Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Religious persecution by Jews

Historical_persecution_by_Jews
I closed the debate for this one. It is at Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews. I closed it as a "no consensus" keep. It was controversial. I got a lot of criticism for closing it as such, but I have recieved support for my position as well from User:SimonP, User:Rossami, User:Mindspillage among others. User:Neutrality has as far as I know, absolutely no authority to "overrule" me and delete this. If he wants this deleted, he should start a new VFD debate. I have no opinion as to whether or not this article merits inclusion, but the deletion was completely out of process as far as I know. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This isn't a VFU matter. An administrator who made a good faith VfD close has been arbitrarily overridden by another administrator.  That was  a shameful act. I have restored it.  If someone still wants to delete they should list for deletion again. --Tony Sidaway Talk  10:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Shameful act? It isn't clear to me that goodfaith was questioned. Let's aim for as moderate language as the situation warrants. El_C 10:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * While I agree that this one has no consensus, it does appear to me that far too many religious issues come up on VFD these days, and all turn into lengthy Violent Factionalizing Debates. Does anyone have a reasonable idea of what to do about that? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:21, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Not much to do really except to admonish people to be civil, and follow rules tightly. When things are really hot and contentious, it is an excellent time to ignore WP:IAR. It is much better to upset people by following the rules than to upset people by bending or breaking them. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If User:Neutrality counted the tally differently it should be recorded on the VfD vote explaining why the original count was inaccurate. Since it was not, he should not have deleted it.  However, I don't see any "shameful act".  That is an overdramatization.  The vote was close enough that I could see why another admin would delete.  Doing so without any notice is improper.   -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  14:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Undelete User:Neutrality's obviously unintentional mistake, and assume good faith. Nandesuka 15:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep deleted. There was a valid, 2:1 consensus on VfD to delete. Sjakkalle made in error in keeping the article. This certainly constitutes a consensus to delete. Neutralitytalk 15:03, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you violated process in deleting it after he closed it, and by doing so without notice. I don't think that's OK, even if you are right that Sjakkalle erred.  Admins should  at least try to follow the Caesar's wife dictum. IMHO. Nandesuka
 * I guess since it is deleted again I have to vote on this. I am torn between valid votes.  The deletion was outside of process.  But, imo, only because the VfD was not updated to reflect the admin's review of the closing.  (I don't believe that anyone can close a VfD and have it be beyond review.)  Neutrality should state in the VfD that it was closed upon later review.  Then, this vote would determine if the deletion was valid.  So, if he did so I would consider it a valid deletion.  My indecision is due to the fact that I would have voted to keep this. I should vote according to process and if Neutrality documents his review of the VfD I will vote keep deleted - No vote for now. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  15:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Undelete now. Neutrality has abandoned all pretence of following process with the second deletion. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 15:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted or re-delete as the case may be. When the tally is disputed by two admins who both want to close it, a review by others is sensible. Neutrality himself could have brought the vfd here (or taken it elsewhere) for review; but now that it's here, let's go ahead and review it. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted or re-delete as per Wile E. Heresiarch --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  06:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think Wile's solution is sensible. So, KD. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 07:48, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * comment: There is absolutely no basis to override a validly closed VFD debate, and deciding that a result should be ignored is a clear subversion of process. Neutrality was a participant in the said debate (he voted "delete"), and has therefore no business in trying to close it anyway. The article has been properly undeleted. If someone wants this deleted, renominate it for deletion in a regualr VFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There is certainly no sacred principle involved in being the first admin on the scene. It might just as well have been someone else instead of you. What matters is that there is disagreement among the admins who are more or less standing around, so a review by others is appropriate. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * After I got complaints of my closure here I asked two other regular VFD closers, User:SimonP and User:Rossami if they agreed with my decision. Both of them agreed with my decision. User:Neutrality was a participant in this VFD debate and therefore had a conflict of interest when he tried overruling my result. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted for now. Since this is a question of admin activity (who was right, etc.), I think this discussion should be shifted on WP:AN to get more admin feedback on how to interpret the VfD. --Deathphoenix 14:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It has been. See WP:AN/I Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive38. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted For these reasons:
 * A second administrator is allowed to change a result. Nothing wrong with that.
 * The higher the number of votes, the less inclined I am to call a no consensus.
 * I think the article should have been deleted anyway. [[smoddy ]] 20:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As a result of comments above and a discussion with Tony Sidway regarding his view that all votes are "binary" requiring a "keep" or "delete" decision, regardless of whether any votes are to keep, I am restoring my vote to keep deleted. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  21:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted for the above reasons. --Carnildo 23:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Restore Lapsed Pacifist 03:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Undelete. There was no clear consensus to delete.  If we want to reevaluate the keep decision, it should be resubmitted to VfD, not done here.  NoSeptember  08:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted or redelete. (Has anyone bothered to read the article in question? It's junky nonsense that clearly contravenes WP:NOR.) Given the sensitivity of this subject (i.e. Jews as "presecutors" -- what historical revisionism that is) and that two thirds of the original vote was to rightly and logically delete it (out of over 100 valid votes cast), it should have been dumped and banished, and certainly not "protected" by any admin which then resulted in the subsequent justified uproar. The sooner this article goes, the better. IZAK 08:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong "Make it so That it was Never Deleted in the First Place". I think Smoddy, Wile, and others miss an important issue. This is more than just a disagreement between two admins closing the debate. Neutrality was a voter in the debate, in fact, one with strong views. Let me quote Neutrality's vote: "Delete this filth." So then, after the debate was closed, he deleted it anyway. It is highly improper to close in which you are involved, especially overriding another uninvolved admin. VfU is about process, and this aticle was deleted out of process. In fact, why did we get mad at Stevertigo for editing a protected article he was involved in? Why were people mad at Ed Poor for closing Lucky's RFA when he himself had so emphatically voted in it? For the same reason this article was deleted improperly. An involved admin... give me a break. Dmcdevit·t 08:43, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I hadn't quite grasped that. Nevertheless, I think all the above votes serve to validate Neutrality's point, even if he overstepped the mark originally. We're building an encyclopedia. End result above process, right?  [[smoddy ]] 10:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No. If violating process upsets people, we should follow process. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No. Process helps us maintain our objectivity and enables the end result.  Arbitrarily ignoring the process creates uncertainty, ambiguity and ill will between participants.  It makes us more susceptible to the whims of a few and degrades the total quality of our encyclopedia.  Rossami (talk)
 * To both the above users: What is the most important part of Wikipedia? Answer: building an encyclopedia.  You are right that ignoring policy can have unfortunate effects.  But is not upsetting people more important than the content of the encyclopedia?  I don't think so.  Here, he article was rubbish, so deleting it was a good thing.  In addition, a huge majority of people did not want the article to remain, and plenty of people (including myself) are willing to accept Neutrality's judgement.  This is quite enough process for me.   [[smoddy ]] 16:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sticking to process is only a good idea in so much as the process has been validated. And that requires that the product of the process be established as reliably defect-free. Until that point, the process has to be malleable, and I don't think Wikipedia is anywhere near that point yet. Gzuckier 17:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, another thing that you're not really seeing. This is VfU, not VFD. We are not voting on the merits of the article and whether it should be deleted, and with good reason. Very few of the VfD voters have voted here and probably few even know about it. Neutrality deleted it improperly and it was restored; and now people here are trying to use Votes for Undeletion to get a properly closed VfD overturned and actually delete it. That's what VfD is for. Again this is not VfD. Take it back there if you want to. Dmcdevit·t 19:30, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * If you analyze the number of VfD decisions which are overturned, I think you will find that our process is remarkably close to defect-free. It may not be up to Six Sigma standards and it's certainly more time-consuming than any of us want but for such a contentious process, it renders a very high proportion of correct decisions.  I see no evidence supporting the need to bypass process in this case.  If you think the "keep" decision was in error, simply VfD it again.  Rossami (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete resp keep deleted. No merits, presently only contains unnotable incidents. JFW | T@lk  09:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted or redelete. Clearly the vote was in favour of deleting. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Undelete - as much as I object this article, which I find to be racist, original research and poorly substantiated, the act of deleting it by Neutrality was wrong because:(a) no concensus was reached; (b) Neutrality had no business overturning Sjakkalle's decision; (c) Neutrality was involved in the vote. The article should be properly deleted after a vfd, and until then, it will be a disgrace to Wikipedia.--Doron 11:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Leave it Undeleted. The discussion was properly closed with a "no concensus" decision.  If Neutrality or anyone else wants to have this article deleted, they must propose it through a new VfD discussion.  The first discussion did not meet the necessary standards of concensus.  (The arguments that say it should be deleted because of the mere vote-counts are just wrong.  Despite the name, "Votes for deletion" has nothing to do with "voting".)  Rossami (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. Keeping it in the face of 2/3 delete vote was the improper move here. --Briangotts (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, keep deleted or redelete. I agree with Doron above that the article is a disgrace for Wikipedia. See my detailed comments on the article at the talk page. gidonb  18:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. 66 votes in favour of deleting is strong consensus, even if it is "only" 2/3 of those who voted. Jayjg (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. Tomer TALK 19:24, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * COMMENTS: (1) This is not the place to discuss whether or not Neutrality acted improperly by reinterpreting Sjakkale's decision that there was no consensus.  That belongs at WP:ANI.  (2) Sjakkale says this is being discussed there, but it is not.  (3) The discussion here is utterly moot since the article is not presently deleted.  (4)  Articles on VFU should not be undeleted until consensus is reached on the VFU page.  Doing so discourages comment and makes people wonder why the discussion is going on at all.  Clearly, there's no reason to vote for undeletion if the article isn't deleted.  (5) If someone deletes  the article, and spells out their rationale, then we can discuss whether or not their rationale was valid, and ONLY that discussion is appropriate here.  I believe Neutrality's rationale was valid, hence my vote above.   Tomer TALK  19:24, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * "Um, Teacher? Can you start over?  #3 seems to contradict #4 and #5 contradicts something, I'm sure.  Oh, and there doesn't seem to be anything there where your pointer is. (Making #2 contradict #1 or at least making it look embarrassed.) And I have to use the restroom - can I have a hall-pass while you explain it again?" -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  20:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Grrrr. so academic...are you really confused?  or just trolling?  Of course there's nothing there, that's my whole point.  Sjakkale says there is, and there isn't.  The discussion over whether to undelete is irrelevant, since the article isn't deleted.  If the article was deleted, it shouldn't have been undeleted while the VFU is still open.  (5) is just a restatement of the rules of VFU.  So much here is "out of process" and so much of the rest of it is just plain "out of place"...  The only part of #5 that contradicts anything is that I prattle on about how wrong this whole thing is, and then say "I'm going ahead and voting anyways".  It's only apparently contradictory, since I actually understand what's going on.  To expect everyone who happens by to understand, however, this entire messed up VFU, is unreasonable and unfair.  Hence (4).  Do I really need to clarify?  My clarification is quickly becoming a Mishnah Comments.  Tomer TALK  07:08, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep deleted. I saw a consensus to delete. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:33, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and keep deleted! Respectfully, Olve 22:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Undelete Discussion is not now on WP:ANI and the deletion was improper. Admins should be discouraged from being reckless. If someone wants to put the silly thing (and its present incarnation could be a lot worse) on VfD again, fine. Septentrionalis 22:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Deleted or Redelete. I intended to vote Delete in the Original VfD, but was unable to do that in time. The article is not worth keeping for reasons expressed in the Original VfD and here by numerous users. Had I and others like me done so, the result would have been a consensus to delete. -- Nahum 04:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I see Tomer is making a big deal out of the fact that the link I mentioned on the Administrator's Noticeboard has been archived. It was still on the "active" board when I added the link. The discussion is now here. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sjakkale. I wasn't "making a big deal out of [it]", I was just commenting.  The big deal came up in the prélude to my Misjna Comments.  :-)  Tomer TALK  09:31, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. If it is ok for one admin to overrule the actions of a previous admin, then there is no reason why a third admin can't overrule the second admin and restore the article. And then a fourth admin can overrule the third admin and delete the article. This is now the new precedence here. Nevermore will their be a final decision on the closing of a VfD. The last admin to act makes the decision. :-)  NoSeptember  07:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that's what we're trying to avoid, actually, which is why I said, the parts of this that aren't "out of process" are entirely "out of place". Tomer TALK 09:31, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. El_C 12:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. Rachel1 14:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Considering the procedural position this is in, undelete. Sjakkalle read the results appropriately; if Neutrality disagreed, the way to handle that should have been to start a new vote for deletion. --Michael Snow 17:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. The original decision was a mistake, as was Neutrality's deletion out of process &mdash; but we should be trying to do what's right, not undeleting as a signal to Neutrality.  --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 18:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Question: If this article is so awful, why has no one re-nominated it for deletion through a regular VfD discussion?  Why are so many people trying to insist on a special exception to the process for this one article?  Rossami (talk)
 * Keep deleted  Fear ÉIREANN \(caint)  01:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * redirect somewhere. vfd had no consensus, so this whole discussion is out of line. it would be normal practice to redirect a title to a related subject if it transpires that this title does not warrant an independent article. To cite a quite unpolitical example, I redirected Minusa River to Minusinsk when it became clear that this "river" is just a minor brook. The Minusa River redirect as far as I care may remain part of Wikipedia until the heat death of the universe, no harm done. Similarly, it has transpired that there is no real basis for a Historical_persecution_by_Jews article. So, just redirect it to Religious persecution or something, and have that state that there is no evidence of such in Judaism after 500 BC, and have all direct links to Historical_persecution_by_Jews removed. No harm done, no vfd necessary. dab (&#5839;) 15:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted, as per User:Texture above. There was a large number of votes, and the results arguably constituted a consensus.  It is quite unreasonable for Sjakkalle to claim that he has the final and only say on the interpretation of the results and that his judgment cannot be appealed short of doing over the entire VfD.  Nowhere else in Wikipedia does any one admin have the sole and final say on anything: for instance, if one admin blocks a user, another admin can unblock, and so forth. Undoing what another admin has done is usually done with care and courtesy, with an explanation on a talk page, but it is hardly unheard of. -- Curps 22:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Undelete. If it needs to be deleted it should be relisted on VfD. - SimonP 17:42, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article passed VfD and was then speedied a couple of times by an administrator who disputed the result.  This isn't the right way to do it; take it back to VfD if you want it deleted. --Tony Sidaway Talk  17:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tony Sidaway. Shem(talk) 02:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Undelete. Improperly deleted. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:24, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
 * Undelete. Amalekite 11:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Undelete It was voted to be kept.Heraclius 01:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

At the end of 10 days on VfU, I count 17 "undelete" or "keep undeleted" vs 22 "delete" or "redelete". In addition, there were several very serious concerns raised here and elsewhere that the deletion was out-of-process. This is a very unusual case. Normally, a VfU requires a majority to undelete an article. This establishes that there is greater support for the deletion decision than the minimum standard for a VfD decision (where a mere third can effectively block deletion). In this case, there is actually a lower ratio to support deletion than there was in the original VfD discussion.

Our rules were never intended to cover this situation. Given the controversy and observing that editors do seem to be working on the article in good faith, I am going call this as an "undelete" decision and, per policy, return the article to VfD for a second pass. Rossami (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)