User:Grue/Undeletion

Why, exactly this was deleted? Just because a bunch of vandals wanted it? Looks like they accomplished their goal. The page is blanked and protected contrary to any existing Wikipedia policies. It seems like protecting was necessary to stop the vandalism but why the content was deleted? Grue 11:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Seems to have been deleted out of process. Restoring and removing VfD. Please feel free to relist if you think it needs deleting. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Er, it looks like there was a legitimate VfD discussion going on before the article was blanked and speedied. Shouldn't it go back to VfD per VfU policy? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 13:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pointless Waste of Time has a consensus to delete, if you consider that virtually all 'keep'-votes were cast by sockpuppets. It is an internet forum (part of SA) and some vocal people were dragged in from there to complain. Thus, keep deleted. Radiant_* 13:29, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • I see many legitimate keep votes from respected users and many delete votes are from low edit users from PWOT board (since its admin didn't want an article about his site he started a vandalizing campaign that led to the article's deletion). Grue 13:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Well thing is somebody just up and deleted it. It wasn't deleted as part of closing, and yes, I think there are legitimate questions about whether the state of the discussion came anywhere near to supporting that kind of pre-emptive delete. I don't buy the argument that it was necessary to delete the article in order to deal with vandalism. We have a protection mechanism for that and it works very well. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. If it gets undeleted we may suffer from a lot of vandalism again. I don't see that it is worth the effort. --Silversmith 13:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The article is no longer deleted. If you want to delete it, please do so if there is a valid reason to speedy it or else list it on VfD. I won't get into this, I just restored an article that was clearly deleted out of process. I don't engage in admin wars so that was my sole action on this issue as an administrator. We already get a lot of vandalism, I don't see that as a valid reason to delete articles. Protect it if it gets vandalized, like any other article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Valid VfD consensus, non-notable and vandal-magnet article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:59, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, valid VfD consensus unless anyone has arguments otherwise. --W(t) 14:26, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
• Okay, so the problems seem to be:
  1. Deletion out of process. The article was posted on VfD, but apparently prematurely deleted before the VfD discussion was closed. The VfD discussion was a mess due to the large number of sockpuppets, anonymous editors, and new accounts participating. I also note that at least one legitimate editor inadvertantly voted twice in the confusion.
  2. Undeletion out of process. The article was restored two hours after listing here on VfU, without passing through VfD (either to complete the prior discussion, or to carry out a fresh discussion per the existing undeletion policy.) It now appears that a revert war has started over whether the article should be blanked.
• I would suggest relisting the article for a new VfD--clean the slate, but with a reference to this previous mess. Out of process deletion isn't a get out of jail free card for articles nominated in good faith on VfD. I'm not going to relist it yet, because I'd like a sense of what people here think, and there's been enough trouble caused by hasty action on this article already, yes? :-) --TenOfAllTrades(talk/contrib) 14:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Good idea, makes sense to me. And I congratulate your wisdom of not being bold. --W(t) 14:44, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
  • Undeletion was not out of process. An improperly deleted article can (and should) be restored by any administrator. It can be relisted if anyone wants it deleted, or it can be deleted if there is a valid reason for speedy delete (there is none that I am aware of). If there is any doubt a relisting would be advisable. Ask an admin to do it if you want it, because it's currently protected. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted or list on VfD for the remainder of the missing time. Valid VfD voting for this contentious article. If it was deleted prematurely, I think it should be relisted on VfD for the remainder of the time. However, if it was deleted in the right amount of time, it should be kept deleted. --Deathphoenix 15:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• It seems it was on VfD for at least 5 days, and with the number of votes it got I'm not sure we can make the argument it didn't receive enough attention. I can't be bothered to count the votes and try to figure out which are legit, but if it got a 2:1 consensus then keep deleted, otherwise undelete and put on VfD. -R. fiend 17:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - As I understand this, the article was VfD'd, deleted during the VfD, vote completed as Delete and was marked as already deleted, VfU'd and undeleted despite completed vote results. I am deleting per the completed VfD vote (which completed whether it was deleted early or not) and making my vote here as keep deleted in this undelete vote - Tεxτurε 17:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The article was VfD'd, then inundated by sockuppets voting "Keep". The VfD process went over the required 5 days, the consensus of the non-sockpuppet votes was strongly in favour of deletion, and the article was deleted. Please do not re-create this properly deleted article unless the VfU succeeds. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• As a matter of fact, the following statements are unequivocally false:
  1. that the VfD went over five days. Actually it did not run the full five days before the article was speedied outside the process.
  2. that the article was close with a decision to delete. Actually when it was closed the article had been deleted.
• During the course of the discussion the article was speedied for no reason that I can see, before the five-day discussion period was complete. The VfD closer played no part in deleting the article, and closed it with the conclusion "already deleted." No decision was made as a result of the VfD discussion. There was a little sock puppetry, but nothing serious, and a substantial number of keep votes from established editors.
  • Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Pointless_Waste_of_Time (11 April 2005 0241 UTC)
  • 18:39, 15 Apr 2005 Jni deleted "Pointless waste of time?" (content was: 'Fart!!!!')
• The person who performed that speedy on 15th, towards the end of the fifth day of the VfD discussion, could have just reverted the article. Articles with substantial non-nonsense histories are not speedy candidates, and the non-sock votes on the VfD up to that date had no substantial consensus to justify an out-of-process delete.
• Meanwhile the article has been deleted again on the false grounds that the VfD was closed with a deletion consensus. It was not; the article was speedied outside the process. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • To what revision exactly I could have reverted Pointless waste of time on 15th, given that someone else had deleted that on 9th and there are no interim revisions? Hint: capitalization! jni 14:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid VfD process, there was an orchestrated attempt on the PWoT pages to come here and vote keep with an extensive array of sockpuppet votes. The deleting admin did so based on ignoring all of the sockpuppets. RickK 21:36, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • The point is that the deleting admin ignored all votes. He just up and speedied it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Can someone come up with a valid count of votes at the time the article was deleted? If the vote didn't go the entire 5 days it was damn close, and if there was a substantial margin for deletion then I see no reason to reopen the can of worms. I'd count them up but I really don't feel like sorting the socks. -R. fiend 21:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It is not customary to ignore votes made after five days. Voting can continue until the listing is closed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • • I would argue that deletion after 5 days effectively closed the listing, or at least would have if the consensus at that time was to delete. As I guess such a consensus is at best questionable, I suppose the article could be undeleted and placed again on VfD (see vote change above). -R. fiend 22:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • That is absolutely wrong. Only votes made in the first five days should be counted. RickK 04:20, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • No. Check Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Old "You can still add your votes to these listings if you feel strongly, but please be aware that once an article listing is on this page it can be deleted or removed from the list at any time." As a closer I'm aware of that invitation and always act on it. All valid votes are taken into account, including those cast right up to the moment of closing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I'd have to agree with Tony on this one, on grounds that WP:NOT a bureaucracy. Radiant_* 12:20, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

User:Silversmith/Test Please see this. Read the vote count section. I've tallied it so you can compare counting all votes as legit. vs discounting sockpuppets. I hope this helps. If you want to see my list that I have on paper please request on my talk page. Thanks, --Silversmith Hewwo 12:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Well it certainly demonstrates that it's possible to see a no-consensus vote there. 23 out of 39 36 valid votes falls below even the generous "2/3" level for rough consensus to delete. I'll take your estimate on trust as I don't think it really matter what the eventual tally was. The decision was not made on the final tally, the article was speedied "out of process". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• I want to make a point that often gets lost in this kind of discussion. Like the admin who speedied Pointless Waste of Time I also sometimes do things out-of-process, for instance speedying articles that appear to me to be speedy candidates when they've been listed on VfD. I don't mean to impugn the reliability or character of the person who did it; with socks planting votes, the article and the VfD being vandalized, and so on, I don't know whether I would not have made the same decision. But VfU is a forum in which we get to do post-mortem analysis on the procedure, a kind of appeals court. This is a good thing to have. At least one of my VfD closes has ended up here (Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Jim_Robinson) and no doubt it's only a matter of time before one of my speedies does too.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

A very good point Tony. We can always VfD it again, or not bother, as it only became a problem with the vandals due to the VfD in the first place. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. 23 delete versus 13 keep (from Silversmith's tally) is good enough for me. Article was nominated for deletion 02:41, 11th by Inshanee and deleted 03:41, 16th by Neutrality, again perfectly in line with policy. jni 14:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • 23 del, 13 keep so obviously is such a marginal vote. 24v12 I can understand, because that is just at the 2/3 level where some closers would see a consensus. Anyhow we don't know what a closer would have made of this vote as the article never got that chance. Someone else repeating the tally might well come up with a different total from the one Silversmith found--a higher or lower tally for delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
    • 23-13 is 63,89%, only 2,78%-units below 2/3. Because VfD is not a vote, but instead a consensus discovery process, such small differences can be safely ignored. The deletion policy itself says that the rough consensus is not set in stone. And how do you know that the deleting admin ignored the votes? In your earlier arguments above you couldn't even identify the deleting admin correctly. True enough, the deletion summary Speedied twice, massive sockpuppetry on VfD refers to the speedy deletions of the other copy, so there is a chance that Neutrality made an error, however the second part of the summary hints that he had read the VfD and made the decision based on what he thought to be the consensus on that page. It is hard to say without asking him. (His habit of sometimes deleting pages just after the lag-time and without marking the subpage as closed, while mildly annoying, should be known to all admins who close VfDs by now.) jni 07:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete, 23-13 is not a consensus. Kappa 09:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete, agreed with Kappa. Sjakkalle 09:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)