User:Losplad (edit | [[Talk:User:Losplad|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This user page was recently mentioned in an ongoing discussion at AN/I as a claimed example of "admin shopping". This two-sentence user page was created as the first and only edit of its owner. Some months later, it was tagged for speedy deletion as spam four times by Calton; on the first three occasions, the request was denied by three different admins, until, on the fourth attempt, Kylu finally agreed and deleted the page. Rather than summarize the history further, I'll just present the edit and deletion history of the page (in reverse chronological order) as it can be seen by admins at Special:Undelete/User:Losplad:

• 01:54, 22 July 2007 Kylu (talk · contribs) deleted "User:Losplad" ‎ (content was: '((db-spam))NO COVER is a rock alternative band from Idaho. Original guitar player Chris Reynolds died on March 2, 2005.')

• 01:21, 22 July 2007 . . Calton (talk · contribs) (122 bytes) (((db-spam)))
• 06:26, 8 July 2007 . . AuburnPilot (talk · contribs) (109 bytes) (decline speedy)
• 04:31, 8 July 2007 . . Calton (talk · contribs) (121 bytes) (Reality check: it's spam. Kindly acquaint yourself with policy.)
• 02:17, 8 July 2007 . . VirtualSteve (talk · contribs) (109 bytes) (No sorry agree with OwenX - I can't see the option of deleting this page)
• 01:21, 8 July 2007 . . Calton (talk · contribs) (121 bytes) (((db-spam)) - 1) advertises band. 2) not an individual, a role account 3) Account created in May, but this is its only edit. Really, pretty obvious.)
• 01:05, 8 July 2007 . . OwenX (talk · contribs) (109 bytes) (this is well within the allowed content for user pages.)
• 01:04, 8 July 2007 . . Calton (talk · contribs) (122 bytes) (((db-spam)))
• 01:56, 1 May 2007 . . Losplad (talk · contribs) (109 bytes) (←Created page with 'NO COVER is a rock alternative band from Idaho. Original guitar player Chris Reynolds died on March 2, 2005.')

I'll be the first to admit that the former content of the page itself is of very little value. However, the fact that the page was tagged by an established editor and untagged by three admins before finally being deleted suggests that there exists genuine disagreement as to whether it actually counts as a valid G11 speedy or whether it falls within the scope of acceptable user page content. While this is somewhat outside the usual scope of DRV, I think that this might be as good a venue as any to try and gauge consensus on this issue and hopefully establish some sort of a precedent.

I'd like to see comments here focus more on constructive discussion about whether or not we should speedily delete pages like this one, and less on things like who did right or wrong in this particular situation. Besides notifying the people involved, I'll post a notice about this discussion to AN/I and to WT:CSD. Feel free to post additional notes on any other page whose readers might be interested. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn CSD is for non-controversial deletions, this was rejected by three admins. I think this should have gone to MfD. Chillum 16:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted While the deletion was incorrect, I agree with those below who say there is no point in restoring this page. Chillum 16:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No opinion either way. I've restored the page and ((drv))'d it so you can check its history. Kylu (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As one of the three declining admins, there is no doubt Calton's behavior was deplorable. But I don't see any real value in overturning the deletion now, over a year later. The page should not have been deleted by Kylu, as no one admin should overrule the decision of three others. The page should have been sent to MfD, Calton shouldn't have tagged it four times, but let's keep it deleted. - auburnpilot talk 16:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is no point in overturning the deletion over a year later for a user who has not edited since creating the page. However I would say that if your speedy tag has been declined by a neutral third party you should not re-add the tag yourself because it is obviously not the clear cut case which speedy deletion is meant to be for. If you still feel it should be deleted then take it to the relevant process - in this case WP:MFD. Davewild (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Coment - This should have been prodded, which would have worked (more effectively), and in the absence of a PROD the CSD refusal should have signalled the need to take it to MfD. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I cannot see how a one line userpage can be considered spam under CSD:G11. Kudos to Ilmari Karonen and Kylu for bringing this here; this is far more important than just one userpage of an inactive user. This is about policy, community standards, and the actions of one obnoxious, obsessive editor who made it his mission to "clean" WP from what he believes to be the Ultimate Evil, and in doing so chased away dozens if not hundreds of potentially good editors. I don't want to pull the whole AN/I discussion about User:Calton into this DRV, but by overturning this deletion we will be sending him a strong message that he cannot keep playing one admin against another, and that we are willing to tolerate an occasional borderline-spammish userpage in order to preserve a civil, cooperative environment. Owen× ☎ 18:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• To give credit where credit is due, I found out about the ANI thread from this DRV. It wasn't my idea to join in the discussion to debate a point of policy, I just simply don't mind assisting in process as long as it improved Wikipedia. :) Kylu (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as per my previous argument - and quite inappropriate in my view that it was continuously reposted as Speedy! I should also add that in my opinion, where possible wrongs should be righted - towards that point whilst it is reasonable to argue that there is no point in overturning the deletion after a year - we as editors/admins do not know how that deletion is still affecting the previous user. For example does s/he use it as an example with his friends as to his view on the unfairness of wikipedia? We just don't know - restoring the page provides an alternative example of what happens here and points to the fact that wikipedia is always watching and always trying to better itself. --VS ^talk 21:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and possibly list at MfD where the desirability of maintaining the page can be discussed in the proper forum, which is not here. It certainly isn't speedy. I assume that the deleting admin forgot to check the page history, because, based on previous knowledge, she's most certainly not the type of person for wheel-warring.DGG (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep page deleted unless the user in question objects. Really, this was over a year ago. If the user, or anyone else, had any objections to the deletion, they could have made them then. I see no point in restoring this because of a technicality someone noticed while discussing something else. If the user in question requests it back, then the discussion is merited, but right now I just see it as process for the sake of process. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep page deleted. Yes, it's wrong to repeatedly re-tag a page for speedy deletion after it has been declined, but I couldn't agree more strongly with UsaSatsui - this is process for the sake of process. We are talking about a single line (which would have been A7'd in an instant if it was in article space) created 15 months ago by a user who never made another edit before nor since. It's not a Wikipedia user page, it doesn't fit any of the examples of what a user page is for spelled out on Wikipedia:User page, it's just a line about a non-notable band. Feel free to trout-slap some people, but there is no earthly reason for this page to be preserved. --Stormie (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted It's still a speedy and it's still spam. --DHeyward (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted - borderline speediable in the first place, and the fact that three admins turned it down should have been enough to indicate to Calton to prod or MfD it. The only benefit in this DR is the discussion which it generates - there's no merit in overturning the decision at this stage. _Gb^T/c 07:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Not clear enough to be a speedy. -- Ned Scott 09:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and mark with WP:PROD. There have been no real objections to deleting the page, only to the process here, so I think marking with PROD would be fine, and then the page can be deleted properly. Or we could just ignore the process concerns and leave it deleted until someone wants to make something of the draft, which would probably have been a better choice. Mangojuice^talk 16:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Only articles may be proposed for deletion with WP:PROD. Chillum 16:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an exception under which it could be, to quote from WP:PROD "The only exceptions to this rule are pages in the User and User talk namespaces which may be proposed for deletion if the user has no recent edits and has made few or no contributions to the encyclopedia". Davewild (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, thank you for that important detail. I have read all the policies, but they change. If it is undeleted then PROD would be a good way to go. Chillum 17:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until this came up I'd never heard of that rule either. Davewild (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, admin shopping. Stifle (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn because the deletion was due to forum shopping, aka undue process. Upholding this deletion means that it's okay to forum shop, as long as you aren't discovered inmediately. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and PROD it. Process is important.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 00:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Process is important, but there is no need for bureaucracy. This user hasn't responded to the deletion of his page in over a year, they have not responded here, I do not think it will matter if it is restored for 5 days...it will simply be deleted again. There is no need to go through the motions when common sense tells us this, and on the slight chance the user -does- want the page back, it can be restored easily enough no matter what path we take. It is possible for us to agree that, while the process was wrong, the end result was correct. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. It probably wasn't a great idea to speedy something relatively innocuous as this in user space. However, that said, spam is spam is spam. It might be wise for us to make a policy for user space that user pages must talk about the user, if we haven't already. This wasn't blatant advertising as G11, but A7 doesn't apply in user space, so it truly should have been put in the appropriate deletion procedure (WP:MfD) just like most other things there. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It seems (some) people are just knee-jerk responding without actually reading what the nominator is asking. The question here isn't "What should be done about this page?", it's "What should be done about pages like this?" To put it simply, no matter what process is taken, nobody cares what happens to this page. Personally, I think a PROD is more-than suitable. This CSD is to protect WP from being a free-advertising site. As the page was not in mainspace, it was likely not-very-highly-trafficked, so it poses little threat there. If there is a possibility that this is someone's userpage, they should be given some chance to defend it, so PROD -> MfD should always be the route (unless the page is an attack page or something more serious than SPAM). In this case, the editor was being disruptive by admin shopping, and they also violated 3RR. There is no reason to undelete this page, as one year of deletion is more-than-enough PROD, so Keep Deleted. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 18:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deleted. I agree that it was unwise to speedy-delete the page after the speedy had previously been declined by three admins; but all that should have happened is it being WP:PRODded or sent to MFD, where the same outcome would have been reached anyway. Despite the mistake in how this page was deleted, there is no actual reason for it to be undeleted; neither is there any apparent demand for it to be undeleted. Process is important, but undeleting this and then putting it up for deletion again would not achieve anything useful whatsoever; it would simply be process for process' sake. Terraxos (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore based on the opinions of three admins. It is not advertising it is more of a description. It would be advertising if, say, NO COVER had information on events they were performing at or albums they were trying to sell. Mentioning that this band exists and that one of the members died certainly isn't advertising or spam Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} 17:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse & troutsmack everyone (including myself) for wasting time debating the deletion a single spammy contribution from an obviously abandoned account. This should not have become a cause célèbre for a debate about due process over common sense. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn based on obvious admin shopping. I agree with Frank Anchor the content was not spam NewYork483 (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn based on admin shopping and based on the material possibly being spam depending on how you look at it. Three admins did not believe it to be spam. Also, the rules should be followed even on obscure cases like this, it is still the rules of the website. Baseballfan789 (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a rule too. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how deleting a one-line userpage improves Wikipedia. This approach of deleting pages based on your own feeling of what's good for WP--as opposed to using policy and community standards--is a very dangerous one. UsaSatsui, how exactly do you propose applying WP:IAR in this case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OwenX (talk • contribs)
      • I never said the deletion was correct (It's not). Where i apply IAR is that this has been deleted for over a year, with no objections whatsoever in that time (not even from the user), and it's only coming up now as a side-note to something else entirely. There's no harm in leaving it deleted. That's where I apply IAR. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Taking actions based on one's own assessment of what's good for WP over strict interpretation of policy is the very reason we have IAR. As far as community standards go, in reality each member of the community has their own opinion of the deletion process, deviating to a varying degree from any sort of consensual median. The actual process behind any speedy deletion is performed at an ad hoc basis determined by the assessments of one or two individuals. In this case, the year-old one-sentence blurb would never have survived MfD and its deletion is not in any way indicative of the disintegration of process in the project. Calton acted in the interest of WP and applied IAR to the deletion of a benign and unimportant piece of self promotion (a.k.a. google search term) graciously hosted by WP servers. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Calton applied IAR?! Calton has put CSD:G11 on his flag. It's the only purpose for his presence on WP. Do you really think removing a few megabytes of userpage space which isn't linked to from anywhere really helps WP? The minor benefit from the reduction in storage and traffic is more than offset by the damage of chasing new editors away, and annoying or upsetting many established editors. Calton isn't interested in improving Wikipedia; he is interested in stamping out spam, and he does so with a religious zeal that has nothing to do with practical concerns of cost/benefit or collateral damage. Your claim that he does so under the auspices of WP:IAR is without any merit. Is WP:IAR why he goes admin-shopping? Is that why he calls everyone an idiot--he just wants to improve Wikipedia and has trouble doing so under the current rules? Owen× ☎ 22:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whoah there, slow down with the loaded questions. I'm not an apologist for Calton's personality or approach, I find his way of dealing with disagreement to be abrasive, petty and arrogant. However I agree with his assessment that this was an utterly useless and likely promotional contribution by a one-time-use account. Most new user accounts on Wikipedia never actually contribute, a substantial portion of them make a few edits and disappear. As long as at least some of their edits improve articles, they have every right to the privilege of a userpage. If these accounts only contribute to their userspace, and if their contributions deal with promoting or discussing a subject that is outside of the realm of Wikipedia's content policies, then deletion is the way to go. A few megabytes here or there aren't a big deal, but after a while Wikipedia's backend needs to be cleared of useless clutter. I am inclined to believe that the potential cost of deleting userpages of users with no mainspace contributions who have not been active in over a year is negligible. Likewise, I've witnessed hundreds of users whose purpose was strictly to promote whatever organization or band or product they have a connection with. These accounts are detrimental to the project, they turn a substantial portion of Wikipedia to myspace or craigslist (except with an artificially inflated pagerank). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • In that case, let's amend Wikipedia:User page to state that any userpage of an inactive editor with few or no mainspace edits should be deleted on sight. I'd gladly support such a policy. A simple bot can then take care of the cleanup, without the abrasion and arrogance. But until we do that, all we can go by is the current WP:UP and CSD:G11, instead of loading up WP:IAR with yet another improper usage. Remember, IAR was intended to alleviate the fear of bureaucracy experienced by newbies (check the original version!). Whenever I hear an admin or other experienced editor trying to use it, I know we are dealing with someone who holds his own views above those of the community, and considers consensus a four-letter word. If you are suggesting that Calton, who has been barking at editors here for almost four years, is just trying to avoid red tape by innocently inserting his ((db-spam)) repeatedly until he finds a cooperative admin, then I think you are giving him far more credit then he deserves. Owen× ☎ 00:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • It could certainly be stated clearer, but I think that between WP:UP#NOT, WP:UP#OWN, and WP:SPAM the message is pretty obvious. Your suggestion of a bot is an approach worth considering, although I'm not sure what sort of script could be used to differentiate inappropriate or spammy material from innocuous userpages. I'm also not advocating for the deletion of all inactive user pages with little to no mainspace edits, since any specific definition of "inactivity" would have to be arbitrary. There have been cases where users come back years after their initial contributions to continue (or begin) working on the project. Anyway, we're talking about spam here, and one tiny piece of it in particular. If you want to dress down Calton and his approach, the thread at WP:AN/I is still active and WP:RFC is always an option. But given no evidence to the contrary, yeah, I think he ran across what he thought was undoubtedly a piece of spam and did not see the point of wasting time on forcing a debate about its deletion. Given the circumstances, I probably would have deleted the userpage had I been monitoring CAT:CSD at the time. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crime against foreigners in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was deleted mainly with the logic it is an anti-India propaganda article. I don't think so, the sources verify these, also the solution merging into Crime in India is not possible now. Crime in India at that time was a small article, but has grew in size recent times, it is not possible to merge this huge information in Crime in India. I believe the article should stay as a separate article. It is true rape of foreigners is increasing in India, I will add more info. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not AFD round 2, no process issues raised. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as nothing to do here. The article was not deleted, it was redirected so the content could be merged to Crime in India. If this is a problem, please seek consensus at the target article's talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the closure of the AFD discussion, though the wording of the closure was a bit ambiguous. Close this discussion without action and send the content dispute back to the respective article Talk pages. Turning a page into a redirect is not deletion in the narrow way we use that term here. Whether the content was useful, whether the merger was successfully carried out or whether the page should remain independent are all issues to be solved on the Talk pages, not at AFD and not here. Rossami (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RuneHQ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm Attempting to make an article about the company RuneHQ (Subsidary of Global Gaming HQ Ltd.(GGHQ) but you proceed to delete the page. Roklykthat (talk) 06:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This article was repeatedly deleted back in 2006 as it did not meet wikipedia's notability guidelines and protected to prevent recreation. If you think an article can be created that does establish notability through significant coverage in reliable sources then I would suggest creating a userspace version of the article (e.g. at User:Roklykthat/RuneHQ) and then bring it back to Deletion Review. Davewild (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure of the AfD. I'm with Davewild here in that I'd like to see a userspace version before making any further decisions. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral but i agree about the userspace idea from the two above users Baseballfan789 (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]