Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive452

The following discussion is preserved as an

archive

. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lots of heat and little light. —Kurykh 07:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin

The AFD was closed with the specific admonition from the closer that Any inadequately sourced entries (especially those pertaining to the 20th century) should be summarily removed per WP:V and, as the case may be, per WP:BLP.

I made an attempt to comply with that admonition by stripping out those entries which were, in my opinion, inadequately sourced and speculative.

User:Jeffpw blindly reverted me.

I made a second attempt.

User:Jeffpw blindly reverted me, again.

It is obvious, by his own actions, that Jeffpw is not interested in complying with the terms of the AfD closure, either. So why should I agree to be bound by it?

The article in question was full of unsourced, poorly sourced and speculative arguments about purported sexual relationships between people. It does not belong on the encyclopedia in its current form. The above user has thwarted two attempts at ensuring that it complies with our content policies. If he does not want the article in a form which complies with policy, then we cannot have an article at all.

talk

) 20:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't just remove (sourced) info) that might have conflicted with

WP:BLP. You gutted the article, even though there were good faith efforts being made to source it all. This was out of process, and, in my mind, malicious and vindictive. Unfortunately, as you have deleted it, I can show no diffs to back up my assertions. So goes the power imbalance on Wikipedia. Jeffpw (talk

) 20:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You made no attempt to discuss, with me or on the article talk page, the sections which were being removed. You simply blindly reverted me twice. You could have copied the removed sections to the article talk page and questioned why I removed them - and I would be happy to explain.

talk

) 20:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And you could have questioned on the talk page the issues which concerned you. The article had a "rescue' tag on it, and was being worked on by multiple editors. your offer of restoring it (on my talk page) if I agree to your reversions is nothing less than extoption. Jeffpw (talk)

Excuse me. Did you not read the AfD closure? It says quite clearly, Any inadequately sourced entries (especially those pertaining to the 20th century) should be summarily removed per WP:V and, as the case may be, per WP:BLP. I made an attempt at doing that. You blindly reverted, in violation of the AfD closer's admonition.

talk

) 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the actions by FCYTravis, we should not have unsourced or poorly sourced articles which deal with such sensitive and delicate information, regardless of whether the subjects are living or deceased. It shocks and amazes me how frequently people fail to grasp this concept. Its a matter of common decency. JBsupreme (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• How can we provide proper sources for material that's been deleted? I see a lot wasn't sourced as we would normally expect to see it, but giving no chance to fix the sources seems a touch
  WP:POINTy to me. I see no need to delete the article in toto until a reasonable chance has been given to address those issues. --Rodhullandemu
  20:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • As the AfD closer said, Any inadequately sourced entries (especially those pertaining to the 20th century) should be summarily removed per WP:V and, as the case may be, per WP:BLP. I made an attempt to do that. I was blindly reverted, twice. I have made an offer to the user to undelete should he agree to not blindly revert. He has, as yet, not answered.
    talk
    ) 20:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

and where is the policy that states that a closing admin can bind the hands of editors in this fashion? --Rodhullandemu 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the policy that says unsourced/poorly sourced/flat-out speculative material about people's sexual activities belongs on the encyclopedia?

talk

) 20:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

First impression is that deleting the article flat within a couple of hours after this AFD closed as a no-consensus is a pretty bad idea. We don't delete articles for maintenance now, do we? Because that's essentially what is being stated here. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm especially concerned, as a second thought, that FCYTravis appears to have used his admin tools when involved in a dispute over the article, as he notes himself above. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The AfD was closed under the clear condition that speculative and poorly sourced material be summarily removed. I attempted to do so. I was blindly reverted, twice. If the above user is actively thwarting my efforts to make the article content comply with the AfD closure, then the AfD closure is invalid.

talk

) 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have had my own share of disputes with Travis, he tends to be particularly arbitrary and inflexible (in my opinion) over BLP issues. (And I though I was hardcore in that area.) But he will often relent if you produce evidence to back up your position. I recommend talking to him. Kelly ^hi! 20:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is outrageous behaviour. Imagine if any admin who believed an article was not compliant with policy deleted it until all those who disagreed with him agreed to give way. This a recipe for chaos on the wiki - administrators do not have any special editorial authority. This is clearly not a

Excuse me. The AfD closure was made with the specific admonition that unsourced/poorly sourced and speculative material be summarily removed. I made two attempts at doing so, and was blindly reverted each time. What tool should I use to enforce the idea that unsourced/poorly sourced and speculative material about people's sexual activities does not belong on the encyclopedia?

talk

) 20:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This admonition is no more than that. There is no policy to enforce its application or not. It's no higher than guidance, if I understand deletion policy correctly, and it's probably ultra vires the closing admin anyway. --Rodhullandemu 20:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion, consensus? I believe that is how things are done. If you thought Jeff's conduct was disruptive you could have asked an uninvolved admin to look into the matter and take appropriate action. But deleting the article was not a legitimate response to the problem. WJBscribe (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't wait for "uninvolved" people when we're talking about an article that called

talk

) 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

He has been dead for 30 years so this is hardly a

WP:BLP situation. The fact that this distresses you is all the more reason why you should not be taking admin actions in relation to this matter. You really need to restore the article and engage in dialogue with other editors to work towards a version that everyone agrees complies Wikipedia policies. WJBscribe (talk)

20:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The offer has been made and stands - I will agree to undelete if editors will agree not to blindly revert to a version full of unsourced and speculative material.

talk

) 21:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Your offer to undelete to a version which satisfies you is nothing less than extortion and an abuse of your admin privileges. I find your behavior appalling, considering your responsibilities here. Jeffpw (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are unable to use your admin tools in an appropriate manner, you need to reconsider continuing to have them. Nothing justifies deleting an article because others object to your preferred version. WJBscribe (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't get to impose conditions, just undelete and admit you were wrong. RMHED (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think I'm going to undelete an article which contains unsourced/poorly sourced/speculative material as historical fact.

talk

) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not a deal. You can't seek sources for absent material. No. --Rodhullandemu 21:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure you can - it's called the article talk page. The material can be discussed on the article talk page. I have no objection to that.

talk

) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is quite disconcerting. I participated in this AfD discussion, as did FCYTravis. Another admin closed it, and it appears FCYTravis did not like the decision. Why participate in the discussion in the first place, or hold a discussion at all if this is the outcome? I freely admit the article has issues, but so does every article that is less than FA (and even some of those). In fact, I gave suggestions on the talk page of the article to assist the main editor who has added the majority of information to the article, Haiduc, about how to avoid these issues in the future. I offered to assist him in improving the article clarity and structure. I wish I could show them to you, but you know...the page was deleted. --Moni3 (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I supported deletion in the recently-closed discussion (I think that categorizing someone as a "pederast" is inescapably POV), but I agree this unapproved deletion was out of line. If an admin is simply frustrated by the obstructionist behavior of a particular editor, he has many tools for dealing with that editor -- summary deletion of the article they are both trying to edit is a clear abuse of privilege.

Dybryd (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The offer was made on the user's talk page quite awhile ago: if he agrees not to blindly revert to a version that includes a multitude of unsourced, poorly sourced and speculative alleged "relationships," I will undelete it. I have had no response. I will not undelete an article that purports to include as historical fact that a number of people were "pederasts" when there is no such historical and biographical consensus.

talk

) 21:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You are required to abide by editorial consensus on an article just like anybody else. I think you need to agree to restore the article unconditionally and to taking part in civil discourse with other contributors to it. WJBscribe (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Quite a while ago"? I posted it at 2.47 and it's 5.04 right now. In the interim I was writing about geologic formations in southern Florida. Now those were formed "quite a while ago". Think you can give a guy a chance to read it on a Saturday? He could be in a different time zone. Gracious. --Moni3 (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am genuinely shocked that an admin would use deletion/undeletion as a bargaining chip in a content dispute. Dybryd (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I urge

FCYTravis to undelete the article. Whether intended as such or not, overriding what was a carefully thought through closure of an AfD is not acceptable. The right response to inappropriate reverts does not include unilateral deletion of the article; instead the matter should be taken up with the user who reverted you, and if necessary, wider within the community. Sam Blacketer (talk

) 21:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Support undeletion and listing at

WP:DRV. On closer examination, Travis' action was wrong. Kelly ^hi!

21:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't being defended... the article is deleted so how can it possibly be defended. What's being defended is due process and policy on wikipedia, which you have rather inappropriately thrown completely out of the window because of your own personal edit conflict and opinion. What is being said is not that the article was fantastic, but that it had survived a considered discussion, thus was OK by the community (with an admonishment indicating the need for work), and thus your subsequent actions were innapropriate on a number of levels, especially given your involvement in editing the article prior to deletion.Crimsone (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a simple and obvious solution to this; Travis could have protected the article in the version he considered to be BLP-compliant and then made a note here at ANI. Deleting wholesale was at best overkill. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add the note that we are talking as if consensus had been to keep the article -- in fact, the admin found that there was no consensus and preserved the article by default as a matter of policy. Travis has acted inappropriately, that's clear. But he hasn't acted in opposition to editorial consensus, because there wasn't one.

Dybryd (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

How does one get sysoped with such blatant disregard for, or ignorance of, our most basic standards of administrator conduct? You just edit warred with an editor and then used your admin tools to delete the article you were warring over in gross violation of the trust that we place in administrators. It's outrageous. Just because you happen to have admin tools, you do not get to take your ball and go home. Please undo your obvious mistake as many others here have already asked you to. HiDrNick! 21:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. From looking at the diffs for the deleted article, I see that much of the material FCYTravis deleted was referenced. I see a discussion on the

DRV

if it should have been deleted?

I have left a courtesy note for the closing admin, Sandstein, informing him of this discussion. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. This is just to clarify that I don't understand my "admonition" to observe

WP:BLP compliance in certain circumstances, but even if this were such a case, it should certainly not be done by an administrator involved in the content dispute at issue.  Sandstein 

22:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Coming to this late, but having being invloved early.... Travis unilaterally deleted an article and then advised he would restore should Jeffpw refrain from editing. There is no policy or guideline at all for this. Travis should ask for his bit to be removed on meta. Rarely do I get this angry, but this a shameful abuse of the admin buttons, and would be best dealt with simply and effectively. Resign your bit off your own back Travis, and run RFA if you want it back. Pedro :  Chat  21:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Travis took this action due to the fact that the article violated at least three important policies:
  WP:NPOV. Wikipedia appears to be blazing the trail in a new field of documenting "pederastic couples" (a term which inherently OR, as I think it was Geogre pointed out very well in one of the numerous related AfDs). It is almost as if someone were trying to portray pederasty as somehow mainstream, or desirable, but that would be inappropriate pro-paedophile activism,. so I'm sure nobody would dream of that. Guy (Help!
  ) 21:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to drag in irrelevant considerations, even by the side door. Pederasty and pedophilia are quite different and conflating the two is unhelpful. Can we stick to the point please. --Rodhullandemu 21:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Travis has now gone on wikibreak "until the community wises up." And Guy, I and many of the other editors here don't have any dog in the pro-pedophile activism fight, so let's not lump all of the editors commenting here about Travis' inappropriate actions into the same pile, okay? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted his talk and can't be bothered to communicate. I'm sure he's watching this however. Fall on your sword Travis. Go to meta and ask for removal of your bit. You're not fit to be an administrator here I'm afraid. Pedro :  Chat  21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Pedro, that is a distinctly unhelpful contribution. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Sam, but I'd argue that Travis removing the bit "sans-drama" would be a positive for the whole community, given the actions tonight, and therefore my urge for him to do it is very helpful actually. Pedro :  Chat  21:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly valid. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater in such a way is conduct unbecoming of one trusted with "the tools". The comment on his userpage is his business and perfectly reasonable. Deleting his talk page too however looks to me like more of a tantrum than anything though. Crimsone (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins make mistakes. Admins are human. A single bad deletion is not a reason to desysop. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

They do, and they are, and it's not. However, A bad deletion such as this, with the conduct of the admin in question that followed, especially in light of being given the reasons why it was a bad deletion clearly and numerous times, as well as restoring the article to his prefered version, and edit protecting it, is at least significant cause for concern. Crimsone (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

FCYTravis has acted and is acting like a sulky child who couldn't get their own way. RMHED (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bullhonkus. Wherever there's one admin action in someone's log that stinks, there's always more sure to follow. Just yesterday FCYTravis got into an edit war on Ashley Alexandra Dupré with some IPs over Ms. Dupré's occupation, and semiprotected the page. I'm sure there's plenty more where that came from. HiDrNick! 21:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And what is to be done with Travis when he returns from his "wikibreak"? Is he to be admonished for his rash actions? Will his admin actions be monitored? Or will he be alllowed to continue this admin style unchecked? These questions concern me, and I would hope somebody can come up with an answer. Jeffpw (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that one mistake is not worrisome, the refusal to admit that the action was, in fact, an error in judgment is much more troubling. From what I can tell, FCYTravis has refused to acknowledge that there was anything at all improper with his actions. That's just unacceptable, to me. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Now protected by FCYTravis in his preferred version

I see that Travis has restored the article to a gutted version that ::I see that Travis has restored the article to a gutted version that deleted much sourced material regarding pre-modern Asia and the 15\th and 16th centuries. And then protected it. This is clearly another abuse of his admin tools. This is not resolved by a longshot. Jeffpw (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Request immediate unprotection from any sane admin. HiDrNick! 21:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Now you discuss things on the talk page and see what other editors thing and what is or is not a BLP problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's disingenuous and absurd, Joshua. Pre-modern Asia and 15th and 16th century individuals clearly do not fall under BLP. Stop wiki-lawyering. Jeffpw (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So if that's the case, put the material explicitly on the talk page that you want on and we'll confirm that it is only about those time periods. Once there is a serious BLP issue it is best to procede slowly. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The closing statement referred both to

WP:V; verifiability applies across the ages. Sam Blacketer (talk

) 21:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ands that's exactly the point: Travis removed SOURCED material from pre-Asia and the 15th and 16th centuries (see my diff above). If the BLP violations were so serious, they should have been taken up at theBPL discussion page, or addressed immediately in the AFD. Jeffpw (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with protected, discuss it on the talk page. If you have consensus and policy backed edits to make use the editprotect tag for now. Beam 21:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jeffpw, but agree this needs to stay protected just for a while (multi multi ec). Pedro :  Chat  21:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I disagree quite strongly. WP:BLP does not apply to the information in the article about ancient Asia and the Middle East because quite simply, those people are not living. To be fair, all articles that have no sources then should be protected and any improvements should be approved by an admin. It was my point in the RfD that the "ick" factor of this article compels editors to fail spectacularly at being creative in finding solutions to the article's problems. Treating the uncited claims in this article by locking it is as absurd as my suggestion to lock all articles that lack sufficient citations. --Moni3 (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that BLP doesn't directly require this, but discussing the individual sections and readding them after discussion will minimize drama. This is a very controversial topic and it is best to proceed slowly. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. As a result of this thread the article is likely to become more high profile. A short protection should help to work out editing issues (one hopes!) and minimise any more drama. Pedro :  Chat  21:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that it would. Indeed, this very discussion demonstrates that it isn't minimising drama. In fact, it's causing it. What drama was there prior to the restoration? I mean beside's Travis's poor actions? Prior to this lot, it was just a case of improving an article, as with any other article fresh out of AfD Crimsone (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The article was being worked on by many editors to improve it, and the sections Travis gutted wholely had sources. For an admin to lock his preferred version without any arguments to back up the removal of sourced material is egregious behavior, to sayu the least. I ask that an impartial admin take a look at the diffs, remove any blatant BLP violations, and restore the rest of the article. To do anything less amounts to gross abuse of admin privilege and censorship based on personal considerations. I am shocked that this has occurred at all, and also shocked at the waffling I see on the part of many admins in this discussion. All I see is appeasement of FCY's ego, and trying to let him save face when he fell so badly on it.Jeffpw (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the content that FCYTravis objected to. I know we're big believers in protecting the wrong version and all but as an involved admin FCYTravis should hopefully see that allowing another admin to do the protecting and doing so on the version that have survived AfD would at least seem a bit less problematic. As I, and Haiduc, stated in the AfD, sources were on the article but because the items weren't individually sourced, as is common in older articles, those who wished to delete assumed no sourcing existed. Although undeleting the article was the right first step, let's now complete the restoration so those interested in getting the sourcing documented on each item can do so.

Banjeboi

22:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, i count about 16 sources deleted with that content.

Banjeboi

22:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe this article should be unprotected. Let's pretend Travis didn't delete the article out of process, then undelete and protect to his version (three actions, by the way, of which two are clearly bad ideas). Had he gone to

WP:RFPP and requested protection, it would have been outright declined. Clearly, no protection is warranted in this case. Sure, the dispute should be discussed on the talk page, but there are many disputes that should be discussed on the talk page that don't get the added push of protection (especially from someone involved in the dispute itself). FCY's action shouldn't get preferential treatment simply because it has been done already (especially since it was done improperly). -- tariqabjotu

22:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is to determine what consists of a sufficient citation and reliable sourcing if it not its editors? I must suggest then, since I am clearly unable to participate in the editing of the article, it should be an admin with more content experience than I have. Please find an admin with more than 9 FAs to do the job. I do not trust an admin with primarily non-content related experience to be able to ascertain what should be done any more than the admins who are protecting this article trust me to determine what content should be in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is a really odd definition of "sourced". Try goodling on "pederastic couple" - I get a whopping 57 unique hits. Wikipedia is not supposed ot blaze a trail, and that is very much what seem to be happening here. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

  You know as well as anyone that the number of google hits for a given phrase is not the measure of the legitimacy of an article, nor is it the measure of the verifiability or suitability of given sources within it. A google search for "pederastic relationship" has a hit count of 3,270 if we really must have numbers exchanged though... and no, as with another that felt the need to say so, I don't support abusive and dangerous philias, especially involving children, and it would be useful not to bring in issues not significantly related to the issue being spoken of. Crimsone (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• (copied from article Historical pederastic couples talk page):I wrote an article titled Indigenous people of the Everglades region. That has a single entry on Google that matches the words in the title, here on Wikipedia. Is our creativity and capacity for language that limited? If the major objection is the title, then let's come up with a different title. --Moni3 (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of protection for a while, especially if it brings more eyes on this terribly troublesome article (which, in my opinion, should have been deleted at AFD, but that's a separate issue.) My claim all along has been not that this article contains problematic material, but that since collecting the list under this named topic itself is original research and synthesis, it must contain problematic material. The defense against this was "Oh, well, we can just remove the offending material." The blind reverting that Travis' attempts to fix the article met with, I think, give the lie to this claim. I myself wouldn't have protected the article given that I was involved in the deletion discussion, but the outcome is, in my opinion, better for the encyclopedia. Nandesuka (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Well so much for "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". As soon as I joined this outfit, I realised that that would cause problems, and it sure does. However, in the current context, the Afd had no consensus for deletion, and per deletion policy, the default is not to delete. It's complicated by the closing admin giving advice as to the future conduct of the article which strictly I don't think is enforceable. That's not what an Afd is meant to do. However, that advice seems to have been taken literally and as carte blanche. The deletion guidelines should make it quite clear that closing admins should not engage in content-based analysis. It's regrettable that Travis took this as licence to gut the article, even to the extent of removing sourced, if not beautifully-sourced, material; it's difficult not to see an agenda here, because I've never seen this kind of behaviour before. Even
  editprotected}} and thus on an admin agreeing that your edit satisfies policy. Having seen this evening's shenanigans, I'm no long sure that I even trust myself to make on objective decision on that. However, I may have a different view tomorrow. --Rodhullandemu
  00:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I see Travis has deleted his user talk page - under what circumstances are admins allowed to do this? Kelly ^hi! 00:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Allowed? When they feel like it. Just like any other user. --CBD 00:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Blanking is different from deleting. I'm not aware of deleting being accepted outside of right to vanish cases. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a consensus to undelete, and then courtesy blank? The people who might need to see some old posts can get around it easily enough, but this is (another) out of process action by this account. I would hate there to be a

wheelwar and a desysop RfAR, so I should think we need to do this mindful of the consequences. For what its worth, I think that there are no special circumstances and the content should be undeleted and then blanked. LessHeard vanU (talk

) 01:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. As far as I can tell, the deletion of the user talk page was done completely outside the deletion policy. There was no AfD, no speedy tag (and no CSD criterion would apply here anyway), so the page needs to be undeleted and the content restored. Courtesy blanking it afterwards is fine, but people should be able to look at the history log. Nsk92 (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should say, short of

It's been done recently by another admin, who also deleted his user page. I'm only one editor, but I don't know that it's a big deal. (I see there's more above about unusual activity by the editor in question; I am not making any comment on that as I haven't read through it. I am commenting only on the page deletion.)  Frank  |  talk  01:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just had a cup of tea, but it did not change my opinion in the matter. In fact, in view of Frank's comment, I see a very good reason to undelete the talk page now. Allowing such an obvious violation of the process to stand would set a really bad precedent and send the wrong message to others who might be enclined to do something similar in the future. This is especially the case since, as you say, there was another recent example of a similar action. We do not want to set a trend of admins deleting their talk pages when they feel like it. Nsk92 (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

When there's no good reason to do something other than "to set an example" is the best possible time to take a deep breath and not take any hasty action. There is absolutely no emergency here, and it would behoove us to take steps to avoid drama, rather than to create it. Nandesuka (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not a matter of emergency but of setting and reinforcing a really bad precedent. When there is a clear violation of deletion policy, such as this one was, it should not be allowed to stand, not because there is an emergency but as a matter of principle, in order not to encourage others to do the same. Nsk92 (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What drama? Kelly ^hi! 02:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - this especially should not be done by admins with problematic conduct. I'm not upset about it or anything, but we don't delete these pages unless users want to vanish. If Travis would like to vanish, he should probably turn in his tools on the way out - he can get them back if/when he returns. Kelly ^hi! 02:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Travis has been an admin in good standing for at least 3 years, has never been blocked for anything, and to the best of my knowledge is a valued and respected contributor. I don't see any reason here to do anything other than sleep on the issue for a while. Nandesuka (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

He can get them back if/when he returns. ← I believe bureaucrats would reject such a request, for better or worse, citing the "under a cloud" doctrine. — CharlotteWebb 21:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is not by any means the first time FCYTravis has used the admin tools questionably. For a long time, FCYTravis kept his talk page permanently semi-protected, and kept hundreds of edits in its history deleted. Following a couple of discussions on this noticeboard, FCYTravis was required to restore the history and remove protection. Just days later, FCYTravis again indefinitely semiprotected his talk page against policy and consensus (and it has remained semi-protected since February). It may be time for FCYTravis to step down. - auburnpilot talk 02:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with CBD. It's not against any policy or rule to delete your own talk page. To revert his deletion seems like a personal move instead of a move to benefit the project or a move to fix a "wrong" against policy. Just let it be, imho. Beam 02:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, excuse me? Whatever do you mean, "It's not against any policy or rule to delete your own talk page"? The deletion policy is very specific on how a deletion process can occur: either through a prod, a CSD tag or through an AfD debate. None of these happened here, and the only one which might allow for a quick deletion, namely CSD, is not applicable here. Nsk92 (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You're excused. The talkpage is not a normal article. Beam 02:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, given some problems I've seen in the past, I'm thinking that a Request for Comment might be a good idea, so when Travis returns he can see how the community feels. However, that's pretty hard to judge, or to present any evidence of trying to resolve the problems, when the user talk page has been deleted. Regards - Kelly ^hi! 02:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Reading the above I wondered to myself, 'when was

user page?'. So I checked... and it hasn't either. So... any user can request deletion of their user talk page at any time and it is customarily granted as a U1 speedy deletion except for "rare cases" where it is necessary to maintain the page, usually for evidentiary purposes. Or at least that's what the policies actually say... and a practice I've seen carried out in the past. An admin deleting a CSD page without first inserting the tag isn't at all unusual either. --CBD

04:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not an accurate summary of our policy regarding user pages. See

Wikipedia:User page, which states "As a matter of practice user talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons; however, exceptions to this can be and are made on occasion for good reason (see right to vanish)". In other words, it says the opposite of what you claim. Taking a Wikibreak is not a "good reason". - auburnpilot talk

14:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should post a proposed change to that at

Spartaz (talk · contribs), who also deleted his user talk page but is still editing. Kelly ^hi!

01:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such consensus. Deleting user pages in which the user was the sole editor is diffent from deleting a talk page in which the contributions usually come from other users. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Nor have I seen any consensus for this. Waiting to see what FCYTravis will do is one thing, changing the policy is very much something else. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

FCYTravis deleting his talk page isn't anything new, I had to have a talk with him before about his problematic deletions of the page, which he finally did undelete. I haven't checked the history, the primary reason he did that was because of trolls commenting there, which if those revisions are the ones he is deleting, I wouldn't care, but prior experience with him was that he was deleting good intentioned revisions, and unless he is leaving Wikipedia, that shouldn't be tolerated. — Moe ε 05:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Calm

(ec)I have only just stepped into this mess. Noone is blocked - so can we slow down, get a hold of our tempers and sort this out in a rational manner. I understand people are upset by these actions, but nothing is gained by screaming at each other. Viridae^Talk 02:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Granted I've only been reading this discussion for the last 10-15 mintues, I must say it seems like a fairly calm discussion at this point. I think everyone has already moved beyond the initial shock/bewilderment of FCYTravis's action, and are now discussing how to move forward. - auburnpilot talk 02:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't see anyone screaming at each other. Just trying to figure out the best way to resolve this. Kelly ^hi! 02:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I have not seen anyone screaming at each other here (and hopefully we can avoid it). Nsk92 (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you reading Viridae? This conversation is actually very civil and especially when one looks at the recent convos at this page. Shoot, this is like a party compared to other "discussions" of late. I'm pretty happy with the civility and levelheadedness displayed towards each other here~ Beam 02:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I haven't seen anyone screaming either. Anyway here's

This is exactly wht I'm talking about (screaming wasn't the best choice of words) there is no paticular hurry to get his talk page back, against policy or not FYC is obviously stressed at this point - so slapping him with a "you shouldn't have deleted your talk page because of XYZ is not helping things resolve" Viridae^Talk 02:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it should be undeleted, I said, "Here's the policy." Gwen Gale (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said above, I think an RfC would be a good idea, but that is pretty much impossible with the talk page deleted. (I'm uninvolved in whatever disputes are going on here, by the way - I've had differences with Travis before, but we have always been able to work it out amicably.) Kelly ^hi! 02:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd wait to hear what his reason was. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not find Viridae's arguments persuasive. Yes, FYC is upset (and for the record, I had absolutely no prior interactions with him). But, in my opinion, trying to soothe him is too high a price to pay for allowing such an obvious violation of the deletion policy to stand and to possibly encourage others to folllow his example (especially in view of Frank's comment above). Nsk92 (talk) 02:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is being hurt by having it remain deleted for a little wile while he gets his breath back? Viridae^Talk 06:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't see your reasoning, or any valid reason to revert his delete. Unless you have a personal gripe with FYC there is no reason. I don't buy the "encourage others" idea, and I definitely think you're wrong about it being "such an obvious violation." As I describe below it's not an obvious violation at all. Beam 03:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we know this isn't a first step towards RTV? Gwen Gale (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, his userpage just says he's on wikibreak. Kelly ^hi! 02:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The policy does NOT say you can't delete your talk page. It says it's rare, and gives some valid reasons (right to vanish etc) but it does not say you can't delete your talk page. This isn't an article, this wasn't someone elses talk page, this wasn't the main page, this was his own talk page. Let him delete it. It can only hurt him to take such an action. It is NOT a good idea to revert his deletion. There is no "right now" reason to do so, and it can only make the guy feel even worse about this whole situation. Anyone who does revert it, would seem to be acting against FYC, and not for anything. Beam 03:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• I heard from Travis - he plans to undelete his talk page if he returns. Speaking for myself, I'm satisfied with that. Kelly ^hi! 03:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You speak for me as well. :) Beam 04:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Yep :) Gwen Gale (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Same. This appears to be a mountain out of a molehill situation. Orderinchaos 13:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick Summary

Side A: If I have a problem with one single individual regarding an article, making it unavailable to everybody is an acceptable response.

Side B: You have got to be shitting me.

Tell me, which side sounds saner here? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

False characterisation. In this case side A is saying that an article violates three important policies and the editors of the article obdurately refuse to conform to said policies. I have checked the entries which are backed by online sources, not one of them use the term "pederastic couple" and several did not use any version of pederasty at all. An agenda is being promoted, as it has been promoted numerous times before, and that stinks. The article is a festering pile of crap at the moment and deletion improves the encyclopaedia, but an acceptable resolution would be ro testrict all past editors to the talk page and have people check every source, remove those not supported by cast-iron references and rewrite so we are nto blazing the trail. It is no secret that Wikipedia is regarded as the number one most important place to get your agenda promoted, and that is what I think is happening here. It needs to stop. Guy (Help!) 07:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it not possible that the refs are there, but simply in book form? Haiduc has added several book refs to the article, but did not supply the page numbers or ISBNs. Perhaps we should AGF of him here? Jeffpw (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm speaking of "false characterisation" you have now accused "editors of the article" of "obdurately refuse to conform to said policies" and pushing agendas. This is patently false. There has been nothing but a willingness of editors to address concerns raised at the AfD, which just closed when this incident occurred, to ensure policies are upheld. Your continuing to insinuate otherwise, here and elsewhere, and leaping of bad faith that all those editors are promoting an agenda as well is quite alarming. Further throwing around how the editors should now be restricted to talk page use only as well? Wikipedia isn't served by punishing the very people who are working to correct problems. Just because the exact phrases pederastic couple or a version of pederasty isn't splashed around doesn't mean the more clinical or scientific terminology is false. It's simply referred to in different ways by different cultures throughout history. The footnotes should expand to include this so these sweeping accusations can be more readily dismissed.

Banjeboi

14:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It's the actions of only one particular individual that are mentioned as being the problem. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed this and I agree that it was a serious abuse of the tools. The deletion itself was bad enough, and it was followed by an attempt to use the deletion to impose conditions on editors with whom Travis was in dispute, along with the inappropriate deletion of his user talk page in the midst of a controversy. This kind of behavior gives me serious doubts about whether Travis should remain an admin. Everyking (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As somebody directly involved in this dispute with Travis, I will not make a comment as to what should happen to his admin status. But as I stated above, I would like a clear explanation from Admins or Bureaucrats about how they plan to proceed if and when Travis returns. Jeffpw (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"FCYTravis is taking a wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia when the community wises up." At least that is what it says on his user page template. Is this the kind of attitude that the community wants to endorse ? I sincerely hope not. Albion moonlight (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hell yes, I endorse it. One, the article's a mess. Two, When things got to the point where Travis might flip his shit, he took a break. That's EXACTLY what we want when we talk about people needing to take Wiki-Breaks. Good on him! He needs to KEEP his mop and bucket bits, and talk of him surrendering them is absurd. ThuranX (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is, he "flipped his shit" before the wikibreak, and there's a definite suggestion in this lot somewhere (I forget where or by who) that it's not his only questionable action either. Crimsone (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a serious problem and the community needs to take a very hard look at it. Some people are far too willing to give admins a pass if they abuse their power. There seem to be 2 clear cases of abusing his admin powers to win an editing dispute. The moment an admin edits an article and gets in to a dispute he needs to put his tools away and ask other admins to perform administrative actions.--

Crossmr (talk

) 09:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This person is elsewhere on the internet and not, in my opinion, making Wikipedia look good (but not quite BLP'ing WP if you consider WP to be a living thing). The discussion is on flyertalk.com but only established users can see his comments. In flyertalk, established users mean half a year of editing, not just 4 days as is required in Wikipedia. Presumptive (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible you could be just a tad more cryptic? This is utterly petty if it's what I think I'm reading...that he's criticizing Wikipedia outside Wikipedia and you are wanting to take action on him for it. --Smashville^BONK! 13:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Links to external sites have been considered bad for wikipedia for much the same reasons. Badmouthing wikipedia off wiki is either acceptable or it's not... concensus seems to be that it's not... especially from admins apparently, if my memory serves. You can be sure that if any admin were found to be an active editor of, say, wikitruth for one example out of many possible, it would be frowned on greatly. There's nothing I hate more than double standards. Crimsone (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually,

WP:BADSITES is a soundly rejected policy. *Dan T.* (talk

) 14:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's also throw out that I'm fairly certain participating on a travel forum is not grounds for anything. --Smashville^BONK! 15:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty impossible to criticize any part of Wikipedia ON wikipedia, it's a shock that more editors aren't agitating off-site all the time. Like when an admin stands up and takes strong decisive action, too many wikipedians come running to criticize not taking enough time. THe culture of voluntary submission to bureaucracy seen here at times is ridiculous. FCYTravis took action, instead of dancing around till the time limits ran out. good on him. More admins willing to do the right thing would be better. ThuranX (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got to say that this whole situation is absurd and irks me. I mean, an admin takes a stance. Does what he thinks is right...and won't back down because he believes what he did is right. Therefore, everyone cries "abuse" because he won't change his mind. And then when it dies down and there's a compromise...someone stirs the pot again by bringing up that he deleted his talk page...and then it dies down again and someone stirs the pot by pointing out he's posting on non-Wikipedia websites. Forget common sense and morals (which seems to be what the case was...he saw the page to be a farm for BLP-violations), we are all slaves to process. --Smashville^BONK! 16:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a different understanding of the situation, and I think you have oversimplified it. Moreover, the arguments of the article in question are too complex to be handled by the actions of a single administrator. FCYTravis took a simple approach to a complicated issue over the input of other editors. You call it "tak(ing) a stance" and ThuranX calls it "strong decisive action", but I am unable to see how the arguments of those who were looking to delete the article are valid. I assume those who were in favor of deletion regarded my points the same way. That's why the site needs administrators who can see value in both sides and are able to mediate. Travis did an admirable job in participating in the AfD discussion; his arguments were civil and he treated people respectfully. Not all comments given during the discussion did that. Travis allowed his opinions, which are limited, to direct his action against another admin and a small majority of participants in the discussion. To my knowledge, this was my first interaction with Travis, so I am unable to comment on his actions as an admin in total, but this one action is not praiseworthy and suggests that Wikipedia is not for those who agree with this action. We are still a community. Singular actions such as these are more appropriate to one's individual blog or website. --Moni3 (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A Community, not a commune. Harmony and perfect unity aren't our goals here. They can't happen with the various cross prupose agenda warriors populating this site. Travis looked at the debate, at that abyssmal quality of the article and it's attendant lack of citation ,sources, and BIO vios, (not just BLP), and deleted it. It should have been fried long ago. He took the right action to remove an article that romanticizes those relationships, and written by POV pushers seeking to give currect pederasts and pedophiles a historical context to validate their molestations. Some, if not many, of those relationships are poorly 'categorized' and framed there. Leyendecker and Beach, for example. Since marriages between 15 year olds weren't uncommon in much of America, nor marriages of older men to younger wives, categorizing such a relationship as pederasty is questionable without good sources stating that at the time it was considered particularly more distasteful than the average gay relationship. Others on there sound more like white slavery and obvious rape/molestation situations, with 11 year old boys and other prepubescents. There's too much POV and agenda mess going on there. Travis made the right call. ThuranX (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your language betrays you - pederasty doesn't nessecarily involve molestation, or indeed any form of sexual contact whatsoever. Interesting also that you are supporting the use of the tools in a clear case of editing dispute, you support throwing process and the decisions of the community itself out of the window in favour of "decisive action"... Admins aren't here to lead. They are here to serve. Travis most certainly did NOT make the right call if only in light of the fact that he used the tools to win out on his POV over an issue he was himself involved in... that's bad enough without any other considerations. If there's any POV pushing going on, there it is. It's also telling that you so assume bad faith of the articles authors... not just any given authors, but its authors in general... indeed, you yourself are pushing your own POV here, evidenced by the very text you type. The right call is the one that follows either the rules and processes, or the community concensus, by someone not directly involved in the situation... this call failed completely on all counts. Crimsone (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Again. We're all slaves to process. He thinks he is right, but he still fixed the problem. Why are we still having this discussion? Because he still thinks he's right? --Smashville^BONK! 19:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

More accurately, because he still doesn't think he's done anything wrong, and apparently not for the first time... as such, somthing must be done, an no it doesn't have to involve sanctions... a slapped wrist an a "don't do it again, it'll be noticed" from an appropriate person would suffice. Crimsone (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"My language betrays me"???I don't like child molesters? what a crying shame. Simple fact is still that the article's crap and travis did the right thing. Process wonkery's not going to change the result, either. right is right. the article can't be sourced properly, and thus shouldn't exist. ThuranX (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, horrors! Somebody has the absolute unmitigated gall to participate in other sites and forums other than Wikipedia, and even sometimes talk about Wikipedia on them! And the stuff they're saying isn't always highly favorable! How unspeakably evil! Get out the banhammer now! *Dan T.* (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously...you want to really make the news...start banning people for things they say outside of Wikipedia. I don't remember filling out a confidentiality agreement with my account. --Smashville^BONK! 15:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia has no jurisdiction outside of Wikipedia. Jtrainor (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. User:Zeraeph was banned from Wikipidea partly because of things she posted at other sites. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph, where the arbitrators decided 9-0 in favor of the idea that a user's off wiki postings related to Wikipedia can be used in judging their participation here. Jeffpw (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

FCYTravis has left wikipedia indefinitely. I think that the community should just ignore him until he comes back. The chances of him ever using his admin tools again are miniscule. Without his tools he is just another editor. There is no sense in pissing off those editors who back his actions because polarization is not helpful. The time has come to end this drama and wait and see what happens. Albion moonlight (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)