Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute

Comments have been moved from the main page where noted, apologies if I've made things confusing for anybody, feel free to edit for clarity as appropriate. Oh, and I don't feel like doing it anymore, so I hope somebody else will finish up the job. FrozenPurpleCube 22:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The BLP issue

Re: the comment by User:gaillimh. How can anyone who looks at the version of the article as returned to AFD by Xoloz claim that this met WP:BLP's unsourced test? It was far better sourced than the average BLP. Per WP:BLP, "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion." If the article is sourced (and this one has been since the very first edit), then it is not unsourced, and that sentence does not apply. I keep feeling like people are not actually looking at the evidence before they opine, because the BLP delete position is plainly wrong. GRBerry 02:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And it's arguable that an article about a subject that willingly participates in the issue that causes the BLP questions is even "controversial." --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the main concern is this is the only thing the guy's famous for. Sure we have info on Michael Jackson allegedly molesting kids or the Mel Gibson DUI incident, in fact they have their own separate articles distinct from the celebrity page. But this guy isn't a celebrity for anything else. I still don't think BLP applies, as this guy is cashing in. Notability might apply though. -N 02:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Berry, simply because you disagree with my position does not mean that I didn't do my due diligence in analysing the situation, and to state otherwise is a bit silly and also getting a bit personal, no? This is clearly a boderline case of notability given that the fellow has achieved fame via what is colloquially known on the internet as a "meme". In these cases, our rule of thumb is to do no harm (the preceding was a direct quote from BLP). Keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that endeavours to allow eeach and every person to freely access the sum of the world's knowledge; this article surely has no bearing here, and as mentioned, we should always strive to act with basic social graces and not use Wikipedia to further perpetuate this meme, which has brought the fellow some grief. So, of course BLP applies, both in spirit and to the letter gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

How is eleven independent sources borderline? We have featured articles with fewer sources with the subject as the main topic than this has. How is an article on a self-promoting famous person doing harm? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, multiple times) How can we be doing harm, when he is trying to cash in on the meme? This was cited in the article, to this article in The Independent, which says "Qian has decided to try to turn his web notoriety into hard cash." (and goes on to say that he hasn't succeeded yet). It is also a reasonable interpretation of the last pargraph in this article from the UK's Times Online (website for The Times). GRBerry 03:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Gary Brolsma, anyone? How about Alex Cora, he's only got a page for being a baseball player, he's not a celebrity for anything else, either. Or maybe Paul Anka, who's only a celebrity 'cause he sings good. How far can we take the illogical conclusion on this one? Why are people bothered by this? Because kind people generally don't make fun of overweight people. This isn't random fat dude down the street, though, this is a highly famous individual who, while famous because of his appearance, self-promotes it. It's not even in the same league, and if BLP was created with situations like this in mind, it's an even worse failure than I already thought. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Or Richard Simmons. I mean, seriously. -N 03:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to say "This person isn't important for anything meaningful" well, that's an issue of notability, not BLP. BLP is for cases where there aren't reliable sources for the material. There were sources. So, that's not a valid argument. Besides, the real problem here isn't whether this is or is not BLP or anything else, it's the actions taken. FrozenPurpleCube 03:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

On JzG's commentary

As a note about JzG's position on the matter - the who in deleting the page is irrelevant. Whether you work with OTRS or are an administrator or the King of France, your opinion is no more important than anyone else's. If anything, the amount of OTRS people may suggest an improper weight given to BLPs in general given the sensitivity of other cases that don't unquestionably meet the criteria. The OTRS issue is a red herring.

I'll also note that JzG says that this has no comparison with Daniel Brandt, as Brandt is a willing participant - also false. An assessment of the sources reveals that this person is also a willing participant, perhaps even moreso than Brandt.

I keep finding more flaws in this - "haste, aggression, hysteria?" Do you know when those things occurred? Around the time the second AfD, created because of a consensus overturn of the first one, was deleted. In haste. Aggressively and arguably hysterically. If this article really should be gone, it would be by now if it wasn't for the hasty, aggressive reactions of administrators who apparently don't give a shit about other people's opinions, since, after all, they're OTRS volunteers and know better than the rest of us. Sorry, that doesn't fly.

And fine, I'll address my "bad faith" as well: I don't see worth in RfC, and this is a charade. We all know it. It's here because ArbCom won't accept a case before an RfC, so we're doing the RfC. If the RfC fails to resolve the issue, we move to the next step. Don't preach to me about going through each step of dispute resolution, and then accuse me of bad faith when I do so. All that does is prove my point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop throwing around the "consensus" buzzword. You know as well as I do that there was no consensus in this entire affair, even from the very first AFD. If there are still dissenting arguments, then consensus has not been reached. When consensus is not reached, you do not get permission to ram it through DRV as many times as you can to overturn the ruling. Instead, you bring up your concerns on the closing admin's talk page.

OTRS volunteers are some of the most patient people in all of Wikipedia. They do "know better" than the rest of us. They've seen the "dark side" of Wikipedia. They've dealt with the most serious BLP violations. Perhaps they know a thing or two about BLP. It would be ignorant to deny that fact.

Earlier, you were unwilling to go through the proper means of dispute resolution. You showed distaste in putting this dispute through RfC. Instead, you opted to go straight to ArbCom and get your enemies sanctioned. That's a profound display of bad faith, if I've ever seen one. Sean William 13:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus" isn't a buzzword, it's policy. It's one of the most important principles on the project. We had a consensus closure on the first AfD, we had a consensus overturn on the following DRV. Rgiht now, the state of things does not reflect reality, and no one's looking to "ram it through DRV as many time as[they] can." No one's suggesting that. Secondly, good for OTRS people - they're "some of the most patient people in all of Wikipedia." That simply does not give them undue weight in a discussion. Thirdly, there is no "proper means" of dispute resolution. There are suggested means, and there are different places you can go. I went to ArbCom to appeal the deletion, which is what i've been told to do numerous times in other contentious cases. ArbCom rejected as premature, so I came here, even though I don't believe in the RfC process. That's not bad faith, that's doing what people ask of you when reasonable. Nothing wrong with that, and I soundly reject the false accusations about my motives. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If there was "a consensus closure on the first AfD", I don't even understand how it managed to get to DRV, never mind get an overturn result (and you know as well as anybody that DRV doesn't even run on consensus, another little oddity which ought to be considered at some point). —Phil | Talk 14:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to fix up DRV, but any deletion result can be challenged at DRV, as you well know. If fault is found, it gets relisted. That's what happened here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If there was "consensus" the first time, then why are we still here? Sean William 14:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Because there was consensus the second time that has been soundly ignored by disruptive administrators. Again, we don't have to be here. The AfD could be running right now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the second time. I'm talking about the first. Was consensus ignored when it was first sent to DRV? Sean William 14:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I know you're not talking about the second time, you're willfully ignoring it. Consensus was not ignored - DRV is the place to appeal deletion decisions and it was overturnd by consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I missed a step in your derivation there Jeff. DRV is very much not a consensus process, it's a straight up and down vote. The original AfD had consensus, you admit that Jeff, and was closed properly. The overturn was improper. All else follows. But that's all process wonkery, it just happens to come out correctly. What really matters here is doing what is ethical, not what process dictates. That's fundamentally what IAR is about, doing the right thing. The right thing in this case, the kind, proper, ethical thing, is not to foster a hateful internet meme. Not every ephemeral pahenomenon needs documenting. And certianly not right away. There is no rush. In a year we can revisit this but for now, the article should stay deleted. Regardless of process. Because it's the right thing to do. ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The overturn really wasn't improper, and what's "ethical" is hardly open and shut, especially concerning situations regarding self-promoting meme-types. The right thing, in this case, is to have an article on "one of the most famous faces in China." You're allowed to disagree, but you're not allowed to shut me down, as everyone who fears the overturned AfD does. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, the only person who has special privileges on Wikipedia is Jimbo, and even he is not infallible or omnipotent. The mere idea that some users are "better" than others is quite disturbing to me, as I'm concerned that's the sort of thing that leads to cabals and cliques, that encourages divisiveness and leads to more conflict, because it sets some editors up in a role where they're set up against other editors. That's not a good idea. Besides, if anything, those editors having more experience should have told them that their methods were flawed in attaining the outcome they desired. FrozenPurpleCube 14:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I seriously think the "omg look who's on each side of the wheel war" is bullshit. I disagreed with the actions taken, and I'm an administrator, but because I didn't participate in a wheel war I don't get counted as opposing what was done? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Query for Jeff

If your point is that RFC rarely if ever resolves anything (except letting off steam, which can be useful in and of itself), then I tend to agree with that. However, in a not-so-hypothetical question, what would you do if the ArbCom either rejects your new case, or opens it and draws a conclusion that disagrees with you? Radiant! 13:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If Arbcom rejects the new case, then there's no further reason or way to pursue the wheel-warring and inappropriate closures. I would likely try another DRV, and, assuming it is allowed to go to its proper conclusion and is closed via consensus, go with whatever that ruling ends up with. I'll re-iterate, as I've said many times already - if the second AfD had been allowed to complete, or any of the following DRVs, or that third AfD, we wouldn't be here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Will you accept the result of this RFC if as seems likely there is not consensus to rerun the deletion review? If not, what will be your next step? --Tony Sidaway 14:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The RfC really can't result in anything like that. The deletion review (or AfD, really, since that's the state we're supposed to be in at this point) needs to be run to come to a consensus on the article. Arbcom is almost certainly the next step unless some things occur. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. So if you don't get consensus for a fourth deletion review or a fourth rerun of the deletion discussion from this RFC, you'll proceed to apply for arbitration. Is that right? If so, what will you do if the arbitration committee either rejects your application on the stated grounds of a request for a mandated rerun of the deletion discussion or deletion review, or rejects it outright? --Tony Sidaway 14:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No consensus is going to come of anything from this RfC, that's not what it's designed for and it doesn't result in anything. barring the run of AfD or a DRV that was supposed to occur following Xoloz's close, this will end up at Arbcom by my hand. I can't speak for anyone else pursuing arbitration for the wheel warring. Now, if Arbcom still rejects it, I'll request a DRV. If it gets speedy closed, we'll cross that bridge when it comes, but I will no longer have a problem once either a) a consensus result is reached regarding the article, or b) an arbitration result is reach regarding the article and behavior of the participants. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying here and now, that if the arbitration committee rejects your application next time, you will open a fourth deletion review? --Tony Sidaway 14:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review is where to appeal poor deletions. One would think that, given the extent this has gone, the disruptive elements would allow consensus to be formed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that a "yes"? If there isn't consensus here for rerun (which doesn't look likely at present), and the arbitration committee won't grant you a rerun (which could happen, but may not), then you'll try to initiate a retun anyway? Is that what you're saying? --Tony Sidaway 15:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I will attempt to run a DRV if nothing forces one - this format is incapable of actually gaining consensus for one due to a variety of factors. If the DRV is allowed to run fully, there's no further problems. If not, we'll cross that bridge when it comes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't hurt me, but I've started another DRV. -N 19:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As someone who thinks the article should exist, this was a bad idea. The article will either be addressed at ArbCom, or addressed after it's clear ArbCom won't address it themselves. At this point, it's not going to go anywhere. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Pardon me for sticking my nose in here, but why does it matter where consensus is formed? If a consensus forms here that the article should remain deleted, what purpose is served by "validating" that consensus at Deletion Review? I guess I don't understand why the forum matters, as long as reasonable notice has been given. Badlydrawnjeff, can you explain why it is so important to you that this discussion be had at Deletion Review or Articles for Deletion instead of as a part of this Request for Comments? Do you believe that the community has inadequate notice of this Request for Comments for a consensus to develop here? Do you simply feel that this Request for Comments has not resulted in a consensus? (Apologies if some of the above is asked and answered.) Chromaticity 14:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This isnt the proper forum for it. If it results in a conseneus, great, but that's not what it's here for. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that that is all the answer you're willing to offer. I thought the purpose of the Request for Comments process was to allow for community comment on any particular situation with the hopes of generating a community consensus on how to deal with the situation. Am I mistaken? If I am not mistaken, how is this not a suitable place to have this discussion? Given that the discussion is here already, how does moving it elsewhere help? Chromaticity 15:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think, because at best, I suppose the hope is that folks (here) will consent to an AFD/DRV, but not to a decision on this article. FrozenPurpleCube 15:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that made my brain hurt. Are you suggesting that there are people who will consent to having a discussion about this article, but will not consent to actually making a decision as a result of that discussion? What, then, is the point of having the discussion? Chromaticity 15:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I left out a "here" . This is because it's an RFC, not a discussion which can be closed with a decision. There's obviously enough positions being taken here that I'm going to be doubtful about any kind of resolution coming about through this process. FrozenPurpleCube 16:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the RFC format is a format designed to prevent the formation of consensus. It may show that one existed, if the main page comes down one way or another with no significant dissent, but all discussion is supposed to be moved to the talk page. As it is discussion that creates consensus, the format here will prevent the creation of consensus. GRBerry 16:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• That's an interesting question, what can a person do when the avenues to resolve an existing problem aren't open? Or when the avenues taken don't result in a solution? But the answers to that are almost so open-ended that it's probably unfair to ask anybody to say what they'll do before the events that decide their actions happen. However if you're asking "Will this thing quietly go away?" if there isn't a solution that addresses the problems that came up in this affair, I hope that doesn't happen, and I don't think it will. Now there are disruptive and non-disruptive ways to protest any non-solution, and I hope Jeff and others choose the non-disruptive ones, but even there, it's such a wide number of choices, that I can only speak for myself in saying "I'll protest any non-solution in as non-disruptive manner as I can" . FrozenPurpleCube 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "You can't always get what you want..." (M. Jagger, 1969) Raymond Arritt 15:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just." Abraham Lincoln. Want me to throw a few dozen more quotes around? Quotes are a nice way to encourage yourself, possibly others, they're a poor way to have a discussion. FrozenPurpleCube 15:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

FloNight's outside view...

What? Difficult cases need less discussion? I'm sure someone understands why not allowing review of controversial closures encourages trust, but I don't... -Amarkov moo! 14:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between reviewing a closure and vilifying an admin who closes a discussion the way you didn't want. If you don't understand the difference and why we should treat them differently, then you need to step back and reconsider whether you should be taking part in discussions on such important subjects. —Phil | Talk 15:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If the later closures were by consensus rather than by strongarming, there'd be no issue here. The closure of the second AfD and the denial of any appeals processes stemming from that are the problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if the first AfD outcome had been respected there'd be no issue here. WjBscribe 15:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It was respected, and overturned. Happens all the time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Was there something wrong with the conduct of the editor who asked Daniel to change his mind, and who convinced him of it? Was Daniel not supposed to be open to a well-reasoned argument? I suppose you can say if nobody had said anything, none of this would have happened, but unless you think there was something wrong with asking an admin to change their mind, I don't see a problem with that aspect of this chain of events. FrozenPurpleCube 15:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with asking an admin to reopen an AfD and Daniel did so. But at that point the AfD could be closed by any other admin evaluating the consensus (something Daniel has agreed is correct). Drini did so - that was a valid close. DRV should not have overturned that close. WjBscribe 15:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You should really re-read the first DRV. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree, I see no evidence that Drini's close was valid, and DRV was right to overturn it. Sorry, but all I saw was an admin making the decision "This has had long enough" when a previous admin had just said "Well, I closed this, but then I was told this new thing, so I think this should be re-evaluated". Compounded with Drini's further actions here and elsewhere, I'm disinclined to accept that Drini did indeed make a valid decision at the time. Perhaps that's unfair, but when your response to criticism of your decision is under such terms, I'm inclined to doubt the initial decision. FrozenPurpleCube 15:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the idea that strong criticism of admins weakens them. This is not so. Criticism of people with greater responsibilities is highly desirable. If they're weakened by it, it's because they're doing wrong. While certainly unfounded criticism can hurt, and can even be harassment and bullying, that doesn't mean all criticism is wrong. There is a reason why Lèse majesté is widely rejected as a legal principle. Sorry, but just because you're an admin doesn't mean you're sacrosanct. You can be criticized for doing the wrong thing, and that has no more protection than any other editor's actions. To respond to the above comment, nobody should be vilified. This only means any criticism should be made in reasonable terms not that it should be prohibited. FrozenPurpleCube 15:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You totally miss the main point of my comment. These closures are judgment calls. In some cases conflicting policies make a closure a close call based on a broad understanding of multiple policies. It is unfair to be critical of admins that use their best judgment in these situations. By constantly reopening discussion where there is not a perfect answer, you undermine the part of the process that allows for thoughtful admin discretion on complex issue. We need to accept these closures until the situation changes significantly. Otherwise, we will go around and around and around in these discussions with out any definitive outcome that is good for the project. FloNight 16:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

By refusing to allow criticism, you're undermining the part of the process that allows for dealing with thoughtless admin actions. In this case, the initial closing admin thought the situation had changed significantly. So he validly re-opened it. The response? A closure that did not consider the change in the situation. Sorry, but while certainly endless bickering is bad, the idea that the only way to avoid it is to not allow any criticism at all is even worse. The key, as I said above is reasonable criticism. Which should be followed with a reasonable response. That does not include the equivalent of "Admins are not to be criticized, for such offends their dignity". Perhaps I'm misreading you, but that's what you seem to be saying. I'm sorry, but I find that idea very frightening. It results not in avoiding bickering, but in a chilling effect in reaching consensus. Be concerned about rational responses to decisions. That's fine. But I think you go too far and are now saying "Don't criticize them at all" . FrozenPurpleCube 16:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly Wikipedia policy allows for discussion. What I'm asking for is self censorship early in the process to avoid time wasting, ill will provoking debates about issues where no definitive conclusion can be reached that will please everyone. Users that repeatedly provoke these needless discussions cause the community and the encyclopedia harm. They really need to stop and think about what they are doing. I hope my comment will help some users reflect about how they handled the situation and will take a better approach next time. That is the point of a Request for comment, right? Take care, FloNight 16:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, in so far as any criticism of admin action should be on reasonable terms, that is acceptable to me. The problem is, when that does happen, the result should not be to forbid criticism, but to respond to it, to address it. I think the attitude that criticism is bad leads to much harm as well, that it will actually provoke more harm to even give the slightest endorsement to the idea which you seem to be espousing. Say any criticism should be done after thinking about it, that's fine. But you seem to be going too far and saying none at all. FrozenPurpleCube 16:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• All I can say to this is when the basis comes to protecting a "non-public person" (a noble goal, if not somewhat misinterpreted), this would not apply to "one of the most famous faces in China" according to numerous sources listed above. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Badlydrawnjeff (talk • contribs) 14:04, 22 May 2007

  Two points:

  1. he was a minor, sixteen years old at the time of the offense against him
  2. he had no choice in the matter, the affair was through no fault, deed, or omission of his own. --Tony Sidaway 14:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Lots of people become public figures while minors and/or thorugh "no fault of their own" -- they are still public figures. DES ^(talk) 22:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff on drini's summary

I thought RFC was a way to give everyone a voice and enodrse statements they agree on. When someone disagrees on a statement, they just don't endorse, not repeatedly provoke people giving their views calling them liars. There are multiple point of views and people can endorse those they think they're right. But participants are expected not go under each statement they disagree attacking it. If you think a view is erroneous, don't endorse it, endorse those you believe in. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 16:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I won't stand for you making false statements about me. Move the commentary here to talk if you prefer, but I won't stand for dishonesty. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting a copy of drini's summary, and the bicker-fest that followed it, here. The rowing doesnt belong on an RfC. --Tony Sidaway 16:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

And finally, Jeff seems to be seeking blood, if nobody is punished then justice has not been done. RFC is forming consensus, even though some statements above are in denial about it. They will go arbcom regardless of what RFC outcome is (unless it is what they want) , and they've stated it many times in the past days. They're for vengeance. They want to kill. And if Arbcom rejects the case, they will keep opening review after review after review until they get what they want'[1]. As I said, if they really want punishment, they should seek punishment on both sides. They claim about disruptive behaviour. Their blind vengeance thirst is more disruptive. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 15:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Viciously false. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  just like your statements? -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 15:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  I have not made any viciously false statements such as these. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  ANother one? I think you're lying in your statement, but I dont' go provoke you there. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 15:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  Where am I lying? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  Where am I lying? -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 15:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  This is MY statement, you may choose not to endorse, while others think I'm right and will endorse. stop picking a fight in here. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 15:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  That I'm "seeking blood," that I'll go to Arbcom regardless of the outcome, that I'll open "review after review after review." none of these are true, and they are designed to further drag my position into disrepute. For shame. You wanna stop picking a fight? Stop being dishonest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  I'm saying and several people have agreed on me that you seem to be seeking for blood. That's my view and others agreed with me. You may not be doing it, but certainly looks like -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 16:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  "Jeff seems to be seeking blood" is pretty clear. Just because the usual suspects are very quick to attempt to try and kock me down a peg means nothing - it simply makes them as pathetically dishonest as the statement is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

DEindent> Yeah well, that's what I meant with "Jeff doesn't listen to many voices if those are the voices that disagree with him". -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 16:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest ceasing your commentary if it's not going to be honest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm being honest. I believe every word of what I'm saying. Just as you're strong on the positions you believe are true. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 16:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Then you need to educate yourself, because something's led you astray. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I could say the same about you. But you were disrupting RFC. Everybody has a space to give their views. Should mine be blatantly false, nobody would endorse them. So get over it. It's RFC, people will comment. Not everybody agrees with you. Dismissing voices opposite to you as worthless is not helpful. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 16:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Except I can point out where you're incorrect - I'm still waiting for you to point my inaccuracies out. But this is telling: "Dismissing voices opposite to you as worthless is not helpful." If more people believed that, we wouldn't be here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your whole statement minus the opening part is misleading. SO I didn't endorse it and moved on, unlike you trying to pick a fight with me. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 16:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Which parts, exactly? Specifics would be good. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Which bit, Jeff? The bit about how the original "consensus AFD" was overturned or the bit about how you're hounding those who bring attention to that fact? Your own comments seem to be coming back to bite you. —Phil | Talk 15:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  When have I denied the original AfD's consensus again? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yep if the 1st AFD had consensus it was valid, and thus couldn't be undone on DRV (which is the only thing DRV decides about) -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 15:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Then you misunderstand DRV. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Or perhaps you do. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 15:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll elaborate. DRV is supposed to decide if an AFD was valid and has consensus. You can't accept the 1st AFD being valid AND an overturning DRV being valid. DRV is not "open a second AFD or not", it's "had the 1st one have consensus?". If 1st AFD had consensus, then overturning DRV is not valid. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 15:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's entirely proper to review a deletion and see if there are mitigating circumstances such as this one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

For those keen to policy and process might like to observe the note "Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse" --pgk 15:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, don't leave out the thread from the RFC page as it makes some points about the nature of DRV clear. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 16:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Oh well, moved, nevermind then ;) -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 16:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• You know, I have to say, your summary, Drini is not one about the problem, but rather overly personal and focused too much on a dispute with a particular user. While I do think it was appropriate to move the commentary here, I am not surprised that Jeff is upset by it. I suggest you strongly consider rewriting it to be less personal. FrozenPurpleCube 16:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. No. I think Jeff is directly responsible for fueling the flames of the conflict. He may be upset about it, but that's my view. Feel free not to endorse it if you don't like it. Moreover, 2/3 of my statements have nothing to do with jeff-- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 16:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, gee, I wasn't planning to endorse it, I was merely hoping you might consider whether you might wish to write your response in less inflammatory terms. If you're not, well, that's adding your own fuel to the flames. FrozenPurpleCube 16:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why. DO I go to the statements of those disagreeing with me to call them liars? Do I provoke them? I just gave MY statement, which I'm allowed to do. And then the bickering from jeff started. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 16:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to address any statements you consider inflammatory here on this page, I don't suggest you call them liars, and I don't suggest you provoke them. But you can say they're mistaken. Not that I see Jeff's statement to be especially inflammatory, but if you do, feel free to say why. While I don't think his response was in the most effective terms (in fact, I'd say he should tone down his criticism a tad as well), I also think there are problems with your summary. I suggest fixing them. FrozenPurpleCube 16:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I may have overblown a tad. But I think i'm well within my rights to attempt to salvage what's left of my reputation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments moved from FrozenPurpleCube section to the talk page

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

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

Comments moved from Seraphimblade section

• So what do the above people think about speedily closing a new discussion because a slightly older discussion on the topic was concluded yesterday? >Radiant< 13:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that it's almost always true that the best idea is to let process play out. If you railroad people, certainly a lot of them will just take it and move on, but a few (folks with personalities like mine or Jeff's for instance), will take it up with you via process and it will blow up beyond all reasonable proportion because you-generic (i.e. the generic admin not interested in letting process play out properly) decided to pre-empt and often those same pre-emptive admins are also pretty non-communicative, curt or abrupt, which further tends to alienate, piss off and motivate those who feel empowered to escalate the issue. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• So, essentially, you are suggesting that there's nothing wrong with taking an issue through process again and again and again until you get the outcome you want. Because one of the items here is about people AFD'ing a page that was kept last week, or conversely DRV'ing a page that was endorse-deleted last week. >Radiant< 13:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe you spoken to me several times about not liking it when I put words in your mouth. I hope I can expect the same courtesy from you in the future. I believe that in large communities, despite how evil process is (in that it wastes time and creates overhead when we should all know and do exactly the right thing to support the community, etc.), it becomes more and more vital to follow process explicitly and completely because the bell curve widens the larger the community gets. So at 50 folks, you have a reasonable expectation that everyone reads the policies the same, and at 150, maybe a core population of 100-125 do, with significant factions dissenting, and as you get larger and larger, there is more factionalizing and more friction between factions. I believe that as the community gets larger and larger, the best chance you have of having everyone follow the same rules is to, unfortunately, insist that except in extreme emergencies, admins/custodians follow the rules "everyone" agrees on. Specific admins making indvidual choices from personally biased perspectives will be, no matter how saintly or innocent, reviled by significantly larger and larger portions of the population for many different reasons. I think the basic reasons that motivate that revulsion have to do with community and respect and trust, and I think that the opposites (disrespect, factionalizing and mistrust) are uncontrollably increased every time a well-meaning admin throws out process and acts on her/his own recognizance. I believe that is what's driving most of this particular issue, and I think we already have to tools necessary to do it, if only we get buy-in from most/all of the admins.

Unfortunately I do think that that means if your policy allows it, yes, multiple AfDs until current consensus is reached. But I don't have anything against changing the policy to reflect saner process/choices. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 16:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• • I personally have no objection, so long as the speedy close reflects the last consensus decision and no new facts have come to life. The last consensus decision was the initial DRV, which overturned the first AFD for a second AFD. Thus, under this principle, AFD2's close was clearly wrong, and AFD2 should still be running. GRBerry 16:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree. I think there is a pretty clear consensus that nominating something for a second AfD right after the first has closed is disruptive behavior and the second one should be closed as a speedy keep. But that's not what we had here. We had a DRV that said "We need to run this thing again," and the consent of the closing admin to reopen. That's not disruptive behavior, that's exactly what you're supposed to do—discuss, then act. On the other hand, no matter how well-intentioned (and I'm sure it was well-intentioned), the speedy closure of the second AfD was disruptive. If it had been left to run and come up with a resounding "delete", this whole mess wouldn't have happened. On the other hand, if it would have made clear that consensus apparently isn't as clear as some think (and I think that's been made clear here and in all the other discussions over the matter), it would have been valuable to know that as well. Discussing things out, especially when there's not a tremendously clear consensus on what to do, can be a serious pain in the ass. But that's the way we resolve problems around here, and it's a pretty good way. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• I do not think that describing the 1str DRV and the 2nd AfD as "taking an issue through process again and again and again until you get the outcome you want" is a fair or accurate formulation. DRV exixts precisely to review allegedly improepr deletion results, mostly errors of process, and secondarily cases where new information is available. I think that Drini's close was at least arguably improper, and the overturn of it by the first DRV was well within the spectrum of judgemetn that DRV is supposed to excersize. From that decision, the second AfD followed as a matter of standard procedure. This is not comperable to the case of an AfD being closed by an unexceptional KEEP, and a new afd beign filed a week later. it is also not comperable to a deletion being endoresed at DRV, only to have a new DRV filed 3 days later. The second AfD was competely proper, and should have been allowed to play out until either the full 5 days had passed, or a clear, uncontoversial consensus has been established, which might have happeend in 3 days, but is simnply impossible in 45 minutes, particualrly when many people known to have strong views on the subject hav not had time to find the debate and comment. If that AFD had been allowed to run, and clsoed by an uninvolved admin wihin the normal bouds of afd closer judgement, I would have oppsoed any attempt to bring it back to DRV, and i hope no established editor would ahve tried to do so. If an new, clean AfD is held, and comes to a delete decsion under reasoanbly clean circumstance, I for one wiull oppose any challange to that close. Is that truly insisting on going through discussion "again and again and again until you get the outcome you want"? DES ^(talk) 15:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments moved from Prolog section

A comment on the above: "Little fatty". How would you like to be immortalised as "little fatty"? As a result of something you had no part in and did not authorise? Also, if the only sources are news articles, then maybe it's not encyclopaedic after all; how many things in Brittanica are sourceable only from contemporary popular culture news reports? The fact that lots of people laughed at the subject has never been in dispute, and neither is the fact that the Internet extends the playground to cover the entire globe, what is in dispute is whether that allows us to hhave a biography on someone founded solely on the fact that people mocked the fat kid. It never was about sources, it was always about the appropriateness of having an article. Guy (Help!) 13:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You are presuming a lot of culturally-centric ideals here. Why don't you ask him what he thinks, or read the articles? Is this another case of admins applying personal feelings/insecurities/reactions to issues that affect more folks than just the admins and letting that bias guide their hands? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The Independent reports that the boy's family wants to sue, but it is impossible to locate suitable defendants in this case. --Tony Sidaway 14:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The most recent revisions of this article, by DeLarge, did not even include the man's name so it was not about the person anymore, but about the meme surrounding him. I also do not think that we have the power to immortalize something. That was done by newspapers and tabloids like The Sun, and we are just documenting the phenomenon. Prolog 14:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This would be more convincing if the article had not born the young man's name. Newspapers do not immortalize anything: yesterday's headlines are tomorrow's birdcage liner. --Tony Sidaway 14:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It was moved to "Little Fatty" by Night Gyr with edit summary "it's about the phenomenon, not the person", but this was reverted because it created a mess due to all the AFD's and DRV's. It was hard to discuss the naming of the article further, since all the discussions were closed so early. Prolog 14:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would have preferred redirecting the article to the meme's article. We shouldn't be having bios on people who are famous for one particular incident, especially if it's negative. Johnleemk | Talk 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you on the redirect, but I'd note that we still have plenty of articles on people who are famous for one particular negative incident - incidents with more negative connotations than becoming an "internet phenomenon". Yes, I know this is an other stuff exists argument, but it's worth noting nonetheless. JavaTenor 16:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments moved from Amarkov section

• Comment: How precisely would you address the administrator misconduct? -N 02:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm torn between this one and BigDT's. Agree with BigDT that the whole thing is stupid. Agree with Amarkov that "move on" is overly simple. This kind of dispute has happened before and will happen again. Dispute resolution exists because we need to figure out how to keep it from becoming an idiotic war every time. Don't we have a template that says, "The version you want will not be implemented by edit warring?" I hope nobody believes edit warring was the best way of dealing with this dispute. Kla'quot 05:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time for you to make your own statement that you feel fits both ;) Just an idea, Cheers! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 06:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

1. With the caveat that I would not endorse a witchhunt regarding the admins involved.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's unfair to characterize using consensus-vetted process to try to bring admins back into the fold vis a vis process, policy and trying not to use so many shortcuts of same that they end up giving the appearance (to many of us) of wheel warring, whether or not that was their actual intention, as a witchhunt. It really bothers me that the folks involved are still pretty much unrepentant and acting like Jeff (and I in some cases) are the problem. I'm following the rules at a time when following the rules could clear up a fair few number of folks' doubts about whether admins really care to be perceived as fair, supportive, custodial users and not power hungry or power blind. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments moved from BigDT section

1. Just waiting for the penny to drop here, Jeff. Look really hard at what you wrote. It would be more obvious if the sig was after the comment, btw. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

   Same here. You'll be undeleting, then? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

   WP:STICK. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, you really should read that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments moved from the Nardman section

Comments moved from main page:

(endorsment of Nardman's position by me here) though it should be clear that the Admin's decision can be disputed in DRV if appropriate. If said DRV does occur, it should operate under the same criteria.</nowiki> FrozenPurpleCube

Groan. No more process wonkery. By "same criteria" I assume you mean yet another fresh admin gets to close it? Maybe. But only if Jeff agrees not to be the one to start the DRV, no matter how much he disagrees with the AfD. -N 00:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, if Jeff objects to the outcome, he gets to make an objection on DRV, the same as anybody else, including those opposed to him. Otherwise to be fair, we'd have to exclude other people, and frankly, I don't want to do that. And I strongly oppose your characterization of this as process wonkery, that's the sort of thing that isn't helpful. To be honest, I'm not even sure this discussion should occur here. If you'd care to move your comment to the talk page, I'd not object to your moving my response here. FrozenPurpleCube 01:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not against Jeff, or anybody, making a DRV request. I just don't want him to flame it up anymore if this does go back to AfD and gets deleted again. I suppose he'd be sensible about it though. You're right, it's a non-issue. -N 02:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If an actual result ends up reflecting consensus, I can't complain. In my entire history, have i ever played that game? Only once, with Darvon cocktail (I think), and that was more a trial balloon for reviewing a DRV. I'm "flamed up" right now due to multiple involved administrators deciding that consensus doesn't matter here, and not giving the community a proper voice. If the second AfD completed, I'd likely be done with this, deleted or undeleted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the comment, and I don't want things to become inflamed either. Since this situation has had problems in DRV before, I figure it's best just to be clear that that's a valid option, but should be done under the same reasonable terms you posited if it does happen. FrozenPurpleCube 02:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought

It seems to me that the assertion that the various debate closings and deletions were incorrect is predicated on the assumption that the closure of the first deletion review was correct. I'm not sure that's necessarily the case. Discuss. --bainer (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Discuss from a content perspective or a process perspective? From a content perspective, it was wrong - defendable because of the !votecount and statistics of dubious relevance like "having 1.7 refs per sentence", but wrong, because the article violated WP:BLP as every subsequent review (including this one at time of typing) has upheld. From a process perspective - well, to paraphrase Thatcher, there is no such thing as a process perspective. The only perspective should be "Have we achieved the right result"? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggest you read my statement. Viridae^Talk 02:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to proposed solution by Sean William

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

Trouble is, Brian Peppers showed that this approach doesn't work. The idea was that instead of saying 'discussion closed', which provokes much sound and fury, you promise a review in a year's time, which causes everyone to shut up, and a year later everyone's either realised how pointless it was or forgotten about it entirely.

Good in theory, didn't work at all. What actually happened was people didn't let go of it, they marshalled their forces for 'Brian Peppers Day' and wasted as much time as possible on an issue that was still as clear-cut as it was a year ago. Not again, please - if a year didn't work for Brian Peppers then six months won't work for this. We need to have the courage to face the disruption down now instead of foisting it on next year's Wikipedians. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Facing the disruption down doesn't seem to be working right now. Thanks to last night's incident, I find it improbable that any easy solution will come out from this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the community has more or less dropped the issue on the article and have moved to the drama that followed the closure. My proposal still stands, although Sam Blanning has an excellent point. Sean William 12:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to view by Samuel Blanning

Just a point: what happens to people, happens to people. People can become public figures in ways that are unflattering, or they didn't ask for. Beyond this case, think about Terri Schiavo or William Hung or Debra Lafave. Surely, this argument wouldn't apply to those topics. What separates QZ from those other cases is... I suppose... the level of coverage? And apparently QZ (according to the souces) is trying to capitalize on his publicity, too. I think there's a reasonable argument in saying that we shouldn't cover the topic, but it is not beyond the need for explanation, nor is it beyond challenge. Mangojuice^talk 16:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree to an extent, but I would go further. Even if someone becomes a public figure in a way that is unflattering, or they didn't ask for, we should still have an article on them if there is enough coverage in reliable sources to write one. Provided we don't make unsourced libellous assertions (and thereby leave ourselves open to lawsuits), the person's feelings are not our problem. Wikipedia isn't here to be nice to people. Walton^Assistance! 18:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That is an exceedingly simplistic and cavalier approach to a number of interrelated questions about how what we do on one of the major websites in the entire world can affect real people's lives. Newyorkbrad 19:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, that leads to a question of censorship versus consideration. As I've said before, I think anybody is entitled to having an accurate article about them. I don't think they get to dictate the contents beyond that, or in most cases, the existence. (Local laws may vary). However, in this case, the biggest point against the statement by Samuel Blanning is that this person HAS chosen to participate in their celebrity. As such, calls to delete are dubious as far as I'm concerned. FrozenPurpleCube 19:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd say it's a matter of principle. Wikipedia is a reference work. It reports established, verifiable fact. WP:BIO requires multiple, non-trivial coverage in independent external sources to establish notability; no further inclusion criteria are needed for living people, or for "non-public figures" (a completely arbitrary term). If something bad has happened in someone's life that's got them into the news, then they'd probably rather Wikipedia didn't publicise it further - but that's their problem, not ours. For instance, say Person X has had false accusations made against them, which get covered by the mainstream news media. They're then proved innocent. Someone creates a Wikipedia article on them, and sources it to all the false accusations in the media. Some would argue that we should delete the article because it will harm Person X's life, but that's the wrong approach. We aren't here to determine how the world ought to be - we're here to report, neutrally and factually, how it is. If that causes collateral harm to people's lives, then so be it; as long as we follow the rules of sourcing and neutrality, we can't be sued. Walton^Assistance! 19:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

While that's a decent guiding principle in many cases, I really doubt that Wikipedia is going to adversely affect things moreso than media on four continents already has. And that's if you buy into the entire idea that an article existing causes adverse affects. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually this is all covered in Biographies of living persons and recent arbitration cases. No we do permit the construction of attack articles sourced from false charges against innocent people. Walton monarchist89's statement is 180 degrees at variance with the letter, and the thrust, of Wikipedia policy. --Tony Sidaway 19:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Surely an attack article (in the CSD G8 sense) has to be "controversial in tone and unsourced"? It is perfectly possible that plausible false accusations might be made against someone and then repeated in the New York Times or BBC News, before being proved false. In such cases, if we were to create a neutral and sourced article on the person using reliable mainstream media sources, we could not possibly be leaving Wikipedia open to legal action, nor violating the Wikipedia core content policies. Walton 19:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

An attack article can be completely sourced but wholly or overwhelmingly negative in tone. Such articles fall afoul of the Biographies of living persons policy and may be severely stubbed or deleted at the administrator's discretion. Even if the sourced negative statements are completely true. --Tony Sidaway 19:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't quote policy you claim to not have read, Tony. Attack articles can be speedied, most agree. Non-attack articles (which is what we're talking about here) that are fully sourced and are not weighted improperly in a negative direction do not run afoul of BLP. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to read the written policies to be an expert on Wikipedia policy. Sounds strange but it's true. Since the article dwelt solely on public reactions to this fellow's physical appearance, it would be difficult to describe it as wholly neutral, because it accepts as its basic premise that public reactions to physical appearance are worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you should read the policies if you're going to make a statement as to what does and does not meet policy. Since the article was written solely from third party independent sources, and did not skew negatively, and met all our standards for inclusion (WP:V, WP:BIO/WP:WEB, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:BLP), it leads to the basic fact that articles that meet such standards are worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

We've already been through this. The article, by dwelling on one aspect of the appearance of this private minor individual, placed overwhelming weight on that. An article on the phenomenon could be neutral and would be acceptable, but the article in its deleted form was not such an article. --Tony Sidaway 20:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, being one of the most famous faces in China is not "minor," and actively promoting oneself isn't "private," and there's significant disagreement that the article looked the way you claim when deleted, and a different version still got deleted anyway. At least you're finally recognizing that an article can exist, however. This is a welcome improvement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The subject of the article, then a minor, did not set out to promote himself. The image was used without his permission and according to The Independent his family would sue if they could find a defendant in the case. My statement that there could be an article on the phenomenon echoes my previous statements in this affair. There is no change there. --Tony Sidaway 20:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If we tried to make an article, say, three years ago if things were as they are today, you'd have a point. The facts as they stand now preclude basing it on what the situtation was then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying with regard to undue weight; however, the fact is that some people are notable entirely for something negative. (I use the word "notable" in its Wikipedia sense, i.e. "covered by multiple independent sources".) If an article is negative in tone, it should indeed be rewritten to comply with NPOV, but that isn't an argument for deletion. As long as an article is written in a neutral, factual tone and all controversial statements are reliably sourced, then, ipso facto, it cannot be an attack page. Walton^Assistance! 20:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you said it yourself. Undue weight is the problem here. You say it cannot be an attack article, but it can be if its skewed to the negative, even if ostensibly in a neutral tone. --Tony Sidaway 20:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally would like to do a bit better than "we can't be sued". The vandals writing graffiti on our articles can't be sued either, but I don't want to emulate them, do you? I'd like something more like "doing more good than harm". While that second is hard to code up in a rule, the first is clearly not sufficient. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Wikipedia isn't some heartless calculating machine; it's run by volunteers, most of whom don't want to be dicks, and think that we should be go beyond simply not being sued. A line has to be drawn somewhere, but it's necessarily subjective (and unfortunately people on both sides seem to be assuming they're undeniably right, which just exacerbates the issue). Trebor 20:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony sez: "An article on the phenomenon could be neutral and would be acceptable, but the article in its deleted form was not such an article."

That's why I drafted User:DeLarge/Little Fatty. I'd welcome any feedback on that version, especially from those who opposed the original on BLP grounds. And if you still don't like it, let me know why, and what still needs to be done to bring it up to scratch.

Also, given the whole back-and-forth where the page was moved from "Little Fatty" (possibly to abide with the BLP) and then deleted because naming the article after the kid was also not seen as BLP-friendly, how about this suggestion. Nothing at the "Q*** Z*****" page whose name we dare not speaketh, which will remain protected, and a redirect from "Little Fatty" to a target at "Xiao Pang"? (That's assuming we can ever reach a point where a stable article's allowed to exist.) --DeLarge 22:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The more I hear from Tony Sidaway and some others who share the same general viewpoint, the more concerned I am about our WP:BLP policy. Look -- does that document reflect the policy or does it not? If it does reflect the policy, then those who want to apply that policy in this case are wrong, period. The document doesn't talk about deletion except when there is no NPOV, thoroughly sourced version to revert to, or none can be created. So I must assume that they think that the document doesn't fully reflect the policy. That's fine, but it points to a problem that needs to be fixed. (1) WP:BLP needs to reflect the real policy people think it refers to. (2) (And this is more important): that policy needs to have support. The support can come directly from WM foundation, or it can come from consensus, or it can come from ArbCom rulings... whatever the case, it has to have support. And, I will add, that whatever role consensus plays in forming that support matches an extent to which the reasoning behind the policy needs to be defended on general grounds. And the fact that it's not in the current document despite many people believing it, leads me to believe that this doesn't have the full support of consensus. Mangojuice^talk 21:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It speaks of speedy deletion and immediate blanking in certain situations. Not speaking of deletion in other situations is not a bar to raising the policy in an argument during a deletion debate. --bainer (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, for the sake of clarification, I am going to restate my two main points separately.

1) No article where the subject has received coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and where those sources are cited in the article, should be deleted.

2) An attack page is a page which:

a) Makes accusations which are false and unsourced, and therefore potentially libellous.

b) Or, alternatively, makes statements of opinion which violate NPOV, e.g. "X clearly deserves to be killed."

An attack page is not one which presents only negative information on its subject. Some people are famous solely for something negative. The % of negative coverage in someone's Wikipedia article should reflect the % of negative coverage they've received in the media.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the only reasonable (strict constructionist, if you'll forgive the slight wikilawyering) interpretation of our policies. Walton^{alternate account} 08:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(Resp. to Thebainer) You can't seriously claim that QZ was a candidate for G10 speedy deletion as an attack page, can you? Because that's what BLP refers to. Can you point to one thing "controversial in tone" or even falling short of WP:NPOV in the deleted article? No, BLP was being invoked here in an entirely different way: to justify deletion of an article on a person who (barely) meets WP:BIO, because what actually happened to him is unflattering. This is NOT in the document at all. Mangojuice^talk 12:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(More thoughtful reply) I suppose that if someone wants to make an argument why BLP, as written, would imply deletion, there is no bar to that. However, arguments like "Delete per WP:BLP" (which nearly all such arguments were) should have been ignored as non-arguments, because the only part of BLP that implies deletion is to describe the page as a G10 speedy, which is obviously not the case. Mangojuice^talk 12:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What I said was that, yes, the policy only speaks of speedy deletion (and its editorial equivalent, immediate blanking) in certain circumstances. The fact that speedy deletion is only mentioned in some circumstances doesn't mean that people cannot use other parts of the policy, or the principles behind the policy, as arguments in deletion debates in other circumstances.

Of course, saying nothing more specific than "per BLP" is not a useful argument and should be given less weight, but only because it's not specific. --bainer (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What is BLP, and what should it be?

Tony Sidaway says, in a section above: "An attack article can be completely sourced but wholly or overwhelmingly negative in tone. Such articles fall afoul of the Biographies of living persons policy and may be severely stubbed or deleted at the administrator's discretion. Even if the sourced negative statements are completely true." This he says is what the WP:BLP policy means. Is it> should it be? The current BLP policy page says: "Such material requires a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies: Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and No original research. It also says "We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion" and "Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone" and "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject" and "Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced" and "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source" and "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability"

Did the article meet these criteria? Do they add up to what Tony Sidaway and some others are saying they do? should they?

First, did the article meet the current BLP policy as expressed in the WP:BLP page? It was clearly verifiable and verified from multiple reliable sources, and i don't see any original research present, not any claim of factual inaccuracy. Whether the tone and coverage reflect NPOV is always a judgment call, i would say that the tone was factual and encyclopedic, but that might be debated. But if the only problem is one of tone, a rewrite, not deletion, is the usual proper cure. There was no "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material". whether the writing was responsible, conservative, and neutral in tone is again a judgment call, but it is hard for me to see how it could have been much more neutral and exist at all. The article did indeed "document what reliable third party sources have published about the subject", it it is at least arguable that failing to do so would be abandoning the NPOV. All assertions were sourced, so there is no need to debate whether any of them might have been defamatory. All statements stuck strictly to what was directly stated in a reliable source, no speculation or "conjectural interpretation" on the part of wikipedia editors was present. If this subject is notable (and by our usual standards, he is) then all the content was directly relevant to the reasons why he is notable, which is precisely his initially unsought notoriety. I conclude that the article met the requirements of the WP:BLP policy page as it is currently written, although on tone this is a judgment call, my objective tone-ometer being missing at the moment.

Second, should BLP be taken to mean more than this? Is Tony Sidaway correct, or others who make similar arguments? Was this article a failing in "human decency"? Some people are suggesting that, in effect, no significantly negative statement about a living person should be included in a wikipedia article. BLP does not say that at the moment. Perhaps it should, but I don't think so. Others seem to be saying that if the overall conclusion is likely to be negative, even strongly negative, even though all statements are well sourced and accurate, then the article should go. BLP does not currently say that either, but perhaps it should. I don't think so, however.

It is possible to make an article that consists entirely of sourced statements, and give a wholly false and misleading impression of what has been reported about the subject. I could easily find a host of well sourced negative statements abouts, for example, George W. Bush or John Kerry. An article consisting entirely of such well-sourced statements might well qualify as an attack article. Why? because such an article would woefully fail WP:NPOV in representing only a part of the spectrum of opinion about the subject, and neglecting to report the many well-sourced contrary views. Any article that does this obviously needs prompt and drastic revision or deletion. But was this the case here? I don't think so. As far as i am aware, the article pretty fairly reported the complete spectrum of published opinion about the subject. No one has been saying "but you failed to adequately include PoV X"

People often become notable for a single unfortunate or negative incident, often through no fault of their own. They are still notable, and are still written about in the press and other secondary sources. Unless the BLP policy is to be read to prohibit all articles mentioning such people, then there will be such articles. That isn't what BLP says now, and I don't think it should say that.

Some people have complained that the article in question was in form a biographical article, when it should have been about the incident, or the "meme" (whatever that would mean in this case). But such an article could well have refereed to the individual, either by name or thought the cited references, and BLP says now: "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles." The BLP issues would have been just as much (or as little) present in any article dealing with this matter, whether it was in form a biography or not.

I think the current BLP policy is a good idea, but it is often being over-interpreted and misapplied. it does not, and IMO should not, call for the removal of well sourced, relevant negative statements, not of articles that properly adhere to NPOV when that results a majority of the sourced statements present being negative. Some people are mostly written about or discussed in reliable sources in negative terms, and Wikipedia ought to report that fact, when it is a fact. DES ^(talk) 22:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

An excellent summary, and exactly what was being discussed on the mailing list. BLP is being used in support of actions when it simply doesn't apply (Tony might want to try reading it). It's primarily focused on sourcing, and doesn't say what should happen about articles of individuals famous for negative incidents. Now, there may be a consensus that we should delete those articles, but you can't use BLP (in its present state) to support it. If there is such a consensus, then BLP should be altered until it can be used in support. But it's hardly surprising there's disagreement when policy does not say what some people think it says. Trebor 23:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to quote from my response on this RFC, from the paragraph in which I summarise the essence of the main argument in favour of deleting the article in the first debates:

"The biographies of living persons policy is not merely a game of counting sources. It's a collection of principles that hold that, when writing about living people, we must be rigorous in our application of content policy, particularly faithful to our sources, and write with due regard to the privacy of subjects. Applying these principles to this article was the essence of the second argument [which was that] the article should be deleted, because the sources are at best about the meme, and by focusing on the person instead the article is contrary to the tenets of the biographies of living persons policy."

I should note that there is a broad consensus among almost everyone who has participated here, that the meme at the heart of the story is worthy of coverage. The basis of the argument that was raised by the people in favour of deleting the article was that what we really have here is a bunch of coverage on the phenomenon of people using the kid's picture, and then a small handful of human interest pieces that were more directly about the kid himself when he tried to make the best of the situation and give a few comments, which were gone within a day or two. They saw the article as a BLP issue in terms of being faithful to the sources available: our article ought to have been about the meme. "Human decency" arguments here are the icing on the cake of faithfulness to the sources and accurately representing the phenomenon (how's that for a metaphor).

We now have List of Internet phenomena#Images, and there are working drafts like this one which are fine alternatives that focus on the phenomenon - in context, most importantly - and do so in a way that's faithful to the sources out there. --bainer (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You realize that efforts were in progress to implement these changes, but were shut down in the frenzy to delete, rather than improve? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

redirect request

Per our naming guidelines could someone make a redirect from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ deletion dispute (with lower case "d" in deletion) to this RFC? It's not worth the hassle of actually moving the pages around, but I just had to hunt down the link because the RFC wasn't there when I typed in what it would normally be called. Thanks. 75.62.6.237 05:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, just did it. Mangojuice^talk 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)