- User:Doxiedana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Out-of-process speedy deletion. Was deleted with log entry "Sillyness" by User:DragonflySixtyseven. That is not one of the Speedy deletion criteria, nor does the page, as beat as I can determine, fit any of the criteria. In this edit I requested User:DragonflySixtyseven to undelete, and in this edit DF67 wrote "If Doxiedana comes back to Wikipedia and asks me to restore her userpage, I will consider it. Are you claiming Doxiedana as your alternate account?". In this later edit DF67 wrote"I let people get away with silliness on their userpages under a couple of conditions: first, that they've actually done something useful to the project, and second, that they not be trying to sneak unacceptable articles in the back door. This one failed on both counts." I take this to be a refusal to consider restoring the page. I will grant that the page is not encyclopedic, but then it is not in article space. It is IMO in no way disruptive or harmful, and less of a diversion than many examples of wiki-humor that have been kept at MfD. User:Doxiedana has made a couple of valid contributions to the project, and is a new user. It is my view that under WP:CSD and WP:DEL, admins are only empowered to delete without discussion pages falling strictly within the enumerated speedy deletion criteria, other deletions requiring discussion at the proper forum, in this case WP:MfD. It seems to me that to delete a user page without warning or notice, and without discussion, is to violate WP:BITE. I ask that the page be restored, and that if anyone then thinks it needs to be deleted, a proper MfD discussion be opened, where a community consensus can be formed. DES (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They weren't useful contributions, they were spamming her relatives onto disambiguation pages. And she's been gone for a month. Go find something better to do. DS (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is of my opinion that DESiegel is looking for a witch to burn. There was another article that he has hounded DragonflySixtyseven over, Versicolorin reductase, which was a clear copyvio; that is, the person clearly took the mouse, highlighted all the text and other junk on the webpage itself, hit Ctrl+C, and then opened a blank page and hit Ctrl+V. It took me no more than ten seconds to find that out. Following procedure is one thing, but there is also exercising just a little common sense and using something else called a brain. But seriously, claiming BITE on someone who has been long gone? Give me a break. –MuZemike 20:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so. My attention was drawn to DragonflySixtyseven over the speedy deletion of Studio 1 Photography, which deletion was overturned by a wide margin further down this page. DR67's comments on that page suggested to me an over-willingness to delete, and a willingness to speedy-delete pages that do not actually fall within the WP:CSD. I for one hold the view that the CSD should be strictly followed, and that deletions outside them should use Prod or a deletion discussion. Therefore I have reviewed a number of log entries and when I found deletions that seemed to me not in line with the CSDs, I took the matter up with DF67 as the merits seemed to me. In the case of Versicolorin reductase DF67 didn't mention the copy&paste issue in the deletion log reason, nor in the msg posted on my talk page. You did. I might add that IMO that wasn't strictly a copyvio, because the source is a pure list of facts not subject to copyright under Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. However copy&paste is still discouraged, so i am not pursuing restoration in that case. As for "someone who has been long gone" User:Doxiedana has not edited in roughly a month. Many people have longer gaps than that between contributions, without having left the project for ever. There is no way to know when, or if, User:Doxiedana will return. as to "hounding" I don't see that a perfectly polite request to undelete a deleted page is hounding, the instructions on this page suggest such a course. I invite anyone to look over the exchanges at User talk:DragonflySixtyseven and User talk:DESiegel. I might also add that the majority of deletions i reviewed were perfectly fine, and while I wish DF67 notified article creators of speedy deletions as is strongly recommended on the WP:CSD page, this is not a policy or rule. But when I do find what seems to me an invalid speedy i normally raise the matter with the deleting admin, and bring things here if the response (or lack of response) seem to me to justify doing so. I have done this with pages that were deleted by many different admins, I am in no way "hounding" DragonflySixtyseven. DES (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could someone point to a speedy criteria for this? The Google cache has nothing, so I don't know what was there. Hobit (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have, temporarily, copied the content of the last revision to User:DESiegel/Snow Weasel. DES (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is such a pointless exercise. The existence or lack thereof of this page has absolutely zero effect on the encyclopedia whatsoever. Surely there must be some more productive use of time? Tim Song (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Volunteers work in mysterious ways. I saw this DRV, and decided to see if Doxiedana's contributions were worth anything. A bit of research, and I made Sachs Electric. Productive? --GRuban (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I don't understand the reason for the deletion. An admin shouldn't be deleting a userpage and yes, it is BITEY to do so. I don't see why being silly on a user page, even for a barely contributing user, is worthy of deletion or why the admin feels it is their job to delete it. I admit however I partly agree with Tim. If it weren't for the issue of being BITEY I'd say this was 100% silliness. Hobit (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Process is important (to a point). But in my view, process does not need to be reinforced by overturning an otherwise low impact and uncontested userspace deletion at DRV, just because it was out of process. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn As it met no speedy criterion. It is not helpful to delete harmless page of non-active editors-- if anything, the act of doing so adds slightly to the system overhead, while maintaining it costs absolutely zero--the space is not recycled. If they ever return, it sends a signal the reverse of what we should be sending, that they are welcome back if they want to contribute usefully. User contribution histories show that users--even users who do not make helpful contributions at first--often return, sometimes many months later, and start to make them. It is right to bring a Deletion Review, because admins should learn to act always in process. To the extent that a particular admin has deleted not in process , every out of process deletion that the admin does not revert themselves if asked should be brought to DR. If necessary to delete for some other reason or in some other process it can then be done. This is not process wonkery, but a proper insistence that people with arbitrary power follow the rules. For anyone to think they need not do so is not safe for the encyclopedia. The time we spend discussing a few here will be repaid by the many we will not have to discuss in the future. Even though the particular instance here may be trivial, the refusal to follow policy is anything but trivial. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. You have stated my thoughts precisely. And this isn't an isolated instance. I find at least 9 pages deleted with this same log reason by this same admin within this month. Most are by users with no other contributions, or no useful ones, at least yet. Most do not seem to fit any of the CSD -- a couple might be deletable as vandalism. DES (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn this does not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, and wouldn't do even if it were in the article space*, let alone userspace where we allow a far wider range of content. While the user might not have made any useful edits to the encyclopaedia, their edits were misinformed rather than disruptive. Deletion of their userpage (without notice or explanation) combined with a lack of being welcomed to the project is very bitey. If someone with this contribution history had been gone for a couple of years then it would be a moderately safe bet that they would be unlikley to come back again soon (it does happen though), but with only a month since their initial edits you cannot reliably infer anything about their future intentions. When pages do not clearly meet the CSD criteria, any deletion must be done only when there is consensus to do so at the appropriate XfD. In this case though I doubt that consensus to delete would have been reached at MfD. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is surprising that Editor 1 bothered to create the trivial page in question, doubly surprising that Editor 2 does not have better things to do than delete harmless trivialities in user space, and triply surprising that Editor 3 is sufficiently concerned about this rampant triviality to bring it to drv. Occuli (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I started with the same opinion honestly. But I do wonder if treating someone's user page, no matter how rudimentary, as a triviality is the right approach. Hobit (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I concede that I would be disconcerted if my user-page were to be deleted summarily. I would also be irritated by edits like this one ... the only edits I have ever made to someone else's user-pages is to remove pages from category space eg Category:Nervous system neoplasms contains some such. DS aka DragonflySixtyseven does seem unduly concerned about user space. Occuli (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been on a tear through newly-created userpages recently -- removing spam, libel, and non-COPPA-compliant material. NOINDEX tags don't stop mirror sites from copying troublesome content all over the Net, and mirror sites don't bother with said tags. And would you seriously be irritated by someone correcting a spelling mistake? DS (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per DES, DGG (and any other TLAs...). Deleting a person's userpage should only be done in circumstances of extreme offense. A paragraph about Snow Weasels is within the bounds we're granted to express our individuality. --GRuban (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. If this page needed speedy deletion, but no established criteria was sufficient, raise the case at WT:CSD. This is supposed to be a community managed project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn- If you want to send to MFD, that's cool. But a speedy deletion, when it doesn't even come close to meeting any speedy criteria really isn't the way to go. I know we're all not a bureaucracy here, but there should still be some attempt at discussion before deleting things that aren't speediable. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. No valid basis for speedy deletion cited. G1 and G3 set a narrowerer standard than "silly"; for better or worse, the community decides, case by case, how much silliness will be tolerated. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy endorse. I consider that bringing this deletion to DRV, in the absence even of a concern expressed by the (former) user, borders on frivolous, and I am considering closing this discussion summarily. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the endorse, of course, but suggest that a summary closure of this may only escalate the trivial drama even more. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found that sometimes when I do something summarily per IAR, anticipating a hostile reaction, people move on and the concern disappears. Other times, seemingly obvious actions (like the one under review) precipitate absurd overreactions. I wish I had a better talent for predicting which would be which. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, as a general comment to the deleting administrator and others, merely blanking the page rather than deleting it might have been a better procedure and avoided some of the concerns expressed here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give any reason why this userpage should be deleted? I think it would have made it as MfD as it was causing no harm and deleting it would be biting a newcomer. To close early against consensus here? Really? Hobit (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy closing a DRV where multiple editors have favored overturning seems rather WP:POINTy, and clearly against consensus. I suppose it wouldn't justify arbitration, but it seems highly improper to me. It would surely justify unilaterally restoration of the page in question, as any admin is empowered to restore pages improperly speedy deleted without process. But the main issue here, IMO, is not the specific page -- it is the abuse of speedy deletion. It is not whether this particular user was offended, or even saw the deletion -- it is the high likelyhood that such practices will, in time, offend some new editors and lose potentially valuable contributors. That is why i think this is far from trivial, even though the specific page is not at all important. Newyorkbrad seems to me to miss this point, while DGG, Thryduulf, and others get it. DES (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Newyorkbrad, perhaps that inability to predict which IAR actions will gain subsequent approval is a good reason to make less use of IAR? I will guarantee that unilateral, undiscussed deletions, outside the narrow limits of WP:CSD will always cause me to object if i become aware of them. So anyone thinking that such deletions are uncontroversial should perhaps reconsider. DES (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Who is this "Newyorkbrad" who seems to think he knows better than the community and has the arbitrary right to summarily close a contested discussion? Does membership of the Arbitration Committee confer demiGodKing status? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That was uncalled for. Brad is a long-standing and well-respected admin & arbitrator. Insulting him doesn't reflect well on you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not only that, but Brad's generally had the reputation of being among the calmest and most deliberative arbitrators, which is why we all love him, and threats are quite out of character. Anyway, I chatted it over with him on his talk page, and it looks like what he actually wanted is to merely say "this is a waste of time", like Tim Song or Occuli. The threat to wave around the mop seems to have been unintentional. --GRuban (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per DGG. Outback the koala (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doxiedana probably should have not have created such a silly page. DF67 probably should not have deleted the page. Fine. But bringing this to DRV was quite ridiculous in my opinion, regardless of the merits of the deletion. For all of the massive problems with articles on Wikipedia, we are still wasting our time with trivialities. I am somewhat disappointed with the number of comments that this DRV has gotten, and with myself for commenting here. If you are looking for important work to do, I could point you towards some. Do we really have to waste our time with this? NW (Talk) 05:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I feel that ensuring speedy deletions are done only in accordance with the criteria for speedy deletion and overturning actions that bite newcommers to be some of the most important work that can be done on Wikipedia. I feel this because it protects the encyclopaedia from the whims of individual administrators and stops valuable and potentially valuable contributors being driven away. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See my response above to Newyorkbrad. DES (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per Hobit and DGG. Note: I cannot see the page, so I reason entirely from arguments presented. Frankly, "I don't like it" as a reason for arbitrary and summary deletion goes to the heart of abuse of admin power, and is not a trivial matter. RayTalk 02:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The contents have been copied to User:DESiegel/Snow Weasel for the use of people commenting in this DRV. DES (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, DES. Looking it over, I see nothing inappropriate enough to justify a IAR deletion. I mean, c'mon. Yes, it's a fictitious entry, but it's on a user page. A user page is meant to give some sense of the user's personality, and there's nothing malicious or out-of-scope here. If somebody had wanted to delete this in a fit of overconcern over somebody else's userspace, MfD would've been the forum. RayTalk 18:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn: User pages have traditionally enjoyed some freedom and attract users to the encyclopaedia. They are not free, as I discovered when my own user page was edited in the past, but this was to avoid material deemed to risk conflicting with Wikipedia's aims - a much more serious situation, with a much more minor sanction. This deletion was disproportionate. Stephen B Streater (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and send to MFD. Process is important. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
