-
Sarah Palin presidential campaign, 2012 (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
XfD|
restore)
Self DRV; administrator
User:Rich Farmbrough, involved with the RfD, overturned close without discussion, so am double-checking that close was right here. I don't see anything wrong with it though.
Wizardman
Operation Big Bear 03:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Notes:
- One reason for deletion was that entering the title gave the target as first hit. This is no longer the case, the target is 3rd hit.
- The page continues to get a steady trickle of hits.
-
Rich
Farmbrough, 03:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC).
reply
- What particular circumstances justify an administrator who had participated in a deletion discussion, where his opinion was not endorsed by the closing admin, unilaterally reversing the outcome of that deletion discussion? Regardless of the appropriateness of the redirect, I don't yet see a compelling reason for you to have done it--but I am willing to be convinced that there was a sufficiently good reason. I'm all ears.
Jclemens (
talk) 05:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
reply
- It's not a reversal, things had changed since the debate. Moreover any user could have re-created the redirect, the only difference in undeleting it is that links to the deletion debate are preserved.
Rich
Farmbrough, 15:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC).
reply
- Support the consensus - there is no campaign. Nothing has changed in the past week.--
William S. Saturn (
talk) 05:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
reply
- This is a wheel war, and per
WP:WW we must refer it to Arbcom.—
S Marshall
T/
C 10:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
reply
- No, it is not. Had Wizardman redone the action rather than bringing it up for additional discussion (such as he's done here), that would have crossed the
bright line.
Jclemens (
talk) 01:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Relist at RFD and trout the recreator. We're in the wrong forum here. This forum reviews the procedural correctness of deletions. But what is being contested here, in essence, is the recreation of the page, not its deletion. The recreation was manifestly improper, although it was not
wheel-warring, because wheel-warring covers only repeating a contested admin action. Given that the page was recreated by an admin, it cannot be speedily deleted per
WP:CSD#G4, because such a re-deletion would mean repeating a contested admin action and would therefore constitute wheel-warring. The redirect must therefore be re-discussed on the merits, for which RFD is the proper forum. That is a bug in admin policy, which allows admin actions to be undone relatively easily, the so-called "second mover advantage", but we can't fix that here. Only if Rich Farmbrough continues to recreate deleted pages without seeking DRV, as would have been proper, an arbitration case against him would be warranted.
Sandstein 16:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
reply
- I would think that whatever the technicalities of it, an administrator unilaterally reversing a RfD close on an article related to Sarah Palin would be a matter for Arbcom.—
S Marshall
T/
C 16:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Comment In recreating a page, it's easy to tell if new information has been added.But re-creating a deleted redirect might well be justified if there is additional reason to have one, such as if there was increased discussion of the subject under the redirect term, but there is no obvious way of demonstrating it. Personally, I think there's an easy solution here: there is enough material to justify a full article. Even speculation can be notable. Our refusal to admit people actually write in RSs about forthcoming campaign possibilities is a little ludicrous. (and, fwiw, thinking of this as wheel-warring is a little excessive for the circumstances.)
DGG (
talk ) 04:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
reply
- The page was deleted on December 3, 2010, but it appears people kept looking for it.
[2] I agree that the entire is she or isn't she going to run could be put in an article. --
Uzma Gamal (
talk) 09:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Wrong venue? - Why are we here, when we should crystal-clearly be at ArbCom to discuss Rich Farmbrough's desysopping? An admin who participates in the losing side of an XfD that he then summarily reverses is not something that should be tolerated.
Tarc (
talk) 05:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Delete the admin restoration - The close of the RfD by Wizardman read, "The result of the discussion was delete." The justification given for the admin restoration of the redirect was "One reson for deletion - tagert page hit by search- is no longer true."
[3] That clearly is not a reason Wizardman gave for the close. This is an obvious misuse of admin tools. In that RfC, Rich Farmbrough wrote, "Keep, per nom. (existence of section covering this subject). We have articles on Flat Earth - no one argues we are suggesting that the Earth is flat. Rich Farmbrough, 05:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC). This is an obvious misuse of admin tools by an admin with a clear conflict of interest and a self interest in restoring the redirect. That being said, this only is a redirect, no one has posted this at the Administrators' noticeboard, generally no one seems too bent out of shape over this, and I'm not seeing a long string of "you jerk" posts on Rich Farmbrough's talk page (I didn't check the archives : ) ). Other than this DRV, not furthr action needs to be taken. Aside - The RfD was prompted by User:William S. Saturn's
repeatedly listing the redirect for speedy deletion Sandwiched between trouble. Sounds about right for a Wikipedia Sarah Palin page. --
Uzma Gamal (
talk) 09:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Deleted, per
WP:CRYSTAL
Nakon 09:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse closure and delete again. I'm the nominator of the original discussion, so I plainly have an opinion on the matter, but I don't see where Rich Farmbrough's recreation addresses the plain problem stated in the original nomination: that it is speculative crystalballing. I don't see anything that justifies the use of administrative tools to undo the result of the discussion. Even more, I originally nominated this redirect to cut an edit war off at the knees, and I don't see anything that justifies the use of administrator tools to restart the dispute. —
Gavia immer (
talk) 02:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Well surely that's the wrong use of RfD? One editor had attempted speedy three times and been declined each time. The dispute was whether the redirect constituted a hoax, which it clearly does not, the subject is discussed in major RS, including "The Daily Telegraph" and "The Guardian", and in at least one book. This is not an article like
World War III, it is a mere redirect (to an existing section of an article about an existing American politician), it does not "present" the putative campaign (which one could argue already exists, even if there is no official campaign) to the reader. If you enter "Sarah Palin presidential campaign" in the search box, you do not hit this redirect, in fact you hit "2008 vice-presidential campaign" section of the Sarah Palin page. There is no sensible manner in which Wikipedia could be said to be asserting that there will be a 2012 campaign, much less electioneering (which would, of course, if true, mean that Wikipedia was campaigning, there fore the campaign existed, therefore would not be CRYSTAL anyway)
Rich
Farmbrough, 15:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC).
reply
- I believed that the redirect should be deleted, that the edit warring should stop, and that there should be a calm discussion instead. How is that a "wrong use" of RfD? It's the correct use of RfD. As to the other bit, you expressed your opinion in the discussion, others expressed theirs, and the deletion view prevailed. This is not a rehash of that discussion. When the deletion view prevailed, you used administrative tools to overturn it unilaterally; that's what we're discussing. —
Gavia immer (
talk) 15:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
reply
- No, this is DRV we're discussing the deletion, or at least that's the idea. It's only a redirect, though, not a big deal either way.
Rich
Farmbrough, 15:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC).
reply
- Endorse the original close, redelete the redirect, and trout slap Rich Farmbrough. If he ever does anything like this again, it should go summarily to ArbCom. Absolutely and totally unacceptable action for someone who participated in the debate. The wheel warring policy is clearly not designed to condone this type of second mover advantage.
Courcelles 06:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
reply
- The use of the undeletion tool is both quite unnecessary and highly inappropriate, and unnecessarily exacerbated the problem. Endorse closure as within admin discretion, redelete redirect under G4, and {{
whale}} Rich Farmbrough.
T. Canens (
talk) 16:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse closure and redelete the redirect. It is clearly a conflict of interest when an administrator who participated in the Afd discussion makes such a move unilaterally that goes against the consensus.--
JayJasper (
talk) 18:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse the original deletion. The most appropriate action for Rich to have taken would have been to bring the deletion here himself, given his perception that things had changed, if he had proven unable to convince the deleting admin to reverse himself.
Jclemens (
talk) 05:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse closure, redelete, trout, etc., per Courcelles.
Stifle (
talk) 13:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
reply
|
