Timothy Meaher – Restored by deleting administrator. This isn't a dispute resolution process so there is nothing further to do here. Hut 8.5 18:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Timothy Meaher (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) False reporting of copyright violation, bad faith speedy deletion, failure to respond to talk pages, failure to respond to dispute resolution. User:NahalAhmed reported page as copyright violation as speedy delete - reason was copyright violation. As pointed out on now deleted talk page, there was no copyright violation, the pages that were alleged to be copied seem to be mirrors of Wikipedia. Further the alledged copied page was the wikipedia template page for biographies. I did request a dispute resolution. However the user has not engaged. The article has now been deleted, and the deleting user, User:RHaworth seems to have deleted the link, without even reviewing that the copyright allegation was false. I find this whole scenario in extreme bad faith, and an abuse of the speedy deletion system, and a failure to engage in even the most basic dispute resolution process. I wish to petition to get the deletion reversed, and further an investigation in false speedy deletion notices being created. Master Of Ninja (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] On the surface, this looks like a particularly egregious mis-application of G12. NahalAhmed could you shed some light on why you tagged this, and RHaworth why you accepted the tagging and deleted it? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] For goodness sake - "dispute resolution", "arbitration". Before using language like that, establish that a dispute exists! First you should give me a chance to admit that I made a simple mistake. Restored. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for inviting me to participate. Especially when I was looking at the new pages editing, the copyright show was on this page. I'm sorry that I used CSD tag in the article of the copyright wording being shown 78% of the page due to my technical problems. This page is actually a percentage 20% copyright issue. I’m sorry for my mistakes , isn’t eligible for copyright. Thanks for notice me.--Nahal^(T) 11:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Why didn't you raise this with RHaworth before bringing this here? For that matter, why did you immediately start grandiose "dispute resolution" proceedings with NahalAhmed before, you know, actually trying to talk to him? And why immediately start screaming "extreme bad faith" as well as clearly frivolous claims of harassment and malice? Let's get something straight. Lots of websites copy Wikipedia, and it is not always completely obvious in which direction the copying has gone. These two editors are not the first to accidentally get tripped up by it and won't be the last, but this is not bad faith on their part. Instantly escalating to the maximum level of feigned outrage is not the way to deal with the issue. Reyk _YO! 11:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] I think this can be closed as moot, since DRV isn't needed here - I missed on a mirror site once with a new article, it happens occasionally, it can be fixed without needing to petition DRV immediately after the fact. SportingFlyer T·C 23:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] close, I notice that the nominator despite expecting everyone else to be constantly online and responding instantly has not edited for a couple of days, seems little point in keeping this open. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Timothy Meaher – Restored by deleting administrator. This isn't a dispute resolution process so there is nothing further to do here. Hut 8.5 18:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

False reporting of copyright violation, bad faith speedy deletion, failure to respond to talk pages, failure to respond to dispute resolution.

User:NahalAhmed reported page as copyright violation as speedy delete - reason was copyright violation. As pointed out on now deleted talk page, there was no copyright violation, the pages that were alleged to be copied seem to be mirrors of Wikipedia. Further the alledged copied page was the wikipedia template page for biographies. I did request a dispute resolution. However the user has not engaged. The article has now been deleted, and the deleting user, User:RHaworth seems to have deleted the link, without even reviewing that the copyright allegation was false. I find this whole scenario in extreme bad faith, and an abuse of the speedy deletion system, and a failure to engage in even the most basic dispute resolution process. I wish to petition to get the deletion reversed, and further an investigation in false speedy deletion notices being created. Master Of Ninja (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the surface, this looks like a particularly egregious mis-application of G12. NahalAhmed could you shed some light on why you tagged this, and RHaworth why you accepted the tagging and deleted it? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake - "dispute resolution", "arbitration". Before using language like that, establish that a dispute exists! First you should give me a chance to admit that I made a simple mistake. Restored. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for inviting me to participate. Especially when I was looking at the new pages editing, the copyright show was on this page. I'm sorry that I used CSD tag in the article of the copyright wording being shown 78% of the page due to my technical problems. This page is actually a percentage 20% copyright issue. I’m sorry for my mistakes , isn’t eligible for copyright. Thanks for notice me.--Nahal^(T) 11:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you raise this with RHaworth before bringing this here? For that matter, why did you immediately start grandiose "dispute resolution" proceedings with NahalAhmed before, you know, actually trying to talk to him? And why immediately start screaming "extreme bad faith" as well as clearly frivolous claims of harassment and malice? Let's get something straight. Lots of websites copy Wikipedia, and it is not always completely obvious in which direction the copying has gone. These two editors are not the first to accidentally get tripped up by it and won't be the last, but this is not bad faith on their part. Instantly escalating to the maximum level of feigned outrage is not the way to deal with the issue. Reyk _YO! 11:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this can be closed as moot, since DRV isn't needed here - I missed on a mirror site once with a new article, it happens occasionally, it can be fixed without needing to petition DRV immediately after the fact. SportingFlyer T·C 23:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
close, I notice that the nominator despite expecting everyone else to be constantly online and responding instantly has not edited for a couple of days, seems little point in keeping this open. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.