Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Delete - as a copy of User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair, which was deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair. And while as some noted, a redirect may have been more appropriate (directly copying a talk page in this way can cause confusion), as I noted in the above closure: "WP:CSD specifically uses the word disparage. And the author makes it clear below that that is the intent. Calling it humour doesn't change that. And that simply has more weight than WP:NOHARM. The suggested intent to engage in substantial recreations, regardless of the page title, would seem to suggest initial salting, per WP:CSD, and whatever other sanctions, as appropriate. I'll hope that the suggestion was merely kidding." - jc37 08:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair
This is a duplicate of the attack page User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair Alpha Quadrant    talk    01:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair
 * User:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair
 * Keep or Redirect all such things to some central page directed to study and learning about the Rlevse affair, and how we can prevent or mitigate such incidents in the future. From what I can infer from limited reading, we had a Wikipedian of long standing and considerable respect suddenly accused of failing our changing standards systematically over a long period.  There is, without doubt, with hindsight, regret to be found in this story.  There is surely  much that can be said, and some of it will be helpful for some of us.  This is a complex place, and there but for the grace of God, go I.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete If it's not an attack page, there is no reason to keep it (and if it were a blatant attack it would be speedied). Wikipedia is not a place to derive amusement with a fake enquiry mentioning other editors, and this page is not helpful for a collaborative atmosphere. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It serves to remind everyone of my paranoia and how very clever the Arbs are.  Giacomo   09:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It's not gonna do anybody any harm. If arbitrators are innocent? they've nothing to fear. If arbitrators are guilty? there's no way to proove it. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per WP:COPYVIO (unless User:Demiurge1000 decides to slap on a copyright notice that givs the text to the public). Also, it may not be negative or an attack, but it is non-article space contentious material about living persons (Giano and/or Rlevse) that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices. It should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate per WP:BLPTALK. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is deleted, I shall recreate it and continue to recreate it on and on until I am blocked or banned or whatever it is that happens to those who will not alow attacking Arbs to get away with such behaviour.  Giacomo   15:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be counter-productive, getting yourself banned. Wikipedia continues forward & would have little sympathy for would-be martyrs. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Uzma, WP:COPYVIO clearly does not apply in this case. From that page: "Contributors agree to release their original content under both licenses [CC-BY and GDFL] when they submit it, and material...may be used in accordance with the copyright policy, provided correct attribution is given". Attribution is given at the top of the page in question, and therefore it complies with that policy. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I see no harm in keeping it, as it is definitely not an attack page, merely a biased view of events. If it was an attack page wouldn't the arbs and other experienced users (eg crats and admins) commenting on the article in question have speedied it already? Instead, everyone needs to try to forget about it and move on. Plus, if it is deleted there can be no doubt that a bunch of "admin abuse" threads will pop up and create even more unnecessary drama. As a sidenote, I found it sadly ironic that the above delete !vote was based on WP:COPYVIO. Jenks24 (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and speedy close there is a problem with plagiarism on wikipedia. The "Rlevse affair" indicated that. I think it indicated no more than that, and that the nascent conspiracy theory is largely in Giano's mind. I could be wrong. However, an attempt to delete this will simply feed charges of conspiracy and cover-up. It is better to allow light into dark recesses, even if it is simply to demonstrate that there are indeed no monsters under the bed.--Scott Mac 21:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Amusingly enough, while there have been clear and indisputable attempts at supression, I have never uttered the word conspiracy. That is left to the likes of Coren and "Ms Kinny". I merely point out some co-incidences, the sudden nomination of this page being one. Or are you Doc, suggesting they are not all coincidences?  Giacomo   21:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The single best way to draw attention to this page was to MfD it. If one does not like a page, ignoring it is generally the optimal path. Collect (talk) 08:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

4-keeps & 2-deletes? is a consensus for deletion? GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is, if it puts Ms Kinney and Coren to shame - one rule for arbs, one for the rest of us.  Giacomo   19:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been on the 'pedia for over 5yrs & this Mfd ruling is a first for me. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)