Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 4

< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log
< 2009 July 3
2009 July 5 >

4 July 2009

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Billboard 200 number-one albums (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Articles in this category have the distinct defining quality of being ranked as a top-selling album on the weekly published Billboard 200 albums chart from a highly-respected trade publication in the music industry (see Billboard (magazine)). Wolfer68 (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as closer. This category was previously deleted as a recreation of deleted material. So in this case, there needs to be a consensus to override the previous decisions to delete. That case simply was not made in the discussion. I'll add that there is a side issue in that the consensus for albums in this area may differ from the consensus for singles. I'll also restate from my close, that this is much better handled as a list since only the album name is contained in the category. As a list, much more information of note is included. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, DRV is not CFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist A close not based on policy is an incorrect close, and this can require reviewing the arguments to see whether the closer properly took account of policy. In this particular case, I see no argument in the discussion that any policy was violated, and the arguments amounted to IDONTLIKEIT. The closer closed on the explicit basis that it had been deleted before, which is not a reason based in policy. Once re-creation had been allowed, it needed to be discussed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
    • CSD G4 is still policy last time I checked. Quite reasonably not being a bureaucracy and given it's age, it was allowed to go to a discussion to see if it could overcome the original reason for deletion (which would then exempt if from G4) as far as I can tell it didn't. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be some way of seeing whether consensus has changed. DGG (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well my own view is that a bare "consensus can change" argument is pretty weak, we don't want to be repeatedly looking at things, just in case (That of course goes both ways, we expect relists for deletion after a keep outcome to be based on more than a consensus can change line). It's far stronger when backed up with some indication that consensus has indeed changed, e.g. similar stuff recently where the outcome is consistently different. That however is an aside, in this instance as noted there was a path given, the article was not speedy deleted instead a consensus gathering exercise was commenced, and as far as I can read there was no consensus that the category should/could be recreated, which seems a good indication that consensus hadn't changed. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - arguments for keeping were along the lines of "all categories should exist" and "it's useful", which don't come anywhere close to addressing the reasons for deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 02:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm confused by the process. It should remain deleted because it has been G4'd before or because being a #1-ranked album is not a defining characteristic? If only the former, then can I recreate the category, put a "hangon" after someone almost assuredly will put the "speedy" tag back, resulting in a new CFD? I can then be more diligent by notifying the WikiProject Albums talk page for responses from wikipedians knowledgeable on the topic. However, if it is the latter, then the argument for keeping the number-one songs categories is invalid. Thanks for any clarification on the matter. --Wolfer68 (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist As usual, arguments for retention are given a microscopic scrutiny that is not given to infinitely more problematic arguments for deletion. Of the two votes for deletion, User:Occuli's argument for deletion involves a rather rambling statement that the carefully researched and thoroughly sourced article for Bleeding Love contains what he deems to be "pure clutter" in the article itself with the rather unintelligible justification for deletion of the category under discussion based on the sad story of a rodent with category clutter that is so far off the topic that I must quote: "There was some animal like a mouse that was in a category for every country in which it was found - fauna of XXX perhaps. The poor thing was completely overwhelmed by categories." The other delete vote carries some deep and insightful words of wisdom to rationalize deletion from User:Good Olfactory, which in their entirety consist of "Delete per Occuli", representing the policy interpretations of an admin who devotes almost his entire Wikipedia time at CfD but could not come up with anypolicy justification of his own. While I would certainly have worded an argument for retention with a bit more reference to Wikipedia policy, the keep arguments amount to stating that it is defining and the delete vote with any content does not rebut that but talk vaguely about category clutter. The close should have been no consensus and relisting will allow to better gauge community consensus without the unfortunately persistent bias to deletion, discounting and discarding votes for retention, exhibited by too many closing admins at CfD. Alansohn (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There was not a consensus to override the previous deletion decision. --Kbdank71 01:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The rationale for closure looks appropriate, and was not out of line. Wizardman 20:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of male performers in gay porn films (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Extremely valid BLP issues. Majority of the bluelinks are unsourced, and some are totally irrelevant leading to additional BLP issues. The AfD was closed by Bwilkins (talk · contribs), who is not an admin. Aditya α ß 13:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment by closing non-admin I non-admin closed the AfD as "no consensus to delete". In my closing comments, I noted portions of the discussion related to ensuring WP:BLP was not violated, and to validate and clean-up as needed (as per Schmidt's comment "Remove bluelinks that do not lead to articles for male porn stars"). The discussion at the time included almost an equal split of Keep and Delete !votes, with stronger arguments on the Keep side. This article was obviously not going to have support to delete. The editor who has brought this to DRV has stated "If it survives AfD, I'll clean up the article by removing the unsourced material". There was no other possible valid manner of closing this AfD. Based on discussion, and because of the split !vote, "no consensus" was a 100% non-controversial close (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's true. I looked through a lot of the bluelinks though, and many are unsourced, while some are totally unrelated. BLP issues abound. And note, I said "if the discussion survives AfD". I don't think it should survive it, but if DRV endorses your decision then I'll have no option other than to go through that list and every article linked and brutally stub the unsourced statements. (I randomly clicked on two links on that list, one of them isn't even a gay performer, while the other is unsourced) Aditya α ß 14:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn and delete; though I can see the merit in a no-consensus close here - it was indeed fairly evenly divided. I have to say though, were I closing this myself I may well have leant towards deletion - there is a lack of any convincing argument as to why this is better than a category, combined with extreme BLP risks due to its unsourced and contentious nature. While I don't object on principle to non-admin closes of no-consensus discussions, I would definitely disagree with BWilkins that this is a non-controversial one. ~ mazca talk 14:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - mainly per Mazca, but I am also not sure whether this closure by a non-admin was a good idea. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Give me a break. BLP is a valid concern and should be addressed on BLP articles themselves as we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. This really is a case of logic that we are certainly going to have these articles and a list article is perfectly acceptable. In fact many of those poorly sourced or unsourced porn bios should be ... wait for it ... merged to the list article. In this way the onus is on the fans to justify a separate article bolstered by reliable sources - which likely do exist just are not on the article. If nothing else the movies they starred in are primary sources - many porn movies, even the bad ones, are also reviewed. And many of those actors won awards for their work. Does this make them superstars - no; but neither does it mean we pillage through and delete a list when likely every article can be sourced to merit inclusion on the list. Sorry but BLP is a guidance for us to avoid legal problems as well as perceived moral conflicts of "slandering" someone as being a pornstar. The cultural shift as well is that porn actors and porn are rather mainstream including the corporate mergers causing the top mainstream media companies - like Disney - to also profit from adult entertainment of all types. We should not stand in the way of content but find ways to better manage it. This is one list that simply needs clean-up. Per AfD that is regular editing and deletion is unneeded. BLP happens on the individual articles. Encourage sourcing and clean-up as always - I rather doubt calling a porn star a porn star violates BLP anyway although I'm sure that could be argued on. -- Banjeboi 15:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, per WP:BLP. Non-admins simply should never be making no-consensus closures, because they are by default not unambiguous. Stifle (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse That a named person is notable for being a pornographic actor and the evidence is sufficient to justify a Wikipedia article, makes all BLP considerations ones applying to the original articles, not this one. There may need to be some discussions there, but the 10 that I sampled from the ones not specifically cited in the list itself were all defensible with respect to BLP, though not necessarily notability, and at least half extremely solid in both respects, with relevant awards or the like. DGG (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete Per WP:BLP. The BLP issues of this are very serious and performers need citations (beyond IMDB which is hardly a reliable source) in order to be included. Userfication would be a suitable way to work on this article, but it should absolutly not be presented in the mainspace unless there is a shred of sourced credibility to it. Also the NAC was highly inappropriate. ThemFromSpace 01:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - whether or not a non-admin should close no consensus, the AFD clearly had no consensus for deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per Themfromspace and Stifle. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist because DRV clearly can't decide.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as No consensus, as the Afd nominator for which this came from. I personally would like to see it deleted for the reasons I stated in my Afd deletion nom but Deletion review isn't supposed to be a second Afd and as the Afd was clearly no consensus, I'll accept that. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 19:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, ASE, I think the "delete" side might arguably have won that (on strength of argument rather than weight of numbers, obviously). I'd be looking for something a bit more decisive from DRV than the result we're looking at here (which at the moment seems to be "no consensus to overturn the non-admin closure as no consensus", a horribly weak conclusion and hard to defend in the face of BLP concerns). I think "relist" is the stronger response.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dire BLP warning was addressed both in the AfD and here. I see some effort to delete as many of these articles is now underway so perhaps nothing will be left to list after all. -- Banjeboi 01:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I believe that it is clear in WP:NAC and WP:RELIST that non-admins should never close something as "no consensus", but we had the same arguments at the DRV for Nuvola here. Perhaps the wording needs to be more explicit? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur. After some surprising comments on my talk (including one from an editor who I actually have respected in the past) lambasting my NAC, I re-read NAC, and still do not see how closing "no consensus" is at all contentious ...in fact, it's the least contentious form of closure. There are, after all, some of us non-admins with brains and experience. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well what is no consensus? It is when there is too much disagreement, too much contention to close it the other way. No consensus isn't the answer to satisfy both sides, it is the simply the action taken when no-one agrees. By that nature, it is likely that the close is going to get scrutiny, and such closures need an admin if nothing else but to feel like the AfD has been closed appropriately. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn inappropriate NAC. BWilkins's explanation is reasonable, but after consideration, I think that it relies on a loophole in the NAC recommendations. Sourcing every entry should be considered – I believe that this has been insisted on for contentious lists in the past. Flatscan (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is hardly a contentious list. Someone is either a porn star in a gay porno film or they're not. The only contentious part is that some of the BLPs may have had the content removed or never added in the first place. That is not contention - just a matter of regular editing. -- Banjeboi 05:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree Benjiboi - I have no knowledge as to who is or who isn't a gay porn star. Just because some teenager added their teacher's name to the list because they got a "C" on an essay is not the fault of the list. Someone needs to clean it up ASAP, then keep an eye on it quite closely to avoid BLP issues. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the closure is reasonable. I wouldn't mind relisting to get an admin closure, but really, what this article needs is more cleanup and not more AFDs and more DRVs. Kusma (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per Mazca. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I sense an unspoken undertone of "we should not have the list because this is an inherently shameful thing to do, and no reasonable person would want to be listed on it." But the list should contain only those whose activities were open and public knowledge & made a living from it & generally wanted as much publicity as they could get--& by and large it does. The argument for keeping the list, ultimately, is NOT CENSORED. DGG (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I often agree with DGG, but not this time. It's wrong that featuring on that list could be harmful to some people, in some careers or in some countries. But wrong though it is, it's also true: there are homophobic and fundamentalist countries, or parts of countries, where being mentioned on that list could result in measurable harm to a living person.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there was some concern that appearing in gay porn might be damaging to some performer in some country somewhere then that performer should have kept his dick in his pants. WP is not responsible for the consequences of decisions made by individuals of their own free will and the notion that factual and verifiable information should be removed because people regret having participated in the documented activity is unsupportable. Otto4711 (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about people who have not ever performed in such films? People could get added and there could be very serious implications for such people if their boss or family believed the article. With such important BLP issues, I'm surprised one could say a NAC is permissible. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, just to keep track of this jump down the rabbit hole ... we should be duly concerned about someone falsely added to the list because even though they were never in a gay porn film ... their boss or family was, of course, reviewing a list of actors in gay porn and believed it to be them with no confriming evidence? That too would seem to be a reason to source each entry - not delete the entire list. I went through a similar exercise with List of animals displaying homosexual behavior, of the hundreds of entries - many of which were presumed likely hoaxes and vandalism - only one had to be removed as likely vandalism. And vandals continue to try to add their friends names there as well as other nonsense. -- Banjeboi 10:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Banjeboi, I respect your opinion (though I don't agree with it) but I must insist you stop badgering people who have opinions differing from yours, like you did in the article's AfD. You've made your point, now back away and let the DRV take its course. Your constant nagging is becoming really tiring. Aditya α ß 17:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I'm concerned, Banjeboi's very welcome to answer me. I find his remark in the spirit of open discussion, which Wikipedia should encourage. And that was a reasonable point to make, though I'm afraid I'm not persuaded by it, because right now I'm considering this article and not that one.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aditya, I'm sorry you feel my comments are badgering in any way - they are not intended as such at all. I've made three follow-up comments here; regarding what I feel is the misdirected BLP concern, answering that the list itself is hardly contentious and now this thread on what seems to be a novel extension of BLP interpretation. WP:POINT is about not disrupting so I must say now I'm a bit offended by these characterizations. Like many AfDs, the time and effort spent debating the merits of the article at AfD and now DrV if spent on adding sourcing to the list would have rendered the entire discussion unneeded per WP:Before. Likely every item there is sourceable and BLP, IMHO, is being applied poorly. I support enforcing BLP but it needs to start at the actual article then back-channeled to the list. -- Banjeboi 04:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've no clue about the sexuality of the, er, members of the list; I just know that athis list is a tempting one for immature schoolboys of any age to add their friends, enemies, colleagues, teachers or bosses to.  pablohablo. 11:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. I've been working to introduce sourcing to appease the stated concerns; of the approximately 360 or so entries roughly 75-80 still need one added on this list. Many of those are most certainly porn stars, I simply haven't gotten to them yet. I've added refs from the Grabby awards and am now working through the GayVN awards; on those I've done 2009-2006 with 2005 back to 1986 to be done. There are other defunct awards as well as international ones I have not yet looked into. I have found no vandalism as of yet. -- Banjeboi 16:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally agree, and that's what I told the editor who added them. They can be a good reference to identify which films are associated with an actor but IMHO it's a misleading ref when we need a stronger one. Once all items have at least a ref we can circle back and see which only have the IMDb - I think they only did A and B - and add stronger sourcing. -- Banjeboi 02:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Telepathy and war (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
  • Article was vandalised before deletion. Large blocks of well referenced content were repeatedly deleted by the same user and another user who appeared to be associated with that user. Up to 17 references from reputable sources were removed. The two users (Verbal and Papa November) then claimed that the article was poorly referenced and badly written, and so should be deleted. I would like to think the deletions of citation and reference material were made out of a genuine a desire to improve Wikipedia - if mistakenly - except that the conduct of the respective users over time suggested to me that repeated deletions and reversions to versions with very little content were motivated by un-wikipedia-like agendas. Before the article was deleted, at least two repair bots tagged the article, one citing "possible vandalism".
  • The users who proposed deletion of the article engaged in acts of bad faith and what appeared to be edit warring, including reversions to versions with few references and almost no material and "biting" and baiting a relatively new editor.
  • The article was supported by other users who became interested in the article and who began working to improve it, as far as they could between repeated content deletions and reversions to versions with few references. The article was nominated for rescue.
  • User page histories show that the users intent on removing content have displayed an editorial bias in reverting and removing content from other Wikipedia pages as well. The users who campaigned for the article's deletion seemed to link to and quote a lot of rules and Wiki regulations during discussion but seemed themselves to have difficulty operating in good faith, constructively and with neutrality.
  • The articles for deletion discussion was closed and the article deleted by an administrator whose own editorial conduct was called into question. The closing administrator's behaviour was found in an arbitration case [1] to include edit warring and sock puppetry. It is possible that the decision to delete [2] the article and close discussion that the article generated, was made by a biased administrator who could have engaged in sock puppetry specifically connected to the article's original vandalism.

I would like the article restored, with its edit history. I would like to continue working on the article. Although I contend that improvements might pose a challenge in the eyes of questionable administrators and users, I am willing to work in good faith on the article. Frei Hans (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Frei Hans (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, the decision was sound. Accusations of vandalism, sockpuppetry, "un-wikipedia-like agendas", bad faith, editorial bias etc are extremely subjective - irrelevant "sources" and speculative or irrelevant content was removed from the article. Note that Frei Hans (talk · contribs) has been shopping his complaints around for some time: see here and here pablohablo. 12:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)diffs added  pablohablo. 13:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pablo, how is it that your comment here was posted only moments after I notified (following deletions review process) a known sock-puppeteer, whose editorial priveleges have been recently curtailed, that a former administration decision of his was up for review? Frei Hans (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you a clue, it wasn't telepathy.  pablohablo. 13:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would not surprise me if many people have said editor's talk page watchlisted, for various reasons. I certainly wouldn't consider the appearance of anyone involved in this to be anything like a surprise, or evidence of suspicious behaviour. ~ mazca talk 14:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. One editor who tried to delete the article also opted to merge some content into other articles. How is it that content can be deemed Wikipedian and encyclopedic when merged with a completely different article but not relevant and un-encyclopedic in the original article? If content is relevant enough to be merged, it is relevant enough to stand alone. If content can be merged with other articles then it stands to reason that the original (and more extensive) article with its greater depth should at the very least be restored to facilitate referencing and citation across other articles. Frei Hans (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not an appropriate medium to publish one's paranoid phantasies. Some misguided editors of the "every sperm article is sacred" variety tried to rescue this hopeless case by transforming the pure tinfoil hat material into mere original synthesis of speculations in formally reliable sources. Frei Hans thinks this was improper. And it was, because trying to "save" a blatantly hopeless snow deleteable article in this way is disruptive. Hans Adler 13:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressing Hans Adler's deletion endorsement. Pardon me? I feel Hans Adler has tried to misrepresent what I, Frei Hans, think by ascribing words to my hand that never issued from my hands at all. To clarify, I take exception to the vandalism and misrepresentation of content that was cited and well referenced, with links to reputable sources:
~ The article was based on mainstream news reports, reports in well known science and technology magazines, and material on the websites of universities involved in the research.
~ Reports stated that the Pentagon had been funding research into applications for "synthetic telepathy". The technology magazine Wired reported that projects have been funded in the remote control of robotics by the power of telepathic or telekinetic thought, and into applications for soldiers to use to communicate on the battlefield as well as to influence "enemy command".
~ Extensive reference material and citation was included in the history of the original article, which has been deleted.
~ Far from being a "tin foil" concern, the research has actually been gaining mainstream traction, and was reported by mainstream news organisations as referenced in the article.
~ The deleted material could be included in the Telepathy article but I deliberately created a new article and kept it separate because the material included military applications using remote controlled and wireless brain-computer interfaces, as well as the use of EEG. Perhaps the article content could be merged with the Telepathy article, but that can only happen if users have access to the content and content creation history.
NB, I also want to make clear that I am not Hans Adler, although our user names are similar, and wonder at the remarkable coincidence of his being here too. Frei Hans (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
nb I wish to make it clear that I am not A Man in Black, although our usernames suggest we are of the same gender. pablohablo. 16:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Headings such as "Orwellian future surpassed" and paragraphs such as the following were definitely not based on mainstream reports in any reasonable sense of "based on":
"No existing human rights law covers mind-tapping or torture using 'telepathic' applications developed for military use. The applications therefore exist outside of human rights law. Wire-tapping laws have not even been updated to keep pace with wireless LAN technology let alone telepathic technology. The development of telepathic technology raises almost incredible human rights abuse issues, and massive questions surrounding invasions of privacy for citizens all around the world."
The entire article was one large piece of improper synthesis plus a large dose of editorialising based loosely on the result of the synthesis. Hans Adler 23:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The premise of Wikipedia is that users can contribute to articles. If users take issue with the style that factual and encyclopedic content is presented in, then users should make an effort to re-write the content in a style they feel represents "neutrality" - although it appears neutrality itself is subjective. I thought the article was written in a neutral style with a lot of factual referenced content. Others wanted to delete the article, claiming neutrality was an issue. The paragraph Hans Adler described was actually re-written (by myself) after criticism.
Unfortunately some editors, whose behaviour suggested sock puppetry (and whose behaviour was consistent with the action of AMiB who has been proven to take part in sock puppetry), took it on themselves to delete referenced content and campaign for the entire article's deletion. Instead of attempting to re-write content with a genuine intent to improve it, those editors chose instead to sabotage and discredit the article. Now the decision making capacity and neutrality of at least one of the editor's involved in deleting the article has been called into question, with an independent arbitration case finding AMiB to have contravened the general spirit of Wikipedia including indulging in non-neutral activities and sock puppetry.
As it is, if editors want to try re-writing the article's content in a different style then the article needs to be restored. I am interested in negotiating a neutral style while retaining the article's factual and informative integrity, and to do that the article and its history needs to be un-deleted. Frei Hans (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, it seems a perfectly reasonable close given the discussion. I don't see the asserted vandalism having an immense effect either on the viability of the article or the AfD debate - the primary objections seem to be very basic, structural ones about the encyclopedic nature of the topic itself. ~ mazca talk 14:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mazca, the closing and deleting administrator has recently been found to have engaged in biased practices and sock puppetry on other pages. These traits were all evident in the campaign to have the article deleted. Do you not pause to consider that a gross injustice has been perpetrated by an administrator who has since been topic-banned from the Article Rescue Squadron for inciting deletions and who has been placed on a standard editing restriction for one year? Frei Hans (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am indeed aware of the history surrounding A Man In Black (talk · contribs) and the associated ArbCom case. This is why I gave the debate and the article a good read, as I know there have been problems in this area. However, I don't really see any real symptoms of the problem in this particular debate: consensus does seem to favour deletion, and were I the closing administrator I probably would have closed it the same way. The fact that AMIB was desysopped and topic-banned for various issues does not automatically invalidate all the good closes he's made, and I do not personally see a problem with this one. ~ mazca talk 14:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion and give it an honest AfD. I have seen the sort of behavior the editor describes above. This practice of denuding an article of nearly all content and sourcing--good, bad or indifferent-- during an AfD is absolutely unethical, is becoming too common, and should be punishable. I know nothing of this particular article and its AfD, but I do know that the closing ex-admin engaged in exactly this sort of behavior in an AfD in which I was involved-- one brought up two times within a week of the article's creation, and Kept both times, but in the laughably censored version, in which it remains. So, restore article, allow editors to work in good faith to put the best sourcing and material into it, do not allow pro-deletion editors to mock the article by removing as much content and sourcing as they can get away with, and judge that version at the AfD. Dekkappai (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles at AfD can still be edited, which is a sensible way to go; articles at AfD are often improved during the AfD process, thus removing the deletion rationale. On what criteria would do you propose to disallow editors from working on articles listed for deletion? pablohablo. 15:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dekkappai, you clearly don't understand the situation. I can't blame you since presumably you didn't see the article in its original state: Article version as preferred by Frei Hans. Some misguided members of the Article Rescue Squadron tried to rescue the article from certain snow deletion by removing most of the blatant nonsense and adding a few reasonable related tidbits. Hans Adler 23:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hans Adler, please stop misrepresenting me by stating what you think I prefer or what you think I would like. I do prefer versions of the article that retained more content and referencing, and would have preferred genuine contributions from other users if they had been able to make them without their contributions being deleted as well as mine.
I do not prefer the version you linked to and never stated that I do. Sections of the article were being deleted so rapidly while other editors attempted to create reasonable well referenced content that nobody could say that a "preferred" version could have emerged from the discussion around it before sections and eventually the entire article were deleted.
The earlier illustrated version was my favourite at first, as I put a lot of effort into that first posting - but during discussion around the article I found other relevent content and several interesting contributions by other editors were made that could have improved the article further if these had time to develop. That is why I haven't a particular favourite, and would prefer the entire article with its history be restored.
Research behind the military project also seems to be in continual development and new material about it is likely to emerge as well - another reason why I would never expect to settle on a static version. My preference is for genuine up to date and well referenced content without interference from deliberately disruptive users. Frei Hans (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion but recommend userfying the final wikified version to Frei Hans. They seem willing to try to understand concerns but still are missing some core issues of Wikipedia having to completely avoid original research; as such it's rather pointless to work in gray areas when all your work will be deleted like this. It's better to stick with mainstream sourcing and let other sources lead the way on what we report here. -- Banjeboi 17:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion the original and various other "long" versions would have been deleted as snow but for the disruption of one editor. The AfD went on far too long and I'm not surprised Hans feels aggrieved, but his article has no place in wikipedia. The shortened version had a lot fewer problems, but still failed to meet our standards. The AfD addressed both versions, and I see no reason to overturn the closure. There was nothing dishonest about the AfD, however the increasing attacks against the nominator (me) and others who contributed are a cause for concern, as is the bad faith shown by Dekkappai. If Dekkappai had been there he would know his accusation is baseless. I also endorse Hans Adler's and Pablo's comments. This was an unimpeachable delete. Verbal chat 18:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also oppose userfication, endorse salt and would ask for a civility warning to be given to Frei Hans by an admin. This article is no good, and Frei has shown bad faith and poor judgement. Although he was given some bad advice by a few editors, he was given much ood advice which he ignored. He even reported me to AIV for nominating this article! Verbal chat 15:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and userfy back into User:Frei Hans/Telepathy and war (merge the histories or something) don't userfy per Papa November's comment and several attempts by author to recreate another deleted article that he wrote, send the article to him by email so he can go to some wiki specialized in paranormal phenomena and put it there. Many commenters saw the article in different times of its evolution, so it's not like everyone !voted and then someone managed to fix the article after that. Also notice that the creator of the article is mixing concepts, the wired article about computer mediated telepathy is not actually about telepathy. You use a computer to read an electroencefalogram and then a radio to transmit the computer interpretation. There is no actual telepathy going on at any part of the process, even if Wired and the researchers used that name because it sounds cooler. They just do something that looks like telepathy. Idem for the other Wired article. It's all like moving a Pong pad using a fugly aparatus attached to your head. Very old news for people that follow the Human computer interaction field. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, he didn't write the other article [3]. As to if he misunderstood the purpose of userfying, I guess we'll all have our own takes on that. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Wired article and also military spokespeople and intelligence sources cited in the article used the term "telepathy" specifically. The applications being developed are "wireless" and involve non-intrusive forms of EEG - the effect is one of synthetically produced telepathy. The term "synthetic telepathy" was also used by some sources and cited in a reputable publication. Frei Hans (talk) 06:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I checked all versions where there had been a major change in size of the article, and none of them were about this actual subject. Eric above understand the subject the same way I do. This is a development over a number of years of extremely exciting work with practical application and great promise, built not around the dubious ideas of parapsychology but upon actual science. Telepathy for military applications has been suggested from time to time, and in its wilder days I suppose DARPA may have tried it, but that would be a completely different article. I would not userify this: it's hopeless. An article on the topic should start over. DGG (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If as you say an article on the topic should start over - then the original article should be restored for its reference and source material. An existing article can be reasonably re-written with additional material, and even renamed and moved. But a deleted article is of no use to anyone interested in the topic. Frei Hans (talk) 07:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? If I made decisions with reasoning like that I could suggest that the users who campaigned for the article's deletion should all be "peppered" for their extreme unwillingness to work in a Wikipedian way to create improvements where they feel improvements might be made. Could you please describe "salt" in this context to me. I am unfamiliar with phrases like "salt" - perhaps because I am more interested in valid content creation then in disrupting the work of genuine Wikipedians. Frei Hans (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SALT. It means preventing users from recreating the article. Papa November (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some users show an extreme unwillingness to allow other users to create genuine content. By S Marshall's logic, should their user accounts be "salted"? Frei Hans (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accounts cannot be salted, but they can be blocked from editing if they are behaving disruptively. However, you'd have much more luck presenting a well-formed case at dispute resolution as I've suggested numerous times rather than just saying that you want me to be blocked. Papa November (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is just it, Papa November. I have never said I want your account "blocked". I suspect I operate with more good faith then you do. I have pointed out that I find some of your behaviour disruptive. As far as sock puppets are concerned, I believe it is important for others to know where these have been operating disruptively - but I would lean towards keeping their accounts open (if restricting administration duties). I believe this because a known sock puppeteer, with a history of disruptive editorial practice, is easier to keep tabs on. Frei Hans (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
← If this were "genuine content", i.e. content that complied with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I'd be right behind you in getting it included. Im afraid that in my view, it isn't, so I'm not.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of the "useful encylcopedic content" has not been merged into Brain-computer interface. Some content was merged in a bit of a mash with Brain-computer interface and some with Telepathy. Both of the merges were clumsy and needed work to make them sit more comfortably within the bodies of the articles they were merged with. If those merges were to be improved, then logically the original article and its history should be restored for users to refer to. The rest of the article was originally well referenced and originally contained citation and quotes from sources that you deleted. After the user Papa November deleted references and citation he claimed the article was short on references from reputable sources! As other editors added more references, he continued to remove them. The user removed content to misrepresent the article, then campaigned for the article's deletion - and now asks me to take his edits in good faith! Originally I did take that user's edits in good faith, but he has since shown me that he seems to have a biased agenda. Frei Hans (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also oppose userfication as Frei Hans has abused this privilege twice previously by immediately moving userfied content back to the mainspace. (Check the logs for User:Frei Hans/Theodore Kowal → Theodore Kowal) and User:Frei Hans/Telepathy and war → Telepathy and war). There really is nothing more that could be done to make the article worthy of a place in an encyclopedia. Papa November (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The second of those wasn't a restoration and was copied back to the article (as best I can tell given the comment) before the deletion discussion concluded and before it was deleted, the other may have been a genuine misunderstanding - the apparent lack of willing to assume good faith by Frei Hans, doesn't mean we shouldn't extend the same back. That said the listing here still seems to demonstrate a huge gap in Frei Hans' understanding of what wikipedia is about, so I'd be reluctant to restore until that improves. I can't see the benefit in restoring for the article not to have the key issues resolve and be wasting everyone's time and no doubt raising tensions. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the "Theodore Kowal" entry back to the main space because I thought that is where restored article's belong. I moved the article back to main space after an administrator restored the article to my user space. I did not create the article and thought that the original editor would have wanted to work on the article, so logically thought that the article should be in main space where he/she and other users could work on it. Incidentally, within minutes of moving it back user Verbal (as though stalking my every edit) tagged the article for speedy deletion.
As for the "Telepathy and war" move. The user Papa November moved the entire article to my user space before the AfD had finished, and deleted most of the existing article in main space. I moved his version from my user space, with his changes and suggestions, back to the main space so that other users who had become interested in the article during its AfD discussion could work on the article as well - collaboratively and, I had hoped, constructively. Personally, I think that if Papa November had really been interested in working on the article he could have moved it to his own user space instead of mine, and then asked me to look at his alternative version.
I did not realise Wikipedia had become a wiki where people now write article's privately in their user spaces and then publish them in main space where other users campaign for deletion. I thought Wikipedia was a community of users genuinely interested in collaboratively creating encyclopedic content in Wikipedia's main space. Frei Hans (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained[4][5] the purpose of userfication to you along with the reason why the content you moved back to the mainspace was speedily deleted. The original form of the telepathy and war article was copied to your userspace because you objected so strongly to the edited version. The intention was for you to come up with your own improved private version in parallel with the mainspace version. I gave you an explanation at the time[6]. Unfortunately, you just copied and pasted the original version back over the mainspace article, reverting the contributions by other editors. Papa November (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made very few reversions. Most of the reversions were made by Verbal - to versions where Verbal and Papa November had deleted most content. I moved the article to main space because other editors were working on it there. The article in its original form was far beyond "working stage", which is I suspect what user page space development is best used for. User page space in that case was inappropriate, unless Papa November planned to work on an alternative version in his own user space (which he did not - instead he used mine!). Frei Hans (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion After reading through all of this I also think this needs deletion and should be salted to prevent this from continuing. The editor who wrote this doesn't seem to want to except this. Also a note to this editor about assume good faith and no personal attacks should be explained if it hasn't been already. I am sad to read all the accusations against so many good faith editors here and in other locations. It's time I think to delete all of the article that have been iVoted deletion and to salt them so they are not recreated again. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse deletion – reason for overturning is rooted in numerous ad hominem attacks and childish name-calling on the participants in the AFD. This squarely falls under the two bottom levels of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. MuZemike 20:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please clarify what you mean. Are you talking about overturning the deletion? Could you also please quote (and link to) the incidences of "ad hominem attacks and childish name-calling". Some users that were pro-deletion were rude during the AfD discussion and in other discussions, but I am uncertain which ones you are referring to or how their rudeness could support your endorsement of their campaign to delete the article. Frei Hans (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure he is referring to your constant, flippant accusations of sock-puppetry, vandalism and "agendas" against other editors as explained in the Wikiquette alert I filed last month and you chose to ignore. Papa November (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure my suspicion that sock puppets were (and perhaps still are) at work was vindicated in the arbitration case for AMiB. AMiB was found in an arbitration case, that I read by chance, to be a sock puppet operator after he deleted the article we are discussing now. It might be interesting to investigate this thread later for the same. Perhaps one might consider it a massive act of good faith on my part that I never filed a Wikiquette alert against Verbal and Papa November after their repetitive deletions and reversions. Frei Hans (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there are sockpuppets at work, you need to file a sockpuppet investigation; WP:SPI. Wikiquette reports go here, however editing a bad article to remove off-topic subject matter and irrelevant references is not a Wikiquette matter.
What we should be discussing here is whether the AfD was closed correctly, which it clearly was.  pablohablo. 09:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)edited  pablohablo. 09:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to collaboratively create interesting encyclopedic content with integrity. I never became a Wikipedia user thinking that I would have to file appeals and sock puppet investigations. Unfortunate that poorly behaving users mean the process need exist, really. Frei Hans (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That statement is contradicted by the history of the article, its AfD and the other places you have shopped around for support (for example here and here). It is not exactly "collaborative" to accuse editors with whom you disagree of sockpuppetry and vandalism. And those editors were questioning the encyclopedic value and "integrity" of the article in question.  pablohablo. 10:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can a user know the history of an article that has been deleted? You cannot prove anything unless you can cite article history. I would be very happy to see the article and its history restored, so that you might try to cite your allegations.
I did not "shop" around. I was advised by others to seek editorial assistance, and did. In fact, the user now complaining here and in other locations of "forum shopping" (Verbal) has been suggesting all manner of forums for me to go to. Perhaps he prefers to edit war in forums than to create content.
It is not exactly collaborative for other users to continually remove valid content simply because they don't like it, to revert content to versions where almost all content and referencing has been deleted, to lure users into uncreative forums based around the destruction of content by nominating articles for deletion, to bait and post aggressive messages on another user's page, and then to hypocritically post Wikiquette alerts about other users who show more good faith and neutrality. Frei Hans (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←This deletion review will be closed by an adminstrator, who will have access to the deleted article and its history. However the deletion review is not so much about the article as the AfD, which was closed correctly and is available for all to see. pablohablo. 11:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is not an earlier version of the article. That is a section that the user Dream Focus decided to work on before the article was deleted. The user indicated interest in adding the section to the article, before it was deleted. None of the Dream Focus material appeared in the original article. Frei Hans (talk) 07:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK Hans, please could you stop accusing other editors for five minutes and discuss the article instead?

  • Do you honestly believe that your original version of the Telepathy and war article could have survived the deletion debate? (Note that even before other editors started working on it, there had been twelve statements advocating its deletion and none opposing.)
  • Do you honestly believe there was a consensus to keep the article at the AFD debate? (Note that I'm not asking if there were editors who supported it. I'm asking if you believe there was a general consensus to keep) Papa November (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do, if the debate had not been stacked and if the editorial decision to close the debate had not been carried out by a sock puppeteer. Further, the Theodore Kowal article that was briefly restored, was tagged by Verbal for speedy deletion and then deleted by yourself. The pair of you seem to work in tandem in this way and I would be remise not to point it out where deletion of Telepathy and war is concerned. I did not create the Theodore Kowal article but its restoration seems to have been revoked by the pair of you for no valid reason. Why the great effort to try to suppress content that is informative and interesting? Why the concerted effort to try to avoid addressing the fact that the decision to delete was made by a sock puppeteer whose conduct and editorial decisions have been found in an arbitration case to be questionable? I am not accusing other editors, I am stating the facts about the way the deletion was handled and unfortunately that includes discussing the ethically questionable actions of other editors. Do you honestly believe I can take your and Verbal's edits in good faith anymore, after all of your provocations and your campaign to delete citable content with reputable references? Incidentally I would prefer the Theodore Kowal article be restored again as well, so that the original creator can be contacted out of courtesy. Frei Hans (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question about restoration. When I am logged in and looking at this page I can see a link reading "restore". I want to click on that link to see what will happen. Does it actually restore the article. If it does restore the article, does that mean I have authority to restore it? Frei Hans (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it does restore the article it means that the software is malfunctioning.  pablohablo. 11:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, only administrators can view and restore deleted pages. I think you'll just end up at a page telling you that. Papa November (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to test it on one of the other articles here, to find out. If I test it on this one somebody is likely to accuse me of editorial bias. Frei Hans (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already told you that the link is there for admin use only. Your account cannot view or restore deleted pages. Papa November (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to find out for myself. Why do you keep trying to delete and remove content all of the time? Frei Hans (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not votes, nor can the "endorsements" posted here be considered votes. Wikipedia clearly states that such forum displays should not be considered votes. Incidentally, if one could say that hundreds of users never commented, then one could say hundreds are indifferent and are quite fine with the article - and so it should stay. You cannot consider such a small sample of online comments a "vote" by any stretch of the imagination. Most forums advocating deletion seem to be created by campaigning "deletionists", which is not really indicative of popular opinion at all but more an indication of editorial bias on the part of small teams who roam Wikipedia looking for content to delete. Frei Hans (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to C and other similar languages, "!vote" has become a useful shortcut for "not-a-vote" on discussions like this.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as the closing admin acted properly. I note that Frei Hans had recently filed this rejected SPI request [7] and that there is currently an Rfc/U about him at [8]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DougWeller (talk • contribs) 17:46, 6 July 2009
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/2009_July_4&oldid=1140114456"