Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 October 1
2010 October 3 >

2 October 2010

[edit]
  • June 2010 West Bank shooting – No consensus to overturn. This is a somewhat disheartening discussion to review, given the unnecessary allegations of bad faith on both sides. There are some issues that naturally produce good faith disagreement, and the unclear line between "routine news coverage" and "notable event" is one of them. Given the disagreements over this issue, it would have been perfectly plausible for either AFD to be closed as no consensus, and therefore it is understandable to see them reviewed here when they closed as delete instead. The calls for sanctions and the unfortunately predictable accusations of political motives are distractions and I give them zero weight in this close. The relevant issue is this: Courcelles made a judgment call in weighing the delete arguments more highly than the keep arguments. Was that a seriously flawed or abusive judgment? There are reasons that argue that it was, but also reasons for endorsing it or at least giving Courcelles latitude in making it. As with the underlying AFD, these are matters for good faith disagreement, and there is no consensus within this discussion on one particular answer to that question, and therefore no consensus to overturn the close. (And by "no consensus to overturn" I really mean that, unlike the previous DRV result that was more like an "overturn to no consensus" in practice, since the article was undeleted and put back up for a second AFD. I'm leaving the result of the last AFD close undisturbed.) – RL0919 (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
June 2010 West Bank shooting (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Sorry to bring this here again, but this close was even more problematic than the first. On the bright side, the second AfD discussion included some analysis of WP:EVENT, which, as user:Fences and windows pointed out (in the first DRV), should have been done in the first AfD.
But the bright side ends there. The closer explains his decision thus: At the core, this debate is about whether NOTNEWS or EVENT controls this article. NOTNEWS, however, is a policy, higher ranking than EVENT. The closer further explained this notion in a personal communication with me: consensus was that the EVENT "standard" was totally irrelevant [1] (emphasis mine).
This idea, that WP:EVENT is totally irrelevant because it is outranked by WP:NOTNEWS, is consistent with the closer's personal opinion that WP:EVENT is such a weak guideline and as written is almost useless [2]. However, it is an idea that was not expressed by a single participant in the AfD discussion, so it cannot reasonably be seen as a summary of the consensus that the AfD discussion produced. Furthermore, even if the discussion did produce such a consensus, it could not outweigh the Wikipedia-wide consensus expressed in the very existence of the WP:EVENT guideline, which clearly includes the intention that the guideline shall not be rendered meaningless by having it outranked a priori by WP:NOTNEWS.
A side note about the allegation of canvassing on the AfD, which was adduced by the closer. It was noted on the AfD that a Wikipedia editor mentioned the AfD on an off-Wiki blog about Wikipedia, in a context in which it was clear that said editor supported keeping the article. Contrary to the closer's statement, there was no evidence that the blog had any effect on the AfD discussion. Conversely, it bears noting that, oddly, 9 delete votes appeared on the page in the first 16 hours after the AfD nomination, all in a row (leading a future keep advocate to make an aborted suggestion to delete per WP:SNOW). After that, the discussion proceeded more normally, with 13 keep votes and a further 4 delete votes interspersed over the next 6 days. To me, this raises the suspicion that there was covert canvassing on the delete side immediately after the article was nominated for AfD. Perhaps others would disagree, and, to be clear, I am not suggesting that this suspicion is a reason to overturn the close, which I think should be overturned on the grounds stated above. My point is that mentioning the opposite suspicion in the close was problematic. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • reclose by another admin the closing admin's thoughts on WP:EVENT are not supported by the debate or by a broader consensus as far as I can see. I think NC would have been the best close here, but delete might have been reasonable just not for the reasons the closing admin gave. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. WP:EVENT is a guideline on how to separate news from events of lasting significance. Thus, the closing admin throughly misread the arguments of those arguing to keep. In any case, no clear consensus is discernible from the discussion. RayTalk 22:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own closure. First, there is very real evidence of canvassing by a banned user in favour of keeping the article. Then the keep arguments say such things as "a terror attack is intrinsically notable" which isn't true at all. Yes, this is a struggle between NOTNEWS and EVENT. These things always will be, as long as EVENT exists. Even this article passing EVENT is heavily disputed, see Smartse's comment near the end. Policy trumps a guideline, every time. Every last time. And this article, as shown by the discussion, was fundamentally and irreparably afoul of the NOTNEWS policy. Courcelles 23:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What "banned user"? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eric1985 (talk · contribs) nableezy - 16:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That user is not banned, but blocked. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If no admin is willing to unblock an indef-blocked user they are "de-facto banned". See WP:BAN: Editors who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". That block was discussed at ANI and "after due consideration by the community" the block remained. The user is "banned" by the letter of WP:BAN. nableezy - 15:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion you cite bears no relation to the the very limited provisions of WP:BAN you cite; the discussion relates principally to the propriety of the original blocks, with lengthy side discussions on related subjects like your alleged outing of an involved editor. Virtually all of the pertinent discussion even predates the blocked editor's initial unblock request. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can pretend what you are saying is accurate. I wont. Of course the dicussion was about the "propriety of the original blocks", that is what a block review is. And after that review the editor remained block, which means, according to the quote in WP:BAN, the editor is banned. But this is such a minor point that dealing with it is not worth the time typing this response. nableezy - 17:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Closing admin was mistaken on both the policy and the facts:
  1. NOTNEWS, however, is a policy, higher ranking than EVENT. True, but to reach that step there must be a consensus that in this given scenario they were inconsistent with each other. While some editors certainly made that argument, other (and more) editors disagreed, arguing that they are consistent with each other because NOTNEWS does not apply to the specific facts of this afd.
  2. All in all, consensus to delete. flat out factually wrong. a simple !vote count will reveal, if anything, the opposite.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The canvassing issue, is at most a red herring. I can start a blog in about 5.7 seconds complaining about anti-Arab bias, then post a link to the blog, yelling and screaming "Canvassing!" Even if the blog is legit, there is no reason why Wikipedia has to suffer with articles deleted out of order because some dude decided to open a blog complaining about the afd.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Stifle. No comment on giftigerwunch, but i always found you a reasonable editor, which makes your comment very perplexing. a consensus determination is not a matter of my opinion or your opinion, it is a simple head count. you can reasonably claim that one side's arguments do not make sense, you can reasonably claim that one side's arguments do not conform with WP policy, you may even reasonably claim that WP policy allows/requires the closing admin to disregard the arguments that do not make sense or do not comport with WP policy. However, there is no possible way you can claim that there was a consensus to delete article with fidelity to the classic dictionary definition of the word "consensus."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you intend not to comment on me, then I ask that you do not mention my name as it's pretty clear what the implication is. I would also appreciate it that if you're going to attack me you spell my name correctly and be a bit more transparent about it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you also read WP:NOTADEMOCRACY. AfD discussions are not a "vote" or a "head count". You may also want to discard the dictionary definition and take a look at what we define as WP:CONSENSUS. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    misspelling your last name is a personal attack? drama queen much? as for the rest of your comments and misapplied wp policy, there are strawman arguments. it was not i that claimed any sort of consensus. i only point out the factual incorrectness of the comments made by others claiming a consensus to delete.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You know very well what I am referring to, and I'm not going to be baited and have no interest in continuing a discussion where the counterpoint is WP:ILIKEIT and personal attacks. As I'm sure you're aware, arguments which aren't based in policy or misrepresent policy won't be considered when the discussion is closed; I have nothing further to say on the matter. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse As there is no indication of any form of "enduring notability" as per WP:NOTNEWS policy. It is very clear "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.", this in common with lots of other terrorist or criminal attacks in regional conflict zones around the world make the news due to the notability of the "master" conflict, but the coverage of the event in question stops on that day, and all you are left with is occasional mentions - take it to WikiNews. Codf1977 (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, deletion was correct per WP:NOTNEWS. This is now the second deletion and the second time it has been brought up here. To bring it up here again is disruptive. This is fishing. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - this is now round 4 of this discussion. Two separate AFDs were closed by two separate admins who both found there to be consensus to delete the article. A policy does in fact trump a guideline and the users arguing otherwise are either simply mistaken or are willfully distorting the policies of this website. DRV is not an opportunity to re-argue the same issues, and it should not be used when somebody just dislikes the outcome of an AFD. We do not need to go through this multiple times. The closure was grounded in policy (WP:NOT) and was both procedurally and factually correct. nableezy - 16:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Yet another bad-faith "i don't like the outcome" DRV; again, there is no wrongdoing by the closing admin...just because you disagree with it doesn't make it wrong. As this is the second in as many weeks, sanctions against the nominator should be strongly considered. Tarc (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...along with sanctions for editors calling for frivolous sanctions.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AfD (delete)--> DRV (relist) --> AfD2 (delete) --> DRV2. That is abusive/disruptive by any non-partisan's definition. Tarc (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
your comment may be taken more seriously if you did not call for sanctions at the first DRV. your comment would also be taken more seriously if this DRV did not include reasonable long time editors unconnected to the I-A conflict area that are of the opinion that the close should be overturned. Finally, your comment would be taken more seriously if you actually addressed the underlying issue here, that the closing admin was mistaken on the basic facts (there was a consensus to delete) and policy (that NOTNEWS automatically trumps EVENT when both may apply to a given article).--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm quite lucky that I place zero value on what you do or do not take seriously, eh? :) And I did address the issue; administrators are empowered to make judgment calls in an XfD, and this one judged the strength if argument regarding "not news" trumps the weak keep calls. XfDs are not bean-counting, which is how we avoid having articles kept or retained based solely on how many partisan editors can be rounded up to come !vote, because it isn't actually a vote at all. Clear? Tarc (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortunate, because I try to take seriously all my fellow Wikipedians, even those that don't reciprocate in turn, and even those trolls that have done nothing but drama-mongering in their entire Wikipedia history. As for the substantive part of your comment, when you finally addressed the underlying issue, you are correct about policy. However, your statement about policy does not apply to the given facts of this scenario. The closing admin did not say "I hear both sides of the argument and I think the delete arguments are superior." Had he said that, we would not be here today. Rather, the closing admin utilized an incorrect fact (that there was a consensus to delete) and an incorrect policy (that NOTNEWS automatically trumps EVENT when both may apply to a given article) . So that's why we are here today. Would you like to address these specific issues?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I did address, but I will do so again, just for you, one last time. The closing admin made a judgment that the arguments to delete based on "not news" policy were stronger than the arguments to keep based on the "event" guideline. Tarc (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
incorrect. please read the closing admin's rationale and please read what i tried telling you right above this comment, twice. the closing admin did not say that the delete arguments was better then the keep arguments. the closing admin based the closure on an incorrect fact (there was a consensus to delete) and on an incorrect policy (that EVENT is meaningless and is trumped wherever NOTNEWS may apply).--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once the weaker arguments to keep were weighted less, the consensus to delete was quite clear. That is the point; admins closing XfDs can and do do this, and even if you disagree with his interpretation of policy (your statement that it is "incorrect" is only your opinion), that isn't a valid reason to go to DRV. Are we done? Tarc (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
its all layed out right in front of you, but you keep on repeating the same strawman arguments. for the third time, the closing admin did not say that in his opinion the keep rationales were weaker. can you please respond to the points raised instead of repeating the same strawman arguments? this is getting ridiculous.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brewcrewer, the result was delete. That means that the closing admin felt that the deletion arguments were stronger and better grounded in policy than the arguments for keep; that's simply the way it works. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you bother reading the closing admin rationale (linked above) or are you just saying that because you assume that's what happened?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to be baited Brewcrewer. If the closing admin closes an AfD as delete, it means that they felt the delete arguments outwighed the keep ones. I'd suggest you stop assuming bad faith, start listening to what we're telling you and make an argument without attacking others. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read the closing admin's rationale. It's right here He clearly did not base his closure because he "felt the delete arguments outwighed the keep ones." Read the rationale.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have already read it; as I said just now, suggesting that I am commenting on a closure at DRV without reading the close is a complete failure to assume good faith. You're just not getting it: if an admin has closed an AfD as delete, they felt that the delete arguments outweigh the keep ones. Period. Full stop. No ambiguity, no question, no uncertainty. They do not need to explicitly state that for it to be true, because closing it one way or another implicitly means that they believe that was the consensus, i.e. that the arguments on one side outweighed the other. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're claiming that the closing admin "probably meant something" when he said pretty much the exact opposite. When determining whether the closure was done in compliance with WP policy we don't assume the closing admin meant something when his closing rationale is layed out right in front of us, and we especially don't assume the closing admin meant something when what he said contradicts that assumption. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm We say it because that is what happened. You act as if the closing admin made the call entirely on his own, irregardless of user input. Tarc (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Valiant efforts were made in this AfD to blur the lines between policy and guidelines, but the closer correctly applied the policy in light of the arguments made during the AfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. The AFD discussion discussion plainly reached no consensus. The community is clearly divided over the interpretation of the various applicable policies and guidelines, and both sides' arguments are grounded in reasonable policy analysis. In these circumstances, it is not appropriate for the closer to settle the policy interpretation dispute when the community does not reach consensus. The result, as is demonstrated repeatedly and with increasing frequency, is that the resolution of this sort of AFD no longer depends on the community discussion, but on the opinions of the closer on the unsettled policy issues. That is incompatible with consensus decisionmaking. I also believe the "canvassing" claimis a red herring given far too much weight; there is simply not a shred of evidence that the posting cited had any material effect on the discussions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep the fact that any admin took the NOTNEWS argument seriously is itself problematic. Obviously, a lot of folks want to see an article on this event suppressed, despite its international ramifications, but what NOTNEWS actually says is entirely at odds with what those folks want it to say. No policy-based reason for deletion was articulated, despite the VAGUEWAVEs to NOTNEWS. Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny that someone that always screams "bad faith" at others displays some himself now, i.e. "want to see an article on this event suppressed". Tarc (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No bad faith is being assumed. One can want an article suppressed in good faith--that doesn't mean that the desire is in line with Wikipedia's policies. Jclemens (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep per argument articulated by Brewcrewer.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep per User:Brewcrewer. The canvassing argument is a red herring, and a dangerous one. If writing up a deletion debate on a blog was enough to get an article deleted, anyone who was losing a debate could just write it up on a blog, shout CANVASSING, and get the article deleted.AMuseo (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus There was no consensus at the actual discussion, let alone consensus to delete. Alansohn (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- DrV is not for fishing, as Nableezy and SupremeDeliciousness point out. I see nothing to suggest that the closing admin was out of line here, and this is, what, the fourth time this has been discussed? People simply need to accept that DrV is not a second round of AFD to be appealed to just because you don't like the result. Reyk YO! 04:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's the question. Does WP:EVENT have any meaning? The closing admin basically said it's irrelevant because NOTNEWS>>EVENT. I personally think that's an error and one worth fixing, or at least worth addressing. I would have !voted to delete given that we regularly delete articles of this type (IP conflict deaths). But I A) Don't think there was consensus for that outcome at the AfD and B) I think the closer's rational is fatally flawed. Could you address the issues rather than assuming it's just here because people don't like the outcome? I'd prefer the outcome and feel that there is a problem here. Hobit (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ritzman. For over a month now, in article after article one group has held that violent incidents may be deleted as news stories no matter how wide the coverage or serious the political impact. Another group, of which I have been part, has argued that individual incidents of political violence are WP:Notable when they get widespread coverage and have political impact. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting It would be extremely functional to come to some general agreement on what makes an incident notable.AMuseo (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting made it crystal clear that NOTNEWS trumps everything. the questin now being asked is whether this is in fact Wikipedia policy. Can you speak to that question?AMuseo (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS is part of the WP:NOT policy, yes. See the page's header. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have read and reread these policies, and I I continue to read them as supporting the idea that wikipedia is not the place for things like traffic accidents, but the a violent attack by politically-motivated militants that has a documented impact on public opinion, consequences for government policy, and an effect on peace negotiations is not diequalified under NOTNEWS and is qualified for keeping under the GNG.AMuseo (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Picking up your original request, according to the header of the page NOT is a policy so, as a section of that page NOTNEWS is also a policy. Notability is a guideline and arguments based on policy carry more weight then those on a guideline. The status of the pages is a relative guide to their general acceptance as NOT has been a policy almost since the inception of wikipedia and is widely accepted as an over-arching content guide that speaks directly on project scope. N is a guideline and numerous attempts to promote it to policy have been defeated by the community, which clearly therefore does not consider the standard to have the weight of a formal policy. That means that arguments grounded in N are not sufficient to overcome well-founded arguments based on a policy that speaks directly to project scope. EVENT is a newish page that is not widely accepted and does not have the same standing as N. I do realise that you are capable of reading all this yourself, and maybe you have, but it doesn't matter how many times you query this point the fact remains that a widely accepted policy does have more validity as an inclusion standard then a guideline that is not as widely accepted. An admin closing a discussion is expected to assess consensus against community norms and weigh arguments against them. Hence I stand by my original reasons for closing AFD1 as delete. I am not at all surprised that AFD2 closed as delete too. Spartaz Humbug! 18:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Picking up on something CW wrote, does your logic mean that WP:PRESERVE >> WP:N? Tim started a nice discussion at the policy pump. I really don't think there will be any kind of consensus for this policy>>guideline and further I think if it did gain consensus we'd get some crazy outcomes (never deleting a sourced article again for example...). It's a bad idea and those supporting it really need to step away from this example and look at the larger picture. For example, why does WP:EVENT even exist if NOTNEWS would always trump it? Further, NOTNEWS doesn't specify what enduring notability means, where WP:EVENT tries to. I think it's fair to use the guideline as, well, a guideline, to the policy. Hobit (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to respond on your talk page. Spartaz Humbug! 05:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are suggesting that editors who disagree with you on the interpretation of policies should be sanctioned? Really?AMuseo (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting that editors who abuse the process by treating DRV as a second (and fourth) attempt at AfD should be sanctioned, yes. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no abuse of policy, as non-frivolous arguments were made with regards to the closer's rationale. Suggestions that raising such concerns is grounds for sanctions is not not supported by any wikipedia policy, and seems to be intended to to produce a chilling effect to silence your opponents. It is disappointing to see administrators use such arguments. HupHollandHup (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's equally disappointing to see editors who don't read carefully. I wrote abuse of process, not abuse of policy. And the point of sanctions is to have a chilling effect on disruptive behavior that fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia. See WP:ARBPIA. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are engaging in semantic nitpicking, which could also be described as wikilawyering, but I'll rephrase: There is no abuse of process , as non-frivolous arguments were made with regards to the closer's rationale. Suggestions that raising such concerns is grounds for sanctions is not not supported by any wikipedia policy, and seems to be intended to to produce a chilling effect to silence your opponents. It is disappointing to see administrators use such arguments. It is even more disheartening to see the same admins resort to wikilaywering to defend their attempt to chill out opposing points of view. HupHollandHup (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are many ways to disrupt the Wikipedia process. For example, but starting an excessive number of AFD's. In little more than a month, we have seen numerous AFD's on articles that document some violent aspect of Islamist movements and ideologies. To me, it appears to be a pattern that reveals an effort to keep information about the violent aspects of Islamism off Wikipedia. And it seems abusive because editors are forced to spend time on these endless AFD's when they could be improving our many articles that need improvement. I have probably forgotten some, but here are what, to me, appear to be a pattern of recent attempts to remove material about Islamist violence from Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Rabbi Meir Hai, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaza Baptist Church, The Teacher's Bookshop, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 European terror plot, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian drive-by shooting, August 2010 West Bank shooting, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Hamas terror campaign, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 12, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapuah junction stabbing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erdinç Tekir, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/19 September 2010 Baghdad attacks, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/28 September 2008 Baghdad bombings, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/12 September 2008 Dujail bombing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 2008 Peshawar bombing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba (2nd nomination).AMuseo (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "abuse of process" is clear to those who look. An article is deleted, sent to a deletion review that relists it, where it is deleted again by a different administrator. Common sense would inform all concerned that the community's consensus, in back to back AfDs, is that the article should be deleted. Filing another DRV is simply trying to game the system, to wear down others until the nominator gets his way. Tarc (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@HupHollandHup: Whatever.
@AMuseo: You're right. The Islamization of Wikipedia must be stopped. Why don't you write an article about it? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, since articles that get kept can be repeatedly nominated for deletion, what you describe can work both ways. Sometimes it can be abusive, in either direction, but it can also serve to draw a wider range of editors into the discussion. Most article deleted after a DRV and DRV'd again do end up deleted, but some of them do get kept in the end. People have a right to full hearings, and I would encourage the much more widespread use of deletion review--in general. (I'm not at the moment commenting on this particular article or group of articles). DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite an AnalogyFail, DGG. Yes, kept articles can be re-nominated, but unless a reasonable amount of time has passed between filings it is generally seen as an act of bad faith and disruption. But we've had no passage of time here. This topic had its "full hearing" at DRV1, which determined that it should be relisted, and relisted it was at AfD2, where it was deleted again for the same fucking reason as AFD1. If these partisans had waited a few months, see if the subject matter continued to garner coverage, and then filed another DRV, perhaps that wouldn't have been so bad. But they didn't, because they demand it now. That is disruptive. Tarc (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think they did well not to wait, because in my opinion the deletion of the article was so very wrong at several levels. This is not a disagreement over content; this is a matter of maintaining basic NPOV, and that's something that has to be worked on continually and cannot be passed over. In terms of strategy, it's always a question of whether to keep going in the hope of making a final successful push, or waiting and starting over--it is very difficult to tell in advance what will work better. In this case, I think we supporters of the article want to be able to say we did everything possible. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Strategy" ? Is this just one big game to you? Some people always joke about how the Wikipedia is one giant MMORPG, but now we have a confirmation that some really are playing it that way. Interesting. Tarc (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Are you going to tell me that waiting between AfD nominations is making this a big game too? You try to accomplish what you feel is the right outcome by giving it your best shot. In the case of AfDs, it's pretty clear that nominating again right after a keep isn't going to get you anywhere so people wait and try again. Is that somehow morally bankrupt? Hobit (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. All these re-nominators are doing is in essence buying a wiki-lottery ticket, hoping that on the nth iteration their number will come up, i.e. they happen to get a closing admin sympathetic to the cause. Tarc (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So once kept, no one should renominate an article for deletion? I'm not understanding your response. Hobit (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Generally renominations are done after a reasonable length of time, enough time for the situation to change or to become more clear. Maybe an article that people accept in good faith might be sourcable but after six months it turn out it isn't- then it would be reasonable to renominate it. Maybe a biographical article gets deleted because the subject is not even close to being notable, but six months down the track they achieve some lasting fame. That would be a good time to take it to DrV. But if someone instantly re-nominates an article at AfD because they didn't like the outcome, nothing has changed between then and now, the person just wants to roll the dice again with a different closing admin. That would be disruptive gaming of the system. This here is similar disruptive gaming of the system. The article has been deleted twice-for the same reasons- and it is not acceptable to go on complaining endlessly at DRV just because you don't like the result. Reyk YO! 00:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think my point got lost in there, but I'm not overly worried about it. On this topic, I personally don't mind the result (in fact I pretty much favor it at this point) but I do very much disagree with the logic that got us there (EVENT vs. NOTNEWS) and I don't think there was a consensus to delete. Admittedly I'm not the one that brought the DRV, but I do think there are valid reasons for this DrV beyond a simple disagreement with the outcome. Hobit (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What is genuinely disruptive here is the attempt by several AFD discussion closers to impose their interpretation of policy on the community, even though it clearly lacks consensus support. It reminds me of the attempt to impose the BLP-defaults-to-delete rule some time ago. When one looks at the entire range of similar AFD discussions, it should be clear that there is no basis for discounting the policy views of a large segment of, at worst, a closely divided community. "This policy does not apply because . . . " is no less a policy based argument, in principle/abstract, than "This policy applies because . . . "; there is no rational basis for privileging either argument. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibias canvassing blog bring this up again [4] 1st comment "JJ" also links here.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wow we are scouring the internet now to find out if others might be talking about something here at Wikipedia? That argument should really not have anything to do with this at all. How do we know who is talking about what and where? Is there chatter on IRC or Google Chat? Really, stick with the issues, folks. KantElope (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:MEATPUPPET, it is quite a valid issue, and not to be cavalierly swept under the rug. Tarc (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the contribution history of the user that claims this is irrelevant I would say this is highly relevant. Only edits made in the last 2 weeks come to pages that this blog has canvassed users to vote at. nableezy - 20:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the blog, and I haven't seen that it canvassed anyone to vote on any article. I suppose it might be our business if an editor is whining about Wikipedia on an off-wiki blog, but this reflexive screaming about canvassing is really getting ridiculous. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every post at that blog is a canvassing attempt. Yesterday a newly registred account went around exclusively to Pro-Israeli editors and directed them to the Wikibias blog: [5]. Its a pro-Israeli blog run by a blocked user who has said that "Occassionally, I send people here to help with the efforts." [6] and "I plan to work with other Wiki editors on this site, and we must be totally anonymous in order to keep our accounts on the site." [7] Examples of his blog posts being carried out right after he blogs: Syrian American [8], right after an IP carried out the same change as was talked about at the blog:[9] and another blog post about Oldest synagogues in Israel [10] right after a user carried out the same change as was talked about at the blog:[11]. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment is substantially inappropriate, and brings into question whether the poster's comments should be given any weight in this discussion. By characterizing as "pro-Israeli" all the editors who disagree with his/her position on this dispute, the editor has clearly refused to accord them good faith as is required here, despite the fact that many of them, myself included, have held similar positions in similar AFD/DRV discussions not involving Israel-Palestine issues; it also completely ignores the policy-based arguments advanced here (and elsewhere) independent of issues in that dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rote inclusionists are just as much of a problem as the pro-Israel partisans. It has proven to be quite a tag-team, difficult to overcome in these discussions. Thankfully, AfD3 is a slim-to-none possibility coming out of DRV2 here. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesnt actually say "go here and vote", but it comes very close. It provides links to discussions and subtly pushes people to vote. Some comments are less subtle than others, with one saying "just register anew [sic] account and go help tip the scales to keeping the topic article". nableezy - 20:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was one comment that canvassed, but the blog itself doesn't push people to vote, subtly or otherwise. Jesus, have we gotten to the point of getting into a hissy fit over a comment on an obscure blog? When there is evidence indicating effective covert canvassing on the other side of the debate (see nomination)? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is an almost verbatim reproduction of the tactics of the CAMERA lobbying campaign a few years back. Tarc (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Care to elaborate. "Per nom" is rather vague. —Mikemoral♪♫ 00:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse DRV is not a second chance at AfD. The article has been deleted twice already with detailed rationale provided by the closing administrators in both AfD processes. —Mikemoral♪♫ 00:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - close was well within admin discretion. Otherwise, there seems to be a trend to appeal, query, or seek to overturn every single admin decision that vaguely relates to the I-P dispute. For the avoidance of doubt, this isn't a healthy trend. PhilKnight (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was clearly no consensus to delete. When closing such discussions, a finding of consensus requires that there be something resembling a genuine consensus. One might discard maverick or outlying views but to determine this by simple majority or start judging the matter oneself is quite improper. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - AfD has got it right TWICE on this article now. This is a news story, not an encyclopedia topic... Furthermore, there is now a catch-all 2010 Terrorism-in-Israel article (which has PASSED AfD) into which all the various news articles may be consolidated. Wikipedia is NOT A NEWS SUMMARY SERVICE, and particular not one which tendentiously collects and memorializes the casualties on one side of the Israeli-Palestinian Civil War while ignoring the other. —Carrite, Oct. 9, 2010.
  • Overturn since there is no consistent consensus to delete. I strongly deplore the effort to remove articles on news events in political conflicts which would not be removed otherwise. All sides seem to engage in this tactic--not just the people have. The fate of the articles thus depends on the variable balance of the politics of the participants,. This is noty a way to deal with NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not quite sure what you mean by "consistent consensus". Consistent would imply that consensus needs to be applied across multiple articles or over a period of time, but that's not the case; it's the consensus developed from the AfD that decides its closure. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summation comment by nom: I opened this DRv because of specific concerns, which I stated clearly in the nomination. After a particularly long discussion, not a single person endorsing the closer's deletion has addressed those concerns. Let me repeat: not a single person endorsing the closer's deletion has addressed those concerns. Besides its obvious relevance to the question of what the consensus of the discussion was, this fact should give us pause as to what the point of DRv discussions is. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not kidding anyone here; you opened this because you disagree with the result. Tarc (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as pointed out in the AfD, the event was in the news only for one week. This indicates, that there is no enduring notability, which according WP:NOTNEWS is necessary for inclusion. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_October_2&oldid=1151039226"