Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mzoli's Meats

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My goodness, how many assumptions of bad faith can we fit into one AfD? Grandmasterka 09:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BEANS, dammit! Now we'll have even more assumptions, just to see how many more it can take! :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

How about the admin who went off in a huff deleting the page to "make sure I get desysopped"? That made me laugh out loud! :-) Carcharoth 22:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Lucky you, I was trying to editt he article and found he had deleted it because he was narked with Jimbo. Just charming! SqueakBox 22:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Editing the article? Oh, I knew I'd forgotten to do something. Let's try scouring the internet and seeing if we can move away from tabloid articles on this police raid. Carcharoth 22:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Iwas trying to ref it being notable, and yes we can do better than just focus on the raid, SqueakBox 22:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't been a good week, drama-wise. This AfD has some of the most outrageous assumptions and hyperbole I've ever seen, and I archived a similar thread over on ANI, and the arguing there even spilled over onto my talk page. Sometimes I think people on Wikipedia whine and complain way too much. Grandmasterka 00:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Page blanked?

I think there are more reasons to keeping the page as is rather than blanking. Has this been discussed somewhere? I don not think sweeping discussions like this under the carpet are a good idea as some good points came up. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Its all in the page history, anyone vaguely familiar with Wikipedia can find it. Deletion might be a bit much but courtesy blankings are meant to be fairly standard where such debates got overly heated given the high google profile of Wikipedia pages. WjBscribe 22:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I see no valid reasons for the page being blanked. Just because Jimbo accused users of bad faith and personal attacks, doesn't mean there were any. CO2 18:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Please don't make bad faith assumptions towards Jimbo, he deserves the same respect as any other experiennced and trustworthy admin, SqueakBox 18:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
[1][2][3][[4][5] = plenty of bad faith assumptions. Melsaran (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
1 - I see no bad faith assumptions
2 - Possibly, but just remove that once instant
And the rest are all fine. SqueakBox, respect is earned, not given. From what I've seen, Jimbo hasn't earned my respect. CO2 01:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is the discussion hidden?

I thought that Wikipedia is not censored. --RucasHost 07:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion continues at the new article Mzoli's. However, I would appreciate it if a more experienced editor would provide some information on whether something has been deleted here, and how newbs like me can find that stuff. A link would be nice.89.182.15.209 12:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You can access the content by clicking on the "project page" tab at the top of this page, and then "History" on the top of the new page. Then click on one of the dates before 01:37, 22 September 2007. - Fosnez 12:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who decided to hide this?

Again, we get the crap that there is something so utterly and horribly offensive here that no one should be able to see it, but we are reassured that you can easily find it with one click. Who was the admin who decided for all of Wikipedia to hide away this information? What standards were followed in determining that this should be hidden away, and not all other AfD discussions? Just what is it in this AfD that would harm our delicate sensitivities? Why aren't all AfDs hidden/ Why not hide all of Wikipedia, just in case there's some "outrageous assumptions" or "hyperbole" out there? It's time some of our nanny admins grew up and realized that we can handle this type of discussion without useless attempts at censorship. Alansohn 13:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this is pretty ridiculous. We either need to be consistent and hide ALL articles for deletion debates, or none at all. If people are ashamed of what they said, they shouldn't have said it in the first place. Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored, and that INCLUDES DELETION DISCUSSIONS. Burntsauce 22:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually I sort of agree - I think we should blank all discussions that include (a) the name of a living person and (b) negative comments about them. This discussion has NOT been censored - it is fully available to any person through the page history. It has however been made unavailable to google Bots and Wikipedia mirrors, which seems sensible. Oh and please WP:AGF Alansohn, your comment above is pretty out of line... WjBscribe 15:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Blanking

As the admin who originally blanked the discussion (I cannot speak for WJBscribe), I wish that everyone would remember the first word in "Courtesy Blanking." It's Courtesy. I saw a very heated discussion on that page, in which some editors were hurt, some assumptions of bad faith were made, and in which there were thinly veiled personal attacks.. I did not decide to delete the page, as it's all still there in the history, I just figured that as a personal courtesy to everyone involved, I could blank it and keep the whole issue from climbing so high on Google. Revert me if you want, I honestly don't have any vested interest, and quite frankly, I don't see why anyone cares, as long as the history is available, but whatever. Pardon me if I was out of line in trying to be nice. ^demon[omg plz] 13:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You did right. Nothing has been "hidden", it is right there in the history. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I am declaring right or wrong, I'm pointing out that this discussing is being handled in an unequal manner. I've had some pretty offensive things said about me in a deletion discussion too, will an administrator please "courtesy blank" those ones as well? Otherwise this is total bullshit! Burntsauce 17:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I will look at any discussion you point me towards. However as you edit under a pseudonym, I don't the matter would would be as pressing as were there offensive remarks made about you using your real name. WjBscribe 17:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanations, ^demon and WJBscribe. Speaking as a Wikipedian who edits under his real name, I think that WJBScribe's position on privacy is slightly over-protective; I think that we can assume that any editor who chooses to edit under his real name is prepared to face the consequences. I assume that it's Jimbo whose reputation you're trying to protect from defamatory comments and assumptions of bad faith, since the other major participants are pseudonymous. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
I'm a believer in sunshine laws, and I think that the principles behind them apply here. I think that on the whole people who see behind-the-scenes goings-on can and should be able to judge for themselves how much credit to give different views. In the case of Jimbo, he's a public figure, especially on Wikipedia; and I don't see anything on this page which is more defamatory than the sort of things which are said about George Bush or Hillary Clinton every day.
^demon, the reason that I care whether the info is available on the page itself or in its history is that a lot of people who aren't initmately familiar with Wikipedia won't necessarily understand how to use the history page. There is a learning curve here, and I don't see a legitimate reason for preventing people who haven't ascended that curve from reading the AfD's history.
I recognize that the intentions behind the courtesy blanking were good, but I really think that hiding this in the page's history does more harm than good. I also don't think that Jimbo needs this particular "courtesy" — he's an intelligent, articulate fellow whose achievements say more about him than the events of one AfD debate. Finally, ^demon, I think that you should recognize that courtesy blanking a debate in which you were intimately involved gives the appearance of a conflict of interest, even if your intentions are good. It might have been better to suggest the courtesy blanking on this talk page, or at AN/I or some other public board, and allow another admin to perform the blanking if the community supported it.
Since ^demon says he doesn't mind if the blanking is reverted, I think I'm going to go ahead and do that. There seems to be more support on this page for keeping the AfD discussion publicly available. I hope this action doesn't tread on anyone's toes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this unblanking which is I believe a move in the wrong direction. "Courtesy" blanking should be just that, a courtesy, and we should aim to extend courtesy as frequently as possible. If someone requests a courtesy blanking, it should be done unless there is an overwhelming reason against it. The reasoning against the protection is weak - how to use the page history is explained in the template and there have been several comments made in support of the blanking. All this is doing is creating more drama, something we should always be at pains to avoid. WjBscribe 19:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I would tend to agree, if someone has requested the blanking. But I didn't see any evidence of such a request here. It looked to me as if ^demon was trying to extend a courtesy which had not been requested, and which was counter to the interests of open discussion on Wikipedia. I don't want drama either, but I feel that this blanking was done without consensus. At the risk of extending the drama, I'll ask at AN/I to see what a larger community of admins thinks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't bear an ANI discussion about this - which would create a lot more drama than the unblanking of this page alone. I have said my piece. I disagree, but its now probably best to let things lie. This is in my opinion a sub-optimal outcome, but I'll accept that rather than risk worse. WjBscribe 20:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Oof — sorry, I didn't see your response until after I had already started an AN/I discussion. However, it seems clear to me that there's no policy consensus on this subject, and my leaning is always towards greater openness. "Drama" is a small price to pay for open discussion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Until there is a consensus on where and how discussions should be "courtesy blanked", I fully support the restoration of this page. Give this some time and bring the idea up on the village pump, no need to cite this exact discussion, just raise the question in general and see what happens. Burntsauce 20:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I see no problems with the blanking, Until is right that its still accessible and iof Google dont trawl it, well great! SqueakBox 20:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
To be clear, there is nothing actually defamatory said in this discussion, it just got heated as many here on Wikipedia do. We don't normally blank heated discussions, even when they involve people who are using their "real" name. Burntsauce 20:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Unblank Until specific criteria are developed for determining when pages are blanked, and until specific explanations are provide for what exactly here needs to be hidden from the public, and until an explanation of why excision of the naughty bits is not an option, there is no valid justification for the half-assed censorship (You can't see it, but it's one click away) of this article. Alansohn 20:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is now being discussed at WP:ANI - see this thread. WjBscribe 20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

For those who are interested, the thread WjBscribe referred to above is now over here. - dcljr (talk) 05:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a hundred AFD discussions a week that are a) far more heated, b) don't get this kind of mindnumbing autopsy after it's been closed, and c) don't get this dumb "courtesy blanking" - a concept which becomes even more redundant and pointless as AFD pages now have that robots.txt thingy. All it does is foster conspiracy theories. Leave things out in the open unless there is good reason. Neil ム 21:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Neil. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since there was a fair bit of support for the blanking at AN/I, I've restored the "courtesy blanked" template, slightly modified to provide a direct link to the relevant version of the article, for the benefit of readers who don't know how to use the history page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On parle de vous dans le monde

http://www.lemonde.fr:80/web/article/0,1-0@2-651865,36-961774@51-824668,0.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.198.123.231 (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

and in Germany at Heise: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/98283 89.57.176.209 17:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking is lame

Blanking is lame. Don't get all bent out of shape if you made a fool/dork/whatever of yourself. It happens to most of us at least at one time or another. It only makes things look worse when we "hide" it. I'm just passing by, saw that it was blanked, and thought "hot damn, there must be some good WikiDrama here" and what do I find? A run of the mill AfD.. Thanks for getting my hopes up. -- Ned Scott 04:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Having a look at the AfD it's obvious there are some WikiDrama queens here and they should better head off to a social networking site than diverting an encyclopaedia from its cause. --   Avg    03:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
If the discussion is over, then you won't achieve anything with that. Like I said, you only attract more attention and build up the situation when you blank like this. I'm sorry if you feel embarrassed, whether for your own comments or the comments of others, but get over it, this is Wikipedia, and this stuff happens all the time (not to say that we should accept what happens, since we should always try to improve the way we conduct ourselves in these discussions). -- Ned Scott 05:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)