- 1984 ghallooghaaraa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
It was closed by one administrator as No Consensus, then another changed that to Delete the day after.
I talked to him on his talk page about that. [1] Once an AFD is closed by one administrator, should another be able to just go over and delete it anyway the day after? Dream Focus 08:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist There is a claim by the second admin that the discussion was tainted by socks, and looking at the discussion I can believe that. Even so, he should have asked the closing admin to reclose the discussion rather than just override it. In any case, I think a relist is the best way to go in order to get a fresh reading on the debate, with a rather large fish to the second closer for deleting out of process. A quick search turns up a number of solid sources under a different spelling [2]. This looks likely to be quite notable to me. Hobit (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore-notable, referenced article... Ofcourse Indian admins/editors with pro india views wp:pov can not like it.--166.205.138.6 (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore and relist-Concerns about socks may be valid, but that did not give User:YellowMonkey the right to act as they did. That deletion was totally out of process. Admins don't get to change an XfD outcome on a whim.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn/relist/refer to Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) (the closer). Discovered sockpuppetry does change things, but it is not for a second administrator to overturn the first's close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted It's a waste of time to file papers as two of the IPs and DawnOfTheBlood = Singh6, and the last keep voter on the page has only one edit. And as for sources, the article is a pov fork by Khalistani separatists YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted - Will somebody read the deleted article please? Do we need to go through the entire process again?. We just spent a large amount of time and effort debating this. Three IPs turn up and vote keep. And the closing admin says he will take that into consideration. As they say AGF is not a suicide pact. If you overturn this and relist and if SPAs/IPs turn up again will you consider it again?. And Hobit, what you found already has articles - Operation Blue Star and 1984 anti-Sikh riots. Does this need a POV fork again?--Sodabottle (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a wildly out-of-process deletion and relisting is a reasonable step. Further at the very least this should be a redirect. I see no harm in relisting. Hobit (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could someone please restore the article temporarily for the purpose of the DRV? Thanks. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see a 99-reference lengthy, well-written piece of prose, written in a single edit, with moderate WP:NPOV and WP:SYN issues. WP:NPOV and WP:SYN are rarely good reasons for delete, and neither is the presence of poor debate via sockpuppetry a good reason to delete. I think we have a valuable not-yet-fully encultured contributor here who should be worked with more amicably, not confronted with harsh administration. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Refer to Beeblebrox and if not, overturn and relist. We don't need a precedent that a second admin can overturn a valid AFD discussion, even if people say this should be the exception. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted The presence of the socks clearly invalidated the lack of consensus that had resulted from the original decision. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist- That the discussion was tainted by socks is not the fault of the article, if the discussion was defective, then we need a new sock-free discussion. If one admin in good faith deemed there to be no consensus, then a second admin should not be allowed to reverse that decision on their own without discussion. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- <ec>Comment I've notified the primary author of the article of this DrV. Hobit (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted, the article was a gross pov essay. I think the 'no consensus' close was a non-solution, which would only have opened a perpetual re-listing of AfDs. --Soman (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC) (nominator of the AfD, btw)[reply]
- Keep deleted Remove the socks and the consensus to delete this article is clear. Since the article has been deleted at AfD before, the only gain in being bureaucratic about this is that we'll keep encouraging these pov editors. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted - sock contamination, as observed above. Eusebeus (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted - once the sock puppet votes are disregarded, the discussion looks like a consensus to delete. I think this was an appropriate use of WP:IAR. Also retaining the article, even temporarily, just because the discussion was spoiled by sockpuppets means that socking works and we can't have that. Reyk YO! 19:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted. An obvious POV fork of a topic adequately covered in existing articles. One the socking was discounted, delete was the appropriate close. In this case, the outcome should be upheld whether or not it was within process (ie not merely overturning an obvious and correct outcome for process' sake). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We've got an admin/CU who reclosed this discussion without consulting the original closer. This was done due to socking. I've been unable to find any evidence of abusive socking. There is no SPI case. Heck, the first time this person was accused of socking and blocked (by the same admin/CU) there was no SPI or CU case. As far as I can see the sock in question wasn't being abusive and had instead just changed accounts in a legal way (it looks to me the accused sockmaster stopped editing well before the accused sock started). Can anyone point out what I'm missing here? Were some of the IPs involved? If so which? Hobit (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted as per Mkativerata--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted as per RegentsPark and others. Shyamsunder (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- A gentle reminder- we are here to discuss whether or not the deleting admin made a reversible procedural error, not to re-debate the AFD. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore--Referenced, fradulatently deleted under wp:pov pushing...by a biased Hindu admin. Investigate his blocks as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.163.246 (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Morning again Mr Singh6 YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus, allow such as User:Utcursch to improve if they believe they can, with leave to renominate after a reasonable time if wished. I am not making any comment upon the article itself... only the out-of-process deletion. User:Beeblebrox made the good faith call, closed the AFD on 00:20 June 22,[3][4] and encouraged discussion on the article's talk page. User:Utcursch tagged the article for concerns on 8:45 June 22 and began working on improving it.[5] User:YellowMonkey offered his own re-evaluation of the AFD in his edit summary and deleted the article 6:12 June 23 and protected the page.[6] The talk page was deleted by User:Utcursch on 8:45 June 23rd,[7] so I have no idea what discussion took place there... if any. But here's the crux of the matter... If anyone feels an article should have been deleted but wasn't, there are processes set in place for just such circumstances... and a summary deletion if not agreeing with the close is not one of them. Considering the involvement of socks, it certainly could not have been an easy decision to close as no-consensus, but Beeblebrox was just as aware of sock participation as anyone, made the call, and AGF allows me to believe he took them into account. If an editor felt it should have been deleted, but was not, he should have brought it to DRV, rather then invoke an admin supervote and over-ride the closer out of process. And yes... it was finaly brought to DRV, but for reasons not based upon User:Beeblebrox's close, but rather to question the out-of-process deletion by User:YellowMonkey. As User:Umbralcorax gently reminds, THAT'S what this discussion is about... not the article itself... not the AFD... not the close... only whether or not the deleting admin made a reversible procedural error. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess most of you who want the article restored/re-listed are concerned about the "process" (checkuser/deletion) here, and it can be argued that it was a procedural error. Just for the record, while I did start working on the article, even I believe that the article is a hopeless POV fork of Punjab insurgency, 1984 anti-Sikh riots and Khalistan movement. It was first created at SikhWiki, and then copied here. I started working on the article so that any salvageable content can be merged to the respective articles and then redirected to 1984 anti-Sikh riots. utcursch | talk 03:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- RESTORE - this article should be restored per afd and investigation should be launched against YellowMonkey for violating wikipedia policies and fradulent blocking several sikh editors.--24.5.233.42 (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A comment regarding Umbralcorax and Schmidt's comments: I think we have to be careful about being overly pure on the role of DRV. I can't accept the view that procedural error should vitiate any deletion outcome. If the outcome would have clearly been the same but for the procedural error, DRV should uphold the outcome to avoid bureaucracy. Such is the essence of IAR. Of course, if the outcome is called into question because of the process error, by all means we should overturn. But we shouldn't treat DRV like an appellate court - even if we did, appellate courts (at least where I practice) always throw out cases where it can be shown that a procedural error had no effect on the outcome. I haven't yet seen a single sound reason in the AfD or DRV why this article is justified with reference to wikipedia policy.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is claimed that the article is a fork. In such a case, merger is the natural corrective not deletion and so the result is not as clear as you suggest.
- Unfortunately, there is nothing to merge. All the material in the article is covered elsewhere and the only point of the POV fork is to cast the 1984 Anti-Sikh riots as a holocaust. When the holocaust title was deleted at AfD, the editors used this (unpronounceable and impossible to spell!) term. Other than the holocaust angle, I cannot see a purpose for a second article on the anti-Sikh riots. (This is a response to your merge comment and not a DRV comment.) --RegentsPark (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
any fraudulent mis-use --Fr1nkl3 (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- RESTORE - Greetings. I confess to being absolutely naive about the inner workings of wikipedia and its review structure. When I saw the article was deleted I just forgot about it, but someone emailed me today: "...Now you are supposed to type Restore..... and add some comments and I will appreciate if you could add some comments to get the blocks investigated as well." I hope they are correct because I don't want to offend anyone or to break any rules. If you think it relevant, I can name the person who sent me the suggestion. I just looked up the wikipedia for "sock" and I can tell you I am a real person. My web-site is www.gurufathasingh.com. You can email at [email protected]. For reasons you can appreciate, of course I think the article has some merit and that it is balanced. It presents a long-term perspective of what Sikhs went through in the 1980s and 90s that is not readily found on-line. Thank you for your indulgence. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist is the precedent we should set in this weird case. First socks, then just overturning for whatever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the crux of this matter as far as I am concerned: The outcome of no consensus was based on the strength of the various arguments made, not on who was making them or how many. It's not supposed to be a head count, it's supposed to be a discussion. So, if there are users making or agreeing with the keep reasoning who are not socks, then the arguments to keep are still equally valid. Since there were such users at the AFD I don't really feel that my original close was invalid despite the presence of the socks. I think the best course of action would be to restore the article and relist the AFD, and see if we can't get an untainted result. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Summary To briefly sum up an article was kept as NC, another admin (with CU) blocked someone for socking (though there is no SPI case) and then changed the close to delete without consulting the closer due to said socking. A fair number of users feel that the original article was a POV fork and so should remain deleted. The original closer stands by his close even in the face of the socking and a number of other users agree that the original close was correct though a relist is reasonable. No one has yet to dispute the fact that the term is used in RSes including books on the subject (though the spelling is generally different, see my first comment). Finally, no one disputes this close was out of process. Is this a good case for WP:IAR? I don't think so. It's not clear that deleting this article would help things, and it's _really_ clear that allowing things like this to stand would be a horrible precedent. YellowMonkey should have contacted the closer rather than deleting on his own. Heck, he should have documented the socking via an SPI case rather than just blocking on his own. At some point process is important and others shouldn't have to waste their time cleaning up the messes. Hobit (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's not get all hung up on the lack of a full SPI, that's not really the point here and it's perfectly reasonable for a user with CU to block any socks they detect. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed it's not overly relevant here, though I think a CU (or anyone else) blocking without any documentation, notice, etc. is problem and is part-and-parcel with ignoring process in this case too. Hobit (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Im not sure why you have stated that "It's not clear that deleting this article would help things". I think it is pretty clear: It is a POV fork. The creator wants to create a new version of events that happened during the 1984 Anti-Sikh riots because he/she feels that the current article does not potray the haplessness/pain/victimisation of his community deeply enough. So he has created a new page, describing exactly the same event, only it focusses on the "victim" part,chooses a title with words that are only specific to his language and claims that it is equivalent to the "holocaust". That too after they failed to get other "Sikh Holocaust" articles through AfD.I fail to understand if DRV is about "deletion review" or about "deletion process review". Ok so YellowMonkey did take a short-cut. It may not be fine proceduraly but it wasnt in any way out of malice towards the subject or the community in question. I have seen instances where admins have closed AfDs going against the overall consensus if they believed there is a solid reason for doing so. To put it blandly, wheter you belive that decision is right or wrong depends on what you voted. Vote rigging is not uncommon in Indian article AfDs and quite a few admins are aware of this problem and take action accordingly. The end question is "was the deltion valid or not" and I beleive that it was.--Deepak D'Souza (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing. It appears that my closing script does not work on Safari, so I am going to just write it out here. Could someone fix up the templates afterward?
- The result of the DRV discussion was "Keep deleted". While the process was not entirely kosher, it seems that there is general agreement (discounting new users and SPAs) that the end result was an acceptable one. NW (Talk) 13:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
