If this is about Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 21/Brian Peppers, please, please, please, don't bother with this. Move on. Friday (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
<reset indent>Please don't make me wave WP:NPA and WP:AGF at you, Jeff. Beer time? 〈 RED VEЯS〉 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
(ri)A good point from Amarkov: I'm also not much of a fan of being included in the ArbCom that this is going to cause, so I'll back out now too. Jeff, really, there are better fights to pick than this one. You have the right to pick it, of course, but also the right to unpick it. You could always have a beer, put on some good music and let this one go. Please. 〈 RED VEЯS〉 21:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, I would suggest you pick your battles - and this is one you shouldn't pick, as you're going to lose. I don't see any way that the article was going to be restored, and by picking this battle for making the point about abusive admins, you're discrediting the larger war. I'm considering some sort of action against User:Doc glasgow for laying waste to List of Internet phenomena, but after this one, I'm not sure I'd get much of anywhere. -- Jay Maynard 21:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Originally posted as a response to my outside view.
Newyorkbrad
21:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Am I allowed to respond to this here? If not, move it to where it should go, but I figured RfC would be a better place than the echo chamber that AN became on this, and ArbCom is obviously (well, at this point, at least) too far. Disruptive admins must be held accountable, and administrators who support such disruptive measures should arguably be held accountable, as well. --
badlydrawnjeff
talk 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Moved by 〈
RED
VEЯS〉
21:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That is a good sign that this will end badly. I reccommend everyone who wishes sanity starts aggressively ignoring this dispute. - Amarkov moo! 21:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's a question for you. Maybe 100 articles will be deleted today. You will disagree with the deletion of 50 of them; I will disagree with the deletion of 25 of them. Why is this one so disproportionately more important than all the rest? Newyorkbrad 21:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
(indent reset) Jeff, please, please don't let the tigers loose. For all that you and I butt heads on a lot of things, I'm glad to have you around. You make sure we don't take any decisions to delete lightly, and that's something we shouldn't take lightly. But that's been done here. If it would've been my choice, yes, I would've let the DRV run longer, in anticipation of this exact situation. But it didn't, I absolutely understand the reasoning why not, and and it's good reasoning. Quite realistically, the close was proven to be very right. The matter has been discussed for several days now, and the consensus is clear-we do not want this article. I think the reasons given for that were very good (notability and WP:BLP concerns). You disagree. We all lose some, even when we feel very strongly, and at some point one must accept "Alright, I still think they're all wrong, but the consensus truly has gone against me here."
It's good to have principles. But please consider this principle. It's a pretty good one too. This is not worth losing anyone over. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 07:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I think, given the circumstances, it would have been slightly better to let the DRV run for at least 24 hours, if only to make it absolutely abundantly clear that this is once and for all properly deleted, properly kept deleted, etc. My own role in this drama has been oft misunderstood. I understood my action as being enforcement of something the community had already decided (repeatedly) against endless trolling.
On the content matter, I do have my own opinion, but my opinion on the actual content matter should not be given undue weight. In such matters, I am an ordinary editor of course. Still, it is quite relevant to point out that this is an entirely non-notable Internet meme about which virtually nothing is known in reality, and for which I have seen no actual verifiable sources produced. The AfD process dispenses nicely with such things regularly. The difference here is that *in addition* to being a completely worthless article on those grounds, it is *also* an affront to the human dignity of the poor fellow who is the subject of the article, and this brings out a peculiar sort of passion in the part of some people to keep it at whatever the cost, just to prove how heartlessly NPOV we can be. So what would in most cases (obscure band, random myspace-famous teenager, etc.) be deleted without so much as a sign becomes a cause celebre. Such is life on the Internet.
An RfC against Sam Blanning for doing a snowball close is absurd, since it was clearly a snowball situation. As I say, I think it would have been slightly better to let it run for at least 24 hours (mostly to prevent the kind of trolling we have seen about it), but "would have been better to do X" is hardly a good reason for hysteria. I don't see anyone arguing that the outcome could have possibly been any different, except perhaps for our badly drawn friend.
A healthy self-examination of what is working and not working in wikipedia is always a healthy thing, if undertaken in a friendly spirit and with the assumption of good faith. So I am glad to see that a vigorous discussion has developed around this case. This is one of the cases I can point to with some pride and say "Wikipedia is still working". -- Jimbo Wales 15:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I make no apologies for not letting the DRV run for 24 hours, even though it appears to be getting towards something of an easy well-it-would-have-been-better-if hypothetical solution. I find the suggestion that only Wikipedians from a certain timezone would have changed the outcome patronising at best. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks like we've lost jeff. [1]. GRBerry 01:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
If this is about Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 21/Brian Peppers, please, please, please, don't bother with this. Move on. Friday (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
<reset indent>Please don't make me wave WP:NPA and WP:AGF at you, Jeff. Beer time? 〈 RED VEЯS〉 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
(ri)A good point from Amarkov: I'm also not much of a fan of being included in the ArbCom that this is going to cause, so I'll back out now too. Jeff, really, there are better fights to pick than this one. You have the right to pick it, of course, but also the right to unpick it. You could always have a beer, put on some good music and let this one go. Please. 〈 RED VEЯS〉 21:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, I would suggest you pick your battles - and this is one you shouldn't pick, as you're going to lose. I don't see any way that the article was going to be restored, and by picking this battle for making the point about abusive admins, you're discrediting the larger war. I'm considering some sort of action against User:Doc glasgow for laying waste to List of Internet phenomena, but after this one, I'm not sure I'd get much of anywhere. -- Jay Maynard 21:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Originally posted as a response to my outside view.
Newyorkbrad
21:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Am I allowed to respond to this here? If not, move it to where it should go, but I figured RfC would be a better place than the echo chamber that AN became on this, and ArbCom is obviously (well, at this point, at least) too far. Disruptive admins must be held accountable, and administrators who support such disruptive measures should arguably be held accountable, as well. --
badlydrawnjeff
talk 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Moved by 〈
RED
VEЯS〉
21:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That is a good sign that this will end badly. I reccommend everyone who wishes sanity starts aggressively ignoring this dispute. - Amarkov moo! 21:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's a question for you. Maybe 100 articles will be deleted today. You will disagree with the deletion of 50 of them; I will disagree with the deletion of 25 of them. Why is this one so disproportionately more important than all the rest? Newyorkbrad 21:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
(indent reset) Jeff, please, please don't let the tigers loose. For all that you and I butt heads on a lot of things, I'm glad to have you around. You make sure we don't take any decisions to delete lightly, and that's something we shouldn't take lightly. But that's been done here. If it would've been my choice, yes, I would've let the DRV run longer, in anticipation of this exact situation. But it didn't, I absolutely understand the reasoning why not, and and it's good reasoning. Quite realistically, the close was proven to be very right. The matter has been discussed for several days now, and the consensus is clear-we do not want this article. I think the reasons given for that were very good (notability and WP:BLP concerns). You disagree. We all lose some, even when we feel very strongly, and at some point one must accept "Alright, I still think they're all wrong, but the consensus truly has gone against me here."
It's good to have principles. But please consider this principle. It's a pretty good one too. This is not worth losing anyone over. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 07:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I think, given the circumstances, it would have been slightly better to let the DRV run for at least 24 hours, if only to make it absolutely abundantly clear that this is once and for all properly deleted, properly kept deleted, etc. My own role in this drama has been oft misunderstood. I understood my action as being enforcement of something the community had already decided (repeatedly) against endless trolling.
On the content matter, I do have my own opinion, but my opinion on the actual content matter should not be given undue weight. In such matters, I am an ordinary editor of course. Still, it is quite relevant to point out that this is an entirely non-notable Internet meme about which virtually nothing is known in reality, and for which I have seen no actual verifiable sources produced. The AfD process dispenses nicely with such things regularly. The difference here is that *in addition* to being a completely worthless article on those grounds, it is *also* an affront to the human dignity of the poor fellow who is the subject of the article, and this brings out a peculiar sort of passion in the part of some people to keep it at whatever the cost, just to prove how heartlessly NPOV we can be. So what would in most cases (obscure band, random myspace-famous teenager, etc.) be deleted without so much as a sign becomes a cause celebre. Such is life on the Internet.
An RfC against Sam Blanning for doing a snowball close is absurd, since it was clearly a snowball situation. As I say, I think it would have been slightly better to let it run for at least 24 hours (mostly to prevent the kind of trolling we have seen about it), but "would have been better to do X" is hardly a good reason for hysteria. I don't see anyone arguing that the outcome could have possibly been any different, except perhaps for our badly drawn friend.
A healthy self-examination of what is working and not working in wikipedia is always a healthy thing, if undertaken in a friendly spirit and with the assumption of good faith. So I am glad to see that a vigorous discussion has developed around this case. This is one of the cases I can point to with some pride and say "Wikipedia is still working". -- Jimbo Wales 15:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I make no apologies for not letting the DRV run for 24 hours, even though it appears to be getting towards something of an easy well-it-would-have-been-better-if hypothetical solution. I find the suggestion that only Wikipedians from a certain timezone would have changed the outcome patronising at best. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks like we've lost jeff. [1]. GRBerry 01:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)