Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination)

Editing the complaint after posting?

Is it standard for the criteria that the deletion request is based on to be edited again and again AFTER voting begins? That seems a bit crazy. rootology 22:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No reason not too so long as the time on the signature corresponds to the updates. (→Netscott) 22:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What is official policy on this? It seems disengenuous as people will already have voted one way or the other. For example, if a vote is going against what is desired by the vote-maker, he can "game the system" by making it sound more heinous after the fact to try to sway things. Not saying you did this out of maliciousness, but I am concerned. rootology 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

By all means make a post on WP:AN about this. If ever I had doubts about modifying the reasoning aftewards I wouldn't have done so. (→Netscott) 22:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ed is "mean, attack, etc."

Just because ED is mean and obnoxious does not make an article ABOUT it the same. The WP article about it does not show favor or endorsement to the information and humor style on ED; t only describes it. In essence, we have a NPOV-secure article about a controversial subject. We should be applauding, not deleting. These aren't good reasons to exclude an article's subject. Karwynn (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

See Ku Klux Klan, Adolf Hitler, Osama bin Laden, concentration camp, rape, murder, terrorism, torture. Karwynn (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

All of those topics have been covered extensively in independent reliable sources, too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

If everyone agrees to a "delete" consensus based on votes I will agree. However, I want to be sure that if the vote is keep or no consensus, that no admin will take it upon themselves to delete. Note extreme hostility, possible retaliatory nature of this deletion request:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#How_to_report_abusive_admin_editing.3F_.2F_updated_with_details

Thanks! rootology 01:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the policy if any for renomination of an article after it has successfully passed a deletion vote? Is there any amount of time that it must be excluded for renominations? Or can people repeatedly relist immediately? Thanks, curious. rootology 01:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast policy, although it's discouraged. If it survived this round, a new nom would almost certainly be speedy kept. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The closing admin doesnt actually decide based purely on the vote number, but on the arguement's presented. Usually they will obey consensus, but they don't have to technically. Cheers -- Banes 01:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I am concerned that given the hostile nature of an attack on one admin that spawned this, that there is no way to get a "fair shake" now. What recourse exists (if hypothetically it came to that)? Just submit for undeletion? Never been through all this before so I'm not sure. rootology 01:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

deletion review is available, but your mileage may vary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to say that. If an article is deleted it is never "gone". They can always be brought back, and, while I'd like to see this one go, it is likely to stay. You are free to report and admin you believe has abused their powers, there are plenty of places to do this, and, if this article is deleted unfairly, it will be restored. -- Banes 01:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw some people reporting the admin and I saw them being reverted. Hardvice 13:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Where, for what article? What admin? rootology 13:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I spotted one in the history of this AFD article. I looked up the user and I see banned. I looked up the banner's contributions and I saw a record started of users they banned for such complaining and there were more than one, complaints all over the place. Hardvice 13:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wonder why.--MONGO 13:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Folks if a Wikipedia admin is being attacked and trolled as it appears was happening when this version of Encyclopædia Dramatica was online (note the now deleted image of the front page of the site featuring User:MONGO) it's normal that those who are doing the attacking and trolling (particularly accounts that were socks meant to do so) are blocked and banned. All of that falls into Wikipedia's policies. (→Netscott) 13:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, no problem with that. I'm curious if any policy exists however on admins editing complaints about themselves? Just curious, I'm still learning some of this as I go. Seems kind of conflict of interest? rootology 13:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

While the image should have been reverted, there was nothing technically wrong with the deletion. Scores of other abuses of power are evident, but not concerning the image. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The revisionism is amazing here. The image was the only issue, and the page was not attacking anyone. Since the image was deleted rather than reverted to a non-attack image, we have no way of showing who was actually doing the attacking. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Attributing 'revisionism' to other editors in a justifiable disagreement is extremely unproductive and unlikely to resolve the conflict with mutual respect - as it implies a motive to disinform.

And in this instance (where you are claiming that since the image's content isn't available now there's no way to know who was attacking whom) your use of that term is a really stunning achievement in unintentional irony. Such an idea is the very 'root' of revisionism. An admin here suffered off- and on-wiki personal attacks as a direct result of his 'be bold' policy. The image's status does not retroactively eliminate that fact.

Jeff, as an erstwhile admin admin you should be at least as concerned with maintaining WP:AGF and protecting the integrity of a fellow user (MONGO) as you appear to be with protecting a vanity site. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith and believe that you haven't seen this unfold over the last three days. He suffered attacks that probably weren't warranted at the time in an off-wiki article. His handling of the situation on-wiki isn't excused by it, as understandible as his reaction may be on a symapthetic scale. The fact that those of us who lack certain powers cannot see who uploaded the image in question certainly affects the facts - instead of pointing out exactly who the "attackers" were, everyone who may be tangentically associated with the site, regardless of their actual record or history, are being painted as such. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If I were an admin, which I'm not, I wouldn't be throwing my administrative weight around to affect the outcome of this article. MONGO's integrity may be lauded in other areas (I've never encountered him prior to this flap, to my knowledge), but his multiple violations of basic policy and guideline regarding page protection, editing, and good faith to other editors has been noted. As for "protecting a vanity website," I don't consider this page vanity, and I believe that it barely skirts the guidelines for web inclusion, guidelines that are way too strict anyway. I do not appreciate that sort of judgement regarding my motives. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Then you know how it feels to be called a 'revisionist'. Bearing in mind that you don't appreciate judgments regarding your motives, please don't disparage others' motives with terms like 'revisionism'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not judging anyone's motives by calling them revisionist. I'm stating that the presentation of the situation reeks of it. Motives are an entirely different beast which I haven't touched upon on this talk page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid we disagree about that. By the definition of the word itself, you cannot call someone a 'revisionist' and not be implying a motive. I'll suggest again that you try other vocabulary to resolve the conflict. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just drop it, then. Your suggestions are noted, but unnecessary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

They are only unnecessary if you choose to continue to employ derogatory terms in your ostensible assumption of good faith. In any case, I've informed you of the derogatory nature of the term, and the irony of your application in this instance. The rest is up to you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you feel it was right for MONGO to lock the article as an admin and THEN edit it, refusing access to any further edits, after the image vandalism? If so, why? Thanks! rootology 19:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, what under policy supported his doing that post-lock edit where he removed the link to ED? rootology 19:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Look folks in rare cases the "ignore all rules" logic applies. Encyclopædia Dramatica had a main page attack on User:MONGO on display when he made his edits. The freaking site has been showing his personal details, name, phone number, etc. Let it go already! (→Netscott) 20:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

So because he decided to overreact, we'll just let it slide since, you kno, we can ignore rules if we see fit. I'd hope we wouldn't stand for that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Are we to suppose that by your comments such behavior on the part of ED is acceptable? (→Netscott) 20:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly suppose that. As an adminstrator at ED, bdj could have edited the main page to, at the very least, remove private, personal details. He wonders why I won't email him with my real email address? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no proof or evidence that at the time of this that bdj was an admin at ED. This has been rehashed endlessly by you and is disingenuous. Please don't troll. rootology 21:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt in anyones mind that bdj is an adminstrator at ED. He failed his RFA partially due to it, and did not deny such then, except to say that he didn't really edit the site anymore. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You said he is now. Proove that. rootology 21:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Badlydrawnjeff "I am a lapsed, inactive admin at Encyclopædia Dramatica" Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. Does that make him responsible for any and all content on an outside website then? Also, again, for better or worse, what content is featured on a 3rd party should have no bearing on the relevance, right to exist, nor content of a WP article. See my Smoking Gun example below. If that site put up EVERY single piece of public-record information for all staff and corporate/foundation info for WP, does that mean that this site no longer is valid to exist within WP or as a link from WP? If we deslist that, do we censure the other pages that pick up the story? If the NY Times reports on the Smoking Gun getting censured, do we censure the NY Times article? Chain reaction of bad decisions based on silly and irrelevant emotional kneejerk responses. If you can counter any of these points, you're welcome to. Beyond that this is starting to feel an awful like "They got MONGO, he's our boy! Let's get 'em!" rootology 21:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't respond to hypotheticals. I meerly state as fact that badlydrawnjeff could have solved the front page on encyclopedia dramatica and chose not to. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

reply on new line please for clarity--my long thing is a reply to you to continue discussion. rootology 20:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

(moving to new line since the old is getting cluttered, response to existing conversation)

For what it is worth, why does what appears on an outside website excuse anything that happens for behavior "on" Wikipedia? I'm not saying its right to put his personal data up, but the ED site is not the ED article (and that personal data for better or worse is a legal public record--that's from a WHOIS lookup, apparently). The ED article linked to a 3rd party site no different than how Wikitruth does. All valid and fine within the bounds of WP. Some troll put an offensive reference to MONGO up on the ED article in response to a satirical lambast of him over on the ED site. Not advocating right or wrong, just saying what happened. In response, MONGO starts banning people, locks the ED article on WP, and removes the link to the ED site from the ED article *AFTER* he locked the article. Bias, and against policy. Yes, rules can be thrown out, as they can be the long term basis of setting precedent/being a new policy. But he did this also (later stated) under the guise that the ED *article* was an attack article, and that anyone who contributed to a WP article was a "troll" and should be "perma-banned". I said it before, MONGO should have completely recused himself from this entire mess from the VERY beginning. If I was an admin and someone torched me on ED, slashdot, kurishin, etc., I would have no business getting into 1) edit wars; 2) using my admin powers on that issue. At all. It's wrong. There are 900+ admins. He couldn't get someone non-biased?

For that matter, if Slashdot or Boing Boing tomorrow runs an article flagrantly torching Wikipedia itself, Jimbo Wales, or Netscott, or rootology, or MONGO, would it be appropriate for that user to go in, and begin editing the article about that outside site, and REMOVE the links from WP to it? If you say "no", then why was it appropriate in this case with the ED article? Is it because of ED's reputation? Should that even matter? Why should any one instance be considered 'different'? Bad, bad, behavior. 20:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

When Wikipedia starts to be used in the furtherance of an attack there is a very serious problem. I won't be the judge of what MONGO did as being right or wrong but I'll tell you what given the fact that someone added an image of the front page showing MONGO to this article makes his subsequent response extremely understandable. (→Netscott) 20:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Let me rephrase in simple terms. Is it right to remove to a link from an article about a subject TO that subject, if someone is offended? rootology 21:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

And I'll repeat my response: Wikipedia being used in the furtherance of an attack is very wrong. The question of offense isn't even valid... we're talking about the guy's personal information (which opens him up for harrassment)... I now agree with User:Tony Sidaway... it doesn't really make sense for Wikipedia to be having articles about Daniel Brandt and Wikitruth, etc. as there is a clear conflict of interest for those editing on such articles. (→Netscott) 21:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

ONE image acted as an attack. ONE. And no one who edits the article has shown any tolerance for attacks on other editors in the article, or tolerance of attacks on other people in the article. One image does not mean that an admin has the right or responsibility to completely ignore multiple policies and guidelines in response, period. As for me, I've never kept my association with ED a secret, and I, to my knowledge, have never been involved in any of the nasty stuff that sometimes goes on there, nor have I used the ED page to attack anyone, nor have I edited the ED page with any sort of agenda. I don't get involved with that sort of stuff on either side of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Netscott. Wikipedia should ALWAYS attempt to evaluate actions and errors on the side of protecting an individual's privacy. While authoritarians may be unable to understand the true meaning of 'Fuck process' and 'ignore all rules', that doesn't them invalid, especially in an instance like this. Such concepts (while anti-authoritarian) are core principles, and part of 'doing the right thing' in this community. And at this point, relentless and continued sniping at MONGO in direct avoidance of the validating circumstances of his actions (suffering serious on- and off-wiki personal attacks) seems to me to be little more than trolling. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply to both of you (Netscott and RyanF): Before this I had nothing to do with ED, the ED article, MONGO, or Hypocrite. I edited stuff about my one started project and random articles here and there, helping out. I found this mess and tried to help and got dragged in by lots of inflammatory stuff. I *STRONGLY* disagree that articles on subjects that are critical in any way of WP should BE covered. Not having equal and fair coverage of your critics is wrong. It turns you into a one-sided, half-true thing. In regards to privacy of MONGO and all that: I agree, furtherance of an attack via WP is wrong. But again! If an OUTSIDE SOURCE slams WP in some form, removing links to that is EVEN MORE WRONG ON SO MANY LEVELS IT'S INSANE.

EDIT: controversial, even anti-wiki things SHOULD be covered if of note. Horrible typo...!

(PURELY HYPOTHETICAL) If the New York Times tomorrow drops an expose bomb of magnitude about WP or the WP Foundation, does that not get covered in Wikinews? Does the NY Times article in WP get censured?

I am also in full support of an individual's privacy. But, again, if an outside side provides all the contact information for Jimmy Wales, things that can be found be ten minutes' searching of publically accessible records, does that article get delisted, removed, or censured from WP? If the Smoking Gun puts up personal records or internal records of something to do with WP someday, do we censure the Smoking Gun article? That is my concern. WP should not be playing any role in policing 3rd party sites' content. Linking to them should not be changed based on this. rootology 21:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The article's notability (which has not increased as a result of this planned attack on a WP admin's identity) makes it a valid case for deletion, imho. The abuse leveled at MONGO doesn't make it notable enough to keep, and shouldn't. It's a non-encyclopedic-entity. An article in the NYTimes (which in fact is a reputable source) is a whole lot different than ED, a site that few of us knew about before these attacks (and which remains non-notable). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The notability of the article is on the same level of MANY other website articles on WP, and in fact more in many cases. I think an extensive review of either the web notability policy is required, or I suspect if a legitimate "delete" concensus is reached, that a great many less notable articles may be coming up for AfD with the standards you and others are trying to reaffirm here. I saw probably a couple hundred at the least just surfing WP the other night. AfD votes will be backed up a bit I think unless notability reqs are reassessed. NOTE: That would not be retaliation. That would be following "rules". Of course... if concensus is "keep" or "non concensus", the article will remain as is standard, correct? rootology 21:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Review WP:POINT. You've just given the cannonical example. Congratulations! Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? So I shouldn't nominate an article for deletion if I find one that qualifies for deletion? Except if its... ED? If I find one, why shouldn't I submit it? If I find five, why not? If I find that there are serious problems with many articles, hypothetically, to the tune of thousands, why not submit them? It's better to leave WP in a weaker state? Or perhaps if I find that the majority of web-based articles on sites don't meet notability reqs, perhaps the problem is actually with the reqs? What do you think? rootology 21:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

RyanFreisling is correct. Unfortunately amongst those who are Wiki editors (which is an infintesimally small amount of the World's population) ED has some notoriety but the moment you step out of the Wiki-sub culture... and say, "Encyclopædia Dramatica" to the average person they're going to respond with... oh wow... an Encyclopædia about plays and acting... sounds interesting. (→Netscott) 21:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia stuff is a small minority at best of ED content. It looks like almost of it is actually Livejournal. rootology 21:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Your statement is even more supportive of the non-notable arguement.... a site that lambasts primarily LiveJournal... <sarcasm>that's real big on the radar</sarcasm>. (→Netscott) 21:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ten million users isn't notable? Are you high? rootology 21:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have trouble following logic? I said a site the lambasts LiveJournal. (→Netscott) 21:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, please observe WP:NPA. Try to conduct this conversation without implying someone you disagree with is on drugs or otherwise unentitled to their opinion. ED simply isn't notable enough to keep, and it certainly won't become so by attacking private citizens who edit on Wikipedia. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I misread that completely from him. However... I *am* concerned that if a keep or no concensus vote is reached that an admin may pull the trigger anyway. Would that be wrong? rootology 21:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

An article whose content is verifiable from reliable sources, and which unequivocally and again from reliable sources demonstrates the significance of its subject, is in no real danger. Very occasionally there are issues with biographies of living individuals, but not with most articles. So, if you are really relaly concerned with keeping this, go out and get some citations from reliable secondary sources. Otherwise there are no guarantees - the closing admin is well within their rights to work on the balance of arguments presented, by reference to policy, and entirely ignore the numerical count and any amount of argufying. And really we would not want it any other way. Just zis Guy you know? 21:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Rootology, AfDs aren't about "votes" but about discussion. If your concern is founded on a "vote" it's misplaced. (→Netscott) 21:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Closing?

Does anyone see any way to close this that won't just result in a deletion review? I fear that a DRV would end up being a pointless duplication of the Afd. I suppose we could immediately start trying to work toward a consensus on how to close this, but then that discussion would simply become a pointless duplication of the Afd. Is there any hope of a useful outcome? Friday (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Some admin closing this who has not voted here and has nothing to do with this mess would be a good start. --Conti|✉ 21:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

AfDs oridinarily have to run their course... As I recall they take 5 or 7 days. Afterwards the closing admin(s) looks at the general consensus and the arguments provided and makes a decision for whether or not an article is kept. If it ends up on DRV it'll just be the natural course of events. (→Netscott) 21:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

(ec) I know how Afds usually go, but I find it hard to believe that a few more days will result in any more relevant points being made. However I suppose an early close on such a popular Afd would be an unpopular move. I'll admit I've been slightly tempted a few times already to just go ahead and close it as a delete, on the simple basis that WP:V is a key policy. But I suppose there's little reason to hurry. Friday (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with that reasoning per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves. --Conti|✉ 22:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I do not intend to use DRV assuming the closing admin either sides with me or gives a substantial explanation for their reasoning that does not ignore the WP:V and WP:OR issues raised by numerous delete supporters. I would also note, that like page protection, AFD is not a vote on the content of the article in any form, and even if the article by some infantesimal chance survives this process, it is imperitive that it folow each and every single one of our policies - from WP:BLP to WP:NOR. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think an early closing would be a very bad idea, and provide gratuitous extra fodder for ill will from anyone who disagreed with the decision, whichever way it goes. I hope those asking for speedy closing would consider that our task is not only to arrive at the correct decision, but to do so in a way that tends to minimize heat and static.

It would also be very good if, before the closing, we can get the discussion away from all the red herring side-issues, like people going on about whether ED attacks Wikipedia, and if we should or shouldn't delete it based on that. I think the central issue really is the matter of independent reliable sources, and the AfD should be closed based on whether those can be provided, and whether the article, when its content is limited to what can be sourced, is anything more than a sub-stub. I'm pretty sure those sources don't exist beyond Alexa and the Domain registry, but I would be quite happy to be proven wrong. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

New vanity note on closing by Netscott

Commentary on this new addition by him? Which part of the policy states that those editors's votes should be excluded? I don't see that specifically unless I'm not understanding some line in there. rootology 23:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Vanity information is considered to be any information that was placed in any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author." from Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. That most certainly is applicable in this case and although the logic does not apply to "the author" it does apply to the authors' website. (→Netscott) 23:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification. rootology 23:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

attack page

"lately the article has become a bit of an attack page" -- This sounds like opinion. Please cite. rootology 23:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This version that originally showed a screenshot of ED when User:MONGO was on the mainpage. That's when it "lately" was an attack article. Even badlydrawnjeff agreed with that above. (→Netscott) 23:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That was the image that was edited in by a troll that was banned by MONGO. Beyond that, it's been basically the same article for relative ages. rootology 23:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, and as non-notable and unverifiable as ever. (→Netscott) 23:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't agree with that. I agreed that the image was an attack. The page itself has never been an attack page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So let's see... if the image is displayed on the page, then through simple logic does the page not take on enough attack characteristics to be labeled as such? That image seriously had undue weight and dominated the article. It's true that the article is not an "attack article" now but with the image it had displayed and a link to the site leading to a main page article that personally attacked and harassed User:MONGO the description "attack article" is plausible. (→Netscott) 01:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, especially given the history of the image. A simple image reversion and the problem is solved. The page itself was never used as an attack. The description is entirely invalid. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Vanity section

I can assure you that my owning of an ED account has not in any way influenced my opinion in this debate. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 00:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarity here: "Vanity information is considered to be any information that was placed in any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author." from Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. That most certainly is applicable in this case and although the logic does not apply to "the authors" it does apply to the authors' (ED editors') website. (→Netscott) 00:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So you may want to actually point out where this vanity would apply with each of these people. After all, we're not seeing any lists of people who've shown support for MONGO's plight, since they could just as easily be construed as having ulterior motives. I wouldn't do that, because that's not how we should be doing things. I hope you'd agree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The vanity guideline speaks for itself. This notice is just secondary to the other valid reasons for this article's deletion. It provides the closing admins with a fuller picture relative to this whole AfD. (→Netscott) 00:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Their votes cannot be safely disregarded by following the vanity guideline. By the same token, absolutely no one would ever be able to nominate or vote on a Wikipedia AFD (not that we'd want to). Sure, letting us know the fuller picture is a help, but claiming that their comments should be ignored is incorrect. - Hahnchen 00:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, further evidence of systemic bias. This is all rooted in retaliation for what the site the article in question is about did to MONGO the admin. rootology 00:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, we'll let the closing admin(s) make the judgement call. In all honesty since User:Badlydrawnjeff is mentioning him, User:MONGO's delete vote should likely be disregarded as well. If not disregarded then certainly the weight such expressed views carry should not be equivalent to other un-involved parties. (→Netscott) 00:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

True. Perhaps in fairness however, all comments should be counted evenly with full weight. As MONGO is a popular admin, there may be intentional or unintentional bias in many 'delete' votes here, just as their is percieved bias on the keep side. Perhaps given the circumstances *NO* admin vote should carry anymore weight than an 'editor' vote. Treat all arguments presented with even merit only. To be fair. rootology 01:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit difficult given that those who are going to be evaluating the AfD are themselves admins here. (→Netscott) 01:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, now that you've moved it here, there's nothing obvious to point out that there's valid protest about it. Perhaps move the whole section over here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The disclaimer is fair. (→Netscott) 01:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Jeff. This is unfair. Netscoot are you an admin? this is further bias/impartiality claims. I propose in this unique situation that a fair vote and review by regular admins is impossible. If they can't do an impartial analysis based on the extenuating circumstances, by this admission, perhaps this AfD should be immediately tabled and suspended pending a higher level review. By your statement it would be impossible for this article to get a fair admin "shake". I believe this could be in order. rootology 01:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just moved the disclaimer to the top of the section. It's the first thing read now. (→Netscott) 01:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The disclaimer says absolutely nothing about what the discussion entails, about how insanely biased your selective choosing on who should be discounted is, about the protest of the weighting altogether, or anything. To remove any critical discussion but keep your original, flawed premise is deplorable. And no, adjusting the disclaimer doesn't fix it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing's been removed... it's all right here. If you have valid concerns about the propriety of views expressed by others and have something to back up your concerns then by all means start a section. (→Netscott) 01:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, just convieniently out of sight, except for the part you added. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how should that section be reworded for neutral point of view then? (→Netscott) 01:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It should have either been moved over here, or the discussion kept there. Actually, it should have never been put there in the first place, but I'll allow myself to get reeled in again and assume it was a-okay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In view of your concerns and User:Hahnchen's concerns I'm going to alter the wording. (→Netscott) 02:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You still don't seem to get it, but I'll take what I can get. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone's not "getting it" here... but the fact that there are so many folks who are editors/admins over on Encyclopædia Dramatica contributing to this debate should be duly noted. (→Netscott) 02:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but look at how you're framing it. Look at how you moved discussion out of sight when people called you on it. Look how you didn't bother mentioning all the people rushing to MONGO's side regardless of the facts. Need I continue? No one here denies their involvement, and many of us, such as myself, have been up front about it. Your actions make it appear that you'd like us as marginalized as possible, and it's horribly transparent to anyone who bothers to come over this way, which they'd have to since you unilaterally decided our opinions weren't worthy of front page consideration.--badlydrawnjeff talk 02:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Having the section become filled with talk would give it undue weight. What's funny is that the same folks with an ED account who are arguing that User:MONGO should not have utilized his admin abilities relative to the Encyclopædia Dramatica article due to a conflict of interest don't seem to be able to apply such logic to themselves in that those individuals shouldn't be particpating in the AfD about the article of the site they're involved in. Strange how that is. (→Netscott) 02:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely incredible. You're now equating gross abuse of power by an admin due to his personal vendetta with your poor interpretation of a vanity guideline, and trying to defend it with some "undue weight" provision. Man, why am I even bothering with you? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As I imagine you know, no one "owns" any particular page on Wikipedia. Therefore edit as your conscience sees fit. (→Netscott) 02:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd much rather see you do the right thing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, hmm I would like to see you do the right thing (see you properly recuse yourself voluntarily and remove your corresponding commentary) but from the conviction we're putting into this debate it doesn't appear as either of us is going to change our tack. (→Netscott) 03:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair review may be difficult?

Netscott said that an impartial, "fair" admin review may be difficult as I requested in the Vanity Section. I propose in these extenuating circumstances it may well be impossible. Move that this AfD be tabled pending higher than admin level review. I hate to be a pain but given how heated some admins and friends of MONGO are over the 3rd party site attack on him, and how insanely fierce EVERYONE is on every little point, that there is no way to get a clean unbiased review here. Perhaps if no higher than admin level review can be done that this whole AfD should be tabled for a set amount of time of plus one month, at which point a new one can be opened. rootology 01:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair review is unllikely to be possible regardless of how this closes at this point, kept or deleted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm being included in the "friends" of User:MONGO but feel free to follow my contributions you'll find rather minimal contact between us. (→Netscott) 01:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That makes you look worse. You are not an admin, but you act like you have the power of one (i.e. blanking talk page comments). You take actions for someone without communication. You have no ED article, but you act like you have one. Sock puppet? Hardvice 03:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That is my whole point, I'm not motivated by hate of that site... Encyclopædia Dramatica is genuinely non-notable, it's article is composed of unverifiable text of an original research nature edited by ED editors demonstrating vanity... it should be deleted. (→Netscott) 03:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is edited by wikipedia editors. It should be deleted. 71.112.141.236 04:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wanna see a vanity wiki-article? See uncyclopedia. Now THAT's a heap of unverified original research vanity. At least the ED article had a criticism section. 71.112.141.236 04:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, MONGO, MONGO! Let's stick to the reasons WHY this article should or should not exist, as I for one am tiring of the constant accusations being spread around here about me, which has nothing to do with why the article should or should not exist. The point of the argument is: can the article be reliably referenced following policy, does it pass our really low standards of WP:WEB and does it pass WP:V. Aside from a couple of links that show when the website was created and the alexa rating, I can't find anything that otherwise demonstrates, following policies, that the website even exists or can be reliably referenced. If people have a beef with me, bring it to my talk page or shoot me an email.--MONGO 05:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Said it on the talk page for ED--why do the people here not go out and AfD *every* WikiMedia project I cited on the main page of this AfD? If you are truly commited to your honest good faith convictions that this has nothing *nothing* to do with ED itself as an outside party or the attack on MONGO, I challenge you here to demonstrate good faith by prooving so. AfD all those for non-notability. rootology 05:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Aagin, this isn't about me demostrating good faith. It is about what criteria this article has that can be verfied by our policies to warrant inclusion. You're continued accusations against me are now very old, and I once again ask to to stop. If you think those articles are not notable, then nominate them for deletion. I am here to have someone demostrate to me why this article needs to exists and so far, no one has.--MONGO 05:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not like ED is mentioned in the guardian or anything. Hardvice 05:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It only proves your bias. You go against this article when there are thousands of less notable ones, but you lead the charge against the one that put YOU on the front page. You talk about policy yet you went head on against it by removing the external link from the page. You edited the page after protecting it. You protected it in a dispute you were in. You deleted an image you should've just reverted. You only follow policy when it's a convenience, and then you use it to absurd levels. 71.112.141.236 06:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The external link was to their mainpage which had the attack article about me and that is why it was removed. I deleted the older PNG image after the newer one had been created twice, and then they edited the new PNG over top of the old one with a re-edit. I then deleted that since it was more than obvious that the old image was going to be used to continue to harass me. I protected the page because editors with only a few edits and other people closely involved with ED were here harassing. This website isn't some playground. I ask you once again, stick to the policy reasons for why this article is verifiable and stop attacking me.--MONGO 06:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you protect the image? 71.112.141.236 06:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What have MONGO's motivations got to do with anything? The article either is or is not based on information from reliable independent sources. Whatever catalyzed this particular AfD now doesn't really matter. The only question is whether we're following WP:V and WP:NOR. Other articles about non-notable websites will be deleted in time. This one's time happens to be this week, and it just doesn't matter what provoked that. I don't see anybody's good faith as being in question, because deleting one delete-worthy article while there exist other delete-worthy ones just doesn't begin to look like the actions of someone who's out to harm the project. If this deletion was in some way provoked by ED writing an attack article about MONGO, who cares? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. Editing something after you protect it is very amateur. You should know better. What you're supposed to do is have your buddies do the edits for you and then protect on their version. Now I hope you don't make that mistake again. Hardvice 06:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The old PNG can be recreated as changes to image deletions should allow that. Hardly congruent with accusations of admin abuse however. I hope you don't continue to upload images that are copywrite violations claiming them as self portraits. I don't seek "help" with situations in which I am dealing with overt trolling.--MONGO 06:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe this reply was ment for someone else since it did not respond to my statement. And to be clear I was talking about removing the link to the site, not the image link after protection. Hardvice 07:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's established you should not have edited post locking. That is not a debateable point anymore. It was conflict of interest, abuse of admin privs, violation of protection policy--three for one. Just as there is no justification for 3rr violations--see Hipicrite and I today--admins get no free pass for breaking rules either. Whether they are mocked or not. rootology 07:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging: the only feasible solution

Inserting one or two sentences about this, or even a paragraph, into the LiveJournal page and redirecting ED there sounds like a solution that can keep most of the original research and NPOV away. And the keepers can't complain that we're excluding them. Crazyswordsman 02:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Except it's more than LJ. It has no valid merge target. A stub would be entirely proper and meet all necessary policies at the moment until we can get this mess sorted out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

nn unverified original research nonsense... delete. (→Netscott) 02:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. This is more notable than some of the other wikis. Moreover, this article is verifiable as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable? Based on which independent reliable sources? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would add references but it has been fully protected, maybe a semi would be enough? Lapinmies 07:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)