Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 14/BJAODN: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log | 2007 August 14 Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:16, 15 August 2007 editXaosflux (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Importers, Interface administrators, Oversighters, Administrators83,974 edits →[]: undelete← Previous edit Revision as of 05:37, 15 August 2007 edit undoXaosflux (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Importers, Interface administrators, Oversighters, Administrators83,974 edits →[]: reNext edit →
Line 74: Line 74:
*'''Endorse Deletion''' I really do not see the point of this whole thing. This really belongs on a WP fan site or something similiar (or a fan wiki!) ] 04:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC) *'''Endorse Deletion''' I really do not see the point of this whole thing. This really belongs on a WP fan site or something similiar (or a fan wiki!) ] 04:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endore Undeletion'''. Remembering that DRV is NOT ] the only argument needed here is that the deletion was speedy, and was overturned already, never should have come here. — ] <sup>]</sup> 05:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC) *'''Endore Undeletion'''. Remembering that DRV is NOT ] the only argument needed here is that the deletion was speedy, and was overturned already, never should have come here. — ] <sup>]</sup> 05:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
**Note:A majority of these pages have already been undeleted, I've undeleted the other ones to keep consistency in this matter, all deletions were done as a speedy deletion reversal. — ] <sup>]</sup> 05:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:37, 15 August 2007

Misplaced Pages:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense

Misplaced Pages:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

One of the oldest pages on Misplaced Pages, non-mainspace. This and all related pages were deleted by an admin who had not gained consensus and just used WP:DENY as his reason for deletion. Whilst I think he had a reasonably valid reason to delete, he should have gained consensus from the community before deletion. Perhaps list on the miscellaneous pages for deletion page. h i s r e s e a r c h 18:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted, BJAODN is little more than a shrine devoted to preserving vandalism and copyright/GFDL violations because "it's funny". We should be deterring vandals and not promoting them, and the deleting admin's reasoning was sound. --Coredesat 18:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn and list in MFD, while I agree with Coredesat, it still was an very improper speedy deletion, it should have at least gone to MFD. Jaranda 18:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I saw the comments in WP:AN and seems like many users of the community endorsed the deletion there, endorsing same here. Jaranda 19:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
      • With all respect, a brief discussion on WP:AN is insufficient consensus-gathering for changes of this magnitude. Admin behavior like this on known sensitive hot-button issues gives us all a bad name. Georgewilliamherbert 20:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm forced to agree with Herbert here. A brief talk over an inflammatory matter doesn't tell one much beyond what those who are the most opinionated and the most eager to open their mouths think. Jaranda, if you can prove me wrong, please do, but otherwise, can I suggest at least a neutral position? --Kizor 21:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Restored - This was too far to go with WP:BOLD. Someone can MFD it if you want. Georgewilliamherbert 18:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn - deleting something as big as this isn't a simple deletion matter, it requires community consensus before deleting. Consensus can change. This deletion should have been discussed in a wider forum than straight-out deletion. Read my arguments on WP:AN for a further explanation. --SunStar Net 18:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Regretfully, this is something that had to be done. An MfD will not solve anything. The reasoning is clear: The content violates the GFDL, the content violates copyright, there is residual SPAM in the content, there are left-over BLP violations in the content, and more. The GFDL reasoning is straightforward: see Section 4.B of the GNU Free Documentation License and the relevant speedy deletion criteria at CSD G-12 and thus must be kept deleted. See also Copyrights - Contributor's rights and obligations. In nearly every case, the content in the subpages had been copy-and-pasted from elsewhere, in the case of existing articles, content was copied without crediting the author(s) of the revisions and in the case of deleted articles, without fail, the content was not properly moved to preserve the history (and in increasingly many cases, that history is unrecoverable). To say that there has been no community discussion is incorrect: there has been an ongoing discussion for a fairly long time about the problems noted above (and more, i.e. the lack of actual humor, the ammount of vitriol, and WP:DENY), and a flurry of discussion when BJAODN was deleted last time 3 months ago. When it was restored out-of-process, the BJAODN regulars promised to get the job done right... they did not. There are so many reasons why this content should not exist, and so very few reasons why it should. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Lots of people, including lots of admins, disagree that deleting it is the right thing. There has been no local discussion anywhere that I've seen that evolved to a consensus that it must simply all be deleted. Georgewilliamherbert 19:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. How can it be a waste of our time when all the time we spend here is freely given? Unless you mean that causing the loss of the time it takes to sort its status out is an offense worthy of deletion, in case we can throw out AfD and install the Fire Pits... but you didn't, so I don't quite get the argument. --Kizor 21:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Partially Restore I think some of the very best, most ridiculous examples should be saved (Maybe 20 or so) and the rest are left alone. Metakraid 20:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn (Keep), perhaps list at MfD - An important part of Misplaced Pages culture that predates, well, just about everything. Something like that should at least get a fair hearing at the appropriate venue (MfD), rather than being speedied, especially since it survived being deleted a few months ago. — PyTom 20:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion in the spirit of WP:DENY, but also because it violates GFDL, is a massive troll magnet, and by virtue of existing encourages vandalism and similar non-constructive contributions to what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Burntsauce 20:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion Violation of GFDL, "featured vandalism," WP:DENY, etc. but keep its main page and mark it with {{historical}}. Tim Q. Wells 20:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per burntsauce and tim wells, etc. --Quiddity 20:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion of every BJAODN page after having reconsidered my comments above, per everyone else. I've always seen BJAODN as just "featured vandalism", although per Tim Q. Wells mark main page with historical tag.-h i s r e s e a r c h 21:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep restored without prejudice against the option of creating a proper MfD. This article has been well-known and well-liked by many for quite some time. Speedy deleting it absent consensus is taking WP:BOLD rather far, as Georgewilliamherbert said. — xDanielx 21:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep About the only source of sanity left around here half of the time. --D-Day 21:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn - regardless of the merit or, er, dismerit (what's the real word?) of deletion, this seems to have been procedurally imprudent for such a massive and ancient thingy. A fair hearing is needed, and I'd quite like circumstances more amiable to a compromise or the mounting of a rescue attempt. Also? Agree with D-Day. --Kizor 21:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    It cannot be stressed enough that the BJAODN regulars had enough warning when it was deleted three months ago - and they failed to fix the problems with BJAODN. It would take hundreds of editors and dozens of admins to dedicate all their time in order to make BJAODN GFDL compliant, that it did not happen last time means it will not happen this time, because frankly, admins and editors alike have far more important things to be doing: Are we an encyclopedia, or a joke book? And if we cannot be GFDL compliant, than what is the point of the GFDL at all? (And this still doesn't address all the other issues involved like WP:DENY, the spam and slander...) --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh well... Sorry to see it go (ASCII cows are still my all-time favorite), but GFDL problems are quite valid, so keep deleted, but without prejudice to restoration of some content, should anyone eventually elect to clean the mess up and only under the condition that it's kept in compliance with the license (though not much content can be preserved this way). Миша13 22:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - cesspool of libel, and GFDL violations. Also, I note that this was a very bad idea. Sean William @ 22:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn Deletion Just Keep the Damn Thing -- Hush this fuss. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 23:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per GFDL concerns and general non-funniness. It'd be nice to trim out the large volume of crap and ordinary vandalism that's accumulated in BJAODN over the years, and just keep the truly funny material. This, of course, would also make the collection more manageable, making it easier to provide attribution for the remaining entries. Unfortunately, any cleanup attempt would almost certainly result in tons of reverts and arguments saying "Sure, that may not be funny to YOU, but...", and would never go anywhere. I can't see any other solution than tossing the whole thing. WarpstarRider 23:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn- C'mon. Misplaced Pages needs some humor! :PNeranei (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Insanity. Where did people get the idea that the way to solve long disputes is to deliberately create long painful discussions by speedy deleting things? -Amarkov moo! 23:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse - No matter how often we vote, we still can't magically fix the deeply set GFDL violations in BJAODN. An MfD endorsement seems to overlook this salient fact. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Possibly dumb and out of left field, doesn't really belong in DRV solution. Undelete one subpage at a time, for (say) 3 days to one week, and give supporters time to move whatever portion of that subpage they can salvage and still comply with WP:DENY, GFDL, etc. into a New and Improved! (TM) BJAODN section. In 8-14 months, you'd have a smaller, GFDL compliant BJAODN, only a tiny little bit of illegal stuff woud exist at any one time. Meanwhile, re-organize BJAODN so that going forward it is compliant. Those not willing to devote time to saving the best parts of BJAODN would no longer have reason to complain. The one-subpage-at-a-time thing makes it more manageable. JOG et al should be reasonably happy because there isn't a gigantic wad of non-compliant stuff sitting out there in public. --barneca (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I cannot summarize my opinion as either "endorse" or "overturn." The recurring debates about BJAODN are starting to remind me of the fourteen AFDs, two DRVs, and one arbitration case regarding Daniel Brandt. Back in March 2007, a well-intentioned admin, who is now a well-intentioned former admin, deleted the Brandt page without an AFD, starting a wheel war. As in this case, an AFD (the 12th, I think) was started and speedily closed, while a deletion review (the 1st) proceeded simultaneously. The page was repeatedly deleted and restored because of the conflicting rules governing AFD and DRV. The DRV, one of the longest I can recall, resulted in an inevitable decision to relist at AFD because the deletion occurred out-of-process, without consensus and without incontrovertible evidence that the article violated policy. Regardless of other factors recommending deletion, the correct approach to such situations is to overturn and relist. When in doubt, it is better to take an extra step or two to verify whether the initial action was correct.
Notwithstanding, I believe there are "other factors recommending the deletion." Jeffrey O. Gustafson rightly points out that most of BJAODN violates the GFDL (though I made a user subpage, in response to Mr. Gustafson's deletion a few months ago, to identify BJAODN pages that are GFDL compliant.
Other users have suggested that BJAODN glorifies vandalism. I don't think this is a serious problem. Misplaced Pages:Deny recognition and Misplaced Pages:Revert, block, ignore recommend that the best way to discourage the Oompapa vandal (for example) from creating new user accounts is to pretend he never existed. I have found the list of Oompapa sockpuppet names mildly amusing (Oompapa on the moon!, Oompapa on a boat!, etc.), but I certainly would not recommend that such disruptive trolling be immortalized in BJAODN, or even in a Newgatery page. BJAODN is intended to glorify bad edits by good editors. The history of tomfoolery on April Fools Day fits this pattern, as does the related list of really, really, really bad article ideas.
I have consistently supported BJAODN, and I created a personal BJAODN collection to circumvent the problems of the original BJAODN. However, given the unresolved GFDL problems, I think the traditional "bulletin board" format should be discontinued, with those 63 or so pages permanently deleted. The other subpages of BJAODN, including the April Fools jokes and much of CAT:BJAODN, should be kept, perhaps in a different format. Shalom 00:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thoroughly endorse deletion. I already posted my reasoning on WP:AN, so here's a crosspost: I'm all for it. BJAODN is a bunch of crap, and it gets worse with every iteration. Half of it is one-liners about sex (Ha...ha...hilarity. If I was five.), and the other half is defamatory to random people. The very few snippets of it that are funny hardly make it worth keeping, and let's not even get into the GFDL issues. Misplaced Pages has enough amusing stuff - just look at the weird articles list. What do we need bad jokes for when we've got exploding whales? Kill it with fire, and keep it killed. ♠PMC♠ 01:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see that these pages make a significant contribution to the encyclopedia. The reasons for deletion seem cogent enough to me - in particular, many of these pages are in violation of copyright. But more importantly to me, these pages seem to be an episode in Misplaced Pages's youth that at some point will be disavowed, and playing young too long as you grow old isn't cool. While editors who were here in the early days may look on these with nostalgia, I don't. Anyone is free to (while copying edit histories at the same time) move these to another wiki somewhere, and I think that would be the right thing to do. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Something this big needs community consensus. There was no consensus to delete in either MfD. Dbromage  01:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • We can have a big consensus cakewalk right through the middle of Tienanmen square, but it won't make a lick of difference, because the GFDL has been deeply and repeatedly busted in BJAODN, and no amount of process-bound MfD will fix that. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse While some of it was funny most appeared to be vandalistic postings. Resolving the GFDL issues would ensure that vandalism was rewarded. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per (1) the GFDL issues, (2) it being a time-sink for energy better spent on writing/maintaining an encyclopedia, (3) feeding trolls and vandals by making this stuff look clever and, (4) it not being very funny anyway. WjBscribe 02:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion It stopped being funny ages and ages ago. It's full of spam, slander, libel, and well... non-sense. It arguably glorifies vandalism. We have more sophisticated forms of amusement today. That said, throwing my tech hat on:
    • The copyright issue is mostly a red-herring. If the material is kept I will, sooner or later, run a matching script for BJAODN against the entire text history (including deleted revisions) of enwp. This should locate the overwhelming majority of the history. The only copyright issues which would remain would be edited BJAODN entries, and places where the deleted nonsense was itself a copyright violation.
    • But I'd much rather save myself the good couple of weeks of CPU time that would take, and do ourselves a favor and ditch it. But the history shouldn't record we deleted BJAODN because of copyright issues, since we can solve them. --Gmaxwell 02:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Nobody bothered to do this during the X months since the last time this happened, why should anyone believe this copyright-fixing will happen now? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
      • No on asked me about it until now. I certainly don't want to do it. It would be a huge waste of time. But if we keep it I'd rather we avoid leaving the copyright issue around when we can avoid it. I certainly don't want people to claim that we had to delete this due to copyright issues, since that wouldn't be true. It's worth deleting on it's own lack of merits. The arguments here are still convincing even if you completely ignore the copyright angle. --Gmaxwell 02:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion 1/ WP:DENY and WP:BEANS. 2/ Unconvinced of merits of a place where if an edit is bad enough it will be preserved indefinitely to mark the editor's 15 minutes of fame. 3/ The usefulness of "BJAODN" as a label in debate does not require all 65 pages of "whatever caught people's attention" to be preserved too. (Saving the original page only, for historic value, wouldn't hurt.) Concerns over communal page needing wider debate are probably met AFAIK - likely most long term editors have become aware of this debate if they are aware of anything. FT2 02:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: Even though there's been a push toward suppressing the idea that Misplaced Pages is a community (e.g., deleting userboxes), I still think it should be able to contain some of its own history. BJAODN isn't just a place for lulz anymore - it contains a great deal of information on what Misplaced Pages is, what its culture looks like, some of the behind-the-scenes stuff... it's a tenet of Misplaced Pages that Misplaced Pages itself shouldn't be referenced in mainspace (except in its own article), but I really see no harm in referencing it in any other space. BJAODN does far more good for the community than harm. --Hyperbole 02:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion folks have been saying they'd fix the copyright issues lierally for years, it's never happened. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. BJAODN stopped being funny ages ago. There was no bar for inclusion and all of the entries were mere boring tripe, vandalism of the lamest variety. This is not anything worth preserving. As many others have pointed out, keeping it around as a shrine to vandals runs counter to the principle of Denying vandals recognition. We should take a cue from how real world local governments deal with vandalism: they clean it up as soon as possible, leaving no trace that it was ever there. This is the best way to discourage vandals, by showing them that all of their effort is for naught. The worst thing you can do is put it up on a pedestal where hundreds times more people will eventually see it, and perhaps be "inspired" by it, than if you simply just painted it over and never mentioned it again. --Cyde Weys 02:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn Are we doing this again? Yeesh. 1. WP:DENY is an essay, not policy or a even a guideline. It is the opinion of some editors on how to deal with vandals and vandalism. 2. If the GFDL violations are really that bad, then just start again with new pages. 3. Many people enjoy this page, and since it is out of the mainspace, I don't see the harm as long as everything is properly attributed. 4. Every once in a while, an editor will come across some truly inspired vandalism, above and beyond the usual crap. It would be a shame to delete it. 5. Just deleting this page, without taking to MfD or having any sort of conversation, violates the spirit of consensus. There should be a discussion before deleting any page that doesn't clearly fall within the guidelines of WP:SPEEDY. --Phirazo 03:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • In response to 2, I don't see how you can justify overturning the deletion of the GFDL violations. This was already done three months ago with the expectation that some people would go through, clean up the mess, and fix the attributions. But nobody did. And hell, I don't blame them, because it's terrible, worthless work. But since it's not going to happen, the content can't be restored. So you really shouldn't be saying "Overturn". --Cyde Weys 03:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd rather see these restored, but if there is a consensus that this is not possible due to the GFDL, then the page should start over. That is what I was trying to say in point 2. It seems some of the votes are to nuke the whole thing forever, and I think it would be a shame to do that. Perhaps a fresh start, with enforcement of attribution and perhaps a criteria for inclusion, may be in order. --Phirazo 03:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion I really do not see the point of this whole thing. This really belongs on a WP fan site or something similiar (or a fan wiki!) Corpx 04:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Endore Undeletion. Remembering that DRV is NOT WP:MFD the only argument needed here is that the deletion was speedy, and was overturned already, never should have come here. — xaosflux 05:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Note:A majority of these pages have already been undeleted, I've undeleted the other ones to keep consistency in this matter, all deletions were done as a speedy deletion reversal. — xaosflux 05:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 14/BJAODN: Difference between revisions Add topic