|
Threshold (online game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))
The deleting editor failed to understand the debate and did not follow deletion policy. Theblog (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for deletion by the deleting Admin was given as:
"The result was delete. Regarding Threshold (online game), there is a of reliable and verifiable sources. In addition, there seems to be little notability to this particular game, and no major notability was established. The article also suffers from overuse of peacock terms which has the effect of promoting the game without parting with any useful information. As such, the article is not written from a neutral standpoint. Regarding Frogdice, it is entirely unsourced sans one magazine mention -- which has not been verified. There is not much else content on this article to really make it notable. In addition, excessive canvassing from various Internet forums has muddled the AFD process. After careful consideration of the comments, few if anyone in support of the article actually improved the article or located additional reliable and verifiable sources."
For these reasons I believe the deletion of the threshold article should be overturned (<- my vote):
- In the deletion notice, the deleting editor mentions that the concept of "major notability" while novel, there is only notable or not notable, no categories of notability.
- The deleting Admin also comments that the current quality (peacock terms, neutral tone) of the article (as determined by him) is poor. The article quality does not have a bearing on the deletion and was not mentioned as a reason the article should be deleted in the nomination, this reasons for deletion are described in WP:DEL#REASON and this reason is clearly not in there.
- The deleting Admin also makes the statement: "After careful consideration of the comments, few if anyone in support of the article actually improved the article" this is a new standard and it is not known if those not in support of the article were treated similarly.
- There was definately no clear consensus as required to delete: "If there is no rough consensus and the page is not a BLP describing a relatively unknown person, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate." While the deleting Admin claims that some arguments were discounted due to canvassing, there were still many arguments from established editors to keep the article that had not been addressed.
- The AFD was also closed one day (correct if wrong) before the required (by WP:DELETE) 5 days had passed.
I have attempted to engage the deleting editor in conversation about these points, but he has not offered explanation, only repetition of his argument. Thank you for your consideration. --Theblog (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am only posting this for the Threshold entry. I believe Frogdice should be separately considered. --Theblog
UPDATE: I have tallied the comments (feel free to correct me if I counted wrong) and they come out to 18 Editors for delete, 17 editors for keeps, and only 4 editors with the tag indicating they have posted on few or no other articles than this one (these editors were not counted by me nor were 2 people banned for being sockpuppets). While I understand it is not a vote, I think this clearly shows that no consensus was reached and thus deletion was inappropriate. (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Close massive attempts at AfD disruption through off-site canvassing. As far as major notability, the admin was I believe referring to the fact that Threshold may be notable within a group, but it has no real notability to the outside world which is what this encyclopedia is intended for. This is an often cited argument. In the case of meat/sockpupets which were clearly a problem in this case, closing admins are free to completely disregard their statements and give them zero weight. Consensus is not a vote which is why disrupting the afd through off-site canvassing was a waste of everyone's time. There is zero reason to reward disruption of wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps as a busy administrator (1,370 pages deleted! Impressive!), Seicer did not have time to read the actual information about my blocks, the timeline of the supposed "canvassing", or the AfD itself. I was blocked for reverting edits without discussing them on the talk page. This was my mistake as I did not understand this convention of Wikipedia. I was making WP:GOODFAITH edits at the time and did not notice edits I was overwriting while working assiduously on the entry. The person who banned me did not, as required, assume WP:GOODFAITH, nor did he warn or try to help me understand what I was doing incorrectly. Furthermore, the timing of that block was highly suspect. Once I and all other active contributors were blocked, that is the precise moment that was chosen to move forward with the AfD.
- The indefinite block was placed due to an ERRONEOUS accusation of sock/meatpuppetry. Those accusations were not only a violation of WP:BITE, but they turned out to be FALSE. This was verified by User:J.delanoy, another admin of Wikipedia. After this verification, User:Black Kite reversed the block. You cannot use a wrongful block as evidence against someone or against an article.
The "canvassing" that is claimed to have occurred happened when the people involved were inappropriately banned from Wikipedia by User:Black Kite for sock/meatpuppetry. Again, these accusations were total violations of WP:BITE (don't accuse new people of being sock/meatpuppets), and also turned out to be FALSE. Once these people verified their unique identities, they were unbanned. The people who discussed the issue on Top Mud Sites did so only after they were INCORRECTLY BANNED and had absolutely no recourse. If you ban people from your site, you really don't have any business getting mad at them for discussing things on a different site. That's all they have left.
- I struck through this section. I am not trying to be contentious here. If it was inappropriate to say this, I apologize. Cambios (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The large number of people that participated in the AfD did not do so because of Top Mud Sites. Unless some of the DELETE-voters want to admit TMS is such a notable site that 1 thread there can result in one of the biggest AfDs in the history of Wikipedia. The people that participated did so because of the merits of the case, and the news it attracted from experts in the field. The fact that this issue attracted so much attention is evidence of Threshold's NOTABILITY, and yet somehow the closing admin misinterpreted this in the reverse.
- Finally, there was an enormous amount of #irc and email canvassing done by the editors and admins voting DELETE. This was discovered in multiple places. Cambios (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed sentence that was a little too personal in nature. Cambios (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to check your own comments before you start accusing others of assuming bad faith. You've made repeated bad faith statements on this very page. You have no evidence of any canvassing, just people having a private discussion. You have no idea what they're talking about. your Canvassing however was extremely blatant.--Crossmr (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Sadly, that's pretty much crap all the way through. The original block was valid, for repeated edit-warring and COI issues. I extended the block to indef after a Checkuser found two socks editing from the same IP. However, after an off-wiki discussion with User:j.delanoy, one of those accounts was proved to be a different person. Assuming good faith, and with conditions, I unblocked those two accounts. There was however a CU-proven third account, User:Greg Douglas (still blocked, will remain so), which was a clear sock and if I hadn't been so forgiving, would've led to a long block for the other accounts. As for WP:BITE, neither of those accounts were new accounts. Assume good faith? (refactored) I won't bother next time. Black Kite 19:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reponse I'm sorry you feel that way. You originally banned me for being a sockpuppet of Cambios even though I had created my account a long time ago. (This assumes that I knew I was going to be involved in the Threshold AfD 4 years before I was and had planned to sock for Cambios.) Then I think was called a meat puppet and told I was posting in collusion, which would be difficult since Cambios had already been banned when I came to try to better the article. You unbanned us and requested that I not post until the AfD was over. I respected your wishes regardless of whether or not I thought that was fair. I still do not feel that I've done anything to warrant a blocking in the first place, but User:j.delanoy explained the workings and has been helping me understand better why the ban occurred. While it may have not been your intent, it seemed like we were all being banned for trying to save the article. I would prefer not to be blocked again, so what do I need to do to prevent that from happening? (Please let me know if this should be discussed elsewhere.)Kallimina (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry, I'm not going to block you again, I'm just seriously irritated that my efforts to be fair to you and User:Cambios have been thrown back in my face. In reality, the existence of the sock account User:Greg Douglas should've been enough to leave User:Cambios blocked, but I felt that giving a frustarted user a chance would show good faith on behalf of Wikipedia. Good faith should go both ways, and it clearly hasn't here. Black Kite 21:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your patience. Please understand that while you think you were being fair and giving us a second chance by unblocking, I felt you were correcting a mistake aided by User:j.delanoy. (By the way, I am pretty sure that Greg is not a sock, but like Nizevyn who is also not a sock, simply gave up after the ban. Something I strongly considered doing myself. As my entire IP is banned, I don't think Greg can post without being specifically unbanned. I'm not in the position to say whether or not they were meatpuppets or if that is a banning offense. I know that Nizevyn was not warned that what he was doing could be a bannable offense.) In the end, I share your frustration just on the other side. Perhaps we could come to a solution. I will ask that Cambios take a break from a clearly very stressful and incendiary issue and to strike the comments he made about you personally. Kallimina (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I just checked your edit history, and you were in fact involved with the Threshold (Online Game) article before you started banning users for edit warring. Given you were personally involved with the edit war you weren't allowed to involve yourself as an admin, but hey, what do the noobs know, right? You should have contacted a different admin to intervene. I guess it just goes to show that this policy is in place for a good reason since your blocks were reverted. Given your very active involvement with the AfD process it shows a lot of nerve to make further ban threats. I think it might be a better idea to instead consider if you really have what it takes to be an admin. --Scandum (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replied to this collection of inaccuracies on the user's talkpage to save clogging this DRV up any further. Black Kite 22:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You've voted in support of the closing of this AfD, joined in the revert warring of the article in question (hence picking sides), warned Cambios to behave - next blocked him 5 minutes later without further explanation, accused Cambios of having sock puppets while there is only weak evidence against one sock puppet, then you threaten to ignore all rules and go on a banning spree because someone was ungrateful about the way you involved yourself. I'll admit that you weren't (technically) an involved party during the initial block, but you are now with your recent vote, and that calls into question the motivation of your involvement from the get go. --Scandum (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent - I refute your first collection of inaccuracies and you come up with some more. I suggest you read the relevant checkuser report, by the way, because I'm not justifying your trolling by replying further. Black Kite 23:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response What evidence do you have of this 'massive' and 'extensive' canvassing? All I see is a forum thread. Other people interested in MUDs picked up the story as a result of that post and shared their opinions. It was made clear their opinions count for nothing here unless they are regular and long standing Wikipedia editors so they shared their opinions on their blogs. Are you stating that a subject of interest to a niche community should not be mentioned on a forum dedicated to that community? If I AfD the 'Corvette' page and that gets posted about on a Corvette forum does that then lend weight to the deletion itself when members of that forum, who are naturally passionate about the subject, want to add their opinion to the subject? A subject on which, by the way, they know infinitely more than the person posting the AFD (which would, in that case, be me). Aardlasher (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the edits on the [Mud] and [Mud::Talk] page by some Wikipedian attempting to stalk, track down and delete any reference to your site attracted my attention and I strongly suspect the respected MUD bloggers who watch the Wikipedia Mud pages. Jlambert (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is one point that I requested clarified on the deleting Admin's talk page, but he (or she) didn't respond. It would be nice to know the breakdown of whose arguments were actually considered and whose were dismissed. As I noted above, only 4 editors were tagged as being new with few other edits with 2 editors banned for sockpuppetry (their comments were struckout anyway), the rest voting Keep I can only assume were long standing editors, as from personal experience I can say everyone was being heavily scrutinized. --Theblog (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion While I am not enthused about the closer's rationale, since it mentions as reasons for deletion some problems that could be fixed by rewriting, the offsite promotional campaign certainly interfered with any chance of holding on to a marginal article like this one. Occasionally a deletion debate will scour up lots of previously unknown sources and lead to an improvement of the article. It did not happen in this case. When the supporters of this article decided to fight rather than cooperate, it hurt their chances. EdJohnston (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT: Excuse me, but the only "canvassing" that happened was the result of abusive administrators banning everyone who was either an original article contributor or voting KEEP on the AfD. Once they were all banned, what were they supposed to do? Just shut up and quietly go away and never speak of the matter anywhere? That's absurd. Furthermore, the admins and pro-DELETE people were canvassing like mad via email and #irc channel discussions. Some of them were even caught setting up such discussions on their Talk pages. Most people in the world do not consider Wikipedia their primary social community, and frankly, discussing things by editing the same web page over and over again has to be the most cumbersome way to communicate ever invented. Cambios (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed one sentence that was a little too snarky. Cambios (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any evidence of that? I see one user asking another to speak with them on IRC about a private matter. I see no evidence of canvassing. and with your obvious bias you don't want to get in to a conversation of people telling other people what they should do.--Crossmr (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OVERTURN and KEEP: The AfD was closed 2 days early, and it it ignored the clearly spelled out requirements of WP:DP: "If there is no rough consensus and the page is not a BLP describing a relatively unknown person, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate." Cambios (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed a sentenace that while true might be considered inflammatory. Cambios (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment some of the outside attention was legitimate. Raph Koster and Richard Bartle both clued in on this during or nearly during the debate. As such their readers wandered over. This is distinct from forum threads where offsite individuals plot to overturn consensus (the scenario we envision usually). I really wish this could have waited a bit before being listed here, but I suppose there was little choice. Protonk (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Richard Bartle might have talked about Threshold in his blog but only after the AfD was being massively disrupted by sock/meat puppets due to off-site canvassing. He even states blatantly in the blog entry that it was generated in an attempt to establish notability of the subject. It was only mentioned in the same breath as an attack on wikipedia and its processes. In his attempt to try and generate a source to save something from deletion, he also tries to make the claim about some other sites and their notability/reliability. There is nothing about that that screams legitimate. The only legitimate source was a trivial mention in a print magazine.--Crossmr (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, of course, that a chicken-and-egg problem exists. Experts in fields will take information sources for granted, and often assume that their audience knows certain things. The smaller and more niche the field of study, the newer or the harder to locate sources for due to age, the less will be directly written. The issue of academic usefulness was actually raised in the AfD, and subsequently ignored, it seems (except by myself). We see similar issues with matters of pseudoscience - mainstream science takes so for granted the quackery of it that rarely are any formal disproofs ever made. LinaMishima (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I repeatedly asked for some genuine evidence that either of those sites were considered reliable (the only evidence given that Richard Bartle used the site academically was a game site interview where he namedrops one of the sites twice). No one was able to provide any genuine evidence of reliable sources citing them, any academic papers citing them, etc. What we did have was at least one of the pages about page basically describing the site as a hobbyist site. Those have traditionally never been considered reliable on wikipedia. In addition to that I asked for evidence that even if some of the sources were considered reliable (Bartle's blog is reliable to his opinion) was there any evidence that they were in fact notable and would confer notability to the subject. Wikipedia asks for well known awards. No one demonstrated the awards were well known. No one would provide any evidence to the viewership of these sites or expert blogs (even discounting the fact that they were generated in an attempt to subvert AfD) so that the community could try to establish whether or not those sites would actually confer notability. Even if expert in field Y writes about subject Z, but does it on a napkin in a restaurant, does it confer notability? I don't think so. It might be reliable as to his opinion if you can verify its origin, but that is it. We don't know if Bartle gets 10 viewers or 100,000 viewers on his blog and given the already obvious attempt at source generation any numbers generated now would be viewed with suspicion.--Crossmr (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that Raph's blog can be traced as the source for several widely reported stories on MMOs, and has also had his direct opinions expressed there expressed widely, I don't think you can make claim as to his blog not being significant. You might also want to take a look at WP:FICT, which makes allowances for the use of less mainstream sources. A similar problem as to that which WP:FICT is trying to address exists for any niche field - publications regarding it are typically made within a small circle only, and are often supported more by community projects than by the major press. If attempting to document a field properly, this poses a problem. What's worse, any measure of notability for a source would be subjective not just over people, but also over time. Many 'zines grow large, become highly respected, but then their readership and original editing team moves on. Your use of 'subvert AfD' was also unnecessarily loaded, I feel, and ties in with the fact that you mainly made a call to notability (which never really impresses me) rather than actually debate the questions I raised directly. LinaMishima (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ignoring that fact that Threshold isn't a book or movie, WP:FICT clearly states In all cases, if a subject relating to a work or element of fiction meets the requirement of the general notability guideline,it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. and also states All articles must meet Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, where every statement is backed by research from reliable sources. However, a verifiable article is not necessarily notable by Wikipedia's standards and merely being verifiable does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion; the general notability guideline requires the use of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. For fictional subjects, terms such as reliability and independence have specialized meanings. I don't see anything there that would allow for less than usual sources.--Crossmr (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that it matters for this discussion but WP:FICT is proposed, not enacted. Protonk (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FICT is the most appropriate SNG. It states "News organizations and scholarly journals usually ensure reliability through peer review. However, a source may still be considered reliable without these strict content controls". WP:V was never in question, but rather the absurd reliance upon the highly subjective concept of notability. I have already spoken of these issues, and you have cunningly ignored them again. What is worse is how people prefer to call to the WP:N guideline, even when there are extremely good reasons to instead call to the far stronger policy of WP:V. LinaMishima (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NB: As an aside, you have to wonder what it means when many of the major figures in a field all blog against an article being up for deletion. There seems to a belief amongst some wikipedia editors that "content is free", that there is no harm in deletion, since someone else can rewrite it all. I really hope I don't need to point out the patent absurdity in that. LinaMishima (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, not all. Damion is clearly ambivalent on the subject, and Raph, Scott and Richard hardly count as a significant fraction of MMO/MuD experts. Protonk (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused by this. Richard Bartle is a nice guy and an expert on gaming, muds and MMO's. Obviously we shouldn't take his blog post as sufficient evidence that Threshold is notable (I didn't say that), but it would be bizarre to dismiss his interest in the subject as illegitimate. I'm only saying that people who read his blog or correspond with him otherwise have a right to come to wikipedia and join the discussion. This is manifestly different from a WP user going to an outside forum known to be biased and pointing people toward a discussion with instructions. Protonk (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Except there was a post at an outside forum, and it was linked from the AfD. The sock/meat puppeting started before Bartle and the other bloggers came in.--Crossmr (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What does that mean? All I'm saying is that some of the new users at the discussion may have come in good faith. We will probably never know how many or which ones, but it behooves us to behave as though some were, given the evidence. Protonk (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some may have, some might not have. The forum thread [1] was generated 2 days before the blog post, so that would probably give you some idea. I've never said his opinion isn't reliable, but there has been no evidence provided that it would confer any notability, and with threshold only being mentioned in the context of an attack on wikipedia, there is no reason for the community to reward that. Bartle was showing an obvious bias in his blog post, so any comments he makes about how reliable, notable, etc a site is really have to be taken with a grain of salt.--Crossmr (talk) 06:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I submit that some of the users coming to the AfD came from a forum post saying 'effectively' "save Article X". As for treating Bartle as a 'biased' source on the subject, I'm not so sure. And I'm not sure why you are returning to the question of using Bartle's post to establish notability for threshold. I haven't suggested we do that. Protonk (talk) 06:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but plenty have, because its really all they have. Bartle's post was being clung to to try and establish a lot of things: 1) that Threshold was notable, 2) that TMC was reliable and notable, 3) that topmudsite was reliable and notable, etc. You made the comment that there was some legitimate outside attention. My point is that the vast majority of it was generated as a result of the deletion discussion and even then it doesn't really amount to anything that would indicate a keep of this article. Bartle clearly states in his blog post that it was generated to give notability to threshold and in that same breath he suddenly proclaims notability and reliability for debated sources. In that context there is no way the community could accept it at face value.--Crossmr (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, not to invoke WP:WAX, but you could argue that lots of media attention fell on deletionpedia only because its article was up for deletion (makes for a pithy article subject for newspapers). Obviously the level of attention isn't anywhere near the same but it wouldn't be reasonable to discount those stories due to their apparent motivation. Protonk (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unbelievable. The link from the AfD to the TMS forum post was made by User:Black Kite. People went there to discuss the issue because they were UTTERLY UNABLE to discuss it on the Wiki. The circular logic that has been used all along here is absolutely bizzarro world type stuff. A delete voting admin links to an external forum post, and the people voting KEEP are blamed for canvassing? Cambios (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith and keep the level of vitriol down. It doesn't help the debate to say "ban happy" or "delete happy". I know you are upset about this but please just help us see things clearly. Protonk (talk) 06:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. I removed the sentence in particular that was accusative. Cambios (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would endorse the userification of the article (as done above) if it can be substantially improved. seicer | talk | contribs 05:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userification is not something you need to endorse or not - it is common practice for articles in progress to live in userspace, and separate deletion policies exist for these. LinaMishima (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn reason for deletion, however I am undecided on if the verdict itself should be overturned. To put it frankly, Seicer screwed up bigtime. On a heavily debated AfD, which has became popularised off wikipedia, any verdict must seem calm, free of bias, and understanding of all positions (despite having to side with one). Yet Seicer chose instead to:
- Criticised the content of the article as a reason for deletion. These appear to be entirely new arguments in the discussion. In formal debate, one does not ever raise new points in their closing arguments, especially when one is doing it as judge & jury, and in a manner which displays clear bias.
- Fall down to notability, a matter highly disputed in the discussion, when WP:V was, in their opinion, also an issue.
- Make a critical typing mistake "there is a of reliable and verifiable sources". Under normal circumstances this would be ignored by all, but in this case the opening reason manages to have a typing mistake which makes its meaning completely ambiguous.
- Fell foul of recentism and internetism by declaring a better reference for the article 'unverified'. In this case, the reference was certainly verifiable, and indeed most of the discussion regarding this reference seemed to focus on if that made the MUD notable, rather than on if the magazine even existed.
- Seemingly cited canvassing and a muddled AfD as a reason for deletion. I can't see how, when presented in that matter after already reaching a conclusion, that statement could be intended as anything but "canvassing & muddled AfD = autodelete". This statement of issue should have really came first in his summing up prior to conclusion.
- "few if anyone in support of the article actually improved the article or located additional reliable and verifiable sources" Here Seicer sets a dangerous precident - that keep-voters are required to work heavily to improve an article and to locate sources to the peculiar tastes of those arguing for deletion. To make matters even worse, there have been allegations that attempts to do just this were actually blocked and reverted.
- In conclusion, I feel Seicer maked a grave error in the reasons they gave as to why they closed this AfD. LinaMishima (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Close Oh come on! We've had such a long discussion, and the vote tally isn't reliable as many of them are suspected SPA/of the canvassing. The AfD itself had >3 links where canvassing occurred! In addition, AfD's are not votes. There's been enough forum shopping, canvassing, and overall attempts to game the sysetem where many established users have stated that the current version should be deleted and/or refuted the ad infinitum messages of the various SPA's due to canvassing (read:we've wasted enough time on this, and I feel the AfD was proper). Also, Cambios should stop his accusations against other admins and editors. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a reason to speedily close a deletion review there. I think there is substance enough to discuss the merits of the close in this request. At the very least we can determine why it was closed >24 hours early. Protonk (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed it to what I meant to say due to edit conflict. So you want to reopen it for another 24 hours?
- No, I think that would make a bigger mess of things. I really wish this DRV could be pushed back a week or so to wait until people aren't so hot under the collar about the issue (on both sides). Barring that, we can reasonably look at the propriety of the close here, with the shortened length a part of that. I still haven't decided whether or not it should be overturned. Hopefully people will improve the sandboxed version of this to the point where we can render the close moot and restore it. That would be the best outcome. Protonk (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't think pushing it back a week would change anything AfD/DRV/whatever, but I do agree that if the article is improved and restored, that would be best (although that is assuming it can be improved to the point where there would be no AfD, which I don't know if it can be, just a disclaimer from any promises, not saying it can't). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's probably true, anyways I don't think there is any history or provision to close a DRV and have it reopened later. It was mostly an empty lament. Protonk (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the nature of what is going on here no version should be restored to main space until its been vetted at DRV, simply to prevent another episode like this. While people often restore non-contentious rewritten articles, there aren't sufficient sources on this subject currently presented to be restoring a completely different article on the subject to mainspace.--Crossmr (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want to open it for another 24 hours, go ahead, it won't change anything, as essentially, we are continuing the AfD here alread. I disagree with the notion that closing this sets any precedent as it doesn't, but its already been stated above more concisely (you just have to read closely for implied meanings). Improvements aren't "forced" on a article. If none occur, it doesn't mean auto-deletion. However, if a article is not notable, or fails other inclusion guidelines, it will be deleted, therefore, if it does fail, then improvement is by fault compelled if one wishes to keep the article, be there a policy, precedent or not. Its common sense. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse — This is not AFD round 2. Why the fuck am I not surprised???? MuZemike (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT: Have you stopped and wondered why this abusive, policy defying deletion is getting so much press? Every step of the way, policies have been violated by the "powers that be." Incorrect bans (that had to be overturned). Bans timed RIGHT before an AfD proposal. Bans of almost everyone voting KEEP to try and guarantee less KEEP votes. Accusations of canvassing by people who were already BANNED from Wikipedia and had no other place to discuss anything. As if Wikipedia has the right to silence people beyond its own borders. Canvassing by pro-DELETE admins/editors via email and irc (documented and linked to already), but that's just considered no problem and accepted. AfD closed 1-2 days early. Rampant accusations of sockpuppetry of anyone who votes KEEP, despite WP:BITE forbidding that. Closing admin totally ignores the arguments in the AfD, and substitues his own personal opinions - including opinions on issues totally not germane to an AfD. Despite 17 votes delete, 22 KEEP, somehow it is declared to be a "consensus to delete." Sure, its not a vote, but when more people vote KEEP, you sure as heck don't have a consensus to delete. Take all of that together, and of course it is no surprise that people take it to the next step. But honestly, does anyone believe it will matter? Since when has anything related to this situation been handled fairly or according to Wikipedia policy? Cambios (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User:MuZemike (wikipedia administrator): "Why the fuck am I not surprised". Wow. Grossly inappropriate and incredibly immature. Cambios (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You've been pointed to WP:AGF several times at this point and referenced it yourself. I'll also point you to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. These are policies, WP:BITE is a guideline and you can't attempt to disrupt wikipedia and hide behind BITE when someone calls you on it.--Crossmr (talk) 09:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one big problem with that statement above. I am not an admin. MuZemike (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure per the clean hands doctrine. In short, the behaviour of Cambios and other editors here and at the AFD has disinclined me to consider whether their request should be granted. I will, however, point out that the AFD was quite a train-wreck and that Seicer's closure summary was completely necessary due to the length of the debate. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. The ones who failed to understand deletion policy appear to be the fans, not the closing admin. Seicer's close (give or take a minor typo) is clear and unambiguous: lack of non-trivial independent reliable sources. Set against this fundamental issue, things like WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:ITROCKS cut no ice. Sorry, that's how it is. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the result. Canvassing tends to backfire on Wikipedia, and when a bunch of new users suddenly show up on an AfD (which is a consensus discussion, not a vote) people are gonna want to investigate to see if there's any skulduggery going on. Even assuming good faith, there's more issues here than a Reader's Digest back-catalog - Vanispamcruftisement, off-wiki canvassing, Shadows calling Sora a Heartless, and character-assassination. Whatever possessed you to think that these would help save your article, please tell me where you got them so I can avoid that particular place, because they're slipping you some heavy-duty drugs. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 09:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Referring to anyone who joined in this debate as though they were here to subvert the Afd is ridiculous. I dont think canvassing is a problem here at all, and should be dropped on BOTH SIDES. Anyone who is interested in Threshold, or mud's in general was entitled to a voice. Please dont throw how this was about a single entry back as an argument. All the Wiki rules / policies use Afd's as examples.. therefore in principal every Afd is important. The majority of new people voting to keep who were new users took time to read all the rules / policies thrown in their face on every single post, learning how Wiki works should be applauded, not slammed. I have an incredibly bad taste in my mouth at the dismissal of new users by some long standing admins, who just "appear" to be elitist biggots. Thresholds entry does not interest me personally, though the dismissal of every existing MUD site / expert does. Threshold will not be harmed by this nonsense, so I dismiss conspiracy theories as noone would be so stupid as to think removing Threshold from Wiki was a win. However there is a loser, Wikipedia has yet more bad press on some incredibly high profile blogs about the terrible way information is decided on by personally biased, nd potentially unifomrmed individuals. The handling of this Afd has been appauling.. and as already stated one of the fundamental rules of Wikipedia on entry deletion has been broken. To me though there are several issues that needs to result in admins being suspended pending investigation as to their ability to edit such a high profile repository of knowledge. The questions are - Why, when the entry was editted as requested, where some edits reverted by admins voting to DELETE, and why were long standing editors who disagreed with Deleting admin blocked from entering this debate. Conflict of Interest is apparent. --MudMannUK (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC) (Minor edits as made unfounded statements) --MudMannUK (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize if my words came off as inflammatory (I can speak or nobody else), but posting to an off-wiki forum, board, or elsewhere and telling people to vote one way or another *is* canvassing, and generally nets the canvasser's side a loss. The only COI I can see here is on the side of the user who brought this for review (I'm not a MUD player, and looking at the article as it sits in OP's userspace it read like vanispamcruftisement). I have not seen any long-standing editors barred from this DRV (on either side) by any means, technical or otherwise, so please redact that sentence unless you provide diffs or links to logs as evidence of such. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 11:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you actually check out the post on the Top Mud Sites forum where the supposed "canvassing" took place? There is no call for people to vote - at all. The post says "I'm not sure if there is anything we can do about it". saying you don't know if there is anything one can do is about as far from canvassing as you can get. It is the OPPOSITE of suggesting action. The post is about the MUD community banding together to figure out a way to shore up its history. Before just blindly accepting accusations of canvassing, it might be a good idea to GO TO THE SITE and READ THE POST that supposedly represents canvassing. If any canvassing happened, it was the DELETE voters via #irc and email. That post on TMS is definitely not canvassing by any stretch of the imagination. Cambios (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize that canvassing on #wikipedia-en and thru email is impossible to prove on Wikipedia, correct? The statement you note above can indeed be construed as canvassing, especially given where it was posted. Please simmer down. Nobody is attempting to attack you or MUDs in general, sir. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 22:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, hard to prove. But when there are section of people's talk page that say things like "Please come to #some_irc_channel so we can discuss the Threshold AfD" that makes it somewhat clear? Right? Cambios (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Who posted the messages, which channel, and to whom? And, do you have any proof actual canvassing went on in those IRC channels? For all we know, the discussion could have been about something else related to the AfD, such as Seicer's ill-worded close. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 04:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Deletion No consensus was reached. AfD may not be a vote, but the fact that the majority voted to keep clearly indicates lack of consensus. Attempts at improving the article were stifled by repeated reversions of edits being made to do just that along with banning users without justification. Accusations of sockputtetry and meatpuppetry were thrown around without proper supporting evidence. Accusations of canvassing were thrown around despite admins who were clearly engaging in the same behavior. AfD was also closed improperly before the process was supposed to conclude. Samson (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus is not a vote, period. There is no but there. you can't pile on and claim consensus in the presence of obvious indication of offsite canvassing.--Crossmr (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So then how exactly is consensus reached? Surely it isn't the will of two people? Or three? Or even five? There has to be some way to measure consensus and in the real world most of us accomplish that by looking at who voted one way or the other. It seems entirely counter-intuitive that it should work opposite to reality here on Wikipedia. Even disregarding the obvious non-consensus here, you don't get to fling accusations of off-site cavassing when those who had legitimate reason to comment were prevented from doing so because of preemptive bans. You also can't use canvassing as any kind of excuse when your own administration was engaged in the same thing over IRC and their own talk pages. In the end though, it would be extremely helpful if someone could explain just how consensus works here so that it can be better understood by everyone. Samson (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus, which notes (in part): "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:DP#Deletion discussion also makes quite clear that asking others outside of Wikipedia to come to the discussion is quite inappropriate, and that such comments may be ignored. seicer | talk | contribs 13:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So why did you not ignore the users (one of which was the nominating one) who apparently went over to some IRC channel? Was there canvassing going on there? Jlambert (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't prove IRC because IRC comments are copyrighted by their authors (and thus cannot be posted on Wikipedia), and in any case canvassing on any Wikipedia IRC channel is just as bad as canvassing on Wikipedia itself and would have resulted in blocks. The admins are not corrupt, or at least not to the level you would assume them to be. There is no cabal, get used to it. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 22:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then I guess the TopMudSites.com forum posting can't be proven either since they are also copyrighted by their authors and thus can't be posted on Wikipedia. I'm at a loss to understand this kind of logic. Samson (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The forum-posting is publicly viewable though, lest I'm mistaken. IRC logs are not; that's what I'm getting at. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 04:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So an open, honest, fully viewable forum post that anyone can see, and decide about for themself is canvassing. But evidence of secret meetings to discuss a topic are not? That seems backwards to me. Furthermore, read the TMS post. There is no call for a KEEP vote or anything of the sort. At the time of the post, the OP was banned (and stop nitpicking, in the real world, ban/block are substantially the same. The real world isn't the Wikiworld) and had concluded all his Wikipedia options were done. That's the opposite of canvassing. But what I find most disingenuous is the willingness to obsess over such dubious accusations in lieu of evaluating actual arguments, points, and policy. Is this about making good decisions, or winning an AfD? If the former, then arguments matter. If the latter, scoring points of procedure matters. Cambios (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Reindent) That's just it. The forum is publicly viewable and thus it's impossible to twist one's words. Since the IRC logs are not public-viewable, it is impossible to tell whom said what and thus we cannot use them since we would be twisting words, whether we were aware of it or not. And, as has been explained, the post made there can (and was in this case) read as canvassing. Just because a post doesn't include the word "keep" or "vote" doesn't mean it isn't canvassing - it's just not as obvious and in some cases is a gray area. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 04:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well what happened to WP:GOODFAITH then? You're saying we have to assume nothing untoward when editors request a private #irc powwow in the middle of a hot debate, but then extend no similar good faith regarding a post made by people COMPLETELY SHUT OUT of Wikipedia with nowhere else to discuss things at all? This is why we keep screaming corruption and other such things. You are holding "newbies" to a HIGHER standard than long time editors, editors with 17,000+ edits, and admins. That doesn't make sense. The canvassing accusation needs to either stop completely, or be equally applied to both sides. Either way, it cancels out. Cambios (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not at all what I'm trying to imply. Impropriety on a publicly-viewable forum is very much easy to prove; IRC is a different breed ot Chu. I'm not saying you should assume nothing untoward; I'm saying that proving canvassing via IRC is impossible because the logs are private and even if you participated in the conversation, you would need to use not just your posts, but the posts of other people. Per RfArb/Durova, you would need permission from all parties who participated, and to use them you'd've had to c&p them locally. You are allowed to be reasonably suspicious of irc invites, but unless you have the chat logs and permission from all involved, you cannot say that canvassing was taking place via IRC. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 09:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well thanks for telling the world how to "canvas" properly. Next time something like this happens I'm sure observers to this whole corrupt mess will know to use IRC/IM/Email/Non-public forums/their MUDs/whatever in order to hide behind the same ludicrous copyright shield. Samson (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Back off that point, Arth. I am by no means telling the world how to canvass; I am merely stating that you cannot definitively prove canvassing in private chat logs or correspondence. That does not mean canvassed parties will not get blocked if someone gets suspicious of all the new accounts coming in at once to an AfD discussion. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 19:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if pointing that out opens the door to a serious loophole in your canvassing policies, but there it is. Arguments about being unable to use such places as evidence create the problem. Not people like me pointing them out. Samson (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not an argument; ArbComm (the equivalent of a high court on Wikipedia) has stated that private correspondence (including IRC logs) requires the permission of the parties who are to have their words quoted or else they cannot be used, and most Wikipedians construe this to be due to copyright reasons/misattribution. Link to relevant case and finding-of-fact: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Private correspondence. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 02:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It would also stand not to resort to making personal attacks with those you disagree with. seicer | talk | contribs 13:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn delete - No clear consensus for delete was reached among "long standing editors" even throwing out the 4 to 6 so-called meat-puppets. Deleting admin apparently ignored the blatant CoI of the nominating user (being banned from the game), the unusual repetition of arguments by same user (what 60+ argumentative posts!?!) that led to the ridiculous length of the AfD (another indication of an axe to grind), the Wikipedia User::talk shopping by same user in the edit wars of the page (what 6 requests for help?). I'd also note the blog authors who picked up on this are all major MMORPG developers and creators ("experts"), none of which even participated in the AfD to my knowledge (so much for the canvassing), and no doubt their largely negative views of Wikipedia contributed. Frankly, had the request for help editing the article been placed on the Mud:Talk page long ago, you might have seen a better article on Threshold by "experts" instead of the usual summoning of ignorant Wikipedia policy morons apparently far more interested in the destruction of information than adding it. My two cents. Jlambert (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close. There was not overwhelming consensus here, but I believe there was sufficient. Policy-based arguments seemed predominately for deletion, though it's always tricky when it comes down to the questions of how many and what type of sources meet WP:N. There are good faith, well-informed contributors on both sides, canvassing notwithstanding, and this closure would have been unpopular no matter which way it went. I think the deletion rationale was well advised. Typo is unfortunate, but oops. We're human. :) (Perhaps the admin should add the word "lack"?) If the userfied article can be expanded with sufficient reliable sources to address those concerns,
than then restoration to article space would not be inappropriate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist at afd. I completely understand the contentious nature of this AfD, and I am inclined to defer to the closer due to the massive external pressures on the case. Some of the newly-registered users may not appreciate just how disruputive canvassing is to a process that relies on consensus of a subset of users to acheive results that follow policy. The closer had the uneviable task of deciding how much weight to give all of the various arguments in light of the canvassing. However, these difficulties were exacerbated by closing the discussion a day early and deleting. In order to declare a rough consensus to delete based on that discussion, the closer necessarily had to afford little or no weight to the arguments of the 15+ contributors. Fine, sometimes it's appropriate to do that, but I think that absent a WP:SNOW-type case, the full allotted time should be allowed in order to give the contributors every opportunity to provide reliable sources (what a radical idea that would be) or to hone their arguements into something more policy based. I could understand, and would have supported, a speedy close/relist due to canvassing. In controversial cases most of all, process is important. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, I highly suggest that people not just blindly accept what the "powers that be" say is canvassing. Did anyone actually check out the post on the Top Mud Sites forum where the supposed "canvassing" took place? There is no call for people to vote - at all. The post says "I'm not sure if there is anything we can do about it". saying you don't know if there is anything one can do is about as far from canvassing as you can get. It is the OPPOSITE of suggesting action. The post is about the MUD community banding together to figure out a way to shore up its history. Before just blindly accepting accusations of canvassing, it might be a good idea to GO TO THE SITE and READ THE POST that supposedly represents canvassing. If any canvassing happened, it was the DELETE voters via #irc and email. That post on TMS is definitely not canvassing by any stretch of the imagination. Cambios (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed a sentence that might be interpreted as too aggressive. Cambios (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "I think it is in all of our best interests to fight against the erosion of our historical significance" reads very much as a call to arms to me, particularly in proximity to a link to the AfD. Per Wikipedia:Canvassing: mass posting, biased, partisan audience. Check. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So much for WP:AGF huh? Instead of interpreting, how about go with some direct, actual statements: "I'm not sure if there is anything we can do about it" If the guy wanted people to go VOTE, he wouldn't say he didn't even know if there was ANYTHING they could do. Sheesh. You have rogue admins BANNING people without warnings in violation of the rules, and have the gall to expect them to just logoff the internet completely and go read a newspaper?
- At this point, I'm waiting for one of these admins to yell in a Jack Nicholson voice: "YOU WANT ME ON THIS WALL! YOU NEED ME ON THIS WALL! YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" Look, why don't you save us all a lot of time and frustration and just tell us how this is your little fiefdom and policies and rules are happily ignored if they get in the way of your personal wishes. The rules are for the peasants, right? It really insults our intelligence the way "the powers" make up totally bogus excuses for their actions and (*choke*) decisions. Actual Policy has been completely ignored repeatedly by the people with the power. Somehow, it is only the newbies, readers, and "minor editors" that bear all the burden of showing good faith and proving every single statement with enough proof to satisfy a RICO jury. But the more power someone has, the less actual justification they need for their actions, the less suspicion their "questionable" actions receive, and the less they have to follow rules. Isn't that backwards? The best part of this is major media outlets are watching this whole situation, which is why every 4 hours or so the story hits another news organization or blog. You people are embarassing Wikipedia with each one of thise blatantly crooked "decisions." Cambios (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentence above is a "direct, actual statement." You asked if anyone checked out the site. I followed your link and did so. I find an exhortation to "fight". The fact that he worries that nothing can be done doesn't change the fact that he urged people to try. Canvassing may be innocently done and not necessarily in bad faith, but the problem with it is that it can skew the results of debates. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, absolutely NO EVIDENCE of canvassing. There is no "go vote KEEP" statement of anything of the sort. You are simply interpreting language however you see fit. You say it was canvassing because it suits your purposes to do so. Your accusation blatantly fails WP:V and WP:NPOV. Cambios (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this different from interpreting a simple request for an IRC conversation between two users who already knew about the AFD as a canvassing attempt? Why or why not? - MrOllie (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. So how about both sides stop accusing the other of canvassing? From the beginning, I have wanted to argue the merits. But that has been almost impossible to do as I have been faced with repeated bans, proven incorrect accusations of sockpuppetry, and completely unprovable accusations of cavassing. I would not even discuss these topics if people would stick to the facts and cut it out with the procedural motions and personal accusations (of which I have then been guilty of responding in kind). Cambios (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Side comment: To those who say the AFD was closed early, can you please point out where it says that AFDs have to be open for five days? The top of WP:AFD says "Articles listed here are debated for up to five days" (my emphasis). Stifle (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this is one of those things that isn't uniformly agreed upon. WP:Deletion process#AFD states "Every day, the day page (i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Year Month Day) that is more than five days old should be moved here. The decision to keep or delete a page is to be implemented only after this move has been performed." I personally close non-SNOWs/non-relisted discussions 120 hours after they are nominated. I know many admins close after 96 hours. Reasonable minds and all, but I think when there's likely to be a dispute, allow the full time for discussion. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion is clear: "The discussion lasts at least five days." Sandstein 16:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like we've got a conflict of policies then. Stifle (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep - but the definite language of WP:DELETE (which is a policy) compared to the 'maybe' language of the deletion process page (which is a guideline) implies that the five days - while perhaps not a hard and fast rule - is something that should be carefully considered before deviating. I'm not certain this was a good time to deviate from that policy, especially considering waiting the extra day would have eliminated a major point of this review. Ale_Jrbtalk 18:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ignore the meatpuppets and keep the self-promotional article deleted. DreamGuy (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion While not an overwhelming consensus, many arguments for keep are erroneous either in their interpretations of policies and guidelines or in their identification of sources. Even if my nomination were in bad faith, and my own !vote stricken/discounted, my rationale still stands and is still valid, as evidenced by the number of long-term editors endorsing the same view. In fact, even AfDs brought by editors banned from Wikipedia can and do remain open if there are good-faith delete !votes. Furthermore, Cambios' (and others) accusations of "administrative canvassing" (note I am not an admin, despite what User:Arthmoor AKA Samson claims on his blog) have already been answered, and the explanation accepted by Cambios. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As to the new article, all of the sources being used at present were evaluated in the AfD. If this DRV closes as endorse, it strikes me that WP:CSD#G4 applies. There should be no prejudice against recreation should new sources be revealed or if consensus changes as to the reliability of current sources. As to the question of a violation of process, and whether WP:IAR is appropriate for this situation, I have no strong opinion. I believe that it had become abundantly clear that no new sources could be readily produced, and that all remaining discussion consisted of arguments based on process and guidelines. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I retracted a statement regarding ONE OF MANY potential acts of canvassing, that's all. Don't even begin to say I "accepted" your denial in general. Since you've chosen to claim to be able to speak for me about my own opinions, I think I have the right to correct you: in my personal OPINION, I think you were emailing and ircing people like mad, and that every single action you have taken from the beginning was personally motivated in your vainglorious drive to gain adminhood. There was definitely some kind of #irc canvassing going on, because it was right there on your User:Talk page. Furthermore, as already noted, you were selectively canvassing through User talk pages by cherry picking previous editors of the article. That is an action expressly forbidden in the Wikipedia article on canvassing. Further, as you almost admit, your nomination was indeed in bad faith. You accused others of COI, while hypocritically never revealing your own. You are GAGGING for an adminhood, and know deleting articles is an easier way to "score points" than creating them. Your 63+ comments on the AfD were outrageous spam, and speak to your desperation to win the AfD at all costs for your dreamed of RfA (you even have RfA tips on your user page. LOL). Cambios (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's not go back into WP:ATTACK mode, please. WP:TEA ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 16:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake, from the way things played out it appeared as though you were an admin. So you're an aspiring admin instead. Some may not really see the difference. That aside, your conflict of interest in this matter is much clearer and was completely ignored by those who ARE admins. Samson (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist because the five-day period mandated by Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion had not elapsed at the time of the closure. No opinion about the merits of the closure. Sandstein 16:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist is the one thing we don't want to do here. Just look at that AfD. Whatever happens, we'll end up back here again. Endless circle? Black Kite 19:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The closer really should have thought of that before breaking the policy. I'd prefer an overturn, and I really don't want a relist. But given all the problems caused by admins of this site in the AfD and its close, I don't see any good solutions. Hobit (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close - Seicer's closing statement looks to be about right, from a perusal of the material. If it can be rewritten to meet the needs of WP:N and WP:RS, then recreation is fine, but the version I see doesn't really fly. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and rewrite: I am one of the supposed canvassed "barbarians at the gates" who commented on this AfD on my personal blog, as it was both relevant to the MUD/MMO community and a topic of conversation on peer blogs. Rest assured although I am a somewhat interested party from a professional standpoint, I have no vested interest in the actual topic. I have never played the MUD or are involved in its maintenance, unlike apparently most of the people in this discussion - it's painfully obvious that there is tremendous bias on both sides of this discussion, both pro- and con-. The article also appeared at first glance to fail WP:NPOV and could have used a rewrite and trimming. However there are many MUD entries on Wikipedia that have survived deletion challenges on notability grounds; MUDs are fictional works by their very definition and internet-based, and there is little to no sourcing that can be applied to these. The self-promotional aspects of the article can and should be removed. SJennings (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close - The arguments on the AFD had become (very) repetitive, as one can see from the great length of the discussion and the comments about the repetition on the AFD itself. Further discussion time would've only generated more heat, not more light. Please, please don't relist this right away, whichever way this DRV is decided. - MrOllie (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist - oh my. Closing this type of heavily contested debate early - even if arguments from people were without merit - was probably not the best idea. It's likely that the result would have been the same, so why that last day wasn't waited out is beyond me - WP:DELETE does ask for 5 days, and the snowball clause definitely doesn't apply here. *sigh* I have no comment on the article itself, or merits of the deletion. Ale_Jrbtalk 18:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close The only valid point I can see to relist is that the AfD was closed a day early. Considering this AfD to be a special circumstance where WP:IAR applies, it should stay closed. This was an exceptionally long AfD full of all kinds of nonsense that is not becoming to the encyclopedia. The vote was large enough already and the extra day would have meant even more drama. This AfD is a textbook case in how NOT to save your article for deletion. Under IAR the early closure was appropriate. Themfromspace (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see nothing wrong with keeping the recreated article in its current state, but as that was not the article discussed in the AfD I still stand by my endorse vote of the old article. If the Drv closes as an endorse I feel that the newly-created article shouldn't be deleted as a result. Themfromspace (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak overturn to no consensus Ok. I've given this a lot of thought. First, I'm good and tired of listening to the wailing and gnashing of teeth on offsite blogs vis wikipedia's horrible deletionism and cronyism. That doesn't need to be repeated here. Nothing that happened in that AfD is outside the realm of what can happen on any given day. Just because some editors feel that their opinions on subject XYZ are important doesn't mean that something orwellian and cruel is occurring should they be stopped from rushing into an AfD en masse. We have deletion debates that attract outside attention often. This one wasn't special. In order to ensure that the debate isn't railroaded, we limit comments or discount the opinions of seemingly new users. Normally we don't block users (and I'm not 100% sure what happened in that respect). But that is also not unheard of. For those of you coming from the outside world, please understand that the wikipedia of 2001 is NOT the wikipedia of 2009. As the encyclopedia grows, process has become more important (treat this as a flaw or a neutral feature as you will). Add to the the very real use of wikipedia for promotion of subjects and you come out with the need for administrators and editors to act forcefully on the margins of notable content. This doesn't always end well (as seen here) and it hurts (when the content is your own). But it doesn't make sense for us to have rules about third party coverage, self promotion and process control then throw those out upon request. It likewise doesn't cut the mustard (in response to Scott above) to say that the nature of the beast limits good sources. My response to that is just to apologize. We build articles from sources. If those sources are thin on the ground or non-existent, we can't just declare a free pass. That being said, the AfD may have been closed as no consensus and the new users dealt with more gingerly. Combine that with the early close and the combative nature of some participants and it becomes hard to judge consensus. Where it is hard to judge, we should be careful in doing so and give some benefit of the doubt to retaining content. However, I can understand the comments here endorsing deletion. Many keep votes were based largely or solely on premises flatly rejected at WP:AADD. Some were unfounded. But most were made in good faith and expressed some reasoning why the article should be kept. Likewise some delete votes were trivial and/or unfounded. However, I reiterate that the single best way to resolve this is to find sources, rewrite the article (currently at User:Cambios/Threshold), and bring a fresh version into mainspace that resolves the issues pointed out in the deletion discussion. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close. I suspect the article might be borderline notable personally, but there was nothing wrong with the close, this isn't AFD2, and see my comment about the sockfest above. Black Kite 19:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist - if the AfD was closed early while debate was ongoing it should not have been closed. No opinion as to the notability of the article itself. Raitchison (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to those arguing to relist. I believe that the result of a relisting will be more of the same (lots of needless drama, canvassing, puppetry). What would a relisting accomplish on top of the 180KB long debate that took place over four days? Even when closed early, this is easily longer than 95% of other AfD debates and in my opinion a relist will only be full of similiar headaches. Themfromspace (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A bit of an exaggeration? 100MB? If it's really that big might I suggest there's a problem with your storage methods? Relisting would accomplish allowing those who were banned from fixing it in the first place the opportunity to come back and give it a shot now. Though I suspect at this stage they're going to be unwilling to do so after having been intimidated and driven off by overzealous banhammer wielding admins. Samson (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad, I can't do math. Themfromspace (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to comment Please be aware that most of us were banned or requested to be banned before or right after the AfD was proposed while attempting to better the article. We were actually unable to participate in most of the AfD. Though I got my posting rights restored, I did not participate in any more of the AfD discussions. It is not uncommon that people with the same hobby/interest work on the same article. Calling us all meat/sock puppets across the board seems to hardly be in good faith. All you're teaching the casual user is that to get anywhere they have to point out that the other "side" was doing it also. There are no clean hands in this entire debate. Placing the burden of misbehavior all on one side is what got so many people interested in AfD in the first place and likely what made many notable people interested in this issue outside the scope of Wikipedia. Continuing to do so will only fuel the debate further. You may declare that we were canvassing, but Mendaliv also went to the talk pages of former editors of the Threshold entry who all edited it negatively in the past to come participate in the discussion. This is actually strongly discouraged by [WP:CANVAS]. In addition, the admin who eventually banned most of us was also editing the Threshold entry with Mendaliv. He retracted the bans when another admin who found us on the forum (the one that is spawning the canvassing accusation) actually reviewed the issue. And this is exactly why the drama continues. Blanket accusations against the people who fought to keep the entry encourage explanations. Pointing out how long the debate was only shows that there was no concensus when the article was deleted and the AfD ended early. Probably not the best thing to argue. Kallimina (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is if you all come at the same time and do something wrong, such as edit-war (i.e. constantly revert other editors). I assure you if someone had decided to seek dispute resolution rather than be a complete twat, this wouldn't have become a problem. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 22:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reponse Understandable. Please note that Nizevyn and I (two people who got banned) were not involved in the edit war. I made one edit with a request that a link be added since I could not do so myself. The edit war seems to have been between Cambios and Mendaliv with Black Kite possibly being involved to oversee the issue. In order to seek dispute resolution, one would have to know about it. By the time I found out that this was an option, I'd already been banned, so it was not an option. While there are things that seem second nature to heavy editors of Wikipedia, these things are not so obvious to casual editors. (For example, I didn't know that you had to talk about your reversions and changes on the talk page. I thought that simply doing it and making the comment in the Edit Summary was fine. I actually didn't know what a talk page was for until the AfD started. That was only because I had help in understanding it.) Wikipedia protocol is not something that is easy to learn. Should dispute resolution have been attempted before the CU requests and subsequent bans occurred? Kallimina (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It indeed should have, unless there was ironclad evidence of sockpuppetry. And you generally have to discuss on the talk page because many people gloss over edit-summaries, making them not too effective as a form of communication. It's a cycle called "(Be) bold, revert, and discuss". After this DRV, I'd be more than willing to help you out with Wikipedia policy questions you may have; just contact me via my talk page. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 04:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak endorse close with comments I am one of the people who was banned for sockpuppeting/editing in collusion/meatpupetting (I'm not sure which one finally stuck) while I was attempting to add citations I was digging up and listing in good faith. This was investigated and reverted. I am also one of those people who went offsite to discuss this issue having no recourse to deal with it on Wikipedia until admins from Wikipedia came to that site and aided. Requests for aid via the unblock process was met with no help, ridicule, and accusations of being a liar as evidenced on my talk page. One other person was banned for trying to edit, and 3 requests for meat/sockpuppeting was put in for people also working on the entry to try to better it who actually have had other contributions on Wikipedia. (It seems that only one person was allowed to work on the entry. Everyone else is a meat/sockpuppet or editing in collusion regardless of the nature of their contributions.) New citations were repeatedly removed, ridiculed, belittled during the AfD as attempts were being made to better the article. It became obvious that bettering the article was not allowed at this time with far too many people reverting the entry and removing any new citations based on their personal opinions backed by a lot of [WP:JUSTA]. This included citations from noted experts in the field of online gaming plainly stating that Threshold was considered notable to them regardless of their opinoins of Wikipedia. (Though, those experts were belittled and mocked on many User:Talk pages and and hit with accusations of canvassing. These are men with their own reputations at stake who are hardly likely to say something is notable when it is not, so accusing them of canvassing is incredibly disrespectful not to mention just ignorant.) At this time, if the article were restored, it would continued to be bludgeoned with [WP:JUSTA] which would just result in edit warring and someone(s) getting banned. Threshold's entry is obviously being held to a much higher standard than many of the entries that currently exist on Wikipedia, and as thus, it has no chance of surviving with too many people now having vested interest in seeing it stay or go regardless of the actual content entry. It is also highly doubtful that editors interested in bettering the article will be allowed to do so without being scrutinized heavily. Obviously, the people who were working to keep the article made terrible mistakes that flew in the face of many of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies as has been detailed in other comments. While I cannot speak for them, I can definitely state for myself that I now know the protocol FAR better than when this started though I am still learning. (For example, I am still unsure if I am allowed to make this comment. I assume it will be struck if I am not.) I do not believe that Mendaliv or Cambios started out with anything but good faith in trying to better the article, but this conflict of personality has grown to epic proportions. While I strongly disagree with some of the heavy-handed tactics in all this rather than the mediations and negotiations recommended by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, the situation has snowballed out of hand. A reset and rewrite seems to be the best option for everyone. (Apologies for the long comment. I couldn't find anything to suggest if this might be inappropriate.) Kallimina (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That was heavy-handed by the administrator handling it, who might have been interpreting ArbComm cases a bit too liberally. I will note that the article is indeed in Cambios' userspace at the present moment. And don't worry about your long comment. It's fine, although some people might go "tl;dr".-Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 22:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I think notability has been established - the MUD ranks #3 on the all time ranking of TMS (one of the two largest mud portals), which is sufficient. Verifiability of the article content is an issue, and it's further complicated by the obstructive behavior of editors who wish for the article to be deleted, one of them going as far as going to the MUD article to edit war over the inclusion of a link to http://topmudsites.com. All in all these editors have given the impression that they have an axe to grind and have used their experience to obstruct, rather than further the improvement of the article by adding sourced content. On the other hand, I don't think the newbie editors wanting to improve the article understand how to go about creating a decent article, and instead have gotten the impression that not the quality of the article matters, but how good you are at wiki lawyering and gathering support. Clearly that's an issue, but it doesn't warrent deleting the article either. The AfD should be overturned, given there are clear indications that the only reason that the article went up for deletion is because Mendaliv got tired of edit warring with Cambios. --Scandum (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn - no consensus for deletion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn There was no consensus to delete, and examination of the article and the sources indicate a sufficient foothold on notability to give the article more than the benefit of the doubt - this source is reliable and features the game in a "highlights" list. SilkTork *YES! 20:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn For improper handling of the deletation policy. The AfD requesters are free to make a new one at any time, which then (hopefully) will be less of a mess. --MartinSojka (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and Improve Overturn for clear violation of policy by the deleting admin, and for the apparent canvassing having come from both sides of the argument. As probably the most verbose editor proposing a KEEP who was not involved in the off-site canvassing, I have to say that I felt treated otherwise by the way the extensive efforts I made to provide evidence of notability in this case were shrugged off with bias. I do not believe that the Threshold article can be allowed to stand without being improved, but it is certainly notable. It disheartens me to watch self-destructive zealousness from one side hurt their chances at keeping their article, but it doesn't take away from the obvious conflict of interest and the field-experts' immediate response on their blogs. Do you think just any MUD's closing would cause such a widespread response from a hobby community? There is plenty of evidence that Threshold is quite notable, that has been dismissed suspiciously.
- COMMENT To me, the AfD should be given its last day, and perhaps some of the unbias admins reviewing this article should help guide the argument to a consensus decision. And for that day, it would be best for the overzealous on both sides of the argument to make their points clear, and let the thing come to a close. I am in the rather neutral point-of-view of being a non-fan of Threshold and the attitude from its administrator, but am a long-time enthusiast and contributor to the MUD community. After actually doing research, I do not think there is a case for deletion based on an argument of notability - though, I certainly think that the Threshold article should be improved and wikified. Donathin (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I find it telling that no one endorsing the decision has really addressed the main issue, which is why it is acceptable for the closing admin to not follow WP:DP when deleting an article. It is an absolute provable fact that multiple points of WP:DP were not followed. If we're just going to let people pick and choose which policies they adhere to, why bother having them at all? Anyone can see that the deletion must be open for five days and reach a consensus for deletion, yet these policies are apparently not important enough to follow to those arguing endorse as calling out unproven meatpuppets (which is apparently a critical policy). If you have an issue with a meatpuppet, take it up in the appropriate place, if nothing comes of it, you must WP:AGF. Thank you. --Theblog (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with that, Theblog, is that the "usual place" tends to draw more smoke than fire. There is also a policy we have called IAR which states If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. (emphasis in original) It is possible that the closing admin closed it early (thus invoking IAR) because he felt the discussion would not benefit from the full five days. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 04:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since he didn't use that argument I believe you are probably wrong. Additionally, I would like to hear the argument that overturning the required consensus for article deletion rule improves Wikipedia. Thank you for your input.--Theblog (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In some cases "consensus" isn't; i.e. there are meat- or sockpuppets, a group with a severe conflict of interest amassing !votes, or (as was assumed in this case) canvassing. In those cases, arguments from the suspect usernames are often not taken into account and not used to form the consensus. In this case, the closing administrator saw canvassing (whether or not it was actually there) and closed the debate against the side he saw was canvassing. IAR. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 04:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you show me the sockpuppet/meatpuppet list please? Also, please indicate where in WP:DP you can close a debate early due to what you are claiming. Additionally, according to the policy you stated above, couldn't I just restore threshold on my own then claim I was improving Wikipedia? --Theblog (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reposting an already-deleted article is disruptive unless it's significantly changed (as you're posting stuff the community has already indicated it does not want; consensus can't be IAR'd). The suspect usernames are marked with SPA tags in the AfD. Finally, Seicer was under the impression that keeping the AfD open would ultimately be a net disruptive to Wikipedia, Theblog, since the discussion was getting far too heated to be useful to anyone. Stop trying to process-wonk; editors do not like lawyers. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 04:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't accuse me of process wonking, I believe this has negative conotations and I am just trying to understand why it is permissable to not follow some policies. I hadn't seen the IAR policy before so wanted clarification. Your claim that all discounted users were tagged with SPA doesn't hold water, as there were still 17 editors without the tag making arguments for Keep. Their arguments have obviously not been heard. --Theblog (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrongo. They were heard, but their arguments did not best the arguments put forth by those arguing for deletion. AfD isn't entirely a vote, it's also a debate. The ones who provide the best arguments for their side (and the most people who agree with those arguments) often win. Consensus is not just numbers as regards AfD, but also the most reasonable arguments. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 05:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand all this as I posted above, please read my original argument as it clearly indicates I do, also please review LinaMishima's comments, as they make several similar points better. I don't believe many issues have been resolved, and your argument here that some "ignore policies" policy was the reason for not following WP:DP is especially weak. You also have ignored the original comment and state "They were heard, but their arguments did not best the arguments put forth by those arguing for deletion." however, this is not the case, the deleting admin stated that "few if anyone in support of the article actually improved the article or located additional reliable and verifiable sources" which is not an applicable standard, the deleting admin has seemingly made it up, instead you have chosen to rewrite it to a more policy acceptable view. We can only go by what the deleting Admin wrote, so it is fair to argue that the deleting editor applied a precident which is not supported by any Wikipedia policy. --Theblog (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have two intepertation of the same policy and guideline, regarding deletions, that in the future will need clarifications to ensure that such a debate can be minimalized in the future. I ignored all rules and closed the spiraling-downhill discussion; it was becoming rather unproductive (much like this DRV), and it was clear that with the canvassing and all of the heated discussions going on, that inching it out for just one more day wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference. Except maybe the addition of another arbitrary section break or two. Stop wikilayering and hounding; it's gotten quite tiresome. seicer | talk | contribs 06:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for finally addressing ONE of the original points, I await to hear your responses to the others. As an aside, please don't accuse me of "wikilayering" and hounding, they have negative conotations that don't belong in a civil debate such as I am interersted in engaging in. Thank you. --Theblog (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to Seicer and Jeske Couriano I have familiarized myself with WP:WL and in addition to the negative connotations I noted, it also states: "In any case an accusation of wikilawyering is never a valid argument per se, unless an explanation is given why particular actions may be described as wikilawyering, and the term "wikilawyering" is used as a mere shortcut to these explanations." Neither Seicer or Jeske Couriano explained their argument, so I am only left with the assumption they meant it in a negative way. Let us please keep the debate civil as I requested above and stick to just the known facts. Thank you for your contributions everyone. --Theblog (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because my comment about it was not at all part of my endorsement argument, Theblog. To say it was is utter and complete bollocks. Please do not twist my words; I was merely explaining (as best I could, not being him) Seicer's actions. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 06:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure, but userfy (already done) and fix if possible. Restore after another DRV confirms improvements. Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I read through the entire AfD, looked at a few of the external links, and skimmed the AfD Talk page.
- While seicer's early close is not something I would have done personally (not an admin), in general or in these circumstances, there is precedent for closing an AfD early if productive discussion has ceased, especially due to disruption. My impression is that canvassing and alleged puppetry had been reined in, but policy-based arguments were mired in the rapidly-accumulating heat: the early close was within seicer's discretion. I think that the early close should not be used as the sole or primary basis of a procedural overturn.
- One of the keep !votes that I recognized as that of an experienced editor was Casliber's. The rationale's reference to a "Computer Gamer" source was unclear: a typo referencing Computer Games Magazine, which was quoted in its entirety as four sentences from "The List"; a discrete source mentioned a few times, but never described in detail or linked; or something else. At the time of Calisber's !vote (diff), the CGM article had been described as a list/round-up; more information was added later. The rationale was challenged (convincingly, I think) by Themfromspace, Crossmr, and Mendaliv, but unfortunately never clarified. clarify, expand 05:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC) There was good-faith disagreement among experienced editors on whether the sources were sufficient. All of the keep !votes from experienced editors were (aggressively) responded to by editors supporting delete.
- Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response So you've pointed to one of the wiki editors who voted KEEP and assessed their comment (which was brief). What about the others'? What about all of the different points that I made, and were systematically ignored or vaguely brushed aside? The entire thing reeked of bias, from both sides. There was lawyering, from both sides. But the majority of the points made by wiki editors who were not canvassed and still voted KEEP - they were responded to rudely (even I was sockpuppeted at one point, I believe, and that is crazy -- I don't even like Threshold), or their points were danced around with vague arguments. I guess my point here is this AfD was handled very poorly by everyone involved, but that most of the least bias-inclined voters seemed to think there was enough to suggest notability and encourage a more encyclopediac article. Donathin (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All or nearly all of the many points advanced by you and Cambios were answered in some form. Some were based on rather novel interpretations of Wikipedia policy and could be reasonably dismissed. Some were answered succinctly and in Wikipedia jargon. I can see how either of these would look inappropriately dismissive. Flatscan (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion. There is no process error in the AfD that justifies overturning AND the closing admin was entitled to determine that delete was the consensus. That is, a delete was well within the bounds of rationality. I oppose relisting. The same long winded back and forth arguments will be presented, and the conclusion will be the same. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (without prejudice against relisting) for pretty much every valid reason that can be brought up at a DRV:
- Closure of a controversial AfD by a biased admin
- Misreading of consensus by closing admin (should have been no consensus).
- Serious procedural violation in a controversial AfD
To me this deletion review seems very clear-cut. TotientDragooned (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh please, tell me how I am biased? I don't play video games (as already noted), or specifically, MUDs. I had zero involvement with these editors prior to this, and only noted it because it was a lengthy, outstanding case that had devolved into a tit-for-tat. Like this. Comment on the article, not on the administrator. seicer | talk | contribs 22:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed with Seicer. Show me where he's stated he hates/is for MUDs or where he wrote his !vote on the Threshold AfD, and show me the actual no-consensus amongst the arguments posited in that AfD. Also, as I've pointed out above, Seicer had a good good-faith reason to close the AfD early: It had turned into a mud-slinging match. In fact, since there's so much mud being flung in this DRV, I wouldn't be surprised if *another* admin closes it early because it's devolved into a shouting match. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 23:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That, and there is no consensus to overturn. This is one of the longest DRV's that I have seen... and I haunt this place a lot :) seicer | talk | contribs 23:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's pretty long, but I think there are a few in the last 6-8 months that have whupped it. I remember an image debate that went on FOREVER. Protonk (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember that "forever" is a subjective term. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 02:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist even though it will mean another involved AfD. An admitted IAR delete early close in a matter being actively discussed with responsible editors on each side and a balanced number of !votes is simply wrong. this is yet another example of why the full time should be allowed on hotly disputed afds or ones involving major issues or acrimony--it can prevent or simplify the deletion review. The only proper course for AfD discussion when they get contaminated too badly, & I think this one was, is to start them over. In this case, the closing arguments "As such, the article is not written from a neutral standpoint. " and "few if anyone in support of the article actually improved the article" are not acceptable reasons. I know they are only part of the reasons. But they indicate that the closer was judging the quality of the article primarily, and the general tone indicates to be a decided feeling of annoyance which to my mind inhibits a dispassionate close. This has become personal between the two parties. (I didn't comment at this afd; I'm not sure how I would judge on the re-run--the fundamental issue is the need for customary RSs for early internet phenomena) I do know that IAR is only supportable in cases where every reasonable person would agree on what improved the encyclopedia, and that is manifestly not the case here. I certainly know that if anything I did as IAR was challenged to this extent, I would not insist on my decision. DGG (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- QUESTION: These two issues are being continually ignored. The closing admin gave as a reason for the deletion that nobody worked to improve the article during the AfD. That is not a valid reason for a close and delete. Furthermore, there is no possible way to contort the word "consensus" to reflect what existed on that AfD. There were many good, valid, policy-based arguments on the KEEP side. To say otherwise is a massive insult to a lot of long term, knowledgeable editors (and even a few administrators). You cannot re-invent what the word consensus means. To pretend there was a consensus to delete there is just false on its face. These two major issues have not been addressed:
- 1) The closing admin INVENTED new reasons to close and delete after an AfD. The most disturbing is the "nobody worked to improve the article during the AfD." That is simply NOT a requirement or a standard.
- 2) It is impossible to argue there was consensus to delete. No objective reader of that AfD would make such a conclusion. There were too many good, valid arguments on the KEEP side to say there was a consensus to delete. Cambios (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn closure Frankly one of the worst closes I've ever seen of an AfD. It was closed early, in violation of Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion. So there is a policy problem from the get-go and plenty of reason to overturn. Also, closing arguments were in part novel, had a huge typo, and invoke reasons for deletion that have nothing to do with any policy based reasons for deletion (nobody worked to improve the article as a deletion reason. Really?). On top of that the use of banning, at the least, could have been handled better and might have created a perception of admin bias on the part of those participating in the AfD. What a mess. Hobit (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not really see how the blocks of the users who commented on the AfD could have been improved, given that they were CU confirmed. The fact that a good-faith unblock of two of the accounts later occurred does not mean that the original blocks were invalid, as I pointed out to the users at the time. Black Kite 13:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you so afraid of good, well reasoned, accurate, on point arguments for KEEP? The whole "they were made by <insert excuse here>" falls flat. A good argument is a good argument. Furthermore, virtually every accusation of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry/marionette puppetry was *PROVEN* to be false. Squelching a well reasoned argument for such a flawed reason as "We thought it was a sockpuppet" doesn't pass the sniff test. This is one of the major reasons objective observers of the situation are so suspicious. If you believe so strongly that DELETE was justified, then you wouldn't need to squelch opinions. Ignoring good, logical, on point arguments for some arcane, procedural reason is silly. That is a large reason the media coverage (its up to about 20 major gaming blogs, 2 or 3 gaming news sites, and I am being interviewed by a radio station next week) of this incident is so overwhelmingly negative. Nobody who truly believes they are right fears the opinions of the other side. That leaves people to conclude there is some other motivation. Can you see how that looks? Cambios (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd recommend to Combios that the above be removed. If you have an issue with the blocks, take it to WP:ANI, this is the wrong place (and I think that's the right place) and in any case, your arguments have a very strong bad-faith component. Assume Black Kite did things for good reasons even if you think the results were wrong/bad (see WP:AGF). In answer to Black Kite, I do believe that the CU results might have been handled differently by another admin and in any case led to what could reasonably be perceived as an intimidating situation in the AfD. That's all I'll say here on that topic. Hobit (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd love to know which "other admin" would not have blocked CU confirmed socks - one of which was blocked by the CU himself! This is ridiculous. Black Kite 18:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The closer gave too much weight to his own opinion rather than finding consensus or lack of same. The erroneous timing of the close is also unacceptable for such a high-profile case. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Overturn-ish (Disclaimer: First account, was created to correspond with an admin to assess usability of a source on wikipedia) I have a suggestion on handling that I believe parties on both sides of the discussion may find amicable. The primary focus for deletion has been that of notability. With this, there then came to contention as to what sites and publications (and what constituted significant enough coverage) could establish notability. Since much of this becomes subjective (does a text-based online roleplaying game being mentioned in a list of independant online games, when Everquest, Star Wars Galaxies and other 3D rendered MMORPGs were prominent games, constitute notability?) I suggest that the resolution be to allow random editors to determine notability. The method I suggest is to recreate the page as a stub and add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games. Along with this, request that those with a vested interest in the game (players, ex-players, admin, etc.) maintain a "hands-off" approach to the article, but being able to provide prominent references within the talk page. Then, wait. If no independent party takes it upon themselves to expand the stub into an article within 6 months, then the entry should be recommended for speedy deletion under G7 by Cambios. Ismarc (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC) (woops, forgot to sign it)[reply]
- At present the article's being worked on in userspace as a contingency should this DRV end "Endorse". Creating a stub in mainspace would negate any progress being done (as it would mean the draft would have to go), so it might be best to focus one's attention to the draft article instead. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 00:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How long do DRV's last? This has already turned into AfD v2. (and are DRV votes? if not, should a not vote template be placed at top?)ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably better to redact your statements. Pressure to close the AfD early seems to have resulted in objections that played a big part of this DRV and caused scrutinity to fall on Seicer which only confused the issue more. Just let this play out by the rules, so it can be over. Kallimina (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I never meant to accuse anyone, nor was the above statement aimed at closing the DRV early. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Closure, a difficult case to be sure, but I believe that the correct result was arrived at. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- OverturnThe resolution stated there there were "no references" while ignoring both a cited magazine article and the information on mudconnector.com The bottom line is that an article on one of the more notable MUDs, certainly one of the top 20, was deleted without sufficient consideration. Fred Talk 17:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh. Huh. Didn't notice the DRV when I created a brand new article on this notable game with three reliable secondary sources. Oops. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, as phil has stated, he recreated the article. I would invite the closing admin of this DRV to see if the end result of the content on that page meets our guidelines (or is a G4) before deleting it, should the result be an endorsement of the deletion. Protonk (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A draft article was being worked on in userspace as a contingency should this DRV end Endorse or No-Consensus. Were it me, I would have checked to see if a draft article that tried to address some of the issues of the original was being actively worked on, and worked with the editor drafting it if that were the case. Note that I mean no disrespect to Phil; I'm merely stating that Kalli is making a similar thing in her userspace, and has for at least the past 48 hours. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 00:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If we believe Phil, he never saw the DRV so he wouldn't see either Cambios's article or Kalli's article before making his. Protonk (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I knew that the article had been userfied, but I consciously did not look at anything derived from previous versions of the article so that there could be no suggestion that I was recreating the deleted version. Safest way to make sure the article I created was taken on its own merits. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse closure. There weren't reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. Have some pity for the admins who have to put up with so much nonesense. Not really relevant here, but the recreated version still doesn't establish notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which two the three cited sources do you consider insufficient to establish notability? Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Either overturn deletion outright or Relist - and require that the closing admin be both impartial and somewhat acquainted with the topic area. (Per Fred, this is a notable MUD, there are published sources, and the closing admin apparently is not aware enough of the topic area to evaluate this area within context) ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. As a long-time editor and creator of one of the most popular templates on Wikipedia, I've seen a lot of stupid debates. This is, by far, one of the dumbest. I'm amazed by the complete lack of due diligence and good faith, the extraordinary amount of disrespect directed at new editors (shuffled under the rug called "canvassing"), and self-centered proselytizing. Guess what, people: there's an entire world out there with billions of people who have an infinite number of interests. One man's trivia is another man's passion. As I wrote in 2005, "Esoteric subjects are inherently noteworthy for encyclopedic inclusion. The appearance of a deficiency of information about a subject should prompt further inquiry about the subject instead of blunt opposition to the subject's inclusion." Furthermore, "Human consensus does not generate reality. Were it able to do so, the Sun would have taken to orbiting the Earth some time ago." Overturn this repugnant decision. Smash the deletionist administrator's ego. And get back to doing what you, as an editor, are supposed to be doing: improving Wikipedia by improving articles, not burning them in a bonfire. Adraeus (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, notwithstanding the hysterical comparisons above. We need significant amounts of reliable source material to write an article. In the article we've got now, we've got one blog entry, one effectively self-published source, and one trivial name-drop. This is not substantial sourcing, and as far as I can find, it's all there is available. We can't write a decent article from blurbs and unreliable sources. They need to be substantial. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are actually more than that, please read the entire AFD discussion, along with the current talk page and the history of the talk page or talk to Kallimina or Cambios, as they probably have an more up to date list. Additionally, some of the sources have been wrongly described as "effectively self-published" by Mendaliv in the initial argument of the AFD, later on in the AFD he admits that that statement is a misrepresentation, again, please read the whole thing. While it is tempting to do so, the content of the current article is not a valid reason for deletion per WP:DP. --Theblog (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn . Whether Seicer closed it within X time frame isn't an argument I want to get into. But as is well known, AfD is not a vote. Based on WP:Notability though, and a bit of common sense, I believe it was right to delete it at that time (Others may disagree). However, several websites (not counting the blogs) with reasonable Alexa ratings for Game websites have since posted on this incident, and have attributed some reasonable notablity to Threshold to an extent it is more than reasonable for it to remain as an article. I want to also flag up and remind people of the Wikipedia Policy Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (This is opposed to the guideline that Wikipedia:Notability is of course).
| “
|
If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.
|
”
|
Wikipedia of course has the goal of creating a free encylopedia:
| “
|
An encyclopedia (or encyclopædia) is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.
|
”
|
Notability is a guideline based on the common sense question: will enough people be interested in this information and knowledge to warrant its appearance in the encylopedia? The fact so many people have now written about this AfD and how they think it shouldn't be deleted, it has clearly been shown that there is sufficient demand and need for this information and knowledge. Not only that, the whole process at the moment is preventing you all doing more productive things around the project! I know some of you are afraid of "losing face" or whatever, but just use some common sense and put emotional battles you've all had in relation to this article aside and remember the real goals for why we are all contributing to this project. Give this argument a rest and I don't know, help out with the time saved at Wikipedia:Requested articles perhaps? Agent Blightsoot 01:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In all due respect to many of the people commenting here, excessive canvassing for an AfD is not a reason to delete an article. J.delanoygabsadds 05:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, considering that the existing article is completely different than the one that was deleted, I would recommend a procedural close of this DRV in favor of starting a new AfD, if that is what is desired. J.delanoygabsadds 05:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and Keep, with a two week grace period for article improvements to whichever version, and then relist a new AfD There have been errors and misbehaviors all around, as noted above, but per the arguments advanced Phil Sandiver, J.Delanoy, and Protonk, I think the article needs a second chance: 1) MUDs are notoriously hard to RS, and Threshold does as good a job as any of them. 2) Now that some more experienced editors are involved, I expect the process to be improved: yes, some immature things were said and a number of fans rushed to Wikipedia, but Bartle and Koster are MUD luminaries ("established experts in a relevant field" in WP:V terms) and punishing a bunch of newbies because they didn't behave per established guidelines is a WP:POINTy way to be WP:BITEy. Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
