Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. --Michael Snow 05:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete.Speedy Delete. Spurious RfC that was never properly certified Whig 07:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. It needs two certifications. Both disputants certified it, therefore it was properly certified. jguk 07:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The certification required is not by "both disputants," but by (at least) two editors having a complaint about another editor that they tried to resolve and failed, and both must provide evidence of their efforts. Your RfC made much of the fact that Lulu was "new to WP" implying at the very least that you are not so new as to believe that this is valid procedure. Whig 08:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. Not so much the certification point as just that it never had any meaningful RfC content to start with—no issue to resolve, just a bit of bellyaching over personal animosity. Or Merge with Hoax. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:13, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
- Seriously, can't the whole Lord of the Flies crowd find something better to do with themselves? In truth, Hedley is probably right on the administrative issue; but this whole "RfC" is to an actual WP:RfC roughly as Benny Hill is to Fellini. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
- Keep Not because I agreed with jguk over the dispute, but because the only reason to delete an RFC is whether or not it was certified. Lulu certified it, whether seriously or in jest, and he must take the conswequences. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 09:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But you did endorse jguk's statement. This RfC has become a free-for-all and a parody on the whole system, at best. Whig 10:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I said that that was not the reason for my vote. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 10:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But you did endorse jguk's statement. This RfC has become a free-for-all and a parody on the whole system, at best. Whig 10:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I do not believe VFD is the right appropriate place to debate whether or not an RFC should be deleted based on whether or not it was certified within the 48 hour time limit. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Zzyzx11. We should open an RFC on RFC procedure. I've attempted this in the past but it seems most people don't really care what happens to an uncertified RFC (and before I started cleanup duty there, they were kept for months). Speedy delete, imho, per RFC procedure. Radiant_* 09:58, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
- The question is whether or not there was a certification. In addition, there is the matter of the current RfAr against jguk, in which this RfC could play a part. I think it would currently be irresponsible to delete it; I think it would only be recreated in the future. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 10:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- According to RfC procedure, an uncertified complaint is to be speedily deleted, but I'm sure the arbitrators can still view it if appropriate (although I am not an admin, the capability to undelete implies that the RfC must persist in some way). I don't think this complaint would serve to bolster jguk's case, but he could reference it (or Lulu could do so as well, given that he has apparently entered an appearance on the RfAr docket). Whig 12:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Whig - it was certified (by Lulu). His certification put off others from certifying it (leaving them to endorse it). It has now been certified by a third person. There is still a dispute, what is the problem with keeping it? jguk 12:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Any admin or arbcom can review a deleted page as needed. This RFC was obviously not certified by two different users within 48 hours (as RFC procedure indicates). One certification is by Lulu herself and is obviously a cheap joke, and Susvolans's certification is from a week later. Radiant_* 12:32, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Whether or not admins or arbcomm members can, it is important for the transparency of the arbitration process that such a page is not deleted. There Is No Cabal. If Lulu had not certified the RFC, others would have done, I have no doubt. I don't see Lulu's certification as being a "cheap joke", but rather agreeing with jguk's summary. If that was not the case, he should strike it out and another 48 hours should be allowed for certification. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 12:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there is. Anyway - if lulu had not certified, others would have is speculative, and is contradicted by the fact that they haven't. It's common for more than two people to certify an RFC, after all. Radiant_* 14:50, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Incidentally, another user (Susvolans) has since certified the RfC, and I did check with another user that he would certify the RfC before I posted it - in the event, and no doubt because it was already certified (by Lulu), he chose to endorse the RfC rather than certify it. Kind regards, jguk 18:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not admins or arbcomm members can, it is important for the transparency of the arbitration process that such a page is not deleted. There Is No Cabal. If Lulu had not certified the RFC, others would have done, I have no doubt. I don't see Lulu's certification as being a "cheap joke", but rather agreeing with jguk's summary. If that was not the case, he should strike it out and another 48 hours should be allowed for certification. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 12:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- According to RfC procedure, an uncertified complaint is to be speedily deleted, but I'm sure the arbitrators can still view it if appropriate (although I am not an admin, the capability to undelete implies that the RfC must persist in some way). I don't think this complaint would serve to bolster jguk's case, but he could reference it (or Lulu could do so as well, given that he has apparently entered an appearance on the RfAr docket). Whig 12:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is whether or not there was a certification. In addition, there is the matter of the current RfAr against jguk, in which this RfC could play a part. I think it would currently be irresponsible to delete it; I think it would only be recreated in the future. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 10:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. – ugen64 19:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. — Dan | Talk 19:11, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Reluctant use of speedy keep as it shouldn't be possible to VfD an RfC. Hedley 19:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The only time an RfC should be deleted is if it was created in bad faith. --Carnildo 21:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Carnildo, the exact policy on user disputes on RFC is the following: Two people must certify the dispute by documenting their individual efforts, provide evidence that those efforts have failed to produce change, and sign the comment page within 48 hours after the RFC dispute was created. Otherwise, it is to be speedy deleted (unless the subject has explicitly requested it to be retained). The question here is whether Lulu counts as the second person to certify his own RFC. Clearly, Susvolans signed well after the two day deadline. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What may be considered a related issue is the fact that one cannot file Arbitration against oneself (both Snowspinner and Xiong have attempted such, and were rejected). Plausibly, then, one cannot endorse RFC against oneself. Radiant_* 07:53, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Arbitration is not RFC. Lulu certified that jguk's account was accurate. To me, this fulfills the criteria, perhaps not in the letter of the law, but certainly in its spirit (and let's face it, who could ever have dreamed up this situation?) Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 08:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What may be considered a related issue is the fact that one cannot file Arbitration against oneself (both Snowspinner and Xiong have attempted such, and were rejected). Plausibly, then, one cannot endorse RFC against oneself. Radiant_* 07:53, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Carnildo, the exact policy on user disputes on RFC is the following: Two people must certify the dispute by documenting their individual efforts, provide evidence that those efforts have failed to produce change, and sign the comment page within 48 hours after the RFC dispute was created. Otherwise, it is to be speedy deleted (unless the subject has explicitly requested it to be retained). The question here is whether Lulu counts as the second person to certify his own RFC. Clearly, Susvolans signed well after the two day deadline. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong, Strong, Keep This is not the place to discuss RfC's. The respective comment pages are the places. It is not possible to delete a valid RfC. Bratschetalk random 00:58, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Laughable that anyone would think that VfD was the place for this. James F. (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- Again, attempts at gaming the system. Lulu treated the RfC as a joke by certifying it himself. Other editors decided "he's made his own bed, we'll let him lay in it" and, understandably, no one else tried to certify it since many already felt it had the required threshold. Once you've locked in an "invalid" certification, wait more than 48 hours and VfD it. Bam...no more RfC! --MikeJ9919 06:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.