Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 21

BlackNet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD)

The deletion summary says "db-spam", but the last time I checked this article it was not spam. If it is resurrected, then the "Blacknet" redirect to "BlackNet" should also be summoned back from the dead as well. mdf 18:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorse unless the nominator can come up with something better than "it was not spam" (the article was not spam, why?). Did it have sources? That's actually more important. ColourBurst 18:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Last time I looked at it, the non-spamness was self-evident. Sources, if not present, are easily found for the subject (the message, the PGP crack, etc). However, now that the article has been deleted, I find myself in a bit of a bind proving or disproving these statements. mdf 18:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a compromise: Undelete and Userfy and let mdf work on the article, and send it to AfD (or not) when it's done. I'm not as familiar with the subject as I should be (I remember vaguely reading about it), or I'd actually help. Geogre, I can't look at the article, but was the copyvio usenet posting in from the first revision? ColourBurst 22:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, this I can answer! Yes. I put it there from the start. mdf 23:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse: It cannot be referred to AfD, even though it is not spam (in the CSD definition), because it has a long copyright violation. Therefore, we can't have it and wait for a bit while AfD comes to the inescapable "delete" motion. Geogre 18:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The BlackNet message was published anonymously to a mailing list (and then to USENET); it's erstwhile author later came forward, after possible legal issues became moot, and simply claimed responsibility for it. Indeed, for all we know, Timothy C. May did not in fact write it. So the copyright issue is likely a non-starter. Is the "inescapable" conclusion derived from this copyright matter or some other issue? Was the article first tagged as a copyright violation prior to its deletion? (Again, I can't see any of this.) mdf 19:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment: If it contains that possible/likely/certain copyvio, we can't just undelete the article. We could only refer it over to AfD for hanging out for deliberation for 5 days if that were gone. If we undelete, then we are consciously taking an action that might/likely/does violate copyright. That's the inescapable problem. The tagging was wrong. I would have preferred an AfD consideration, as I couldn't see how it was a CSD (I agree with you, in other words), but that paragraph puts everything off limits, IMO. Geogre 04:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Take out the copyvio usenet posting and you still got an article. Lack of sources: never was a speedy criterion. Advertising for a 1994 encryption in 2006: Yeah sure. Only thing I could see that it a pretty crappy article, but that isn't a speedy criterion either. ~ trialsanderrors 20:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I know I know, don't argue with a supporter, but I'm beginning to wonder if anyone is actually reading the article in question. Or perhaps it has been changed beyond my memory of it? It's not "1994 encryption", but a simple (and very famous) experiment that Tim May conducted back then that led indirectly to an unambiguously significant cryptanalytic result, adding more to its fame. Nor can it be a copyright violation, as the "true" author is inherently unknown, by explicit design (just in case reading the text of the message isn't enough (cf. "[...] we have no way of identifying you, nor you us [...]" and even disclaiming intellectual property stuff as "relics of the pre-cyberspace era")). Nevertheless, if by whatever machinations it must be deemed a copyright problem regardless, who am I to dispute such wisdom? Just email me the last useful text of the deleted article, I'll re-create it and prompty submit to AFD to make sure it passes the muster. mdf 20:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "author unknown" or "author thinks copyright is a relic of the past" put this into the public doamin, but the point is that WP:CSD G12 requires that there is nothing else in the article than the copyvio stuff. This article had a noncopyvio intro and is therefore not subject to G12. ~ trialsanderrors 00:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that's an overly literal interpretation of G12. Either way, if the copyvio is deeply entrenched in the article, then undeleting any revision of it would be entirely inappropriate. Suggest recreating from scratch, using only reliable sources which can be verified, and without using someone else's words. Chris talk back 19:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is. In any case, I've userfied the article at User:Mdf/BlackNet, with the offending bits removed. ~ trialsanderrors 21:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. The joke is on me, I guess. I edited the redacted article that trialsanderrors gave me in my user-space. I then attempt to submit it to AFD, as per my promise above. However, AFD is not for user-space articles: the error message told me to give it to MFD instead. And so I did. Today I read a nice message that MFD is not for this either, and that I must return it to DRV or CSD. Looking over the criteria at CSD, I can't figure out if this case applies either. Will I be told to go away there as well? I have no idea whatsoever.

So basically, I give up. Delete the article please, by whatever means you have at your disposal. Completely, on sight, in toto. Thanks for the help and sorry for all this trouble. mdf 13:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's a subpage of your userpage, you can just tag it for speedy deletion with {{db-userreq}}. If you think the article is worth keeping now, though, and it doesn't violate any copyright, then you can move it back to the main namespace. I guess it's up to you if you put it in AfD or leave it for someone else to do so if they feel it needs it. --Tango 14:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As above, I don't believe there was ever a copyright problem. But some say there is, so that's that: since I created the problem, I don't think it's appropriate for me alone to decide if a solution actually exists. I'll add the tag you suggested and move on to other matters. Thank you. mdf 14:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Jet Air Service, a freight forwarder (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD)

copyright NOT violated Please restore this page. The page used content from www.jas.com/company but the author of the article and of the jas.com page article are the same. Content was NOT used without permission. Content on both pages was provided by JAS, for JAS.

• Endorse deletion per above, really. Single purpose account with no edits outside of this subject, garden variety spam. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion/Recommend logical article: We do not have an article on JAS, which actually passes WP:CORP, but a copyvio isn't the way to go. Furthermore, the article would need to be at the most-used formulation, which is JAS, and it certainly wouldn't have "a freight forwarder" in it. Geogre 17:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. And it stays that way so long it is not originally written and sounds like advertising in any way. - Mailer Diablo 20:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. It may not have been a copyright violation for the person who originally put it up, but then anybody else editing it would be guilty of violating the copyright. No copyrighted text, at ALL, should be on Wikipedia, because then only the copyright holders can ever edit it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  Whaaa?? - since when does copyrighted text not become subject to the GFDL once it is submitted by the original copyright holder?? -- nae'blis 21:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • • Copyrighted text is not subject to the GFDL, unless the copyright holder specifies that. The author being the same person who wrote the article does not release anything to the GFDL; they must specify such on the text they are copying from. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Well the copyright holder is specifying that when they agree that their contributions fall under the GFDL as they do when they click the save button. The question surely is that should we expect further verification (either by an update on the original site, or a formal mail to permissions etc.) than the assertion made on this DRV. --pgk 21:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah. Sorry, thought I was making my opinion clearer than I apparently am. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

GetWiki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetWiki

This is an unusual one. The debate was closed as Delete by Cyde (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves), and the article almost immediately restored by Davidcannon (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves), who had voted Keep in the AfD on the grounds that this "powers Wikinfo", but leaving the AfD header at Delete. I can't find any trace of David having notified Cyde or anyone else. Maybe he did and I just didn't see it. Cyde's close noted (correctly) that powering WikInfo does not, in and of itself, override the cited reasons for delete (lack of notability, lack of reliable secondary sources). I vote to endorse closure and delete - this software still only scores 140 unique Googles and none appear to be reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: recreated by Robert Buzink (talk • contribs) at 11:56, November 24, 2006 (UTC). --Calton | Talk 14:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, powering Wikinfo ≈ "mentioned in multiple reliable sources"? I suppose not. Kimchi.sg 13:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• This isn't an unusual one, this is no different from your standard out-of-process recreation which I have speedied per WP:CSD G4. Editors wishing to dispute closures take them to deletion review, admins wishing to dispute closures do exactly the same damn thing, thank you very much. Endorse closure, with no reference to third-party sources the case for keeping relies on Wikinfo, and there is no explanation of why Wikinfo confers notability on the subject that powers it. Notable businesses don't confer notability on their suppliers, notable actors don't confer notability on their make-up artists. For that matter, the case for Wikinfo's notability is exceedingly weak, but that's not what's under review here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn - It's iffy on whether or not it's notable, but deciding that question isn't really the primary purpose of deletion review. Several things bother me - (1) the closing admin's comment was more like a vote than a judgment of where the consensus was. He said, "The result was Deleted, powering Wikinfo really doesn't establish sufficient notability." It is fully within the purview of the closing admin to ignore an apparant consensus in the face of sockpuppetry or an obvious policy violation, for example, however, disregarding the lack of consensus because you disagree with it is not a good thing. (2) The best argument for keeping it - from David Cannon - came late in the game. EVERY SINGLE PERSON who offered an opinion after David Cannon spoke supported keeping the article. That alone would suggest to me that a keep would seem to be in order. (3) That said, the decision of BOTH the restoring admin and the second deleting admin to potentially start a wheel war rather than bringing the dispute to the appropriate forum is troubling. BigDT 14:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree. The arguments for keep were founded on the fact that one moderately notorious Wiki uses this software. That was what David said, and that is what "per David Cannon" means. The fact that one possibly-notable website is powered by this software does not, as Cyde rightly said, trump the lack of secondary sources. And undeletion without review by an admin who had already voted is highly irregular. As to the fact that all the votes after David were keep, I'm afraid that lights up my offsite solicitation radar. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Applying WP:CSD G4 is not wheel warring. It is done dozens of times a week (statistic brought to you by the Department of Making Plausible Stuff Up), just not so often with administrators who ought to know better. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• The thing that you need to understand is that other people feel just as strongly that their position is correct as you feel that yours is correct. David Cannon, presumably, felt that he was correcting (to him) a patently incorrect closure. The whole idea of not revert warring or not wheel warring is that YOU need to choose to be the one to not continue it. Both you and he, IMHO, were wrong to reverse an action without discussion. The appropriate action in either case would be to bring it here for discussion. BigDT 18:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• This is plainly not an obviously wrong deletion, so the reason behind recreation is irrelevant. Articles recreated despite legitimate deletions may be speedy re-deleted; whether an admin or a non-admin recreates it makes no difference. Administrators are not higher beings and are not exempt from policy. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• How about we simply redirect this to Wikinfo? (Radiant) 14:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Ugh. Ok, endorse second deletion as an inappropriate recreation, because everyone has to use DRV, not just peons. Second, relist would have been a probable outcome of a well argued DRV case (which was not made). Third: Redirect to Wikinfo, per Radiant!, and let the single sentence necessary for describing the software go there. The closing was iffy enough for a relist, but no one gets to recreate out of process, and the supposed "wheel war" that BigDT fears would have been solely with the person recreating against procedure. Geogre 16:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Um ... second that Ugh. Is that a good !vote? :-) I'd like to agree with Geogre, because I think I agree with the reasoning completely, from the questionable AfD to the unjustified recreation, but I'm not quite clear what he settled on. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Clarification: Endorse. Create a redirect de novo. The rest was my attempt at wagging my finger at people who recreate or undelete legitimately deleted articles because they disagree with the result. If an IP does that, we quickly suspect bad faith and put them on the hit list. If an admin does it, it's not substantially a better action, IMO. This page is for everyone. Granted, some folks don't know it's here, so they may be innocent in intent, but it's still the wrong way to go. Geogre 04:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per George. JoshuaZ 21:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Relist The recreation was completely out of process and shouldn't have happened, but he does have a point that there was not really a consensus to delete. --Tango 21:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wikinfo sounds good; then and now, I still don't think this merits its own article. It's just not a very big subject. So what if there's a fork of MediaWiki used to power a site? There's lots of forks of all sorts of different free software. --Cyde Weys 22:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn - 50-50 really isn't grounds for deletion, and its level of notability isn't out of step with a lot of the rest of our content, so I see no reason to delete despite a lack of consensus to delete. Guettarda 22:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn - there was certainly no consensus to delete. 50 percent does not constitute any kind of consensus, and similar percentages have normally resulted in a "No consensus" verdict. I realize that I took the wrong turn when I undeleted the article - twice - and apologize for doing so, but I still believe that the article does not merit to deletion. As a compromise, I would be willing to accept merger with Wikinfo, provided that all pertinent information is copied. David Cannon 22:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, as most of the 'keep' votes were, frankly, ludicrous, the close was within admin's discression. Would settle for a relisting (someone please let me know if it's relisted at AFD). Proto::type 11:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• In summary:

  Deletes were variations on WP:SOFTWARE, WP:V, and WP:RS.

  Keeps were WP:ILIKEIT and WP:POKEMON.

• I think that says it all. Original close not that much of a stretch with discreation. After all, 50/50 is meaningless, since AfD is not a vote, hence a strict supermajority is not required, especially when keep proposals don't demonstrate any sound reasoning for doing so. Endorse both closure and further deletions. DC's recreation is an abuse of positions - admins have to use DRv too, you know. Chris talk back 19:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion whilst some of the deletes were pretty terse, the keeps seemed to be variations of keep because we have other stuff which is worse, notability by association, or it's survived for this long so it must be ok. Not a vote and the keeps seem pretty weak, certainly within the bounds of reasonable discretion by the closing admin. --pgk 20:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per David Cannon. There was absolutely no consensus to delete, and notability criteria are guidelines, not hard-and-fast policy, and as well, subjective in their interpretation by individual editors and administrators. Consensus should be achieved whenever possible, and when there is no consensus, there should be no deletion. It's as simple as that. metaspheres 21:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Notability is a corollary to WP:V, which is hard-and-fast policy. In fact, it (along with WP:NPOV and WP:OR) are above policy, and are not negotiable. Notability is not subjective, because the world at large decides if something is notable. Chris cheese whine 22:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Above policy? Oh, really? As in, above the law? What the hell kind of language is this? Has Wikipedia suddenly mutated into the Central Intelligence Agency or National Security Agency??? And last time I checked, everything is negotiable and subject to consensus, so please refrain from stating blatant untruths. See WP:IAR. metaspheres 00:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Evidently you didn't look hard enough. I draw your attention to the following, present on all three of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR (emphasis added): "The principles upon which [NPOV/V/OR] are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus". There's guidelines, there's policy, and then there's the Big Three. Chris cheese whine 02:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
        • And I draw your attention to WP:IAR as well as statements from Jimbo which contradict your false assertions. Policy only goes so far and you're literally taking it too far to the point of absurdity. In this case you can even ask Jimbo and I think he'd agree. And kindly refrain from labelling legitimate sentences as "personal attacks" for Christ sake. The whole tone of this proceeding is surreal and bizarre, and quite frankly would drive any sane person away from Wikipedia. I urge you to stop. metaspheres 04:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• NPOV is non-negotiable. Period. IAR absolutely does not bypass that fundamental rule, and WP:ILIKEIT comes nowhere close. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed. IAR applies to everything, including itself. You should not that it says to ignore all rules, not to defy all rules. You are free to ignore WP:V when editing the 'Pedia, however someone will likely take the opposite position and ignore IAR. I would like to know what possible statements from Jimbo you could be referring to. Chris cheese whine 20:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Kiwi! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD)

Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia if this article was not deleted. There was a spirited debate in the AfD discussion, with a very narrow 60/40 split of opinion. Chicago god 05:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Closer comment - I stand by my decision. Many of the keep advocates were socks, and another didn't give a rationale. Some said "What's wrong?" and didn't reply to the concerns expressed by the "Delete" advocates. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Absolutely a valid AfD closure, considering how many of the keep !votes were from socks, and that the points brought up by those urging deletion went unanswered by those arguing for retention (though I definitely see strong claims of notability). -- Kicking222 06:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - There is one sock (who voted to keep twice using the same IP) and one completely unsigned keep. The rest of the keeps look legitimate to me. And as far as I can tell, every valid delete point was answered in the AfD or through article updates: notability added, sources added, and original research removed. Is the delete, at the very least, not questionable? Chicago god 06:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep comments include "Come on, keep it. I don't even see the reason for deleting it.", "Kiwi isn't just cute. It has a message.", "There should be a wiki page for it if people want to know more about it.", "What's not to like?" and "Don't let the lame nazi censors delete it.". So, I make it around 12 reasoned deletes grounded in policy, and keeps grounded purely in WP:ILIKEIT. Looks like a perfectly valid AfD to me. Endorse. Chris talk back 07:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • 3 of the 5 lame 'keep comments' that you just mentioned were from sock and unsigned users, which I agree should be disqualified. The reasoned deletes boil down to three criteria: notability, sources, and original research -- which were all answered in the AfD or through article updates. Chicago god 08:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid interpretation of the debate. This article was original research and that was not remedied by the time of deletion. Wikipedia policy makes it difficult to document crap off teh Internet here; there are other places where there are no policy problems. Try one of those? Guy (Help!) 09:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, AfD closed properly, sockpuppet votes are to be discounted. - Mailer Diablo 20:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/HeadleyDown (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD)

Significant POV sneaky vandal's LTA page, deleted by user:Pathoschild under the impression he was "inactive". But this was very misinformed. The vandal concerned is a chronic sock user, and has a habit when socks are identified of merely switching to new socks with new names and IPs. This LTA page under his "best known name" (the name Arbcom and many users know him as) is used to allow documentation of this vandal and information for admins, and counters his chronic abandonment of old discovered accounts and switching to new ones. At this time he is far from inactive, is presently back to his old tricks, and apparently seems to have (under a new name) yet another bunch of people knocking on arbcom's door. Please restore urgently, together with any other accidental related deletions, such as his user page/s, catefgories for HeadleyDown socks, etc which might have been deleted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FT2 (talk • contribs) .

Can we move these pages to Meta or something? I agree with wanting to deny recognition, but it is undoubtedly helpful to have some kind of record of the MO of serial disrupters. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion Firstly it's a good idea to ask the deleting admin first in this sort of case, I not you did that after raising this review, but I would suggest ask, wait, bring here if you don't get a response/think the response misses the mark. Secondly can you elaborate on how the page helped people recognise the actitivty (I'd guess the vast majority of people have never read it, yet still recognise the disruption caused without much effort), given the nature of the person where the socks don't have any obvious connection how is a list of previous sock names going to help anyone detect this vandal? I'm quite happy to believe some of the LTA pages had/have some value but vague assertions that it's "important", don't really cut it. Given that your account was only active for about a month prior to the deletion of the page, and the deletion was a couple of months back, I suggest picking up and becoming an expert on this vandal and maintaining that expertise isn't that difficult, so wads of documentation seem irrelvant. Also you claim that the vandal is still currently operating, please elaborate, again this is just a vague assertion, which users do you believe are this particular person and why? We've certainly had those who are the subject of LTA pages (either as the original or an imitator) come and request their recovery in the past (hence actually demonstrating some of the reasoning behind WP:DENY), so it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask for something a bit more concrete before going along with recovery --pgk 12:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC) After some thought and looking a bit closer, I've changed my mind. I'm not going the whole hog to suggest restoration but I do think there is probably a good case for this page, albeit my preferred choice would be to perhaps restore this to userspace, let it get cleaned up to remove the irrelevant stuff like pictures and so on, before making its way back into the main area. --pgk 21:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Preserve somehow. Maybe meta, maybe restore, maybe something else entirely, but this information is very useful, and deleting these pages with even the principles of WP:DENY (which is not and should never be guideline/policy) has shown to be a mistake, given the recent issues with Crawford socks and the decided lack of information available about the situations. When losing this information causes our best and brightest users and admins to make otherwise good-faith decisions mistakenly, it's evidence that getting rid of the information isn't working. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  Well there was never a LTA page on Crawford, nor I doubt would there have been. The Crawford sock got picked up and dealt with pretty quickly, I would say that is evidence that an LTA page was largely irrelevant. As I say above I agree some information can be useful, but shrine pages are not. Your blanket assertion that it has shwon to be a mistake is a bit premature, I can certainly cite examples of vandals adding lists of their own sockpuppets to LTA pages and in one instance a screen shot of their own vandalism, I can show examples of one user who engaged in large amounts of pagemove vandalism (via socks) trying to get the LTA page on Willy on Wheels pages retrieved (on several occassions). You are welcome to your opinion on WP:DENY but many differ, similarly "don't feed the trolls" (which in my estimation is an equivelant of WP:DENY) is not endorsed by everyone. We need to take a realistic view from case to case WP:DENY isn't a blanket call to delete all information, it is a call to make sure we don't needlessly "glorify" vandalism or become an Encylopedia of rouges. But merely asserting that the page was "useful" does not make it so --pgk 15:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • No, there wasn't on Crawford, but the page for Crawford was deleted. We continue to delete these pages, and the information that we can use to make judgements like with the Crawford issue disappears. While I think WP:DENY is silly, I didn't have a firm opinion on the matter until this past week, so I think "usefulness," while not something that's a worthy argument for articles, is entirely necessary when judging issues like this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you that "usefulness" is a valid reason, but a vague assertion of usefulness is no better than a vague assertion of "notability", "non-notability" etc. etc. If something is useful it shouldn't be difficult to specify what about it is useful, if it's full of junk it should either be deleted outright or heavily trimmed to prevent such pages becoming shrines. Some of the LTA pages were clearly of the former (does anyone not know that moving a whole string of pages to "on wheels" is unhelpful? Does anyone see value in a list of 100 usernames where there is no visible connection in the name and so cannot be "useful" in detecting further names). Whilst other LTA pages still exist and indeed there is no reason why others shouldn't exist. As I say it's a case of applying common sense on a case to case basis, to me it's just as silly for someone to say WP:DENY delete, delete as someone saying WP:DENY is rubbish ignore, ignore --pgk 15:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I think we're essentially on the same page here. Sometimes it can be useful, sometimes not. But perhaps an MfD should be the arbiter of that rather than a unilateral action? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In my view, as the person most aware of both HeadleyDown's actions, and also aware of the traffic related to people spotting him, and noting where he was active, this was a very useful resource that was in ongoing use. Its usefulness far outwieghed the issue of WP:DENY. HeadleyDown doesn't use Wikipedia to get a "fame page". he's normally used covert socks, new accounts, and gets off on pretending to be a genuine contributor. At present he's been censured on (I think) between 3 and 5 arbcom hearings, permabanned under multiple accounts, and his response to all this has been to continue the same under new IP, new socks, unconnected (on the surface) to his old ones. He's been doing this now at least 2, possibly 3 years, This page is an essential tool that several users refer to in educating people who want to know more in case he's active on their pages, and documenting where he's active. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to labour this, but you are just asserting a vague notion of usefulness without saying why it is useful, again you stated above he was active right now etc. Come on spill the beans which accounts do you believe are this user. Indeed it's been deleted for nearly 3 months without anyone "noticing". I also note you created the page on 7 July, your earliest remaining edits to any article are from 11 July. Doesn't sound that complex to me if a brand new user can sign up and right up an LTA page on them. Looking further at the page it contains such useful information as " Known IPs: Any (uses IPs around the world)"," Physical location: Believed Hong Kong or possibly UK". Can you tell me how that information is useful for others to know they are dealing with the same vandal? (OK, I picked the worst two points I could just glancing down, but there is other stuff although arguably not as vague, still no where near being useful in identifying this guy) --pgk 19:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Struck through the above, my mistake I misread the date from the earliest contribution it is July 11 but 2004. --pgk 21:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

To address "and also aware of the traffic related to people spotting him, and noting where he was active" , to address this 4 other people than you edited the page. One changed some spaces to underscores, one replaced some ip with use of the {{ipvandal}} template, one added a picture (Irrelevant picture) and one tagged it for speedy deletion. --pgk 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

(Above points discussed with Pgk by email FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC))

• (Comment as deleting administrator) I'm sorry if my presumption that the malicious user was inactive was incorrect. I judged this from the edit history, which was only edited meaningfully by FT2 between 07 July 2006 and 23 July 2006. There being no content edits in nearly a month, I assumed it was a temporary vandal spree. Had you asked me directly, I would have restored it immediately and sent it to Miscellany for deletion instead. As it is, I have no opinion on this page. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Understandable and reasonable. I figured once deleted it needed to be requested here rather than via direct approach to deleting editor. If that impression is incorrect then that's something learned today :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Restore. I recently went looking for the deleted article, and I didn't understand why I couldn't find it. It had valuable details for identifying the malicious user and understanding the scope and seriousness of their abuse. The difficulty in collecting those details allowed an especially long period of abuse. Given the record, I would not at all be surprised to see the malicious user return; in fact, I expect it -- especially now that the banning administrators have retired or otherwise withdrawn. Without the information on the deleted page, well-meaning editors and administrators will have to start all over again. The intention of WP:DENY is laudable, but at least in this case, incidental recognition would be the lesser of two evils. -- Shunpiker

PircBot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD)

Deleted for being 'none notable software', but it has 100k+ Google hits and it's a commonly deployed IRC bot framework Darksun 02:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that PircBot is heavily referenced in the book 'IRC Hacks' by Paul Mutton, published by O'Reilly [1]. --Darksun 02:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion of stub which made no claim to notability. No prejudice against a proper article citing reliable secondary sources. I will userfy the stub is that will help. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, userfy and recreate if and when it's reliably sourced. ColourBurst 18:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

WiktionaryZ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD)

The article deals with a preparatory project for the Ultimate Wiktionary as part of the Wikimedia Project. Andres 01:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion if the above is the argument for inclusion. See WP:WEB. --W.marsh 01:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the information is important for the Wikimedia contributors. The article should at least be placed in the Wikipedia namespace with a redirect from WiktionaryZ. There is an article on the site on several wikipedias, including de:Wikipedia:WiktionaryZ. This German article better explains the importance of the site and it is in the Wikipedia namespace. Andres 02:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • See also the coverage on meta:Category:Ultimate Wiktionary.

Andres 02:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse own deletion. In the article namespace, this fails WP:WEB (no media mentions, etc). I would support a move to the project namespace if someone could show how this is relevant to Wikipedia, but it doesn't look directly relevant to us, only relevant to Wiktionary, IMO. Kimchi.sg 03:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, given this already exists where it should be, in meta. Maybe put something in Wikipedia: namespace if it's relevant to us. Chris talk back 07:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, yes, probably belongs in Meta. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, at present doesn't belong in main space. We'd probably as standard respond to a statement such as the above with WP:NOT a crystal ball, or that if it's simply publicity that WP:NOT a vehicle for advertising, I can't see we can hold a wikimedia sponsered project to a lesser standard. --pgk 15:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• endorse per above. --mathewguiver 19:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, it's just not notable right now. Maybe if it ever is finished and does become a huge hit, then it can get its own article. --Cyde Weys 22:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)