Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 22:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 08:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC).

  • QZ Deletion dispute

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

The deletion of an article about a 19-year-old Chinese man does not reflect our policies, and there is no consensus for deletion, nor any policy that requires deletion. Furthermore, the deletion of the article is of the result of numerous wheel wars, assumptions of bad faith by users involved in the dispute, and an inability of involved administrators to allow a consensus to be formed.

Desired outcome[edit]

  • Specific admins and users held accountable for wheel warring tactics.
  • The allowance of a consensus to be reached regarding the article (per the first DRV, there is not currently a valid AfD to point to)
  • Specific users held accountable for their incivility during the discussions

Description[edit]

On 4 May, an article about a Chinese person who became famous for the web meme his appearance inspired and he himself cultivated, was nominated for deletion.[1] After the requisite five day period, the discussion was closed as delete by Daniel (talk · contribs) (known at the time by his sig as Daniel Bryant, has changed his name in the period since),[2] but later re-opened by Bryant following an appeal.[3] Drini (talk · contribs) closed the discussion again not too long after as delete, citing that the meme might be notable, but the kid isn't.[4] This was appealed at deletion review on 13 May, and eventually overturned by Xoloz (talk · contribs) on the grounds that the subject met all the relevant policies (having multiple reliable sources, the cornerstone of inclusion - one user put the rate of sourcing at 1.7 refs/sentence[5]), and relisted the article on AfD.[6] This discussion was quickly responded to by a number of people before being closed by thebainer (talk · contribs) less than an hour after the relisting.[7] I then nominated it for deletion review[8] following an appeal to thebainer[9] which was declined. This is where the issues began, over the course of around 24 hours:

The discussion spilled over to a number of project pages, talk pages, and userpages. It's emblematic of the general situation the project is currently encountering regarding the actual role of deletion review, the ability of administrators to use their abilities to shut down useful discussion, and the inability to have a consistent, clear appeals process, without even getting into the specifics of user conduct, which is highlighted by the numerous case of incivility and lack of good faith toward contributors on both sides of the debate, as evidenced by commentary below mine.

There was no process problem with the first AfD or the first DRV. The first AfD was properly closed on process grounds, but the first DRV properly noted that there were issues with the result. The article has yet to get a fair re-hearing per the last proper DRV.

There are many things that should be looked at here - the role of deletion review, the ability for administrators to accurately interpret discussions, whether a group of editors can choose to willfully ignore the policies laid out by a wider consensus by the greater community, the application of WP:BLP in regards to subjects who participate in their own fame, and the closing of discussions early, perhaps relevant to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war. This is about behavior, about process, about mechanisms, and about content, no matter what anyone else would like to frame it as.

The list of people above are simply people who were involved in the closing/unclosing/deleting/undeleting that I found - anyone extra can be added as they wish. I'd imagine that can be sorted out during the proceedings, but at no point and I saying some of the involved parties are more "guilty" than others. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Too many diffs to list, so I will use entire discussions where applicable.

  1. First deletion discussion
  2. Second deletion discussion
  3. Third deletion discussion
  4. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 13
  5. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 18
  6. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 21
  7. [10]
  8. [11]
  9. [12]
  10. ANI discussion


Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_review
  2. Wikipedia:Civility
  3. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
  4. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  5. Wikipedia:Wheel war
  6. Wikipedia:Consensus
  7. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point
  8. Wikipedia:Notability (people)
  9. Wikipedia:Notability (web)
  10. Wikipedia:Notability
  11. Wikipedia:Deletion process
  12. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
  13. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
  14. Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles
  15. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

See links above regarding the ArbCom case, the discussions at AN/I, and there are plenty of talk page links, including but not limited to the following: ([13] [14] [15] [16])

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. badlydrawnjeff talk 22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Evil Spartan 22:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC), though I despair of ever having entered into this quagmire.[reply]
  3. ViridaeTalk 23:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prolog 23:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DES (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew 20:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

  2. -N 23:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC), not involved, but I think the process wonkery here is excessive.[reply]
  3. — MichaelLinnear 23:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GRBerry 02:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC) I specifically note Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war#Early closure of discussions based on WP:SNOW is harmful and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war#Gaillimh's early closure of the deletion review was inappropriate, which if they had been heeded by the wheel-warriors would have eliminated most of the drama. As some of those whose actions are under discussion were parties to, or significantly involved in the discussion of, that case, I can't even begin to understand why this happened. The actions through Xoloz's were reasonable, even if the delete closure by drini was overturned. All deletions and speedy closes after that are clearly wrong, and the articles present deleted state is also wrong. GRBerry 02:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 02:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Multiple speedy closes by the same admin, especially when the subject is clearly controversial, is identical to wheel warring. Milto LOL pia 03:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Absolutely. Abeg92contribs 14:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved User:DESiegel[edit]

AfDs are intended to be, in some sense, final, in that they are an expression of consensus. Specifically, content deleted by AfD is thereafter subject to speedy deletion as a recreation (WP:CSD#G4), and repeatedly posting such content may be grounds for a block or ban. The only recognized way to avoid this is through a discussion at deletion review, unless the admin who closed the AfD can be persuaded to reverse the close or relist the article. While an AfD with a KEEP result is less final -- repeated nominations are common -- a prior AfD normally prevents speedy deletion (See WP:CSD which says "If a page does not uncontestably fall under a criterion, or it has previously survived a deletion discussion (except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements), another process should be used instead.") And generally re-nominations after a short period of time with no significant changes or new arguments are frowned on, and may be speedy closed with a pointer to the previous discussion.

DRVs are normally final in a somewhat similar sense. When a DRV discussion endorses a deletion, there are no further places to appeal, and the matter is generally seen as settled. When a DRV overturns a deletion, the article is undeleted and stands on the same basis as any other article, but rapid re-nominations are usually frowned upon as if the article had been kept by AfD. And when a DRV discussion is closed as "Relist" the article is normally listed for a new AfD discussion, where whatever problems the DRV discussion found to exist should normally be avoided.

To speedy close an AfD opened pursuant to a "relist" outcome of a DRV discussion, on the basis that the prior Afd (overturned by DRV) was sufficient is to ignore the DRV close, to disrespect the editors who participated in the DRV discussion, and in general to fly in the face of consensus. This should not be done. Just as recreating content deleted by an AfD should not be done.

When an AfD is closed, and particularly when it is speedy closed, editors who feel that the closure was improper -- not merely because they disagree with the result, but because they think that the closer misread or ignored consensus, that relevant new information was ignored or not known, or in generally that that was a procedural error that in effect means that the close did not properly represent a true consensus, should take the matter to DRV and start a discussion there, rather than revert-warring or wheel-warring over the close. Once such a discussion has been opened, it should proceed, and in particular it is highly improper for editors who are involved or strongly partisan on the issue to close the DRV discussion, or to simply remove it. That happened in this case, and it should not have. Such actions only encourage warring.

It has been said that DRV should not be a "second bite at the apple" and indeed it should not. Merely disagreeing with an AfD decision is not, IMO, a good reason to overturn it, nor is merely agreeing with the result a reason to endorse. DRV discussions are meant to review claims that AfDs were mishandled, that consensus was misread or ignored, that relevant information was not considered, or that there were other problems with the AfD that mean that it did not sufficiently represent consensus, so that consensus must be re-determined. That is why the DRV instructions focus on errors of process, not of content, and that is why DRV discussions ought to focus on process issues, leaving content issues to the AfD discussion, and not being a re-run of AfD

It has been said below that WP:BLP issues should trump other issues in this matter. That argument was made in the AfD discussion, and in the DRV discussion. It was answered that 1) BLP only prevents unsourced or weakly sourced assertions, while all the assertions in the article were well sourced to major news media; and 2) BLP only deals with negative or controversial issues, and the subject's actions in creating and posting on a website of his own where the issue is discussed, and which uses the nickname of "Little fatty", show that the subject himself did not regard the matter as so negative or controversial that he wanted such mentions suppressed. Those arguments might or might not persuade. But they are serious, policy-based arguments, and ought to have been met, not merely dismissed.

It has been said below that Dirni's close of the first AfD was proper, and that therefore DRV should not have overturned it, and the rest of this should never have happened. But The arguments against the application of BLP were not addressed in this close, nor by the delete views expressed at that time. Also Drini's close was in contravention of the expressed intent of Daniel (talk · contribs)'s previous re-listing statement, although that user later endorsed the close and altered his prior re listing statement. It is at least arguable that Drini's close did not reflect the consensus at the time it was made, neither by wight of numbers nor by weight of arguments. The closing statement did not address this. Note also that Drini was requested to undo his own close by multiple editors, including myself, on his talk page, but he declined. in any case it is the assigned role of DRV to review AfD closes when asked, and to overturn ones that seem to have been in error, or dubious. This role ought to have been respected in this case, and the resulting AfD allowed to proceed for its full term. DES (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Doc glasgow[edit]

Process is more important than product. Articles about fat Chinese kids who get mocked on websites belong in serious reference works — and wars of attrition are a good way of ensuring they stay. This is Jeff-opedia, however…


…Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Docg 22:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Common sense prevails. Sean William 22:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --MONGO 22:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Arkyan • (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Benn Newman 23:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cbrown1023 talk 23:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sam Blanning(talk) 02:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 04:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. pgk 06:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Guy (Help!) 08:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Calton | Talk 09:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Tony Sidaway 12:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC) I offered to stay away after making a radical edit to this RFC to remove all mention of the name of this boy, who was sixteen at the time the offenses were committed against him. Jeff says I should make a comment. Well, I'll make two:[reply]
    • Nor Jeff nor anyone else gets to rerun deletion debates repeatedly until he gets the keep result he wants.
    • There is no place on Wikipedia for the glorification of harassment and bullying and invasion of privacy. Much has been made of the fact that the young man is now attempting to make the best of the situation, but the fact is that he had no choice when as a minor he was pitched into it in the first place. Wikipedia has a duty to him and to all minors. We need to be able to say honestly: we do not connive in the exploitation of minors.
  14. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Absolutely! --Mbimmler 12:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Yes, though I'd have preferred a gentler way of saying that. I particularly endorse Tony's second point. ElinorD (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Phil | Talk 12:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. WjBscribe 12:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Proabivouac 04:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Sarah 10:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Daniel 10:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Nandesuka 14:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Nail meet head. --kingboyk 16:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response by User:Thebainer[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

I'm going to more or less repeat what I said in my closing notes here.

There were essentially only two arguments raised in the various debates about whether or not to delete the article:

  1. the article should be kept, because it has multiple sources, and thus meets the threshold criterion at Wikipedia:Notability (people);
  2. the article should be deleted, because the sources are at best about the meme, and by focusing on the person instead the article is contrary to the tenets of the biographies of living persons policy.

The biographies of living persons policy is not merely a game of counting sources. It's a collection of principles that hold that, when writing about living people, we must be rigorous in our application of content policy, particularly faithful to our sources, and write with due regard to the privacy of subjects. Applying these principles to this article was the essence of the second argument.

In the result the second argument substantially rebutted the first, and in any event the weight of numbers was also behind the second argument. A nuanced application of both policy and common sense was preferred over a mechanical application of a notability guideline.

Ultimately the most popular idea (among both people supporting deletion and supporting keeping the original article) was to simply cover the meme, and leave out reference to the person. That's what we have now, and we even have it on an appropriate page: list of Internet phenomena#Images. The most broadly supported position has thus already been achieved. Move on.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. bainer (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tony Sidaway 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Absolutely. The meme is given coverage there, and if it's inadequate then more can be added without invading this fellow's privacy. --Tony Sidaway 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Phil | Talk 15:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oh yes! that's what I said when this all started: you can write about the meme, leave the kid out -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 15:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sam Blanning(talk) 23:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. That's an excellent argument for the article's deletion. It's also precisely why the second AfD should not have been closed early, because now we're going to reach the preferred solution via all of this, instead of via a relatively quiet (by comparison) second AfD. You can't guarantee that people will "move on" when you tell them to; with an early closure, you can just about guarantee that they won't. Ignoring this reality is a quite effective way to amplify a controversy, and here we are. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Daniel 10:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by BigDT (talk · contribs)[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

This whole thing is stupid. It's time to move on with life. --BigDT 23:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Docg 23:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Ryan Postlethwaite 23:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This comment wins the internet. – Steel 23:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Aye. WjBscribe 23:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'd endorse this twice if I could. Arkyan • (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Hell yeah! // Pilotguy hold short 23:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cbrown1023 talk 23:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Benn Newman 23:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. badlydrawnjeff talk 23:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Agreed, but there are reasons why we can't.[reply]
    This kind of makes the whole point, really. —Phil | Talk 13:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Absolutely. It's too bad that Jeff feels he cannot simply move on. It's a minor Internet meme. It's not going to kill that kid in Africa if he doesn't know about it. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. You said it. I can't believe people are arguing over such a trivial thing. Jeff, please withdraw this RfC, nuke the article, and let's all move on. Save our arguments for topics that matter. Raymond Arritt 00:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Amen. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Sean William 01:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Sam Blanning(talk) 02:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --MONGO 04:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. pgk 06:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. This whole issue is making a Mount Everest out of a molehill. >Radiant< 08:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Guy (Help!) 08:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Calton | Talk 09:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. --Mbimmler 12:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC) True. There is an encyclopaedia (sic) to write, get on with it...[reply]
  22. A lot of productive users are wasting a lot of time on something that needs to end. Removing this article was the right thing to do. Using common sense was the right thing to do. Cary Bass demandez 12:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Tony Sidaway 13:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC) It's dead, Jim.[reply]
  24. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 14:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Proabivouac 04:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Jkelly 20:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. The irony of Jeff endorsing this, given his actions since, is worth noting. Daniel 10:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by David Fuchs (talk · contribs)[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Of course I'm proll'y going to get yelled at for saying so, this dispute appears to have less to do with a minor internet celeb and more what individual admins think Wikipedia should/shouldn't be. Doc especially appears to harbor some resentment or at least slight hostility towards Jeff, and I believe that nothing will really come out of it simply because those involved would rather be obstinate rather than get things solved and admit they might be wrong. --David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 23:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Iamunknown 23:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC) No yelling from me :-P[reply]
  2. badlydrawnjeff talk 23:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prolog 23:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -N 23:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Docg 23:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC) This is about what Wikipedia should(n't) be - and I see lots of 'obstinacy' (although I do actually like Jeff)[reply]
  6. --FrozenPurpleCube 00:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC) (though I hope folks aren't going to be so obstinate)[reply]
  7. --JJay 01:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 02:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I'm not sure Doc is the best single person to name, but I don't expect anything to come out of this because too many are taking unreasonable steps to avoid a consensus forming discussion. GRBerry 02:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Endorsing paticuarly the last part of the summary. ViridaeTalk 00:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Some people take it too personally when others disagree with them... the toxic response to the RfC in particular is sooooooo unhelpful, and after reading it, I'm no better informed about the article or its deletion, thought my awareness for Doc's disdain for Jeff is pretty up to speed. I wonder if that's the intention? Milto LOL pia 03:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --DeLarge 13:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --Abeg92contribs 14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note (since I've been named) I rather like Jeff, actually.--Docg 23:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I said 'appears', Doc. I cannot pretend to fathom what goes on in your brain, or anyone else's. Sorry that I miscast you, I'm just going by your comments. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 23:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any plans on striking out the relevant text? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solution by N[edit]

  1. Everyone shakes hands and comes to a Wikipedia:Truce.
  2. Everyone is excused for their prior behavior, be it wheel warring, closing discussions early, incivility, whatever. We can WP:AGF that people were acting in the heat of the moment, but that they believed they were bettering the Wikipedia project.
  3. An AfD be allowed to run for the full 5 days where WP:BLP and other issues relevant to the article can be discussed.
  4. No fighting over past conduct will be permitted at the AfD. The article is controversial enough, we shouldn't point fingers over past conduct. Besides, we already excused everyone for their past behavior.
  5. The AfD will be closed by an admin who has not voted on, opened, re-opened, closed or re-closed any of the previous DRV's or AfD's.
  6. If this solution is accepted, any further finger pointing will be treated as a violation of WP:Consensus and punished accordingly.
  7. Amendment (after 4 people already signed on) Just to make it clear, this proposal doesn't excuse misconduct. It merely states we must separate any fighting over the article from discussions of misconduct. The sides are willing to put that aside and agree to a fair AfD if they accept this proposal. (As an aside, and this is not part of the proposal, I think any misconduct at the most warrants a censure [ie a warning]. -N 02:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this solution (comments after names accepted):

  1. Iamunknown 23:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Yes, please, I just want a discussion without wheel-warring, where we as a community can decide if it is acceptable for the encyclopedia[reply]
  2. badlydrawnjeff talk 23:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Absolutely.[reply]
  3. --FrozenPurpleCube 00:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC) though it should be clear that the Admin's decision can be disputed in DRV if appropriate. If said DRV does occur, it should operate under the same criteria.[reply]
  4. Prolog 00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC) – "Where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted" and "Wikipedia community consensus" sound right to me.[reply]
  5. MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 02:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. GRBerry 02:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC) With the clarification, as I think ArbComm needs to address the wheel warring.[reply]
  7. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Let's not have all these "speedy closures" except in extreme cases. This wasn't one. We need a full discussion on contentious topics, not someone to come along and cut it off.[reply]
  8. Guys, please everyone have a cup of tea/beer and a sit down. It really saddens me to see excellent, wonderful, good-hearted contributors lose their tempers at each other as has happened over the past few days. Kla'quot 03:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 11:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Vadder 12:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC) provided that DRV is allowed on the same terms and speedy-close in either place will be treated as disruption and reverted[reply]
  12. DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC) I will happily abide by and enforce any consensus reached by that AFD. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. This is exactly what I was trying to achieve with the third afd, and what I have been pushing for all along. A fair afd closed by an uninvolved and unbiased administrator. If the third afd had been allowed to run in such a way this would not have escalated to this point. ViridaeTalk 00:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. --DeLarge 13:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. The source of the dispute is admins using their delete powers unilaterally without the concensus of the user community. Abeg92contribs 14:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. This proposal would be fine with me, but I don't think the main point is about the article it is about process, about how we do or don't respect consensus, and about how contentious deletion decisions should be handled in future. DES (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. The failure to establish a valid consensus has resulted in normally thoughtful individuals taking actions that can easily be question because of the disputed consensus. -- Jreferee 20:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Rayc 22:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose this solution (comments after names accepted):

  1. Tony Sidaway 12:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC) The article is dead. Any attempt to resurrect it will be treated as disruption.[reply]
  2. This is nice in theory but I still see a perfectly valid first AfD that lasted about 8 days that reached a delete concensus. It shouldn't have been overturned at DRV. This would set a bad precedent for allowing people to restart deletion discussions when they don't like the result just by making a huge fuss. WjBscribe 12:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Far too soon. Leave it until we have some idea whether the subject chooses to capitalise on the meme in the longer term, in which case he might with some justification be considered to have waived his right to privacy. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Phil | Talk 12:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC) No thank you, we already had one of those…[reply]
  5. this is an RfC, and not a place for yet another process aimed at deletion to be initiated. --Docg 12:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Steel 13:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cary Bass demandez 13:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This proposal, though well intentioned, is not a good idea. The process has run a number of different times already, and BDJ has explicitly stated that he will continue to file and refile until he gets the article he wants. This proposal is an abuse of the community, and the reasonable tone it's presented with doesn't change the fact that it's predicated on two false assumptions: That BDJ will accept a negative result and that the community hasn't already clearly responded to this issue. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blatantly false statement, I have said nothing of the sort. In fact, i've said the exact opposite. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you clarify, then, what you meant when you wrote, about one hour ago, "Change my mind? No, I don't believe there's anything that could change my mind on this particular issue save meteors or action from the subject himself. The article needs to be reinstated" [17] and "Arbcom's probably the next step on this, and a DRV is likely inevitable unless someone steps up to the plate and reverses the improper deletions. But yes, I will continue to work to get this article undeleted." [18] ? --Tony Sidaway 13:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. Nothing has arrived to change my mind that we should have this article. ArbCom will be the next step, and, following that, perhaps a DRV. Assuming that reaches a consensus one way or the other (and that would require it to not be closed disruptively like it has been since the initial Xoloz close), that's the end of it for the time being. There's nowhere else to go. As noted elsewhere, I disagree with plenty of deletions, but I don't continue to go after them once we've reached the end of the consensus line, save one experiment. Any other position concerning me on the matter is simply false, including your accusation of bad faith. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So, failing a further deletion review, you'll try to get the arbitration committee to reverse the deletion of the dead article? --Tony Sidaway 13:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. On grounds that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Additionally, any solution that starts with an overall pardon and ends with people being "punished accordingly" is essentially misguided. >Radiant< 13:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I would much prefer a Brian Peppers-type solution. Salt the article for a set time, say 6 months, and revisit then. We can't keep throwing it through process hoops until we get a result everyone likes...because we'll never get everyone to agree. ~~---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by InkSplotch (talk • contribs) 13:18, 22 May 2007
  11. Sean William 13:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 14:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. pgk 15:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yes, let's have more process. Every time you start a new process a wikilawyer gets his wings. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Haemo 23:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose, per Radiant. Raymond Arritt 14:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Per JzG's comment above.Proabivouac 04:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I'm trying to figure out why anyone is supporting this. I mean, it should be patently obvious that the people who are causing problems are the ones who are least likely to actually respect the terms of the proposal, and then we end up in the same place with more drama. Oh, and we've tried looking the other way and not sanctioning admins for misconduct before, it's never worked. -Amarkov moo! 04:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Seems to miss the fact that the first AfD was entirely valid, at eight days. Daniel 10:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polling is evil:
Tradition demands this option :o)

  1. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 13:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sean William 13:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Obviously. However, it seems that it's not the only evil in this RFC. >Radiant< 15:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Haemo 23:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes, because no matter what the result of this 'vote' was, there would be no change in the status of the article. Daniel 10:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Iamunknown[edit]

I have seen a few arguments for deleting this article: (1) it is unencyclopedia, (2) it is a BLP vio, (3) too many discussions have been devoted to it, so we should leave it be. Okay, then: (2) How is this a BLP vio? The individual is cashing in on his fame and is in multiple news outlets [19] [20] [21], (3) multiple discussions have been devoted to this because we can barely get in a discussion without it being speedy closed, and (1) well, that is for the community to decide in a consensual discussion, not at the speedy-closing hands of individual administrators.

So, can we please have an AfD, which was the result of the first DRV, that isn't speedy closed and isn't wheel-warred over? Thanks, Iamunknown 23:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. -N 00:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --FrozenPurpleCube 00:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — MichaelLinnear 00:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prolog 00:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --JJay 01:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. GRBerry 02:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Vadder 14:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. badlydrawnjeff talk 14:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — brighterorange (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. ViridaeTalk 00:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong endorsement - this sums up the essential issue. WaltonAssistance! 19:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Either we resolve the disputed consensus or one side eventually will bully the other side into submission. Resolving the disputed consensus seems the kinder solution. -- Jreferee 21:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Ryan Postlethwaite[edit]

The article in question was a serious BLP violation, ignore all rules if you want, but there was no way this article could have been created without violating WP:BLP.


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Ryan Postlethwaite 23:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Viridae[edit]

There was a version being worked on in someones userspace that indeed focussed the article squarely on the 4 year meme, not human subject. And I believe, that during the 3rd afd some changes were made to limit the focus on QZ too.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. ViridaeTalk 01:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prolog 01:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC) – That would be User:DeLarge/Little Fatty. Later, all the personal information was removed from the mainspace article (including the person's name), and more citations were provided. At this point, it was essentially an article about the Internet phenomenon and not about the person, but the revamped article never got a chance since the third Afd was closed soon after.[reply]

Outside view by ObiterDicta[edit]

This is simply an attempt to refight the battle over Brian Peppers. However, this article was not nearly as objectionable as the Peppers article for several reasons (the kid had already given voluntary interviews, it was covered in the press, and it had at least a marginal relationship to two subjects WP should be covering: obesity in China and Internet censorship by the Chinese government). Nevertheless, it is not important to have an article on every Internet meme that comes along and this article could be filed under "not worth the trouble" if certain users did not view article deletions as a matter of winning and losing. This attitude is ultimately more destructive to Wikipedia than whether this particular article was kept or deleted. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --MONGO 09:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Eluchil404 17:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ViridaeTalk 01:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC) - WP:RECENT echoes in my mind when I'm reading this case; sure the Photoshopped pics were funny and he got some press about his Internet fame, but are we really going to remember this guy as in any way significant 10 years from now? I don't think so.[reply]
  5. Endorse. This has devolved from a dispute over an (utterly trivial) article to people trying to save face, get their due, and so on. Raymond Arritt 14:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Jreferee[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I haven't looked into the topic or the dispute other than read some heated discussion on Badlydrawnjeff's talk page and do a little library research. Here's my 2 cents in hopes of easing some tensions. I found only about six news articles on the boy and I found five on Xiao Pang (without mention that of his name), which makes about eleven total. This is really a borderline case. I know the articles say he's famous (news articles on Chinese and African topics are written "differently" than in other places), but he is not famous enough to generate much English language press coverage. I probably could write a Wikipedia article on the topic (perhaps three or four paragraphs with each sentence referenced) that meets all Wikipedia process, but would not fault a consensus if it were deleted. As for "Little fatty", he's known as "Wee Fatty" (Scotland, Malaysia), "Fat Boy" (China), "Gordito" (Spain), "Little fatty" (USA). This does not help focus such an article. In short, the dispute originates from a borderline-valid Wikipedia topic that has some confusion as to the topic's nick name. Please keep this in mind. -- Jreferee 00:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. -- Jreferee 00:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -N 02:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC) This view is a little confusing, but it seems to say "an acceptable article COULD be written, but then again it could also be deleted at an AfD" with perhaps a bit of "we shouldn't make fun of the guy too much by calling him Wee Fatty". I agree with that.[reply]
    By borderline, I did not mean that the topic could not meet Wikipedia criteria. There is enough information to create a valid, Wikipedia article on the topic and the topic should be on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, individuals hold more than one view as to what Wikipedia criteria are. For example, some people believe Wikipedia notability means fame even though WP:N indicates that Wikipedia notability means enough information from reliable sources to write an attributable article. Because there is not much English language press coverage, it seems just as likely that the 'Wikipedia notability means fame group' may be the majority at an AfD, particularly if the article includes unreferenced information and/or unreferenced BLP information. In other words, the topic is not borderline, it is the AfD consensus falling one way or another that is borderline for this particular topic. -- Jreferee 15:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by FrozenPurpleCube[edit]

As I see it, the steps in this situation were: 1. Article made. 2. Nominated for deletion. 3. Closed with Delete. 4. Re-opened by closing admin after request. 5. Second discussion closed early. And that's where the problems began. And ultimately, the problem was the closing of discussion early, and the almost hostile attitude to reviewing this decision. I think any action taken on Wikipedia should be open to reconsideration and review, early closures and speedy decisions while appropriate in some cases, are to be used lightly, not in cases where there's an obvious dispute. Consensus can't be reached by such summary action. Or by threatening blocks from people involved in the dispute. It is almost never going to be appropriate to block somebody with whom you are engaged in a dispute.

BLP is a non-issue here. If you want to say this person is of no consequence and unimportant, that's certainly valid. But there's no question there are valid, reputable sources who have reported on him. Unless BLP is modified to provide a more expansive protection of person's privacy, it should not be used to preemptively delete articles except in clear cases where the material is not available from a reliable source. Protecting people's feelings while important to BLP, does not necessarily trump all possibly negative material. Such things are not banned, and since doing so would run afoul of censorship, I do not imagine any such alteration would be made lightly. FrozenPurpleCube 00:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --FrozenPurpleCube 00:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Iamunknown 02:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC) And ultimately, the problem was the closing of discussion early, and the almost hostile attitude to reviewing this decision - yes[reply]
  3. GRBerry 02:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC) The article was clearly sourced to multiple independent and reliable sources, so it clearly is not deletable under BLP.[reply]
  4. MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 02:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -N 02:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. badlydrawnjeff talk 02:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — MichaelLinnear 02:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Prolog 03:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Vadder 12:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. People keep using the term "BLP." I do not think it means what they think it means. Mangojuicetalk 21:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. ViridaeTalk 01:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. The premature closure of the original (reopened) AfD was where it all began to go pear-shaped from my perspective. --DeLarge 13:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. DES (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Bingo. Unlearned hand 18:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. WaltonAssistance! 19:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. As I posted above, either we resolve the disputed consensus or one side eventually will bully the other side into submission. Resolving the disputed consensus is the kinder solution. -- Jreferee 21:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who would like to point out that re-opening a prematurely-closed AFD does not mean that it has to run for another five days, merely to the end of the original five-day term:

  1. Phil | Talk 10:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Yes, it was closed "early" but then reopened by the closer himself, a point which seems to be escaping most of the people voicing complaints here: it then ran past the original five-day limit and cannot reasonably be said to have had less than a fair crack[reply]
  2. Johnleemk | Talk 11:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. People seem to have missed that Daniel (who requested the debate stay open when he reversed his close and relisted it) has at all times supported Drini's subsequent close ... WjBscribe 16:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Just to confirm, WJBscribe presents an accurate description of my actions. Beyond that, Phil is right. Daniel 10:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Amarkov[edit]

The calls to "move on" are unhelpful. The issue is no longer whether the article should be deleted, but the actions of various involved admins. Administrator misconduct issues must be resolved; saying "Oh, yes, some admins were bad, we don't want to hear about it anymore, go away" doesn't work. -01:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. -Amarkov moo! 01:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --FrozenPurpleCube 01:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --JJay 01:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 02:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Iamunknown 02:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -N 02:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC) I've clarified my proposed solution above.[reply]
  7. GRBerry 02:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Agreement on the part of the wheel-warriors (in which class I include all those who speedy closed a discussion) that they personally did the wrong thing and won't do it again might be enough. Since I don't expect that will be forthcoming, I think it needs to go to ArbComm.[reply]
  8. As GRB. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Prolog 03:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. With the caveat that I would not endorse a witchhunt regarding the admins involved. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)reinsert my edited out support with caveatNomen NescioGnothi seauton 01:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. ViridaeTalk 01:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Absolurtely, but an acknowledgemetn of error might be enough. DES (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. -Unlearned hand 16:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong endorse - Amen. Can I vote twice? The Evil Spartan 17:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. The disputed consensus has brought the bad out of some people that needs to be addressed. -- Jreferee 20:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strongly endorse - There was clearly no consensus at AFD and the editor who closed with "delete" needs to be censured strongly, and immediately, for this abuse of admin powers. Badagnani 19:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solution by Sean William[edit]

Two words: Brian Peppers. If anybody cares about this incident in six months to a year, then we'll rekindle the AFD and make (another) decision then. Right now, tempers are burning and grudges are wanting to be settled. Otherwise, lets get back to writing the encyclopedia instead of bickering over stupid topics like this. Sean William 01:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Sane and sensible. Raymond Arritt 01:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. pgk 06:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Johnleemk | Talk 08:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Calton | Talk 09:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --MONGO 09:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Docg 11:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. So true. For some people this will become a point of principle, and the existence or non-existence of the article will be taken as symbolic of all that is either right or wrong with Wikipedia. It's not going to be fixed without time to gain a better perspective on the historical significance; what finally killed the Peppers article, I believe, was the fact that a year on we had no new coverage and no new sources. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Good idea. It should be applied more broadly on topics of marginal interest. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 13:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This only makes sense! // Pilotguy hold short 22:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Proabivouac 04:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. The best solution I've seen so far, beyond keeping the status quo of deletion. Daniel 10:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Interiot[edit]

Yes, fairness and process are important. Yes, WP:BLP is important. But it seems like there's a tendency for the smallest issues to generate the largest fights. Like the American/British spelling and AD/CE issues, we may remember this not for the outcome or the policy particulars, but for the size of the dispute. When a relatively unimportant issue blossoms into a large conflict, both positions are probably right, and it's the people who escalate the issue who are likely wrong. --Interiot 01:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. IAR is at least as disputed as this, yet it's never had all this happen over it. Is there something about insignificant things that makes people go crazy? -Amarkov moo! 01:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There's a saying among academics, "university politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." Looks like the same goes for Wikipedia. Raymond Arritt 01:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This shouldn't have been blown up. -N 02:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Iamunknown 02:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Every day I get on Wikipedia, I fear the latest bout of Wiki-drama which I will inevitably become involved in. This is the current drama. Sigh[reply]
  5. Johnleemk | Talk 08:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cary Bass demandez 14:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Strongly agree I hate to see valuable energy going into things so small. Cary Bass demandez 14:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Write some articles that will improve the encyclopedia, not one which detracts from both it and hurts the subject without the slightest shred of ethical consideration. Daniel 10:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gaillimh[edit]

From my experience as an OTRS member, I have dealt with BLP concerns many times and have gained an understanding of how and when it should be applied. In this case, BLP was rightly applied by the fellows endeavouring to uphold the original deletion decision. Policy trumps process in these cases, especially when they deal with BLP concerns. gaillimhConas tá tú? 02:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Phil | Talk 09:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Mbimmler 12:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC) So it is.[reply]
  3. WjBscribe 12:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Obviously I agree with this. But even more, I think that when BLP concerns are raised there is a need to seriously question the basis for having an article. We have seen people arguing for undeletion of unsourced attack pieces because "the subject is notable" - missing the point that a notable subject does not mean that specific deleted text is worth having. The culture at AfD and DRV needs to be much more reflective when real people's lives are involved, and we need to approach such articles not fomr the point of looking for reasons to oppose deletion, but looking for the real, underlying encyclopaedic merit of the subject. Here, the "encyclopaedic" subject was the "laugh at the fat kid" meme, with a single example forming the basis of the article. Can we cover that subject without perpetuating the humiliation of an individual who did not ask to have his name spread over Teh Internets? Well, probably, yes, if we really wanted to. Anyone here who has been on Brandt's Hivemind or the ED attack pages or Wikitruth or whatever will realise that having high-profile websites pick up on a single distorted aspect of your life is not nice; imagine, then, how it feels when that site is one of the ten biggest on the web, and you then have people arguing that the number of people who have laughed at you means that under no circumstances may we ever remove that article. If that genuinely is the way the project goes, I'm out of here. And I think a lot of others will be too. But I don't think that is the way the project will go, because when it seemed in danger of doing so, Jimbo stepped in and created WP:BLP. That policy is not just about process, it's about attitude. It's about respecting the fact that Wikipedia, because of its size and prominence and potential for abuse, has a really strong obligation to play safe where living people are concerned. OTRS volunteers see this all the time. Even having a biased revision stuck in the Google cache is a source of terrible anguish to some, and the barely-notable are the worst affected because they are the ones for whom Wikipedia will dominate the Google hits. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 14:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cary Bass demandez 15:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Tony Sidaway 16:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC) This is a biographies of living persons case, and one involving a private individual who was a minor at the time of the offense against him. The question here is not of reliable sources, but of ethics.[reply]
  8. BLP is more important than almost anything else we discuss.Proabivouac 04:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Jkelly 20:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. True words, but process was followed, and the first AfD is valid. Daniel 10:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Agreed, especially per Guy -Jmh123 06:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GRBerry[edit]

Any admin that has checked the deleted versions to test whether BLP deletion is correct will quickly realize that the first version was sourced, the version Xoloz restored for AFD2 was sourced, and almost all other versions were sourced to reliable sources. Since WP:BLP only authorizes the deletion of articles that are unsourced, it does not authorize the deletion of this article. No deletion of this article based on WP:BLP is valid given the specific facts involved. GRBerry 02:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Nailed it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prolog 03:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --FrozenPurpleCube 03:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BLP is important, but it also must be applied with caution. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes, although WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY shouldn't be forgotten. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 13:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Although our measures put in place to ensure that we're (collectively, as the whole Wikipedia) aren't being asshats to someone who can be exploited or victimized, it is not okay (within the current consensus-oriented body of policies and guidelines) to shortcut process with hubris and make decisions for the consensus without first attempting to evaluate or reevaluate the consensus. If admins want the power to make unilaterial or admin-only decisions that override our current body of policies and guidelines, I suggest that their first approach should be to change the body of policies and guidelines, not just railroad good faith editors multiple times with their own special interpretations of process that shortcut established procedures. Doing that railroading disenfranchises good faith editors and wastes their time. At the very least, notify editors of your intentions and allow them time to respond in process. This will help us avoid escalation of these kinds of issues. Communication helps! --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Vadder 14:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Paticuarly what MalcolmGin said. ViridaeTalk 01:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. User:MalcolmGin is spot-on here. DES (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Bingo. Good summary, GRB. -- Jreferee 21:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Seraphimblade[edit]

Whatever your personal feelings on an issue, things should not generally be "speedily closed" except when a consensus on something is so obvious that it doesn't even bear discussing. If a lot of experienced editors object to your "speedy closure", you were wrong, period, unless you happen to be this guy. (And sometimes he's wrong, too!) As counterintuitive as it may seem, letting processes run as standard, even when the debate is heated, tends to reduce drama and get people to abide by the decision, even if it doesn't go their way. Forcing it closed before it's done just causes problems elsewhere, since everyone feels shortchanged. When there's a serious debate by experienced editors on something, no matter how strongly you feel about the matter, let that debate happen. Put in your opinion if you wish, but don't forbid others to do the same. Not one of us is always right. Not even when we're really, really sure we are. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --FrozenPurpleCube 02:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. badlydrawnjeff talk 03:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prolog 03:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The medicine for the malaise of wheel-warring is discussion, people. Use it. Kla'quot 04:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Iamunknown 04:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Yes, please[reply]
  6. — MichaelLinnear 05:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Admins shouldn't have any more influence regarding content than other editors. Addhoc 09:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Not even when we're really, really, really sure. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 13:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. GRBerry 16:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Discussion is preferable to controversial unilateral action; it is healthy for our content and for the morale of our editors. — brighterorange (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Mangojuicetalk 21:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC) This is the message that I want all the admins involved here to hear. Process is important. Process heals wounds. Policy can trump consensus, but policy should never be used to out-of-hand dismiss process.[reply]
  14. Also what Mangojuice said. ViridaeTalk 01:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Sure, this could involve discussing something to death. But then it would be dead, rather than blowing up into an unflattering mess like this. William Pietri 01:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Exactly? why was there such a rush to clsoe this? It has reesulkted in the debate lasting much longer and beign far more heated than if the 2nd AfD had simply been allowed to run its course. Had that resulted in a delete with an even arguably in-process close, i for oen would never have brought this back to DRV, and I don't think many othrs would have supported such a move either. Were those who close this early and then so strongly resisted it being reopened not confident that a full discussion would end up with their preferred result? It rather looks that way. DES (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Unlearned hand 16:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Per the beginning of this RFC: this is not about the article, it's about bad closures and failure to admit a bad closure (mind you, I would have voted delete for the article as non-notable). The Evil Spartan 17:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. It's nice to see that the community still is sensible and willing to band together around civility rather than discord. -- Jreferee 21:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Absolutely correct; this behavior on the part of admins must not be allowed to continue. Badagnani 19:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Clayoquot[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

1) This whole thing is stupid.

2) This kind of dispute has happened before and will happen again. The next time there is a really contentious deletion I would like to not see it develop into another idiotic war. I hope nobody actually believes that the way to resolve this kind of dispute is by edit warring and telling each other to f*** off. We need to decide how to proceed when one side feels a deletion discussion is finished and the other side does not; if we can't come to consensus on this basic issue via RfC then I suggest mediation. Kla'quot 06:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --FrozenPurpleCube 14:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by non-involved Nescio[edit]

Having read the numerous comments here, at ArbCom and well everywhere, I think we should remember what this is.

  1. We have an article that people want to delete and others disagree. For that we have a set of rules: AFD, DRV, et cetera.
  2. Speedy deletion or closing a debate can be useful but should not be used when it evidently results in controversy, as in this case.
  3. Speedy closures in case of a dispute, especially emotional as this one, is counterproductive.
  4. Unless there are pressing arguments, i.e. legal considerations, there is no need to interfere with normal process. That is, speedy close an ongoing discussion.
  5. In this case people have stopped discussion claiming BLP when others do not see that.
  6. With that in mind we can only solve this debacle by restarting the debate and after it has run its course we can see what the consensus is.
  7. We should remind all admins that undoing another admin's work is a big no-no. Those involved should take note that, barring legal issues, one should first contact the admin involved, or inform him of the action taken, and discuss the reasons for undoing. Clearly that has not happened in this case.
  8. The last point is not meant to suggest punishment but as a reminder we need to behave in a civilised manner which is never open to discussion.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --FrozenPurpleCube 14:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prolog 15:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Exactly so. DES (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Amen. -N 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mangojuicetalk 16:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary by User:JzG[edit]

This is not a wheel war. It is a head-on collision between WP:BLP and Google hit counts, with a living person caught up in the middle. It has no real parallels with the Brandt case, Brandt is a willing participant in the battle and has chosen to raise the stakes himself. It is much more like the Brian Peppers case. Slightly more external attention (only slightly), the kid has given a few interviews, perhaps on the advice of family, but in the end same thing: a person mocked for their appearance who did not choose in advance to be mocked and who has, after the event, no power to stop that mocking. We need to sit back and think long and hard about whether we want to participate in that process, and if so how. Hysterical "WE MUST HAVE AN ARTICLE!!!!" crap does absolutely nothing to facilitate mature reasoned debate on this. AfD and DRV are both poorly suited to debating this, as they are both adversarial and prone to becoming a puppet parade. Wikipedia is not Fark, we do not need to be first and best with our coverage of fat Chinese kids in order to maintain our reputation.

In terms of the dispute, there was an AfD, closed as delete. Closing admin chose to revert and re-list, but the AfD was re-closed as delete; in total it had run for nearly eight days, significantly longer than the usual five, and contrary to the evident misunderstanding expressed above a relisted AfD can be closed as soon as sufficient consensus is judged to exist, it does not have to run for any particular period let alone another full five days. Note that one of the earliest re-deletions was by the original dleeting/relisting admin. In process terms, the first AfD and its closures are entirely satisfactory. There was a review. This was closed as re-list (against weight of arguments, in the opinion of numerous admins); the re-list was closed as delete after achieving more input than most AfDs, albeit closed early, citing policy (WP:BLP). The second AfD had a well-reasoned close. People should at least have sat and thought about that instead of immediately dragging it back to DRV. Subsequent arguments have hinged on the idea that process should trump policy, and also on the false idea that the original AfD was improperly closed.

Here are the logs:

  • 10:26, May 11, 2007 Daniel (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Qian Zhijun" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun; to redirect) - original deletion
  • 11:52, May 12, 2007 Daniel (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Qian Zhijun" (29 revisions restored: Overturning my own close, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun and comments) - closer chooses to relist, perfectly proper
  • 16:16, May 12, 2007 Drini (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Qian Zhijun" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Qian_Zhijun) (Restore) - close AfD as delete, well over five days, perfectly proper
  • 16:37, May 12, 2007 Matt Crypto (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Qian Zhijun" (31 revisions restored: Let AfD run its course.) - process wonking - it already had run its course and another three days besides
  • 23:43, May 12, 2007 Daniel (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Qian Zhijun" (Overturning extremely-out of process undeletion, take it to DRV instead. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun) (Restore) - fair enough
  • 03:14, May 13, 2007 WJBscribe (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Qian Zhijun" (31 revisions restored: restore history while on DRV) - allow people to see history for DRV, not contentious
  • 13:05, May 18, 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Qian Zhijun" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun (second nomination)) (Restore) - close of second AfD, close judged by bainer and reasoning given; numerous arguments to delete from policy, extensive discussion, relist appeared to be process-wonkery and a triumph of WP:ILIKEIT over WP:BLP
  • 02:18, May 19, 2007 Viridae (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Qian Zhijun" (41 revisions restored: restoring for an afd) - brought to third AfD for no very obvious reason
  • 10:39, May 19, 2007 Nick (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Qian Zhijun" (deleted per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Qian_Zhijun_3) (Restore) - close of the AfD
  • 14:13, May 19, 2007 Viridae (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Qian Zhijun" (content was: '#redirect List_of_Internet_phenomena' (and the only contributor was 'Nick')) (Restore)
  • 14:13, May 19, 2007 Viridae (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Qian Zhijun" (49 revisions restored: RESTORE TO THE THE afd RUN ITS FULL COURSE) - except one already had
  • 14:36, May 19, 2007 Phil Sandifer (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Qian Zhijun" (This is deleted. No restorations. No full course AfDs. No process or politics. Human decency. BLP. The end.) (Restore)
  • 14:39, May 19, 2007 Sean William (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Qian Zhijun" (that's not how you use it :)) (Restore)
  • 14:52, May 19, 2007 Phil Sandifer (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Qian Zhijun" (content was: 'testing woop woop wopp' (and the only contributor was 'Freaksock')) (Restore)
  • 14:55, May 19, 2007 Sean William (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Qian Zhijun" (Protected titles now active, no need for double protection) (Restore)

OK, now look at the group of people who want this deleted. We have the likes of Phil Sandifer, who is a tireless champion of non-traditionally sourced content and contemporary culture subjects. We have Cary Bass, from OTRS, who almost never participates in the cesspit that is AfD. We have Doc glasgow, another OTRS volunteer. We have Danny, ex WP:OFFICE. And of course I'm an OTRS volunteer too. This is not a wheel war, it's an attempt to make a WP:BLP deletion stick and then get people to sit down and talk about it instead of having pitched battles with folks flinging Google counts at canonical policy in the hope of knocking it down. That's why I closed the last DRV: if we have learned anything in the last week it is that pitched battles based on binary solutions are not going to fix this. Do admins' views carry more weight? Up to a point, yes: those admins who work at the coal-face of handling customer complaints may have a slightly better understanding of how our occasional fits of navel-gazing affect real people's lives. And it is smart to sit and think hard when numbers of those people come to the debate. We do not vote-count, after all.

Now to address the allegation of wheel-warring: there is none. Closure of DRVs requires no administrative tools. Viridae's undeletion on May 19 could be argued as wheel-warring, but that would be harsh. I see no wheel war. Most of the admins involved seem to be deleting the article or subsequent reposts - and there are a lot of admins deleting the thing.

So I dispute pretty much everything Jeff says above apart from the name of the article, and I certainly dispute the assertion of wheel-warring, and the entire tone of the RfC which is founded on the idea that not having the article is more of a problem than having it. I would also note that blaming the admins and editors who wanted this gone per WP:BLP, as Jeff and others do above, ignores the fact that if those who want the article had acted with less haste, aggression and hysteria we also would not have a dispute. I think we can afford to wait until closer to the deadline to see whether this one does indeed pass the fifteen minute test. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Amen.--MONGO 09:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. pgk 09:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Phil | Talk 09:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes. There has been way too much process wonkism about this. The community needs to understand that there is a group of seasoned people out there, working on BLP matters, working on OTRS tickets, that are trying to do the right thing by people, to do the ethical thing. There is no harm from not having this article, and there is harm from having it. Ethics need to trump process, and this being quick to jump on bandwagons and scream about abuse of process is just not good for the encylopedia. It needs to stop. Let it be deleted for now, and come back in 6 months or a year and if he's still notable, then maybe. There is no deadline. ++Lar: t/c 11:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Nailed it--Docg 11:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Absolutely. Wikipedia is not, and will never be, the YTMND meme-wiki. Sean William 11:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Johnleemk | Talk 11:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yup. Raymond Arritt 12:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The article was deleted before I was aware of it, but it's still cached in Google, and I've just seen it. This edit summary says it all. And if more needs to be said, Lar's endorsement of this commentary is also right on the mark. ElinorD (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Correct and concise description of what happened. --Mbimmler 12:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Tony Sidaway 12:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC) This comprehensive summary also manages to be accurate. I wholeheartedly endorse. I would also add to this: Badlydrawnjeff has brought this RFC in bad faith, openly describing it as "a charade" with "zero value," a "song and dance" [22] that he only undertook reluctantly when repeatedly requested to do so by Drini, Stifle, Johnleemk, Mackensen, myself [23] and when his arbitration case was rejected as inappropriate or premature by arbitrators User:Mackensen, SimonP, Jpgordon, Charles Matthews, Kirill Lokshin and Morven.[reply]
  13. WjBscribe 12:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. – Steel 13:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Absolutely, and Tony Sidaway's comments above accurately describe the situation. This is explicitly being brought in bad faith by BDJ, and the folks supporting this effort are being manipulated. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I agree wholeheartedly, and these comments by Jeff indicate to me he still doesn't get it. --InkSplotch 13:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Well said. >Radiant< 13:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. It isn't really a wheel war, true, but that's not the point. -Amarkov moo! 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 14:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Calton | Talk 14:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC). Absolutely spot on, though it's clear from the Talk page comments that BDJ is absolutely convinced that he is a clear-eyed but lonely possessor of The Truth, and I don't expect anything anyone says to him will keep from pushing this as far as he can, even if ArbCom turns him down again. And regarding WJBscribe's comments, process is clearly important to BDJ -- unless it interferes with with his Crusade du jour, and then it becomes an inconvenience that has to be disposed of. --Calton | Talk 14:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Wholeheartedly endorse. Eluchil404 17:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Eloquently put. FCYTravis 18:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Ditto. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. jredmond 20:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. This is just common sense! // Pilotguy hold short 22:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Spot on. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Proabivouac 04:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Endorse this and others similar. I'm the hardest-core inclusionist. I'd have articles on kindergartens if I thought I could get away with it. But this, Doc Glasgow in particular and Tony Sidaway have it absolutely nailed down. I hate it when the site that cannot be named takes positions that are more decent and dignified than this place. And Jeff, maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. I've been right and lost before, and doubtless will again, but when you've lost, you've lost. You can't whine your way to glory. Grace Note 07:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Endorse. Sarah 10:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Exactly. Daniel 10:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Indeed! -Jmh123 06:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Prolog[edit]

This case has several problematic issues; involved admins closing discussions, incivility, Afd closures that did not represent the consensus and a bizarre hostility towards even allowing this matter to be debated and give this article a fair chance in Afd. The BLP issues have been disputed, since there are over 20 reliable sources and the person enjoys his fame. Sure, memes are still annoying but unilateral decisions are not the way to keep them out of this encyclopedia. The third Afd did have either consensus to keep or no consensus for deletion when it was closed, and we do not delete content through edit and wheel warring and by raising personal opinions above those made by others.

Since there have been several references to Brian Peppers and even a "Google hit counts" claim, and not everyone has access to Special:Undelete, I'm listing some of the available sources:

Prolog 13:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. 100% spot on. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Absolutely --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — MichaelLinnear 22:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ViridaeTalk 01:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Exactly. DES (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Brian Peppers lacks valid references where as this topic has plenty. -- Jreferee 21:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. If Reuters has published the material, I simply cannot see a violation of BLP policy. (Though I am sympathetic to other concerns.) — brighterorange (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong agree. Badagnani 19:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by MalcolmGin[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

In my view, this is partly just a dispute about letting process play out properly.

Policy/procedure do not exist to inconvenience admins/custodial users. In fact, proper policy and procedure exist to save admins/custodians a lot of trouble. Following procedure and respecting policy on Wikipedia is equuivalent to following consensus (because by and large policy and guidelines are developed and maintained through consensus decision-making). If procedure and policy are respected and followed by admins/custodians, the trouble saved is from when cases like this do not exist.

Administrative judiciousness (in some clothing, ignore all rules or WP:SNOWBALL or other related policies that talk about making judgements in grey areas) has its place, but should be used primarily/only in situations where very clearly, no extant policy/procedure already exists.

This dispute was escalated because policy/procedure was disrespected and admins/custodians took shortcuts around policy/procedure. Further, attempts to communicate/clarify with admins/custodians were met with hostility and impatience, and were and are still being dismissed and minimized. Despite the fact that this kind of interaction happens a lot on Wikipedia (see various dispute resolution methods and measures), many users feel that this kind of interaction is not appropriate (I won't cite these policies/guidelines - we all know they're out there). While many users will just take the incivility and try to work around it, a few will escalate the issue until they feel they are appropriately heard. This is what I feel is going on with this diapute.

I suggest that if admins/custodians object to the very fact of this complaint (and any others), that they take a good long hard look at the responsibilities that come with the role and figure out whether the trouble (i.e. this class of complaint) really is worth the time saved by shortcuts around policies and established procedures. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Addhoc 14:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --FrozenPurpleCube 14:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prolog 15:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ViridaeTalk 01:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of FloNight[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Sometimes there is not a perfect answer about difficult issues such as this one. Policies conflict. Content about living non-public figures is extremely problematic. That is the reason WP:BLP was written. In these borderline cases, it is impossible to have an answer that fully satisfies everyone. In these situations, the closing admin needs to be given the respect that they deserve for volunteering their time trying to sort out the issue. And unless there has been a clear error their decision should be final for an extended period of time unless the situation changes significantly. The use of DRV to challenge these admins closing is harmful on several levels. First, it prolongs a discussion about a non-public person and might add more WP:BLP problems and harm the individual. Second, strong criticism of admin action in difficult cases weakens the trust and respect of our admins as a whole and spreads ill will among users. Third, these endless debates consume too much time and energy, needlessly delaying the resolution of other matters. In conclusion, please respect the closing admin unless there is a clear undisputed error. FloNight 14:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. FloNight 14:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I especially agree with point number 3. Sean William 14:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tony Sidaway 14:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC) This seems like something we can move forward on.[reply]
  4. Absolutely. WjBscribe 14:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Docg 14:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 14:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. —Phil | Talk 15:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. - Concur Cary Bass demandez 15:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Absolutely spot on. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. 100% agreed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. – Steel 17:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. pgk 17:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Absolutely. ElinorD (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Well put. - jredmond 20:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. 100% concur. ++Lar: t/c 20:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Yes. - Merzbow 23:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Sam Blanning(talk) 11:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Proabivouac 04:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Jkelly 20:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Sarah 10:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Daniel 10:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drini's summary[edit]

A few days after the article was restored by Daniel, I closed and deleted the article, being the 1st action in this chain of events. I immediately went on to Daniel's page to talk with him about it, he agreed I did the right thing, that he agreed with me overturning him. He also pointed that I had been knee-jerk immediately reverted without discussion with me or him, and that he did not sanction that. From then on, they started to cry "undiscussed revert" and hanged on undeleting the article no matter what had been commented or said.

Now the jeffists are saying this is all about admins imposing their decisions, but it's clear from the time-line that the unjustified chain of reversions without attempt to discuss was initiated by those trying to impose the article stay. They also claim the evil sysops ignore community wishes, yet particularly vocal users fail to take into account that a large number (at least equal than those wanting the article kept, as I'm seeing here) say keeping the article deleted was right. Now, they facetiously claim arrogant deletors don't listen, but as I pointed above, and as it's continually been, they also prefer to be blind to the large number of people on the other side.

And finally, Jeff seems to be seeking blood, if nobody is punished then justice has not been done. RFC is forming consensus, even though some statements above are in denial about it. They will go arbcom regardless of what RFC outcome is (unless it is what they want) , and they've stated it many times in the past days. They're for vengeance. They want to kill. And if Arbcom rejects the case, they will keep opening review after review after review until they get what they want'[24]. As I said, if they really want punishment, they should seek punishment on both sides. They claim about disruptive behaviour. Their blind vengeance thirst is more disruptive. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 15:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Users who endorse this summary

  1. —Phil | Talk 15:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jeff's actions in particular seem to be those of someone looking for a fight rather than looking for resolution. Friday (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yep DRV is about if the process of deletion was followed correctly as some are quick to point out. Jeff's comment on the first drv appears to be an AFD !vote, not a comment relating to the process. --pgk 15:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Johnleemk | Talk 15:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Accurate, concise, no punches pulled. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Tony Sidaway With the proviso that I see no they here. Only Jeff, as far as I'm aware, is talking of going over the heads of the community consensus and arbcom to open a fourth deletion review. --Tony Sidaway 16:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't single Jeff out. If there were no Jeff on Wikipedia, I'd probably follow the same process measures he's spearheading. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, amend that to say "only Jeff and Malcolm." I don't regard that as anything to be proud of, but if you want that, fine. --Tony Sidaway 15:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only in coalition that we can stand strong. The worst that can be done to me is that I be exiled for having this strong an opinion. That's fine. That's the way I'm built, and I wouldn't change it for the world. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 15:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are here to turn the tide against the policiy changes mandated by foundation in recent times? I think you may have a few issues along the way. Guy (Help!) 17:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am perfectly happy to follow mandated policy. If policy is changed and you believe I'm interpreting it in error, please point me to what text you think I'm misinterpreting. What I'm noticing/pointing out and what I believe Jeff is noticing/pointing out is that admins/some community are reinterpreting policy in error and Jeff and I are (separately for the most part) pointing that out. But if it's clearly something I'm in error about interpreting, please do point it out and I'll go look at it again. If I'm not in error, and the policy is out of step with actual practice/interpretation, then by all means build the consensus required for changing the policy so the wording matches practice. If that cannot be done, then my suggestion is that the practice may be what's in error and it's not me who will need to back down or apologize. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes, and I confirm what Drini said about me in the first paragraph of this statement is an accurate representation of my opinion at the time. Daniel 10:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Radiant[edit]

This dispute is the Most Important Thing Possible, and we should all cease working on the encyclopedia while the squabbling lasts, until The Truth is finally revealed. In other news, sarcasm proven to be really helpful.

It is important that many users endorse this summary:

  1. Anyone seen my molehill? >Radiant< 15:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Apart from debating admin standards, obviously. Addhoc 15:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Johnleemk | Talk 15:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – Steel 17:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The problem with broad swath generalizations is that depending on how they're interpreted, they can be turned against you. Especially if sarcasm is utilized. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Friendly (?) amendment: "while and continue the squabbling lasts for as long as possible, until The Truth is finally revealed, after which we file more RFCs and Arbcom proceedings so we can start the whole thing again." Raymond Arritt 18:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Newyorkbrad[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

The near-universality of the Internet has led to many situations in which otherwise non-notable people have been targeted for unwanted publicity. In many instances, such publicity can have terrible consequences for the individual who unwittingly finds himself or herself the subject of an "Internet meme." The canonical example of such a thing is the Brian Peppers situation, and a fair number of other instances were listed in now-deleted content at List of Internet phenomena. I stand by the observations I made in connection with that content at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad, and will not repeat them all here. Discussion at that time increased community awareness of the problems associated with this sort of articles, although I remain disappointed that we lost a good contributor who had a unique vantagepoint from which to comment on this type of issues, Jmaynard, in the wake of that discussion.

References to "BLP issues" in the context of this type of article extend beyond the removal of negative, unsourced information. As noted in the policy, and discussed at length from time to time on its talkpage, there are times when information does not belong on Wikipedia even if fully sourced and undisputedly true. The clearest example of this is situations where the subject of the article is not notable; but even in cases of arguable notability, it is beneath the role of Wikipedia to compound the potentially life-destroying effects of harrowingly excessive Internet publicity upon people who are made famous or infamous through no fault of their own. To oversimplify a bit, Jimbo famously said in discussing WP:OFFICE and BLP issues the maxim that "Wikipedia is not here to make people sad." All other things being equal, there should not exist a class of human beings whose lives are damaged by the existence of this encyclopedia. (To be sure, my life is going to be damaged if my boss figures out that I have spent the past half hour drafting this statement rather than doing my job, but that sort of damage is not included.)

In the wake of the List of Internet phenomena discussion, in February I went back to the former content of that article to identify linked articles that ought to be deleted (or at least significantly toned down) based on these types of considerations. The most offensive of these articles concerned an individual who had sold his laptop computer without erasing the hard-drive completely. When a dispute arose because the computer allegedly didn't work properly, the purchaser retaliated by publishing the seller's intimate personal information on a website. The resulting publicity, according to our former article on the subject, ruined this person's life. Our then article on this matter was under the name of the individual and was the number one Google hit when his name was searched. I nominated it for deletion, having decided by a narrow margin that it would be improvident to speedy it (as I had originally considered). To my astonishment, the AfD closed with no consensus to delete. The closure was overturned on DRV by the narrowest of margins and the article sent back for another AfD and finally deleted. In the process, the name of the subject was probably mentioned 10 times more often in two weeks than it otherwise would have been, and I reluctantly concluded that ad hoc deletion nominations were not a viable way to deal with this entire group of issues, although I never figured out what was.

Fast forward a couple of months. On May 4, Alton nominated the article on "QZ" for deletion. It was one of 150 AfD nominations that day and drew relatively little attention, and certainly there was no hint that this article's deletion vel non would compete only with the Spoiler Warnings debate for the title of Wikipedia Controversy of the Month for May 2007. My initial !vote was "[e]ither delete or redirect to List of Internet phenomena with omission of the subject's name, per BLP-related concern that giving massive Wikipedia-based publicity to this sort of "Internet phenomenon" has the potential to damage people's lives for little encyclopedic purpose." One of the other commenters asked me to elaborate further, and I added the following:

Imagine you're a random teenager. And imagine one day someone decides that your face is cute, and should be plastered all over the Internet. Imagine that your life is turned upside-down by the publicity, and that your friends and schoolmates get to make fun of you mercilessly for it, and that the notoriety follows you into young adulthood, and that anytime someone sees your face they think of you as the fat kid with the funny face on the Internet, and anytime you apply for a job or a scholarship or even a blind date, someone Googles your name and among the first things they see is a Wikipedia article about the unwanted notoriety that came upon you completely through malice and happenstance and that perhaps you would give anything to get rid of. And perhaps you say to yourself that with time, some of the sillier websites mentioning you will fade away ... until you realize that Wikipedia is one that will hopefully be eternal, and there you and your face and the harassment and teasing you endured are immortalized, presumably forever, or so we as Wikipedians hope.
Now, this article is not, by far, the worst example of unwanted, life-destroying publicity through Internet pranking against an otherwise non-notable, private person that I have seen. The Internet publicity, while unwanted at first I am sure, was not positively hateful, and no humiliating personal secrets were exposed, and the subject seems to have dealt with it in some form of reasonably adaptive way and may even be trying to capitalize on it. So keeping this article would not be as grotesque as would have been keeping some of the other articles I discussed in my comments that I linked to above. But we need to raise awareness of this entire suite of issues, and people need to hesitate before responding "enough Google hits, keep" on articles such as this one.

My view seems to have swayed the discussion, and the AfD was closed by Daniel (a/k/a Daniel.Bryant) with a Delete result. In the wake of the result, some comments were offered in a couple of places. I was somewhat offended by a suggestion made on the AfD talkpage that the deletion was culturally biased because "Little Fatty" is a Chinese teenager rather than an Anglo-American teenager. This criticism had no merit; Brian Peppers, whose article I fought hard to get rid of, lives in Ohio. More substantive were comments made by DeLarge on User talk:Daniel.Bryant in which he pointed out that QZ's situation was slightly more nuanced than I might have portrayed it in my comments. DeLarge acknowledged that his post was really a set of comments that belonged on the AfD, and that he had missed the AfD having been away from Wikipedia for a few days for real-world reasons.

I did not believe that DeLarge's points changed the conclusion that the "QZ" article should be deleted, but I did think that they were offered in good faith and warranted a substantive response, and that they might possibly point a way forward to crafting an article about "Internet phenomena" along the lines that DeLarge and Jmaynard thought we should have without publicizing victims' names and compounding the harm caused to them. It was apparent that DeLarge intended to present his views on a DRV, which would not really be the right forum to address the issues as DRV generally focuses on process more than content; I feared that either the DRV would turn into a continuation of the AfD, or that it would lead to an unstable outcome ("closure was correct; new arguments that were not presented in the AfD cannot be considered now but can be addressed if the article can be revised to address them") which would potentially lead to re-creation of the article and to increased controversy.

I therefore suggested that the easiest thing to do might simply be to reopen the AfD to address the new arguments, which I planned to rebut in detail. From that moment on, hilarity a series of unfortunate escalations ensued, and the next time a similar situation arises, I suppose I should simply say to the latecoming editor "you snooze, you lose; you missed the deadline, and real life is no excuse for not commenting on an AfD in a timely fashion." Seriously, to the extent that any portion of the procedural brouhaha that this has turned into is a result of a suggestion that I made that seemed like a good idea at the time, I apologize for that.

With regard to the merits of this article, it was properly deleted, and I hope the deletion can be accepted without further and endless argumentation, much less another DRV or another arbitration case. At the same time, much of the harsh rhetoric that has been flying in all directions for the past several days, would be much better off avoided. Administrators and longstanding, highly regarded editors, in particular, should know better.

I will close with a word about the role of badlydrawnjeff in all of this. I value his participation in the project. In addition to his own mainspace contributions, he has saved and rehabilitated numerous articles that were otherwise destined for deletion and reclaimed some that had already been deleted. I will probably be removed from the Project Deletionism Christmas Card list for saying this, but inclusionism, within reasonable limits, is not something I consider a vice. Yet in what is probably a waste of typing time (though hope springs eternal), I will urge again upon Badlydrawnjeff consideration of the fact that even good things have some limits. Pushing things to extremes, as you did three months ago with Brian Peppers and as you did last week on the DRV for "List of Muslims involved in a crime", harms the overall goal, which I share, of expanding Wikipedia's reach to include more rather than less content. I really again urge you to stop doing this.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Docg 17:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tony Sidaway 17:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Excellent grasp of the facts in depth and breadth, as ever.[reply]
  3. pgk 17:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC
  4. Eluchil404 17:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ElinorD (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cbrown1023 talk 19:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jredmond 20:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. "It is beneath the role of Wikipedia to compound the potentially life-destroying effects" of coverage. Exactly so. ++Lar: t/c 21:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Endorse most, sensitive, well written, and if the AfD is reopened, it would sway me. But I trust the community to likewise be swayed by intelligent argument, and to reach a consensus that would be better than unilateral actions. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Well said, and I commend you for your fairness to all parties involved and the absence of attacks, blatant or veiled.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 23:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Proabivouac 04:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. —Phil | Talk 09:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC) About the only thing which might counter the excellent sentiments expressed above would be the unlikely event of the subject himself emailing OTRS giving some form of consent to the article. Given the remoteness of this possibility, and the fooraw that would result from what would almost inevitably be castigated as "self-promotion" (nobody ever accused Wikipedians of unnecessary consistency), there is really very little choice as to the correct outcome.[reply]
  13. Jkelly 20:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Very well written, excellent points. Thanks Brad. Sarah 10:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Yarp. Daniel 10:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Exactly. The marriage of Wikipedia and the internet has resulted in an unfortunate reality--the presence of a topic in Wikipeida becomes a means of creating or enhancing its notability. I've seen it happen, and I've seen it deliberately used. -Jmh123 07:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr:

  1. – Steel 17:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Eagle 101[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Ok, I feel like I need to give my two cents... so here goes...

From what I see the first Articles for Deletion debate was valid, being open for a total of 8 days, 3 days over the 5 day wait period. Then we had a Deletion review questioning the validity of the Articles for Deletion debate. The thing is that Deletion review is there to review improper process of the Articles for Deletion debate... and as far as I can tell there was no process violations. Process violations are things like speedy closing a debate in 2 days when it should have ran the entire 5, or an admin closing a debate as keep when there was not one keep opinion in the discussion.

Now it can be argued that it was improper to close the relisted (by consent of the closing admin, so no wheel war here) in 1 day, rather then letting it run the full 5 days. The thing that I see though is that in the intervening 1 day the debate was still leaning delete. I don't think there is a rule anywhere that says that relisted debates must run for the entire period. In any case the first Articles for deletion debate had a full 8 days of discussion.

So I guess what I don't get is why the Deletion review overturned the first articles for deletion debate... on what procedural grounds? Two admins already interpreted the first debate as delete, so unless Deletion review has turned into Articles for Deletion round 2, the first Articles for Deletion debate should stand. The purpose of deletion review is not to re-hash a debate again, but to review the closing of said debate.

I think that what was needed in this situation was a Deletion review, review ;), but thats just inviting instruction creep.

Note: I should clarify, as the Deletion review should have closed as a "keep deleted", there was no need for the ensuing drama ;). Please also note that I have not contested the use of Biographies of living people policy, thats another way of looking at this, and it is a valid viewpoint.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. —— Eagle101Need help? 17:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I could not have summed this up better. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. David Gerard 19:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Indeed. The people claiming "process!" are notably neglecting this part.[reply]
  4. Yes, exactly. All this has been an attempt to undo the perplexing relist at the first DRV, which a goodly number of us would have closed as endorse. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Quite so, if one goes at this from process. ++Lar: t/c 21:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This is true to the extent that it goes, but as I've said before, the issue here isn't really whether or not the closures were correct, or if the article should have been deleted. -Amarkov moo! 01:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. *nod* Daniel 10:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved view by Night Gyr[edit]

There are a number of troubling statements being made above. The level of hostility and mockery towards badlydrawnjeff and others who want to keep the article is completely inappropriate. The claim being made above about the weight of admins involved on either side based entirely on the log of the wheel war is incredibly misleading, and troubling that it's being taken as a point of pride that respected users are willing to violate basic principles of how wikipedia should function. I was involved in most of the discussion that took place. The difference between me and several of the others was that I didn't wheel war, I didn't decide to close or open a discussion or delete or undelete any page. I wanted to give this thing a chance to cool, let us take a week or two to talk it out and make it so that even if it wasn't kept, it would be clear and well-reasoned enough that those who disagreed with the outcome could at least have something to point to and say "alright, fair enough."

The hostility and mockery that I've seen above claims that there were no valid keep arguments, that the article served only to hurt a living person. In fact, at the DRV, the third AfD, here, and elsewhere, there have been numerous questions raised about whether the article actually violates BLP. Yes, bad articles must die, but first you have to establish that it's a bad article. You can't just say "BAD!" and justify any action on that. That was the point of reopening the AfD. The consensus of the first was a bit messy, and hardly clear cut. New arguments were added late, and the multiple closings and reopenings meant that discussion got cut off. Relisting on AfD wasn't a matter of 'rerunning until we get the result we want', as it's been mocked, it's about making sure that new voices that didn't get in on the debate can be heard and that the whole thing is a good clean process that has a clear outcome.

Finally, there's the article itself. I suggested in many places that the article could be improved, and as our Deletion Policy says, articles should only be deleted if their issues cannot be resolved otherwise. Many people, even those calling for deletion say 'Well, the meme's notable, but he isn't.' That's not a reason to delete the only article we have on the meme, it's a reason to refocus it on the notable content! I offered this solution, others agreed with me, and we attempted to implement an improved version that would both resolve the BLP issues by taking focus off the kid and still cover the notable meme, but in the frenzy of 'BAD ARTICLE MUST DIE NOW' any action but outright deletion wasn't enough.

In bullet points, I think it comes down to something like this:

  • There's way too much hostility and denigration going on. Both sides need to recognize the legitimacy of the other and be willing to engage in discussion. No policy is so clear that it can override any discussion or consensus-building. If people disagree with your application of it, try to convince them, not attack them.
  • Wheel warring shouldn't be glorified, it should be censured, and those who chose a more restrained path shouldn't be ignored.
  • Deletion isn't the only way to fix problems. If an article can be improved in a way that produces something that belongs in Wikipedia, those improvements should be made instead of deleting it outright.

I don't care about this article very much. I'd like to see it kept, but if it went through a full clear AfD at this point and was deleted by consensus, I wouldn't fight it. What I care about is the bad behavior. I don't want arbcom stepping in to decide on the content of the article, but I want some recognition that there was bad behavior here, and that this is not how things are supposed to work. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --FrozenPurpleCube 21:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. badlydrawnjeff talk 22:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prolog 22:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -Amarkov moo! 23:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — brighterorange (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 01:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ViridaeTalk 01:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. -N 02:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Bring on the AfD![reply]
  10. Horologium talk - contrib 06:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Unlearned hand 17:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Mangojuice[edit]

It's one thing to think that BLP issues are, in certain cases, significant enough to override community consensus. I think we can all agree that it is.

It's another thing to act like you are so sure that a particular case is like that that there would be no need for debate, and to treat those who disagree with your decision afterwards with venomous contempt.

If the people who disagreed with deletion had felt like they had been heard fairly by those who ultimately decided on the fate of the article, we would never have gotten to this point. Try to remember the good that process and impartiality can do. Mangojuicetalk 21:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Endorse. This is pretty much how we got here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --FrozenPurpleCube 21:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -N 22:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. badlydrawnjeff talk 22:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. GRBerry 22:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Once again, Mango hits the nail on the head with better wording than I would produce.[reply]
  6. — MichaelLinnear 22:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Prolog 22:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 01:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. ViridaeTalk 01:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Horologium talk - contrib 06:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Catchpole 11:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Vadder 14:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. This is hardly the only case where this problem is cropping up, either. I see quite a few familiar names. Unlearned hand 17:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Well said. Unfortunately, this is not the first case in which that statement applies, but I certainly hope it will be the last. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by AnonEMouse[edit]

It's highly unfortunate that administrators, who trusted the community to give them their tools, would then not trust that same community to make the right decision on a widely publicized DRV and AfD. That the same community which is trusted to make the Wikipedia:Biography of living persons policy is then not trusted to carry it out through reasonable discussion. Yes, there are plenty of trolls here, but the overwhelming majority of participants are united with a common goal, and when so many people participate, the system works. The community makes the right decision, if the right arguments are made. Newyorkbrad, and even, in some ways, Tony Sidaway, made the right, persuasive, arguments; they had the right effect. The kid in question doesn't suffer irreparable harm by having an article, much most sensitive than most, up for 5 more days or whatever - his story has been international news for months, after all. The Wikipedia does not suffer by having a debate be allowed to last long enough for people to read the right arguments and be swayed. It does suffer by having intelligent, reasonable, well meaning, dedicated contributors be unnecessarily mistreated. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Prolog 00:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 01:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -N 02:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ViridaeTalk 03:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Horologium talk - contrib 06:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Unlearned hand 17:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by GTBacchus[edit]

This controversy is bringing the kid more attention than the article's existence for four more days would have. When one tries to stamp out a fire, and ends up spreading it around over a larger area, one has made an error in judgment.

Those wishing to protect the kid's privacy would have been much smarter to avoid early closures, wheel warring, etc. If people weren't so strident about getting the page deleted NOW!, I still would never have heard of the kid. Patient discretion is better than righteous but rash actions, ten times out of ten. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Users who endorse this summary:[reply]

  1. --FrozenPurpleCube 01:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. GRBerry 01:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Well, I'd have already forgotten, rather than not heard, but otherwise I am in complete agreement. And the likely forthcoming Signpost article(s) will make the speedy privacy protection attempt even more counterproductive.[reply]
  3. Trying to protect people's privacy from being violated by demanding that discussion stop has never worked. We saw it with the WP:BADSITES controversy, which got brought up in so many places that it provided pretty much free advertising for the sites it was supposed to restrict, and we're seeing it here again. If rational people disagree with you that something is a privacy violation, it is not so blatant of one that discussion is harmful. -Amarkov moo! 01:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Friday (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Indeed. Although I had seen photoshops of this kid before, I had no idea of his name and it wasn't until after I closed the second DRV and opened the third afd that I bothered too actually google the Kid's name and realised I had seen his photo before. ViridaeTalk 01:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Obviously. — MichaelLinnear 01:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Prolog 01:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. -N 02:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Also note, I grow weary of this. I think the article should be undeleted, but that whatever comes of it after that should be final.[reply]
  9. MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. DES (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. -Pilotguy hold short 20:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Milto LOL pia 23:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC) - Said far better than anything else. Too bad even the arbitrators seem unwilling to acknowledge this. Milto LOL pia 23:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. The best judgment of the situation. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 00:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved view by ViridaeTalk[edit]

The more a group of people try to supress discussion like this, the more th community will react strongly to get their say. The experienced administrators that continued to speedily close discussions despite obvious disagreement (as someone said, if you speedy close a discussion and non-troll editors disagree you have got it wrong) should have known that full well. The recent copyright key thingo supression by the MPAA and the resulting explosion of the number of Google hits it gets is a real world example of such suppression and reaction. In the same vein, comments to the effect of "this is how it is, deal with it" really pisses people off - particularly in what is supposed to be a consensus driven community.

When I entered the fray, there was already quite a lot of hostility over the issue. I came into it by way of a discussion on WP:ANI. That pointed me to the second DRV discussion, in which i determined that:

  1. The majority of the keep deleted arguments were either pretty much unconstructive, or a re-hash of an afd.
  2. There were significant numbers of "overturn deletion" votes that were invoking deletion policy - as should happen in a DRV.
  3. There was no consensus on the matter of BLP. There were good arguments on either side on that matter and their still are, and to be honest I am more convinced now that there is no BLP issues than that there are considering QZ's attempts to capitalise on his unexpected fame by way of his website. However at the time, I believed there was no consensus on that matter so i set that aside as a matter that could be debated in an afd.

I also made sure i read the first and second afds and the first DRV to familarise myself with the circumstances of the deletions. After all that I closed the DRV as "overturn, relist" and made sure that i gave my rationale at the top of the now closed discussion, hoping by doing so, criticism of the process could be kept at bay. I did note that the DRV had not been open long, but determined that there had been significant discussion and more importantly that consensus on the policy involved was clearly in favour of an overturn. I then opened the new afd as a matter of process, and cited the reason as the DRV I closed. I checked on the afd every half hour so so, just to make sure that it was running smoothly and everyone was being civil (which I believe was the case). I then left my computer to do something else, and when i came back several hours later I noticed that the afd had been closed as delete, clearly against consensus. I was very pissed off by this, both because the closure is quite clearly against the consensus of the discussion and because my good faith effort at resolving the situation had been unceremoniously shot down. I quickly re-opened the afd, and undeleted the article (an open afd is fairly useless without an article) and wrote a fairly hostile note to anyone else who wished to close the article against consensus again. As i did so, I knew that any further deletion of this article against consensus would result in an escalation of the intensity of the argument, possibly to arbcom. So when i again came back to find it closed again, i made inquiries with Newyorkbrad about how an arbcom case proceeds. While I was doing that I was notified that it was already going.

So, all that leads my to my conclusions (both those above the explanation and these):

  • Policy and process do not hurt anyone. Following policy and process keeps the community happy.
  • While following policy and process is not necessarily a sign of respect and good faith, not following it when there is obvious outcry is a sign of disrespect and bad faith as far as the community is concerned, whatever the motives may be.
  • Whether the first deletion review came to the right conclusion or not is immaterial. It came to a conclusion and the proper way to challenge that DOES NOT INVOLVE closing the resulting afd 45 minutes in. By no standards is 45 minutes a long enough discussion to get consensus, and invoking what was said in an over-ruled afd as a reason to close the new one is ridiculous.
  • 5 days is the usual length of an afd discussion. This does not mean it has to be that long. If consensus has not been reached, or someone has added new information to the debate that may sway peoples views or refactored the article so that it is significantly different from the original very close to the end of the usual 5 days, then it is courtesy to those involved to re-list it and keep it open for long enough that the changes (or additions to the debate) get enough exposure to the community that consensus may be satisfactorily achieved.
  • Closure of a contentious debate by someone involved in the discussion is always wrong. And involved admin (or user) may of course close a unanimous debate they have been involved in.
  • Speedy closure of an afd that has been opened as a result of a DRV is always wrong. There is obviously some sort of opposition either way so the debate should run at least for the usual 5 days, if not more, in order to achieve consensus.

I am of the strong opinion that, had this article got a fair hearing at the second afd, this could have been avoided and i would never have heard about it. However, as an attempt at reconciliation I believe the article should be undeleted for the purposes of an afd that is run openly and fairly in an attempt to get the community to work this problem out. Such an afd should be run for as long as is necessary to satisfy the community that the matter is resolved (ie 5 days +24 hours from the last comment received past that point. So if the last comment is recieved at 6am, 6 days after it was started then it should be closed at 6 am on the 7th day or at some point after that. This would allow full discussion of the matter.) And it goes without saying (but I will anyway because I like typing so much) that such a debate should be closed by an uninvolved administrator.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. ViridaeTalk 05:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse, except there should be a deadline. At a certain point no new arguments will come, but I have full faith in the ability of people on each side to continue arguing despite that. :-) AnonEMouse (squeak) 05:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Deadlines are antithetical to establishment of true consensus, but do serve well to help supermajorities form on Wikipedia, where certain structural limitations may prevent true/formal consensus decision-making in any case. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prolog 15:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This hits exactly the issue I feel most strongly about in this entire affair. DES (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The Evil Spartan 17:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC) My issue is with administrators closing things twice after having been overruled by other administrators, after having voted, etc. This is wheel-warring.[reply]
  7. --FrozenPurpleCube 19:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WaltonAssistance! 19:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Said very well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I agree. It is very frustrating to have an honest attempt at consensus-building cut short. — brighterorange (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another outside view by Radiant[edit]

Blocking people over a dispute like this aggravates, rather than calms down, the situation, especially while spirited discussion is ongoing, and is therefore a bad idea. For those who were unaware, see User talk:Zsinj.

People who endorse this:

  1. Just thought it needed to be said. >Radiant< 07:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Of course, but I'm not sure it needed to be said. ViridaeTalk 07:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -N 10:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC) -this has turned into a charade.[reply]
  4. Absolutely. Mangojuicetalk 13:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. See, Radiant! and I can agree about something. MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. GRBerry 13:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. IRC is an offensive travesty when used in secret to fuck with people. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Prolog 15:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Block was absoluely uncalled for. DES (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The Evil Spartan 17:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC) - of course. In fact, I'm lucky not to have gotten caught up in this one, given some clearly uncivil remarks I made, which I am now blanking.[reply]
  11. Iamunknown 18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Absolutely[reply]
  12. This was truly awful, regardless of the merits of the underlying issues (or lack thereof). Raymond Arritt 18:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. ZsinjTalk 18:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. --FrozenPurpleCube 19:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Blocks should not be applied where all users involved are acting in good faith. WaltonAssistance! 19:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Proabivouac 04:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Naturally. — brighterorange (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Can't argue with that. Blocks are a pretty blunt instrument, and they should be used only as a last resort and only with clear consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Absolutely. That's the worst block reason I've ever seen. Friday (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Jkelly 20:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Clearly, and I think all involved parties that I know of have acknowledged this fact. JavaTenor 21:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Although it deviates from the main focus of this AfD, it is related, and the words of this statement so true. I hope now that things have levelled themselves out, apologies given where due, etc., we can all move on from that mistake in judgement. Daniel 10:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Rayc 23:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

View by Samuel Blanning[edit]

Some people insist on referring to QZ as a "public figure" because there are news articles on him. This is false. There is a difference between "being a public figure" and "someone wrote an article on you". Tom Cruise and Michael Jackson are public figures. They chose to act and sing, which they knew (indeed, hoped) might draw media attention. When they received embarrassing coverage, they chose to continue acting and singing. If they had stopped acting and singing, they would have ceased to become public figures.

QZ, by contrast, didn't intentionally do anything to receive media coverage, and equally he can't choose not to continue anything either. It is right that we should apply WP:BLP to err on the side of protection of anyone who finds themselves in the latter category.

This has been said above (by Tony Sidaway for one), and anyone still reading at Statement 35 should be congratulated, but I feel it needs to separated out for clarity. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. This is the central issue. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Don't be evil.Proabivouac 04:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. TC and MJ are public figures from our perspective, mainly because they have easy means to get their own viewpoints into media outlets that are more visible than Wikipedia articles. They are in a sense bigger than us and they can take care of themselves if we publish something unkind about them. Some less successful actor who would like to be as visible as TC or MJ and is seeking similar media attention but is at the moment not yet receiving it, is smaller than us (despite their wishes) and we have to be much more careful towards them. That is an ever-growing class of people as Wikipedia itself keeps growing. In fact those people are frequently trying to get their biographies into Wikipedia and this principle of carefulness makes it hard to keep such biographies neutral (they end up regurgitating stuff from the subject's publicists), so we should be deleting more of them. 75.62.6.237 15:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The first three lines sum up exactly why this article should be, and is, deleted. Natural justice has been reached. Daniel 10:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary view by Vadder[edit]

Despite Samuel Blanning's view above, in the United States (where Wikipedia's servers are located) both by law and by custom, being a public figure is not always matter of choice (c.f. our own article). It is debatable whether or not QZ is a public figure, but (barring office involvement) that is a matter of editorial judgment, to be worked out in the usual way of consensus. Vadder 13:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is the central issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prolog 15:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree. Once the kid set up a website to capitalize on his fame, he chose to become a public figure. Unlearned hand 17:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --FrozenPurpleCube 19:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC) It may be possible that this person was sucked into this situation unwillingly, but there participation since then has included voluntary acts.[reply]
  6. More or less. I would argue that the status of being a "public figure" is virtually irrelevant, however; the only thing which matters is the presence of reliable sources. WaltonAssistance! 20:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Horologium talk - contrib 00:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This is true, and not unimportant, but for me it is not the central issue. DES (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another outside view by MalcolmGin[edit]

It's true that this issue is a lot larger than it needs to be. That's what happens when issues get escalated.

Unfortunately, in order to get the swelling to go down, it's either going to take a lot of time or a concerted effort at treatment. Simply ignoring it and wishing it would go away is not going to be theraputic at this time.

Also, it's clear at this point in the discussion that the major factions are not going to give a lot of ground. Even reading and rereading the views, I find that there are views I absolutely agree with and others I absolutely don't agree with. If this RfC is going to find a resolution, we're all going to have to do some serious compromising. The measures we can take in order to get to the middle of the bridge long enough to shake hands are pretty clear to everyone who reads these views.

If we don't simply wait it out, which would probably result in escalation to Arbitration, we're really all going to have to come down off the crosses and high horses and find places in the middle where we can actually do the work of resolution.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Endorse idea of finding common ground. Not quite sure if this means I endorse the summary. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse. The Evil Spartan 17:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Some 25 people, including Badlydrawnjeff himself, have endorsed a view by BigDT that says, succinctly: This whole thing is stupid. It's time to move on with life. I suggest therefore that the solution is obvious. We should all agree to move on and get on with life. The arbitration committee would be immensely relieved at the reduction in its workload. I don't see any sense in agreeing that it's trivial and then treating it as if it were the most important thing in the world. --Tony Sidaway 18:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification: "a lot larger than it needs to be" does not necessarily equal "trivial". I think that as the issue escalated, non-trivial issues in various folks' behavior arose that now need to be dealt with. It is my contention that if those things had not happened during escalation (or because of), that we would not be where we are today with a big ugly mess, but my statement is not meant to imply that I think the situation does not now need to be more formally and carefully addressed. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 23:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well 25 people including the principal disputant have agreed that the basis of this RFC is stupid. I think that says something. If nothing further were to be done on this matter, the arbitration committee would be on notice that the BLP needs beefing up. It's been on their back burner for some time. This case just shows that their guidance is urgently needed. So the dispute is trivial but the underlying rift is not. --Tony Sidaway 00:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) The ArbCom does not make policy. They are not in a position to "beef up" nor to "water down" the bLP. The community males policy, and the Foundation, often speakign through Jimbo, makes policy. The Arbcom most explicitly does not.
2) I for one do not agree that this is trivial, nor am i willign to conced tha tJeff is the "principal disputant" in any sense which means that his endorsement of such a view is grounds to ximply brush the matter under the rug. I want to know whether current policy permits Deletion Reveiws proeprly conducted and clsoed to be simply ignored, as this one ways, and permits speedy or IAR deletions to override consensus-based processes, and to shut down properly instituted discusson, as was done in this case. I hope and trust that the answer will be a firm NO. That is far more important, IMO than the question of whethr this particular article is ir is not deleted or recreated. DES (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having just come from the deletion review of User:UBX/Suicide, I can attest that I walked away with the sense that, consensus be damned, him that deleted it would keep it deleted. I get the same sense here. My impression here is that, whether due to their rank or not, if one set of people believes content to be vile or evil, then that judgment is above reconsideration, even by community consensus.
My simple take on deletion policy is that if the deletion is uncontroversial, do it; if the deletion turns out not to be uncontroversial, restore and list at the appropriate forum, and if, after all that, the decision is still questionable, deletion review provides a forum to discuss the deletion and whether to overturn it (not the merits of the deleted material).
The issue I see here isn't one of whether this article, in particular, should exist, though it sounds like the bare-bones of notability have been met. The issue here is how the editors on both sides of the deletion question acted. Both sides strayed from the ideals of the project, but the weapons available differed. Only one side used blocking & deletion, weapons unavailable to commoners, to its advantage. To me, this is not much a content question, but very much a conduct question. --Ssbohio 01:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Walton[edit]

There is no reason to delete any article which meets the principal criterion of WP:BIO, viz. multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Having viewed the deleted content of the article in question, I feel that it meets WP:BIO and that its deletion was wrong. Whether or not someone is a "public figure" is an entirely subjective judgment, nor are "human decency" and "protecting people's privacy" adequate reasons for deletion. The only purpose of having special rules on living persons at WP:BLP is to prevent Wikipedia publishing libellous unsourced comments and thereby getting sued. If all the controversial statements in an article are adequately sourced, then it's the sources that are open to lawsuit, not us. Fundamentally, we should not delete articles based on moral outrage at their potential to harm a person's life. Our only responsibilities are to comply with the law, and to write an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a reference work; it isn't here to be nice to people. WaltonAssistance! 18:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Administrative actions based on personal moral beliefs are harmful to the project, and "i don't like it" and "this is evil" are poor arguments. Prolog 18:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by DeLarge[edit]

The harm was done to this hapless kid back in 2003 when someone photoshopped his face and distributed it around China, leading to an entire nation labelling him "Little Fatty". Nothing we delete here is going to undo that, and nor is it going to somehow stop the continuation of this meme, which is as popular as ever on the other side of the world.

What we had was a page which described the series of events which overtook that kid and made him "one of the most famous faces in China" without his permission. It was neutral, encyclopedic, and used as its sources some of the the most recognisable and reliable news media in the West. Like those media, we focused as much on the boy as on the meme which exploited his likeness; not only did we detail the Xiao Pang phenomenon itself, but its effect on the hapless individual person at the centre of it, first in the way it humiliated him, and then in the redemptive way he was able to spin it into something very positive.

We've expunged that page, and all that remains is a soulless, dehumanized bullet point on a list of internet phenomena: "Little Fatty — A Chinese high school student had his face superimposed onto various other images and created an Internet fad." Censored the happy ending and left behind only the nasty bit. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I'm fairly certain this isn't what the BLP was written for. --DeLarge 22:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ViridaeTalk 01:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Surely not in the spirit, but does it reflect even the letter of BLP?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WaltonAssistance! 16:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prolog 18:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This fits my understanding of the issue, based on what I know of the article in question. JavaTenor 21:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encouragement by MalcolmGin[edit]

This is not a comment about the issues but about resolution of the issues.

As our discussion evolves and we find out more about what we're all thinking, our reading of the various views, statements and solutions may change. It would be good practice for all involved parties to periodically re-read the entirety of the dispute and weigh whether with our continually improving (through talking) understandings allow us to endorse more views/opinions/statements than we originally did.

This process is about building consensus and coalition, not just diagramming where we disagree. We should do what we can to make our causes more common, not less so. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 23:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you're rereading the whole dispute, Malcolm, you probably need to find a hobby ;-) Grace Note 07:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean this in a snarky way, but my priorities must be very different from yours. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 21:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by MartinDK[edit]

AfD is not a vote and DRV is not AfD round two. The two serve quite distinct and important purposes.

When closing an AfD the closer is suppossed to weigh the arguments made and then apply his/hers own common sense and understanding of policy. Consensus on AfD does not overrule policy, most importantly WP:BLP. That said, the closer must respect the fact that if he/she "rules" against consensus on the AfD then he/she must provide a reason for doing so in a clear and respectful manner. Or in other words stay civil.

DRV serves another purpose. If an article is deleted or kept against policy (not consensus) the it provides a way to overturn such rulings. It is not round 2 of AfD and it is not supposed to be a way to drag out the deletion of an article.

When an article is sent back and forth bewtween AfD and DRV it undermines the integrity of the whole deletion process. Administrators are supposed to understand this and act in the best interest of Wikipedia and not just themselves. Editors should also respect this and understand their own obligation to not disrupt Wikipedia.

Wheel waring is bad and under no circumstances in the best interest of Wikipedia. Administrators have better options available to them to settle their differences including IRC. It is not only wrong, it is completely unnesscery and feeds the critics of Wikipedia as well as scare away potential new editors. Administrators should understand their obligation to act in the best interest of Wikipedia even if that means loosing a battle or two.

I'm not choosing sides here but the way both sides have acted is making a joke of what should be a serious project to create an encyclopedia.

  1. Obviously MartinDK 07:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Outside view by DarkAudit[edit]

If not for the meme, this would be an anonymous Chinese gas station attendant. Only one of the two has any shred of notability. DarkAudit 20:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/QZ_Deletion_dispute&oldid=1143858853"