Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis – Page restored. The general sentiment below is that WP:DENY is being misapplied in deleting this page (and not explicitly mentioned in the MfD that actually caused its deletion). I feel it must be noted, however, that if this page is merely meant to be used as possible leverage against Jarlaxle, it is not acceptable and should be deleted once again. Another MfD would be best to determine the exact status of the page. – lifebaka++ 16:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
LTA subpages are often deleted if the user is not active. Grawp, however, is still active and there's no reason to think he'll stop (in fact, there have been discussions on the mailing list about how to get rid of him). This page should thus be undeleted until such time as the Grawp attacks actually stop. Not only that, but since this vandal doesn't like having his personally-identifiable information posted, resurrecting this page will give us some much-needed leverage over him. *** Crotalus *** 18:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, no valid reason given for deletion. Note: WP:DENY is explicitly not a deletion criterion. Stifle (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. I said it before and I'll say it again: WP:DENY is useless against Jarlaxle and will remain so so long as his flock keeps following his orders. As far as I'm concerned, if he outs others (as he did to me last night thru his wethers) he deserves to have his own PID available. -JéskéCouriano(v^_^v) 22:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone on Wikipedia knows Grawp's modus operandi - if the sole purpose of keeping this page is to document it, it's no more useful than the page on Willy on Wheels. (That's keep deleted on wheels!) --B (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the purpose of this page is to discuss Grawp's real name and background, and give us leverage over him so that, if he demands it be removed (we know he doesn't like having it posted) we can first demand he stop vandalizing and harassing people. *** Crotalus *** 15:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
overturn & list at MFD Consensus can change but since rthis has been through MFD before and was kept, thisw should not be deleted without a discussion. SpartazHumbug! 14:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted after a discussion, that's the thing. WP:DENY was the reason the closing administrator cited. -JéskéCouriano(v^_^v) 21:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was? The MFD linked to above was keep and I can't see the reference to the discussion in the log. Would you mind pointing me in the correct direction? Thanks SpartazHumbug! 21:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, damnatio memoriae was a call to to effectively remove any reference to having ever existed. WP:DENY makes no such request (even if it did you wouldn't get the developers to delete all the move logs anyway), indeed the nomination suggested "Gosh, we can live with just one concise long-term abuse report" and many supported that view, hardly an erasing of all memories (That actually reference Wikipedia:LTA#Grawp an LTA report on Grawp which still exists again not an erasing of all memory). I note your comment in the MFD, "We need to strike a balance between WP:DENY and keeping people informed;", which is oddly similar to what WP:DENY says itself and has done for a long time "Information on vandalism should be critically appraised for its genuine value, and if that value outweighs any detriment from the publicity of that vandal/vandalism." --81.104.39.44 (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you had been there at the time, you would have realized that WP:DENY was being horribly misapplied, effectively warping it into damnatio memoriae. -JéskéCouriano(v^_^v) 18:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you know what? Its really hard to review a deletion if half the information is kept away from the deletion review. The actual discussion did not reference this page but the consensus was clear and its obvious that this does fall under that decision so changing to endorse but I really wish Krimpet had referenced the MFD in her deletion summary. SpartazHumbug! 14:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what's wrong with Wikipedia:LTA#Grawp can't that information be enhance if it's deficient, is there a specific need for this older subpage? --81.104.39.44 (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The older subpage describes his history and says who he really is. *** Crotalus *** 15:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore DENY is being misapplied. The only real threat that this page poses is that it will leave editors and administrators with the misaprehension that Grawp is one human and not a meme. Protonk (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added the Grawp MfD up top. Note that this is not an attempt to add "Grawp"'s userpage or its sockpuppet categories to the deletion review; it is merely there because the page was deleted due to that discussion, not the LTA:JA MfD. -JéskéCouriano(v^_^v) 19:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was the perfect image for representing the county of Worcestershire, UK. There wasn't an alternative; I checked all the rights and entered all the right information. It had two pages using the image, which now obviously look terrible due to the deletion. I was intending to use the image in more templates, stubs etc, for the benefit of anyone else who wanted to expand upon the presence of information on wikipedia about Worcestershire. The reason for deletion was G6 (non-controversial), well I think that's an inapropriate reason. I was about to start improving the presentation of all English counties in wikipedia but with this trend, I'll have no chance. RatnimSnave (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn as clearly not non-controversial. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not speedy, actually. Stifle (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator's explanation is somewhat misleading. This non-free image wasn't being used on any articles, and xe hadn't added it to any articles. Nor did its fair-use rationale list any articles. This non-free image was being used on userboxes. The "two pages using the image" are Template:User Worcestershire and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location/European Union, neither of which are articles. There is zero evidence, from either the nominator's edits to relevant articles (of which there are none) or the fair-use justificiation that was provided in the image, that the nominator was actually going to do anything at all with "the presentation of all English counties in wikipedia", and that this non-free image was going to be used anywhere in the only namespace where non-free images are permitted, and a fair body of evidence that the nominator was simply adding non-free images to userboxes in contravention of our Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions]. The deleting administrator's deletion is squarely in line with our policy, given that, although the proper 7-day waiting procedure for non-free content not used in any articles was not followed. Uncle G (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, but couldn't a very good case be made to use the image in Worcestershire, regardless of previous uses before deletion? Because, if so, it seems to me we should restore it, but a fair-use claim on it for that article, and leave other things to editorial processes. Cheers, guys. lifebaka++ 18:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to restoration in that case. I deleted it while removing non-free images from templates, and the image was only used in two userboxes. BJTalk 21:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional overturn for use in article space only. If this is a non-free logo as indicated it cannot be used in Userspace at all and certainly not in templates or userboxes designed for userspace. The deletion was a correct application of WP:USER which explicitly allows for deletion in this situation. But if there are articles that could benefit from the image, then it should be undeleted for use in them. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
