Wikipedia:Deletion review/Myg0t (second)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] myg0t

• VFD Aug 2004 Delete
• AFD March 2005 Delete
• First DRV Overturn and Undelete
• 2nd AFD May 2006 closed early as the article was deleted

There isn't a CSD that this article falls under so overturn and relist. Kotepho 20:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted. It's been deleted twice before (just in AFDs; check the deletion history and you'll see that something like over 15 different admins have deleted it at various times), and the third (!) AFD was definitely trending towards delete, to say nothing of the subject's unimportance, difficulty of verification, and other such considerations. --maru (talk) contribs 20:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This article has now been deleted twenty times by over fifteen separate admins and three or four AfDs - which must be some kind of record. Just zis Guy you know? 21:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Deleted per the above. This would be an A7 speedy anyway: being a mild annoyance to online gamers is not an assertation of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: This thing again? Good heavens, what does it take? I have no idea how the deletion was overturned, don't want to know, but let's just say that getting properly deleted twice ought to be enough for anyone. Remember, authors: the presence of an article on Wikipedia doesn't make something good, and the absence of one doesn't make something bad. Geogre 23:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "the presence of an article on Wikipedia doesn't make something good" - if history is of indications, things listed on WP usually become more popular, at least on the internet, which I think is part of the problem. This time around though I'll abstain for now (I was one of the [few] keep deleteds the first time around). Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 04:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Can't we speedy keep deleted or something? Nothing has changed since it was last deleted that would warrant recreation. ~MDD4696 03:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I recommend against that. Several respected editors did support undeletion at the 1st DRV. Though I find the close of it flawed, these editors should be given a chance to speak. Xoloz 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep deleted but I do see the point in this deletion review. If the last AfD was closed early, it's a little suspect considering the prior DRV result. Mangojuice^talk 05:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per WP:SNOW, if nothing else. I am reluctantly forced to conclude that the 1st DRV (which I somehow missed) came to an inappropriate conclusion. The discussion included several editors apparently drawn to DRV specifically for the purpose of promoting this article; these editors should have been more heavily questioned and possibly discounted. Although the 2nd AfD was improperly closed early in consideration of the 1st DRV, I cannot endorse the closure of the 1st DRV on the merits or on the basis of the record, an uncomfortable position. I'm not sure whether a suggestion to vacate the previous DRV means anything, but that is, in effect, what I support doing. Xoloz 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't particularly like the closure of the DRV either, but is it really so much to ask that this get an AFD? It has been over a year since the last one. There is certainly a tiny bit of notability put forth, so I don't think it fits under A7 and since it was recreated after the DRV it does not fit G4. Someone said G1 on the AFD, but that is right out unless the article had been vandalized. Kotepho 05:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Protect If people keep mucking it up so bad, why don't we just put it back the way it was and close it from being edited? This should have never been allowed to happen. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia.chozo_ninpo 04:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This comment was added by an anon that also decided to change people's votes. OK they decided to log in now apparently. Kotepho 05:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Clarification. The tampering can be seen here. It was performed by anon user:68.107.142.66 but signed as User:chozo_ninpo. It was reverted here. user:Chozo ninpo subsequently vandalized the preceding comment here then simply deleted the vandalized comment in the next edit.
• Undelete Article was improperly deleted, this time. AfD was closed less than 12 hours after it opened, and the article was speedily deleted for no apparent reason. The votes in the AfD contained both misleading information and outright lies. The administrator that deleted it, mentioned in IRC that he was biased against the group (the subject of the article), and this could have affected his better, NPOV judgement on the wikipedia article itself. It is claimed also that the article was deleted because it was "a giant flamewar", but no requests for page protection had been filed prior to this. The subject was notable, the article NPOV and accurate, well thought out and concieved. Wikipedia will be a better encyclopedia with this article in it. USER-cacophony 05:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Vote changed to remove "protect". cacophony 21:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Also, I hope that the old copy was not lost - it represented a lot of work that a lot of contributors spent a lot of time doing. USER-cacophony 05:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: USER-cacophony (talk • contribs) has no history outside this article and its deletion processes. Just zis Guy you know? 15:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• This page is being systematically edited. Just minutes ago there were 7 votes for undelete / undelete and protect, now there are two. I call shenannigans, apparently I need to take this to a higher authority, as some people in power are acting irresponsibly. USER-cacophony 05:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be because User:chozo_ninpo vandalized some comments and changed them to "undelete" that were really keep deleted. --Rory096 05:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I invite you to look at the history as the votes most certainly were not undelete before. User:Chozo_ninpo even saw fit to remove my comment that votes had been edited for some reason. They also want to vote more than once apparently. Kotepho 05:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Repost and Lock This comment is now EDITED: Kotepho, whoever you are, I deleted your comment on my box because you called me a new user, when I simply didn't log in. Your comment at that time became irrevolant. Stop changing my posts/vote.chozo_ninpo 04:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This is a duplicate vote. Also, permanently protected a page is infeasible, this is a wiki. --Rory096 05:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As of this post, his comment was never edited. --Rory096 06:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: Chozo_ninpo (talk • contribs) has no edit history outside of this article and its deletion processes Just zis Guy you know? 15:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I just moved to Arizona from Maine, and just registered a USER account last week. I have submitted in more than just this review. Don't make random assumptions just because you don't agree with the article. --chozo_ninpo 05:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• In addition to this DrV, I have decided to contact Jimbo Wales on this issue. The administrator in question did not follow proper procedure; A DrV is not necessary if the article was not properly deleted in the first place. Further attempts to personally settle the issue with the administrator proved ineffective - said administrator was unwilling to compromise. USER-cacophony 06:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and allow the AFD to continue - IMO, notability was established, or, at the very least is disputable, and thus, it should not have been speedied as non-notable. I have no doubt that if the AFD continues, the article will (and should) be deleted, but that alone is not a criterion for a speedy. BigDT 06:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete For reasons pointed out by User:USER-cacophony above. OverlordQ 10:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • See history of OverlordQ (talk • contribs). Just zis Guy you know? 15:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah yes, kinda ironic that nothing shows in my history now that pages I've contributed to have been deleted. OverlordQ 21:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per VFU. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 12:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • So you want to ignore all the processes apart from the single one which agrees with you? Fair enough :-) Just zis Guy you know? 15:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, because the one that agrees with me was the last one. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 16:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete possibly with protection or semi-protection. notable. Modest Genius ^talk 15:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - for those requesting "protection", what exactly is it you are hoping to achieve? "Protection" wouldn't stop an administrator from (correctly or incorrectly) deleting it again. It would only stop the article from being edited. As it is all but certain that any undeletion would only result in a continuation of the previously aborted AFD, protection would do nothing except stopping you from improving the article in hopes of convincing the community that it should stay. BigDT 17:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm confident the content of article isn't the reason many people want it deleted - rather, the subject of it is what people dislike. Improving the article won't help, nobody has complained about the content of it. I agree with you, that it seems pointless to undelete, when people will immediately file an AfD soon afterwards, but we have to try. We have to try to make wikipedia a better and more informative encyclopedia, by filing DrV's, even if it's a lost cause. USER-cacophony 21:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• One other Comment - personally, I don't think that articles like this belong here - call it an interpretation of Wikipedia:Deny recognition, call it WP is not a soapbox, call it vanity, or call it notability - I just don't think it belongs here. HOWEVER, that is moot as far as this DRV goes. The ONLY question is whether the article should have been speedied. In my view, it should not have been. BigDT 17:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - myg0t already satisfied the notability requirement, see the last VfD - A group that has recived either mention or featuring in 3 international magazine publications and 2 major news outlets is notable enough for wikipedia. As such, Wikipedia:Deny recognition does not apply - the group in question already has fame/notoreity, so the claim that they are using wikipedia solely to promote themselves is a moot point. The only reason one would even see this page anyways, was if they saw mention of the group, and decided to visit wikipedia to find out what it was - something that the user couldn't do if this article is kept deleted. USER-cacophony 18:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Protect Admin must delete page according to wiki policy rather than on his own opinions. Admin Marudubshinki was not impartial Sittinsideways 13:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • First edit by user ever. --maru (talk) contribs 19:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That does not discount his vote or comment. USER-cacophony 19:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
      • DRV is not a voting process, and the closing admin will most certainly take the commentor's edit history into consideration when weighing her/his comments. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
        • All votes are equal - you cannot discount somebody's vote because they are inexperienced. This could be a new user that tried to find the wikipedia article on myg0t, and found a link to the DrV instead. USER-cacophony 20:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia operates by Wikipedia:Consensus, and is specifically NOT a democracy. These comments, though sometimes called "votes," are not, in fact, votes. Deletion policy allows closers do discount new users, which they routinely do. Neither are all votes comments "equal" -- they are weighed by the closer according to merits of the arguments given. All of this very reasonable -- new voters are drawn to Wikipedia by its web presence before becoming acquainted with WP's policies, guidelines, and standards (as is evidenced by your own comments, actually.) Comments ignorant of policy, however well-intentioned, must be given little weight. Xoloz 21:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Please see Wikipedia:Undeletion policy#Suffrage. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Is it Wiki's policy to delete articles because a second party has a grudge on an article or doesn't even read the article and assumes it's spam or nonsense due to previous slander on this page? 67.176.204.246 02:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: History of article indicates unsuitability for Wikipedia coverage. Stephen B Streater 21:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• UNDELETE & UNPROTECT GUYZ KEEP IN MIND THAT myg0t HAD LOTZ OF ENEMIES WHO CHANGE THE ARTICLE TO THINGZ LIKE "OMG MYGOT R FAGZ". IN A CASE LIEK THIS U CANT RELY ON THE PREVIOUS DELETIONS. THE ARTICLE THIS TIME WAS MADE SERIOUSLY BY BLOCKY, A REAL MEMBER OF myg0t. ANY PERSON WHO Is CURIOUS TO THE HISTORY OF myg0t WOULD ENJOY READING THE ARTICLE JUST AS MUCH AS SOMEONE INTERSTED IN LEARNING ABOUT CULT_OF_THE_DEAD_COW, THE Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America OR L0pht —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.176.204.246 (talk • contribs).
  • I think we'd worked out that this self-aggrandizing bullshit was written by a member, thanks, not least because of the complete lack of any evidence that anyone other than members is even remotely interested. Just zis Guy you know? 23:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you have anything to prove this? Please reply. USER-cacophony 01:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I resent that comment. I have never had anything to do with them (except being annoyed by one on a server once), but I'm still interested. myg0t are a notable group and there should be an article on them so members of the public who come across the name can find out what is being talked about. Besides, proper policy was not followed. 'It's been deleted before' is no defence. Modest Genius ^talk 00:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I'd suggest closing this before it becomes a sockfest. Mackensen (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Bit too late for that, I'm afraid, but all of those quasi-literate socks are making the deletion case most eloquently. The total unfamiliarity with Wikipedia shown by "undelete and protect" kind of highlights the fact that these are nonce accounts. Assumptions that there is some kind of enemy group at work betrays a web-blindness that undermines any claims they make about notability and importance. The presence of a Wikipedia article doesn't make something good, and the absence of an article doesn't make something bad. It's just an encyclopedia and a lousy advertising medium. --Geogre 02:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would you assume there is some kind of "enemy group" at work? 166.127.1.201 12:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Geogre: only you could use the word "nonce" and expect people to understand it. :) --maru (talk) contribs 03:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

At least it's a small word. Usually, I get in trouble for saying things like, "the proliferation of mediocrity is not its own excuse, nor is the absence of a quality any obviation of the need for that quality." Is it worth explaining to the IPer that the sentence didn't say that I thought there was an enemy group but rather that his fellow anonymous cowards did? Nah. Geogre 14:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• I still vote Undelete and Protect We can sit here and argue back and forth about levels of intelligence until the internet overloads and goes into safe mode. All humor aside, several well respected authors made the decision to undelete myg0t for a reason. Now we have people re-deleting the article and basically saying, "I'm the only one who's opinion matters." This is not how things are supposed to be done here, as you can see by a few of the posts above mine people are agreeing that the quick deletion and closure of a deletion review within 12 hours due to one mans discretion was a very poor decision. This in itself is not only unfair, but suggests that wiki authors can edit or delete any information as they see fit. So what, an evening of Battlefield 2 was ruined for you. Now you have to abuse powers that were given to you in the assumption you would be unbiased just to prove some kind of point. myg0t will not die out because wiki won't put us in there, but the rightful users have a right to know the information that was origionally posted. The accuracy was 100%, with no extra fodder clogging up the article. IMHO the PROTECT that has been requested is so that people that dislike the group cannot vandalize the article. We liked what was posted, and would have prefered it to stay that way. chozo_ninpo 4:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming I'd interacted with myg0t before. This is not true. I don't play any online games, so I could never have encountered them. --maru (talk) contribs 07:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Two off-hand mentions in niche periodicals aren't enough to make one of the thousands of self-described "big-name" game-related clans out there an encyclopedic topic, especially since neither of those provide enough verifiable information for an article. --Aquillion 08:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The group has been mentioned and/or featured in three international publications, including rolling stone magazine, and its actions have been the topic of news stories in two international news sources (CNN and BBC). USER-cacophony 08:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you get title, date, author, etc for those mentions? People don't seem to have that information even for the mentions in gaming magazines that people have taken pictures of. Kotepho 22:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I humbly request the closing admin for this DrV be a different one than the admin that improperly speedied the article. 166.127.1.201 12:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• The important issue to realize here is that myg0t wants an open forum where the deletion can be discussed. If it is found that an AFD or whatever you call it has a majority agreement that we are undeserving of a page, then that's that.

What myg0t wants is of no concern. Whether the article should be here is something we decide, not the subject.

What myg0t wants is democracy. Your act of speedy delete is completely contrary to the idea of a democratic vote. If you feel it is your place to decide what is acceptable on Wikipedia based solely on 5 hours of off-peak comments then you are, for all intents and purposes, not a fan of democracy.

Well, that's too bad. WP:NOT a democracy. --Rory096 04:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

How do you expect to claim ANTI-CENSORSHIP when you keep deleting the article (which was written professionally) simply because you can't see past your own nose? Ask anyone that plays online games. myg0t is well known to MILLIONS, and that's not on a national scale, that's on a global scale. Games included are anything STEAM related, Silkroad Online, the UNREAL series, Live for Speed 1 and 2, the complete DEER HUNTER series, Halo2 (XboX Live), the Battlefield Series, All Blizzard Games (WOW, D2, SC, WC3, etc.), the QUAKE series, the DOOM series, Anarchy Online, The Lounge (Which is still in BETA), CHURCH OF FOOLS was obliterated and reconstructed due to myg0t as was HABBO HOTEL. Chat invasions include: Any and All IRC channels, Vent channels, Teamspeak servers, MSN, YAHOO, AIM. More forums than you could ever go to in a lifetime have myg0t mentioned in them. This online group is feared all over the internet. Anyone seeking information on this group should absolutely be allowed to gain as much knowledge about them as possible. Negating any online rumors with FACT. PROVEN FACT, the [myg0t] tag is an instant BAN on literally hundreds of thousands of ANTI-CHEAT programs. So the question being asked, "Is myg0t well known enough for a wiki article?" Answer? "You bet your ass." --chozo_ninpo 12:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Prior AFD's should have no bearing on current AFD's. The fact that an article has, in the past, been deleted is by no means a reason for it to be deleted again in the present. The very fact that you can petition for an undeletion is a testament to this basic premise. I will reiterate: prior consensus to delete should have no bearing on current deletion as long as the previous problems were addressed. In the case of myg0t, the problems were ones of notability and vanity. These were both deemed to be acceptable by Wikipedia standards in the March 2006 deletion review. Notability, as we can all agree, cannot decrease as time goes on. Relevancy, sure. Notability cannot. myg0t is notable for their period in history. Vanity was also established to not be an issue in the March 2006 review. The article that was deleted was an informative article, contained a neutral point of view, and had information that was true about a group that was relevant and had already established itself in the public's eye. None of these fall under what anyone would consider a reason to delete due to vanity any more than any other page on Wikipedia.

The existence of the undeletion process is a recognition mistakes can be made. Nothing more. Or are you suggesting two AFDs (and a third that was going to close as Delete before I made it moot) were both wrong? Once is coincidence, twice is enemy actions, as the saying goes.

How did you now the AFD was going to be wrong? Or that it was going to close as Delete? There was only *5* hours between the AFD and your Speedy. By the time the proponents knew of the AFD the page had already been deleted. OverlordQ 06:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the undeletion process was used and enforced in this case points to the fact that, as you said, a mistake was made. I agree though, once is coincidence and twice is enemy action. The enemy here, of course, is overzealous admins who have a grudge against myg0t, not myg0t itself. The two AFDs were on the basis of notability and vanity, both of which were overturned in the March '06 DR. There is no way to justify a SD on this article except administrative bias.

In the May 13, 2006 AFD which was Speedy Deleted by that maru kid, the groundwork brought forward to enforce a SD were G1 and A7. SD on the grounds of G1 is idiotic to the extreme as the article was coherent and relevant. A7 was addressed in the March 2006 deletion review which ruled in favor of undeletion and reinstatement. A relevant issue is, of course, G4. G4 refers to recreation of deleted material. It quite clearly states that G4 can only be applied if the page is "deleted according to the deletion policy, except if it is ... undeleted per the undeletion policy" which the myg0t article clearly was. Further, even if this were a candidate for G4, it would be ruled out under the fact that the article that was deleted on May 13, 2006 was significantly different from the articles deleted in 2004 and 2005.

I'm no "kid", but at least you got the name right... You place a lot of emphasis on the first DR, which was rather dubious. G4 can be applied to any of the numerous creations and deletions between the first and second AFDs, so it was relevant.

Calm down kiddo, the first DR must have a lot of emphasis placed on it because it was the most recent ruling. You don't use law precedents from the 1500 to rule on cases that are brought forward in 2006. G4 can be applied to many of the creations and deletions between the first and second AFD but, as I stated, cannot be applied to the most recent speedy deletion by you. It is a gross act of glossing over what happened and is plain wrong.

Now, the internet champion who deleted the article most recently, maru, has demonstrates a clear lack of understanding for the criterion that a speedy delete is acceptable under. He has stated at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Myg0t (sorry pals, I don't know how to use your crazy code to link) the following: "Two AFDs is quite enough for a marginal online crufty article." This quote exemplifies both the bias that maru has against myg0t and his inability to enforce Wikipedia's own rules fairly and with consistancy.

Internal links are hardly crazy... they're a lot simpler than HTML links. As for my bias, like all administrators, I am indeed biased against stuff that does not belong on Wikipedia. You don't show any evidence of inconsistency, and I think my deletion was eminently fair; at the very least, you must admit that any unfairness of mine is not at all transparent and obvious. Look at the votes on this page to see what I mean.

I'm not familiar with your Wikipedia editing system. I've only spent 30 minutes looking into your rules and regulations on deletions, I'm not too concerned about how your page formats. I don't much care for the myg0t article, despite being in myg0t. What I do care about is people who claim to be impartial and democratic going against all tenets of those two ideals. The inconsistancy is between you and what the Wikipedia guidelines for speedy deletion are. You clearly did not follow them and are, hence, being inconsistant. The votes on this page are moot in regards for the AFD, as this is a DR. If you want opinions on an AFD then you should have let the AFD go for more than 5 hours before closing it. You knew myg0t would win that AFD and you moved quickly to SD under false pretenses.

This vote should not even be happening as it is clear that the administrators must weigh in favor of myg0t and undelete the page. After the page is undeleted an AFD can be put forward or the one that is already opened can be continued without impartial activism by some Wikipedia admin that got raged by myg0t. As it stands, a speedy deletion cannot be explained under any circumstance and is entirely unacceptable. - [myg0t]NWA Template:Nsigned

Impartial activism? As I told some other fellows, I don't play online games, so I've never been "raged" by myg0t. --maru (talk) contribs 17:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

myg0t does not operate only in online games. More importantly however, impartial activism doesn't mean that you've had a run-in with myg0t before. It simply means that you should never have taken a look at the issue in the first place because you are, as you yourself have said, biased against articles you think shouldn't be on Wikipedia. You have already admitted to being biased against myg0t. You appear to operate under the same ideals as Judge Dredd where you are judge, jury, and executioner. Unfortunately for you, you underestimated myg0t in this case. While you may be the judge and executioner, we shall see what the jury has to say. - [myg0t]NWA

• Undelete and Protect - It's good to know that administrator's here don't have to follow the rules and can just arbitrarily delete articles without any good reason. We fought for this article for over a year to become undeleted, and when we finally get a united Wiki-community consensus that we should be allowed to stay, some renegade admin deletes us without any merit. There shouldn't be any discussion, the article should stay up. --InfiniteIdeals
• Undelete and de-admin anyone who deletes it again. This is fucking ridiculous, it was undeleted on DRV just one month ago. Suddenly it gets AfD'd yet again, and speedy deleted in violation of WP:CSD. Rhobite 20:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Restore. Deletion appears to have been out of process (speedied as recreation of deleted content that was overturned on DRV?). Plus, WP:DP says: "If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article." Good enough for me. An article on this group doesn't hurt Wikipedia at all, although the repeated removals certainly seem to be doing so. Powers 21:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted This article was deleted for very good reason, several times, to be exact. There is no reason to exhume it. Denni ☯ 21:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The article was undeleted for an even better reason. There's no reason to keep deleting it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore. Completely asinine that this continually gets deleted. I rarely agree with Rhobite, but he's absolutely right here, any admin who continually deletes this should be brought into question. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - As I mentioned in the previous VFU - They are actually quite notable within the counter-strike community. A lot of people know of the myg0t "play style" and what they're philosphy is. However, I really doubt we'd be able to get any kind of properly sourced article there, so I'm not actually that bothered whether it's deleted or not. As I mentioned before, it's not like they're SK Gaming is it? - Hahnchen 21:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Why won't this die? It's trollbait and luring throwaway accounts into votestacking. Isopropyl 22:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Then how exactly has the GNAA article survivied over a dozen RfD's? They're more trollbait then we are. OverlordQ 22:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - We need a page where people who don't know of myg0t can refer to, I agree this page does further publicize the group but that can't be avoided. It appears people only want this deleted because they have a dislike for the group which is their sole purpose. I think it should be semi-protected too. It seems silly there's pages like GNAA and List of shock sites articles and people are protesting this.--Andeee 07:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

--Nineteen84 18:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Undelete - A conversation with Marudubshinki (admin who deleted the article) in wikipedia IRC revealed that he was, in fact, a myg0t rage victim:

User's ninth edit. Note that nothing I said in IRC (incidentally, are you aware it's considered bad form to quote stuff from #Wikipedia, or to log it?) actually supports Nineteen84's assertion. --maru (talk) contribs 19:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why Marudubshinki is acting so defensive? cacophony 20:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree the quotes show nothing, but why is logging IRC considered bad form? that doesnt make any sense to me... Modest Genius ^talk 22:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Gee, maybe maru is behaving "defensive"ly as you suggest because all of you myg0tters are attacking him unjustifiably? IRC logging is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and can be interpreted as a copyright violation, as well. Keep deleted, valid admin decision. And Wikipedia is not a democracy. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, I'm not attacking him at all, but if you want to be litigious, it's actually not a copyright violation at all, as public speech on a public, open network is classified as fair use. cacophony 02:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the log snippets. Please read the blurb at the top of this page. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 01:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Blurb noted. However, I have been unable to find a justification for that policy, care to point me in the direction of one? It seems a little strange that postings to a publically viewable IRC channel should be prohibited from further disemination. Oh and the policy clearly states that the relevant punishment for breaking the policy is banning from the channel(s) (or death by elephant), not censure on wikipedia itself. Modest Genius ^talk 12:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted: Three AfDs later and here we are still arguing about things, its time to move on. --Hetar 00:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, there has only been one AfD since the article was restored in accordance with public consensus, and it was prematurely closed, and the article speedied with no CSD, which is why this vote is here. cacophony 02:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, it is time to move on. I find it ironic though that you would claim "its [sic] time to move on" while petitioning for removal Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Myg0t. Interesting how you haven't "moved on." Let's move on though, and undelete and relist or whatever it is you people do here when your rules are broken. -[myg0t]NWA

• Undelete and *sigh* send back to AFD. After reviewing both AFDs, the old DRV, this (awful) DRV, and the deleted article, I still find that the only claim to notability is a half-column in a PC gaming magazine and a picure caption(!) in another. Since there's a munged speedy delete, a munged AFD, and a munged DRV (munged because the old one got tangled up in rehashing the debate), we need to kick this one over to AFD and actually hash out whether this is a good enough claim to notability or not. I hate to feed the trolls, here, but the place to debate the relative encyclopedic quality of an article is on AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the article in rolling stone magazine. cacophony 19:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we can take the unusual step of applying sprot to the AfD to reduce the inevitable sock infestation. Just zis Guy you know? 09:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, keep deleted ignore the socks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Claiming all users are the same person is a poor way to debate an issue. Bring proof that the supporters are "socks". chozo_ninpo 19:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Lock Macktheknifeau 18:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Many people have voted to keep it deleted due to the nature of myg0t and they may have come across someone with myg0t in their name online. Also another reason for it to be deleted is that it causes the group further publicity, but that is unavoidable. The controversy this article has caused just backs up the reason that the group is well known and an article on them would be useful to people not familiar with their actions.--Andeee 06:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Also - myg0t.com website Traffic details from alexa.com.--Andeee 07:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Erm, is it just me, or does that say 302,698? That's not notable. --Rory096 20:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • No I think 302,698 was the websites rank at the time you checked. By looking at the graph it shows that the website gets around 10,000,000 hits a day, (Daily Reach (per million)) The maximum hits they recieved were end of january and start of feb, around 250,000,000 hits a day. Now if that isn't notable I don't know what is.--Andeee 06:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
      • You're interpreting the graph wrong. Daily reach is how many people out of a million visited that website. Myg0t.com is less notable than 300,000 other sites, and that doesn't meet our notability criteria for websites. --Rory096 07:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I think we should be looking at how many people visit the site, not comparing it to other websites?--Andeee 16:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Why is that? We often delete sites with much better Alexa rankings (which does mean that they have more viewers), so why should we keep this one? It's clearly less notable. --Rory096 21:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Like which sites? Their flash animations at news grounds have recieved a lot of hits too.. 260,229 for their first and 330,304 for their second. They are notable and people who need information on their activities need an article to refer to.--Andeee 21:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban Today was one with a slightly lower Alexa ranking, but was deleted unanimously. I couldn't find any with an exact match, but I wasn't going to waste my time looking very hard either; I just scanned through some of my AfDs. --Rory096 21:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
                • Try searching myg0t on google (Results 1 - 10 of about 95,500 for myg0t.) that seems quite a lot, and seeing wikipedia article myg0t is 7th on the list, the person searching will not be happy to find any information at all..--Andeee 21:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, don't allow the AfD to continue (the AfD wanted it speedied!) --Rory096 19:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. End this. --Improv 20:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per Rhobite. This is ridiculous. Silensor 22:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, appears to be notable enough within the CounterStrike community. Yamaguchi先生 22:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment (ya another one!) The sheer attention this has brought just demonstrates the notability of the group. --~«Äñdëh?»~Talk? 09:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Not so. The attention is just because it has attracted a lot of newly-registered users; we frequently see equally large groups of meatpuppets and sockpuppets for other non-notable web forums, clans, and webpages. Simply having a few hundred (or even a few thousand) people reading a forum doesn't automatically make a subject encyclopedic, not even if they're all directed to go to the AfD or DR and vote on it. Having every single member of Myg0t or whatever comment here, in other words, can result in an exceedingly long page but isn't going to do anything to get the article kept. --Aquillion 12:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to you telling all your friends to come here and vote against it? (If you can make unfounded assumptions, so can I.) cacophony 00:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the alexa.com link I posted above showed how many users visit there site..--|«Andeh?»|Talk? 13:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

No, their site does not get many visitors. It is not even regularly in the top 300k sites in terms of popularity, which means perhaps 1000 visitors on a good day. +sj + 14:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Not notable, almost no independently verifiable content; would never be more than a stub; the only gaming articles about them are also created via active PR by the group, as was this one, and they're actively trying to game the system [above]. Which isn't surprising, all things considered. +sj + 14:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

So in other words, you're assuming that every new user here is a myg0ter? That seems somewhat presumptuous Modest Genius ^talk 14:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There isn't really anyway to tell if a user here is a myg0t..--|«Andeh?»|Talk? 05:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Closing comments: In general, DRV decisions are decided solely by vote count with the only discretion being removal of votes from entirely new users. My count put this at 14 to undelete/relist and 17 to keep deleted. There is a very real complicating factor however, namely a previous DRV just one month ago which produced a majority to undelete this very same article, and speedy deleting this again and demanding another DRV decision might appear to encourage deletion by attrition on DRV (i.e. keep deleting things until a DRV debate finally fails to produce a majority to undelete.) That appears to be a very valid concern expressed by Rhobite among others. Nonetheless, my view is that this is not the case here. A look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myg0t shows a strong consensus to delete and will therefore declare this deletion as endorsed. I will express my opinion that using the deletion summary "sayanora" on something as controversial as this is not very helpful. If you delete something speedily, make sure that you have a point in the criteria which backs it up and note that G4 does not apply for things undeleted through DRV. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.