" decision.

From WP:Deletion review

This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the AfD debate. This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content.

From Wikipedia:Attack page

A Wikipedia article, page, category, redirect or image created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject is an attack page.

It should be noted that this guideline is not meant to apply to formal good faith reports on a user's conduct or pattern of behavior made in accord with policy. For example, a request for comment filed in good faith would not be considered an attack page.

From CAT:CSD

If there is any doubt at all, switch the article to a process like Wikipedia:Proposed deletion that allows time for others to review the proposal.

Looking at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rfwoolf/Evidence, it's clear that there is doubt since the discussion was running towards "No consensus to delete". IMO, Radiant! inappropriately short-circuited the MfD process in order to follow a "Speedy delete" decision which runs against both the guidelines outlined above.

My recommendation is to restore the page and re-instate the MfD and let it run to conclusion. If editors below wish to express an opinion on the MfD, then let them do so. A consensus may yet form to delete the article but the correct place to form that consensus is at the MfD, not here.

It should be clear, however, that process has not been followed in this case. Let's get this whole deletion process back on the rails.

--Richard 17:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Or at worst, relist. There's a reason improperly-certified RFCs are routinely deleted: not closed, not marked as inactive, but deleted. I think it's fine for someone to start collecting information towards an RfC they aren't ready to file yet, but our practice of deleting them goes to show we don't tolerate the existence of this kind of page for long periods of time. If Rwoolf decides to put forward an actual RfC, I wouldn't mind temporarily undeleting the page so it can be moved to an RFC. Mango juice^talk 18:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Overturn - The MfD should have been closed as No consensus. Further, looking at the page in question, it was not a CSD G10 attack page; nowhere did it contain personal attacks on Guy. What it contained was a list of diffs detailing a legitimate dispute. As I haven't been involved with the dispute, I can't comment on who is in the wrong, but this is certainly not a case for deletion. Indeed, this whole thing has done nothing more than escalate the dispute further. Walton^One 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong overturn - This overturn is based on the deletion process it was ran through, not the justification. I feel that Radiant! misdetermined consensus, as there was simply no consensus, but used it as a basis to promote her own beliefs about the justification of the deletion of the ~~article~~ subpage. The G10 was nonsense, it wasn't an attack page; it was evidence. I've kept subpages before to hold evidence, although I only use them to hold the information until it's transferred to the proper forum or subpage. There's also nothing to keep the editor from copying and pasting the data onto a page of Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, or the like. I feel that this, however, should go through a second MfD to determine the real consensus, since the admin determined improper consensus. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Mangojuice, whose comment I suggest everyone re-reads. – Steel 20:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Mangojuice unless the user actually plans to file an RFC. Otherwise, it's essentially an attack page, and deletion was the right move. --Core desat 21:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as per Richard. Process was improepr, this isn't the place to debate the merits. DES ^(talk) 21:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn not a blatant attack page by any reasonable definition. Editors have a great deal of latitude in their userspace for material that helps in writing the encyclopedia. Drafts of good-faith RfCs fall well within that, whether or not we agree with their merits or likelihood of success. Vadder 23:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly endorse deletion and I have to admit that I had actually formatted a closure of this DRV and came very, very, very close to summarily closing this as endorsed and deleted without further discussion. I have hesitated only to see if others agree with this path. Newyorkbrad 23:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Valid interpretation of G10; evidence belongs in an RFC where it can be questioned, not in userspace where it is merely a one-sided gripe: i.e., an attack. This was within process. Chick Bowen 00:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh more drama. Black Falcon's argument is particularly cogent; if the community lets one know they would like something in your userspace deleted, you should consider deleting it. I agree. Plus, no one actually needs to post stuff on-wiki; just keep it on your desktop. Further, Mangojuice's comment is spot-on; we don't allow RFCs to sit around forever precisely because this is what would happen every single time; similarly, we should not allow RFCs (in userspace) to sit around forever. So endorse deletion. --Iamunknown 17:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Richard has rightfully pointed out, deletion reviews on a Speedy-Delete are about process, not content. In other words, you may rightfully agree that the article should have been deleted, but, do you agree that the article should have been speedy-deleted? If so, you can only agree based upon the G10 Attack Page criterion, so specifically, you can only endorse the speedy-deletion if you "agree the page was an attack page, and should have been speedy-deleted". Your comments don't seem to say any of that - you instead refer to keeping RfC pages around for too long. If that's how you feel, vote to overturn the speedy-deletion, and vote for 'delete' on the MfD page when it reopens Rfwoolf 18:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herewith is the policy that was violated regarding the relevant speedy-deletion of the article User:Rfwoolf/Evidence

1.0 - The Wikipolicy that was applied:

(From Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#General_criteria)

(Speedy-delete reason was:) "Attack pages. Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile")."

The incorrect application of it:

The deleted page clearly did not just "serve no purpose but to disparage JzG". In fact it claimed to be a Request For Comment (or RfC). It was very very civil. It also was fair to the subject (JzG) by saying that any feedback is made without prejudice because the subject (JzG) hadn't yet been called to the page.

2.0 - The Wikipolicy that was applied:

From Wikipedia:Attack_page:

"It should be noted that this guideline is not meant to apply to formal good faith reports on a user's conduct or pattern of behavior made in accord with policy. For example, a request for comment filed in good faith would not be considered an attack page."

The incorrect application of it:

The deleted page was clearly a good faith report on a user's conduct or pattern of behaviour.

3.0 - The Wikipolicy that was applied:

Also from Wikipedia:Attack_page:

"A Wikipedia article, page, category, redirect or image created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject is an attack page."

The incorrect application of it:

Once again, the deleted page was not "created for the sole purpose of disparaging..." JzG. It was in fact a Request for Comment.

4.0 - The Wikipolicy that was ignored:

From Category:Candidates for speedy deletion:

"If there is any doubt at all, switch the article to a process like Wikipedia:Proposed deletion that allows time for others to review the proposal."

The violation of it:

Clearly there is doubt by several editors and admins, both on the original AfD, and on the Deletion Review, as to whether the article should be deleted, or even speedy-deleted.

Rfwoolf 17:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Compromise The more I think about it, the more stupid this discussion seems to me. I'm not calling any single editor one of us, just all of us collectively are going about this stupidly because of the yes/no nature of the discussion. The current "vote" tally seems to be 9 endorse, 8 overturn which shows that there are strong sentiment on both sides of this question.

A point that has popped up a couple of times in this discussion has been "Should be an RFC, not in userspace". How about we just offer to Rfwoolf to restore his text if and only if he intends to turn it into an RFC in short order (i.e. within 3 days or a week?). If an RFC is not created within that period of time, the page will be redeleted as a speedy using the original MfD and this discussion as justification. The man has a right to issue an RFC. I think the consensus is clear that, absent an RFC, the page should not exist in userspace. (I disagree with that consensus but I'm more interested in compromise than in insisting on my personal POV). --Richard 17:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Iamunknown. These kind of pages help no one. Eluchil404 18:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Richard has earlier rightfully pointed out, deletion reviews on a Speedy-Delete are about process, not content. In other words, you may rightfully agree that the article should have been deleted, but, do you agree that the article should have been speedy-deleted? If so, you should only agree based upon the G10 Attack Page criterion, so specifically, you can only endorse the speedy-deletion if you "agree the page was an attack page created solely for the purpose of disparaging its subject, and should have been speedy-deleted as such". If that's how you feel, vote for endorse, otherwise vote to overturn, and you can always vote for deletion based on content when the MfD reopens. Rfwoolf 18:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, relist and be more civil. I don't see consensus that this was an attack page, so the MfD should have been allowed to run its course. And knock off the namecalling. -- But|seriously|folks 18:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Although I distinctly prefer my original suggestion (temporarily undeleting to allow the page to be copied to Notepad), I believe the deletion itself was unwarranted. I do not agree that the content of the page justified a deletion per CSD G10 for various reasons already noted by others and, if nothing else, because there is substantial disagreement about the validity of the deletion, which implies that MfD is warranted). In fact, the early closure may have backfired in terms of perpetuating what seems to a rather unproductive debate. I once again urge Radiant! and Rfwoolf to consider the suggested option of temporarily undeleting the page and saving it offline. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as an attack page. I'd be ok with the idea of taking it offline, though. --Kbdank71 20:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Evidence pages are routinely deleted as attack pages. Arguments about "out of process deletion" are misguided, as process follows practice and not vice-versa. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File the RFC. I'll bring the popcorn. It'll be 48 hours of people saying "oh, an audacious attempt my good fellow" for the attempted textual goatse, then people will laugh and suggest he goes away and does something useful with his life, there's a good chap, then when it's deleted JzG will probably want a copy to frame in his userspace (as the subjects of failed RFCs are allowed to do) - David Gerard 00:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! Beat down that troll! Mock him for daring to follow policy! Block him for civil discussion! And then, for good measure, frame a copy of the public stoning for JzG, so he can gaze upon his favorite whining twat whenever he needs a chuckle. I'd say that most of you long term users should know better, but I'm now convinced that common decency and civility is dead around here. ATren 00:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot emphasize enough how disgusting the sentiment is that is displayed in Gerards' comment above. This coupled with JzG's noted and linked-to obscenities is putting a very dark and ugly side of the wikipedia on display. Good show, boys. Tarc 05:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the other side, to rwoolf; you could short-circuit this witch hunt by simply filing the RfC now. What's the holdup? Tarc 05:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... could the fact that he's been blocked by User:Steel359 have anything to do with it? The longer this drama runs, the curiouser it gets. Curiouser and curiouser. Who's the Mad Hatter? The Red Queen? Me, I call dibs on being the Dormouse. --Richard 05:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion I understand the occasional need (on a very temporary basis) to use userspace to compile diffs to determine if an Rfc is warranted, but what are we talking about here...? Rfwoolf was involved in the article Anal stretching which was deleted a long time (7 months ago) and tried he to recreate it a number of times...ah...okay. So JzG is a bad admin cause he deleted this article? Rfwoolf badgered JzG about the deletion then. Also, in petition, Rfwoolf pitched a bitch about it in his userspace and JzG removed the bitching and protected Rfwoolf's userpage...okay...well...the message was that if you are going to complain about an article being deleted, make sure it is an article that really was worth having to begin with. Any Rfc based on this issue was probably going to just be a magnet for everyone that has ever had a gripe about the mean, vile evil JzG and a waste of everyone's time.--MONGO 11:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Should not have been deleted as it is ok to compile such content in user space. For instance many users here have even, including above me MONGO on [1] which seems to have been fully deleted of Wikipedia now as I cannot find a deletion log. Some cases take 5 minutes to prepare, some longer, let him have his day in court. Further this was obviously not a speedy candidate. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to work up an RfC in user space, but this sat unmodified for six months until Woolf chose to re-ignite his ludicrous dispute last week. The same, incidentally, applies to the disputed article, which he left hanging around unedited in his userspace for months. It's fine to use userspace as a scratchpad, it's not fine to use it as an end-run around policy, which is what Rfwoolf was doing. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, It does not seem like an attack page, just a gathering of information regarding their confrontation with you it appears. Much like MONGO's was not an attack page, or so he argued against me that it was not. As I stated and it seems you did not disagree with, some cases take longer to build. My understanding is that you are an admin, after seeing the response of other admins in defense of other admins, I am not surprised that one person would look to have as solid as a case as possible. I am not sure what the problem is anyway, unless you are running around breaking policy, there should be no content for the page right? Stating you do not agree with a decission is fine, noting dif's of what you feel are policy violations is fine as well. Saying "Person X is a (expletive deleted)" would be an attack page. Also the fact that you came back from what appeared to be a break just to delete a page they requested be undeleted is also odd, as if you are watching this user. I would also like to point out, that while I have no trouble writing an article in a few days, some people do not have the time, or are working on multiple things, finding sources for the article mentioned, I would think, would be difficult. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some cases take longer to build, but that rather implies that they are being built. This wasn't. It sat unedited for nearly six months until Rfwoolf chose to reignite the long-dead dispute last week for God alone knows what perverse reason. His dispute itself is completely and unambiguously without merit. The article was deleted throgh process, his repost was deleted under WP:CSD#G4 and endorsed as such. The "gathering of information" about other editors is permissible as a way of working up an RfC, it is not permissible to create laundry lists of grudges and leave them hanging around in user space (ArbCom has said as much, I believe), and it is certainly not permissible to write up your side of the story, missing inconvenient facts like your reposting of deleted articles in substantially identical form, and not bring it to RfC where the wider context will be seen. Put simply, Rfwoolf has taken nearly two years to make under a hundred edits to mainspace, and has caused at least two orders of magnitude more server space to be wasted on debates about his frivolous complaints than he has contributed to the encyclopaedia. The time has come for him to put up or shut up. Preferably the latter, but if the former he should be prepared for a rough ride, as noted above. The word "troll" accurately describes his actions to date, as a contributor to the encyclopaedia he is without doubt a substantial net negative, and this deleted page is one of a number of facets of his vexatious and counter-productive editing. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever considered that leaving the page, since you say it does not contain anything worthwhile, would have saved "server space" which I did not know Wikipedia was short on. The constant watching and deleting of this users "stuff" by yourself is what is driving this drama. If you had left the page alone, one that you say will never be used, and does not actually contain anything, that precious server space would have been preserved for something else ... again not that I ever heard server space to be an issue. As for comments like "The time has come for him to put up or shut up. Preferably the latter ..." and calling another editor a net negative etc. These are all unnecessary and particularly hostile and in violation of WP:NPA, which I am sure you as an admin are already aware. While there is no problem calling a spade a spade if you feel that way, instead of violating policy you simply could goto RfC against them, or Arbcom for that matter. However my point being, the drama over this situation is more based on you deleting content then them creating it, as only you had a problem with its existence, and now the community has to discuss your actions and the closing admins. Do not take this as against you, or for him, just your argument of lost kb's on a server of TB's seems pointless, further the wasted space is not due to the kb's it took up to sit there, but the wasted bandwidth and additional kb's being used to maintain this discussion. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remind me to ask you the same next time you are the subject of a baseless complaint and attacks. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already have been. In the month I have been here I have created 5 articles and every week I have had violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF on my talk page. This di dnot lead me to cursing people out however. --SevenOfDiamonds 01:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is a Deletion Review about the speedy-deletion of an evidence page or RfC page, about whether it was an attack page, and whether there is consensus about such. Bringing in the count of edits to mainspace, or the deletion of an entirely separate article is an entirely separate matter, and says that you are sidestepping the issue implementing straw-man tactics. Rfwoolf 00:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a review of the deletion of a grudge list which sat untouched for six months before you decided to rekindle the dispute last week. The merit of the thing is informed by the fact that you have virtually no edits other than trolling, and that your complaint is itself baseless since the article deleted was indeed a substantially identical repost. The fact that you have continued the trolling here also informs the debate over the merit of your grudge page. You could easily have repaired the appearance that you are a troll of no value to the project by actually contributing some worthwhile content to mainspace, but since your trolling and canvassing edits outnumber your mainspace edits at least ten to one I think that is unlikely to happen. Feel free to go back to ED or wherever you came from. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And judging by the hostility once again being displayed here, I say to you: feel free to go back on wikibreak. ATren 14:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing your grudge out for another airing. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, keep blaming on everyone else: grudge holders, trolls, ED users, everyone except JzG. Like we are somehow responsible for your incivility. For what it's worth, I looked through some of Rfwoolf's logs from January until now - I don't see much evidence of this "trolling" you speak of. Maybe he's a little immature sometimes, but I don't honestly see bad faith. A lot of his non-mainspace posts are on places like the reference desk, not on others' talk pages, and almost none of it has to do with anal stretching. His only crime here seems to be reacting too loudly to trollish comments like "shut the fuck up you whining twat" - but, to be honest, that would get me riled up too. So, JzG, why don't you stop citing misleading edit counts and making vague troll/grudge-holder accusations and actually respond to Rfwoolf's evidence rather than trying to suppress it? Goodness knows, he has meticulously researched and documented his complaint - if you're correct and he's a worthless troll, then provide the diffs that prove your point. Isn't that the way it's supposed to work? If he's as trollish as you say, it should be easy to find diffs to support your case, so what are you waiting for? ATren 15:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several days later, and several long comments from JzG, but he never bothered to provide a single diff to support his case... just ad hominem attacks and vague unsubstantiated accusations of trolling. It would seem that JzG's definition of troll is "a newbie who disagrees with me", because I've looked at Rfwoolf's history and I can't find any blatant evidence of trolling. ATren 23:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"..your complaint is itself baseless since the article deleted was indeed a substantially identical repost". --You're not listening, are you? This deletion review has nothing to do with the recreation of Anal stretching. This Deletion Review is about an Evidence page concerning my userpage and your censorship of it. Please stick to the topic at hand Rfwoolf 12:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not listening. You are allowed to work up an RfC in user space, you are not allowed to maintain a grudge list. You left it unedited for months, adding to it only when your frivolous complaint was again dismissed. The page is worthless as part of the process of building an encyclopaedia, a process in which you appear to be playing no part. The use of the word "censorship" almost without exception indicates a baseless complaint, and this is no exception. You created a baseless complaint page about your baseless complaint, and then you complain about its removal, which complaint is also baseless since the deleted page has no merit and was clearly not being worked up as part of the dispute resolution process, which is the only acceptable reason for keeping pages like that in user space. All the distractions in the world are not going to fix that, and the more you troll about it the worse your troll-to-edit ratio gets. Your response to errors being pointed out is, repeatably, to repeat the errors as if no such correction had been made. This is clearly no exception. The sooner you are banned the better. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This type of response is a glaringly obvious example of why an RfC was being filed against you in the first place, and why some here are using their personal dislike of this rwoolf person to color their reasons to endorse an obviously-fraudulent speedy closure. Tarc 20:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you say. But as it happens, no RfC was filed. You just created a grudge page and left it hanging about in user space for six months, which is unacceptable. Not a surprise, you've not worked on mainspace to any measurable extent either. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter if it was filed or not, you calling it an attack page does not make it so. DRV should be a review of process, rather than you re-hashing the AfD. Looking at the process of the AfD, it is quite plain to see an abrogation of administrator authority. BTW, nice argumentum ad personam tactic at the end there. Classy. Tarc 12:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, Guy is not the only person calling it an attack page, so you calling it not an attack page likewise does not make it so. --Iamunknown 13:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, it already is so, I don't need to "make" it. As I asked in my very first post in this mess, where is the precedent that an in-progress RfC is classified as an attack page? The answer is that there is none, which is why this was an improper closure that should be relisted. Tarc 17:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - An in-progress RfC is not to remain in-progress for six months without endorsements. Thus it should have been deleted anyways. --Iamunknown 17:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, yes it does matter, uncertified RfCs are deleted for a reason. This was not even an RfC, it was just a statement of one side of a dispute missing inconvenient facts like its having been rejected every time it was aired anywhere. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The air of vexatious excess (I won't say abuse) of process here remains. I've still seen nothing to suggest that I shouldn't have gone with my first instinct of early-closing this as endorsed two days ago. Newyorkbrad 02:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Early-closing this DRV? Where editors so clearly disagree about the appropriateness of the G10 speedy deletion? Come on ... :) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - clearly a speedy delete as G10; the page was being used to perpetuate a dispute, not resolve one. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion for reasons amply stated already, SqueakBox 17:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I'm not particularly interested in reading an article about "anal stretching" myself, but I'm also not happy about admins misusing CSD, either. CSD is supposed to be for clearcut, noncontroversial deletions. Yet Radiant, with full knowledge that a debate had begun in which several people had already rejected the proposition that the page was an attack page, went ahead and speedied it. I also agree that it was not an "attack page" as defined by G10. An attack page is not any page that happens to be critical of someone, but one that is virulent. "That admin is an arsehole with a tiny mind who should shut the fuck up" would be an example of a G10 attack page. Laying out one's case in a reasonably civil matter is not, because then fair-minded people can differ about whether it is constructive criticism, free discourse, or an attack.

I myself think it's perfectly fine to tell your side of the story about a dispute on a userpage, as long as you remain civil about it. CBM commented above that evidence pages are routinely deleted under G10. On the other hand, many aren't. My take is that evidence pages that are rants are not protected from G10. But just as you don't get a free pass by calling an attack page an "evidence" page, evidence pages are not automatically attack pages that can legitimately be speedy deleted.

I'm also not swayed by the argument that this is a pseudo-RFC that shouldn't be kept around indefinitely, and Rwoolf should put up or shut up. First off, I don't have a problem with him telling his side of the story, whether it's in the form of an evidence page or not, as long as he does so civilly. And even if this case does not become an RFC, he may want to piggyback his case onto someone else's RFC. Let's be real here, it's only a matter of time before an RFC about an admin as controversial as Guy gets certified. A vocal faction of the community believes that Guy does the Lord's work, putting troublemakers in their place. Many others feel that he is an abrasive, rougish admin. If Rwoolf were to put this up on RFC and fail to get it certified, it would not be due to a lack of dissent, but because dissenters are waiting for a more appealing issue than "anal stretching" to make their stand.

In closing, let me say that neither party has covered themselves in glory in this affair. Rwoolf has been dogged in his push to get his article, and it's not clear that he would be willing to accept an ultimate verdict from the community that this topic is unsuitable. On the other hand, I think some of Guy's actions have not helped. First, in the original AFD there was enough support for the article to at least raise the possibility that a better referenced, better written entry might pass, which raises the question whether the topic should be indefinitely salted. Also, some of the participants argued that the relevant information is already in "butt plug," so why isn't there at least a protected redirect? It also appears that Guy deleted Rwoolf's draft version for being in the wrong namespace; why not just move it into his userspace? Also, while the evidence page reflects one side of the story - which Rwoolf actually noted in his introduction - Guy has apparently not even considered taking up Rwoolf's offer to let him respond on the page.

Also, while I understand being uncomfortable with having a page of criticism hanging around, Guy's reaction has been counterproductive. If Guy had kept his cool, this subpage would still be languishing in obscurity, and anyone who stumbled across it probably would have laughed it off as the griping of a tendentious editor with a strange obsession about anal stretching. Instead, by lashing out with profanities, he has disturbed editors concerned about incivility, and in pushing to get it deleted, he has attracted far more attention to it than Rwoolf's own efforts. --Groggy Dice T | C 17:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact is that Rfwoolf reposted viurtually unaltered a deleted article which was userfied to help him rework it, then made the most hysterical fuss when it was (quite properly) deleted under WP:CSD#G4. The subject is irrelevant, it was an utterly unmbiguous speedy deletion under one of the least controversial speedy deletion criteria, and he has done pretty much nothing else since but bitch, troll and forum-shop. Every time he has done so, his complaint has been rejected for the simple reason that it is baseless. He got the article userfied to be "worked on" and proceeded not to work on it. He has had every opportunity to demonstrate some attempt to build the encyclopaedia, and has not done so. His main space edit count remains under 100 in over 18 months, slightly over one edit per week, and that includes the deleted article, to which he "contributed" the removal of, I think, one sentence, plus a move back to mainspace. His "research" in support of the article yielded articles which I know, as a former manager in a surgical device manufacturing company, are discussing something else entirely, a fact which was pointed out but ignored. Actually by then he seems to have lost interest, until he saw an opportunity to get under my skin. Well done Rfwoolf, you certainly managed that, by reasserting your baseless complaint at a very bad time. The correct response to this kind of egregious fuckwittedness is to ban the troll. Instead we have a small group of grudge-bearers and some perplexing troll-enablers perpetuating the "debate" over something that is, as noted by several long-term contributors above, actually blindingly obvious. Unfiled RfCs that don't even follow the RfC template get deleted, summarily, and for excellent reasons. Vexatious complaints by non-contributors ditto.

And I can't stress this strongly enough: nobody misused CSD and any point. The page deleted this time was Rfwoolf's statement of his side of a dispute, which side was comprehensively rejected every time he raised it, it was a laundry list of grudges as seen, and sanctioned, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi. He left is hanging around in user space for six months, where if he'd filed it as an RfC it would have either turned into an RfC on his own behaviour and likely led to a block, or would have been rapidly deleted as meritless. The dispute lay dormant until Rfwoolf chose, for whatever reason, to rekindle it last week. Rfwoolf has contributed approximately the square root of fuck-all to the encyclopaedia (remember that?) but has consumed a truly gargantuan amount of the community's time and effort in rebutting his querulous complaints. This page was no exception. The careful formatting and awesomely precise selection of only those facts which suited his argument are in stark contrast to the total lack of any discernible effort he has put into mainspace. This is not even a case of "fuck process", because process was clearly followed: unfiled RfCs are summarily deleted for good reason. Rfwoolf states that this was an RfC in the making, but that is complete bollocks - at no point did he attempt to follow the RfC template, at no point did he attempt dispute resolution, because wherever he took his dispute he was told it was baseless. The reaosn he was told this is because... it was baseless. If you get an article userfied to "rewrite" it, remove on sentence and bung it back in userspace, it is not really a surprise when it gets deleted under WP:CSD#G4. That's what happens to reposts of deletded content. He had months to fix the deleted article, he did not fix it. He had months to file an RfC, he did not file an RfC. He had months to make contributions to the encyclopaedia, he did not make contributions to the encyclopaedia. And this debate is a perfect example fo the kind of shit that is making this project joyless for those of us who are prepared to actually take on the occasional hard case, because even the blindingly obvious easy cases now bring crowds of malcontents to cheer the trolls on. This one debate is several times the size of all of Rfwoolf's mainspace edits added together. Which is precisely what he wants, I am sure, since he is a troll and nothing else. So thanks for taking the time to give succour to this worthless waste of other people's time, but please understand why I don't think much of it. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, ... at various parts in this DRV, you have provided a relatively thorough account of Rfwoolf's inappropriate behaviour. Should he have mixed together the issues of deletion of a page, removal of content on his userpage, and the appropriateness of content on your userpage? No. Should have bothered you about this issue as much as he did (or at all)? No. Should he have at least stopped posting to your talk page after you told him to effectively fuck off? Absolutely. Should he have been blocked? Probably.

However, you seem perfectly content to completely overlook the inappropriateness of some of your actions. The fact of the matter is that you attacked him twice, first by telling him to "shut the fuck up you whining twat" and then "go away and take your tiny mind with you". Now you've labeled anyone who has disagreed with you "grudge-bearers", "perplexing troll-enablers", and/or "malcontents". Rather than being perplexed by us supposed troll-enabling malcontents, you should consider that you are exhibiting some of the very behaviours of which the so-called grudge-bearers have accused you.

If you have been baited and/or lost your temper, I will ask you (for the third time) to please consider disengaging from this issue for a while. If the speedy deletion was valid, it will be endorsed. If the "evidence" page was inappropriate, it will remain deleted. If Rfwoolf is a troll, he will be handled. Nearly anyone else who had done what you did would have earned a block. Please consider that and refrain from further personal attacks in your comments. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick response - While I certainly appreciate Groggy Dice's rather constructive and quite insightful feedback on the issues like the Anal stretching article etc, it must be stressed that this DRV is not about the Anal stretching article - it was about an Evidence page which concerned my userpage being censored and protected by JzG. More over, JzG's rebuttle is that my complaint on that isssue is "entirely baseless" - which is an extreme surprise considering User:Jossi disagreed, and unprotected my userpage and allowed me to put back my comments. Groggy Dice was also right to point out the irony here - an Evidence page which nobody was really paying any attention to - is now the centre of attention. I'll also thank Groggy Dice for reading the opening paragraph of the Evidence page because very few people have managed to acknowledged the very civil and relatively respectful tone of the Evidence page, thereby making it not an attack page. JzG's ad hominum attacks remain irrelevant as ever-before. "Rfwoolf says he's right be he can't possibly be because he hasn't contributed much to Wikipedia". So in closing, Groggy Dice is right to point out that the evidence page was not an attack page. His comments about the Anal stretching article I of course agree with, and I can re-table that issue some other time if I find it necessary, for example by rewriting it and tabling it for Deletion Review - which is what everybody has said I can do if I want to.
And FWIF, Groggy Dice is also correct, the Anal stretching article doesn't need to be indefinitely SALTed. Typically articles are only SALTed for a month or so, unless there's long-term reasons, such as consensus that the article shouldn't exist to begin with, not consensus that the article read like a how-to-guide or didn't have referenes. But I re-iterate, the Evidence page in question has nothing to do with Anal stretching article Rfwoolf 01:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Awkward turtle – Deletion endorsed, until such time as additional reliable sources are produced. – Xoloz 03:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Awkward turtle (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`\|`AfD2`\|`DRV`)` Published Secondary Sources. Two articles in (printed) college newspapers discussing the term directly. http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2006/02/03/Columns/Andrew.Stein.06.If.Being.Awkward.Is.Cool.Im.Miles.Davis-1598494.shtml and more recently, http://media.www.thelantern.com/media/storage/paper333/news/2007/04/27/Opinion/Break.Out.Of.Your.Shell-2885641.shtml These are secondary sources about the term, not merely articles using the term. This is not analysis or synthesis of primary material on my part. They satisfy both the neologism and notability guidelines. The coverage is: -significant (the articles address the meaning and context in detail, certainly more than trivial), -reliable (in an edited, published, paper college newspaper, describing a term popular among college students - "The reliability of a source depends on the context: a world-renowned mathematician is not a reliable source about biology. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources..."), and -sourced, from a secondary source that is independent of the topic (as well as following the verifiability guideline that "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources ... The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context.") The February deletion review presented ample further evidence (in addition to the sufficient evidence above) of notability "in another manner" (per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Notability#fn_6). The wiki article should be composed of information from secondary sources (i.e., the two college newspaper articles) and include more than the mere definition, but also a description of where it is commonly found (the articles mention college campuses around the country), and its notoriety (as also described in both articles). - Anonymous 12 July 2007 Additional articles from similarly reliable sources (college papers describing a college term = very appropriate, and making a very unexceptional claim). http://www.tuftsdaily.com/media/storage/paper856/news/2007/02/13/Viewpoints/Jamie.Bologna.Dc.In.A.Box-2715758.shtml describing in detail the motion, meaning, and notoriety of the term. As well as http://media.www.emorywheel.com/media/storage/paper919/news/2006/10/03/Editorials/Why-Does.Jon.Heder.Still.Have.A.Job-2327584.shtml describing it as a gesture, and explaining its meaning. Also, http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2007/05/10/Opinion/Angela.Ruggiero-2899046-page2.shtml describing it as a hand gesture. - Anonymous 12 July 2007 I see that the Brown Daily Herald article was known of at the time of AFD1, because it is linked there by one of the delete opiners. The Lantern article is being presented for the first time, so far as I see. In reading these two articles, neither one is a secondary source about the term, contrary to the nominator's assertion above. Both are college paper opinion columns that use the term. There were no reliable sources presented in the February deletion review. The Tufts Daily, Emorywheel, and CaliforniaAggie things all also fall short of secondary sources about the term. With no secondary sources about the term, it still falls short of the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms guideline, and should not have an article. I have no doubt that the term/motion is real, but we can't have a policy and guideline compliant article on it yet. keep deleted GRBerry 13:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] keep deleted for now per GRBerry, the term is becoming more common clearly but we still wouldn't have an article that wasn't complete original research. We need secondary sources. JoshuaZ 16:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] permit restoration the version deleted was OR, but earlier versions had references that were appropriate to the material, and was thus not entirely OR. Particular parts that might be OR can be challenged. Major student papers such as the Crimson are RSs for student behavior. DGG (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion student papers aren't reliable sources for a darn thing, and an article about a silly hand gesture that never even really caught on?? Come on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Awkward turtle – Deletion endorsed, until such time as additional reliable sources are produced. – Xoloz 03:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Published Secondary Sources. Two articles in (printed) college newspapers discussing the term directly. http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2006/02/03/Columns/Andrew.Stein.06.If.Being.Awkward.Is.Cool.Im.Miles.Davis-1598494.shtml and more recently, http://media.www.thelantern.com/media/storage/paper333/news/2007/04/27/Opinion/Break.Out.Of.Your.Shell-2885641.shtml These are secondary sources about the term, not merely articles using the term. This is not analysis or synthesis of primary material on my part. They satisfy both the neologism and notability guidelines. The coverage is:

-significant (the articles address the meaning and context in detail, certainly more than trivial),

-reliable (in an edited, published, paper college newspaper, describing a term popular among college students - "The reliability of a source depends on the context: a world-renowned mathematician is not a reliable source about biology. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources..."), and

-sourced, from a secondary source that is independent of the topic (as well as following the verifiability guideline that "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources ... The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context.")

The February deletion review presented ample further evidence (in addition to the sufficient evidence above) of notability "in another manner" (per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Notability#fn_6). The wiki article should be composed of information from secondary sources (i.e., the two college newspaper articles) and include more than the mere definition, but also a description of where it is commonly found (the articles mention college campuses around the country), and its notoriety (as also described in both articles). - Anonymous 12 July 2007

Additional articles from similarly reliable sources (college papers describing a college term = very appropriate, and making a very unexceptional claim). http://www.tuftsdaily.com/media/storage/paper856/news/2007/02/13/Viewpoints/Jamie.Bologna.Dc.In.A.Box-2715758.shtml describing in detail the motion, meaning, and notoriety of the term. As well as http://media.www.emorywheel.com/media/storage/paper919/news/2006/10/03/Editorials/Why-Does.Jon.Heder.Still.Have.A.Job-2327584.shtml describing it as a gesture, and explaining its meaning. Also, http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2007/05/10/Opinion/Angela.Ruggiero-2899046-page2.shtml describing it as a hand gesture. - Anonymous 12 July 2007

I see that the Brown Daily Herald article was known of at the time of AFD1, because it is linked there by one of the delete opiners. The Lantern article is being presented for the first time, so far as I see. In reading these two articles, neither one is a secondary source about the term, contrary to the nominator's assertion above. Both are college paper opinion columns that use the term. There were no reliable sources presented in the February deletion review. The Tufts Daily, Emorywheel, and CaliforniaAggie things all also fall short of secondary sources about the term. With no secondary sources about the term, it still falls short of the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms guideline, and should not have an article. I have no doubt that the term/motion is real, but we can't have a policy and guideline compliant article on it yet. keep deleted GRBerry 13:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep deleted for now per GRBerry, the term is becoming more common clearly but we still wouldn't have an article that wasn't complete original research. We need secondary sources. JoshuaZ 16:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
permit restoration the version deleted was OR, but earlier versions had references that were appropriate to the material, and was thus not entirely OR. Particular parts that might be OR can be challenged. Major student papers such as the Crimson are RSs for student behavior. DGG (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion student papers aren't reliable sources for a darn thing, and an article about a silly hand gesture that never even really caught on?? Come on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Wedlock (band) – Nothing to review, article is currently at AfD. – Kinu ^t/_c 05:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wedlock (band) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` legitimate signed licensed band StacieVan 04:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Wedlock (band) – Nothing to review, article is currently at AfD. – Kinu ^t/_c 05:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

legitimate signed licensed band StacieVan 04:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.