User:Xiong/Metahole

Merged discussion

This is a merge of a fragmented discussion on the subject of what happened to a superfluous copy of Down the memory hole I (Xiong) posted to the Wikipedia namespace.

From User talk:Xiong

According to Netoholic, someone (not me, by the way!) moved your Wikipedia:Down the memory hole article to User:Xiong/Down the memory hole. It doesn't really belong in the Wikipedia name space, as it's more of a talk page or a userpage (ie, it's a signed essay) than a policy page. Accordingly I agree with this move, and am now deleting the remnant page at Wikipedia:Down the memory hole and its talk page. However, the person that did the move should have informed you on your talk page, if they didn't it was an oversight on their part. Unfortunately, there is no page-move log so I don't know who did the original move. -- Curps 00:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By looking at Special:Undelete/Wikipedia:Down_the_memory_hole, it appears that User:Netoholic moved it:

Page history
 08:26, 11 Apr 2005 . . Netoholic ({{db|Inappropriate re-creation. Page content was moved previously to User:Xiong/Down the memory hole}}) 
 07:19, 11 Apr 2005 . . Xiong (more orwellian games) 
 22:17, 10 Apr 2005 . . Netoholic ({{db| Previous content was already moved to User:Xiong/Down the memory hole}}) 
 19:54, 10 Apr 2005 . . Xiong (what was here? maybe nobody knows) 
 03:36, 10 Apr 2005 . . Netoholic ({{db|personal commentary, moved to user's space.}}) 
 03:35, 10 Apr 2005 . . Netoholic (Wikipedia:Down the memory hole moved to User:Xiong/Down the memory hole) 
Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Undelete"

-Frazzydee|✍ 18:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I replied to you on my talk page. As I mentioned, there is no page-move log, but as Frazzydee points out, Netoholic himself takes credit for the page move in the edit summary, so that would appear to clear it up. Regarding any possible selective deletion of a single version out of the page history of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), that's currently impossible for any admin to accomplish, and could only presumably be accomplished by a developer, though that scenario strikes me as unlikely... see the reply on my talk page. -- Curps 01:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I wasn't aware of that injunction against Netoholic. In any case, Netoholic didn't strictly speaking do reverts, since each of the three times you re-created the page the content was different, so none of his edits (adding a speedy-delete notice) brought the page back to some prior state. He wasn't banned from editing Wikipedia: namespace articles, just reverting them. And strictly speaking, each time he made only the second edit to a freshly-created article, so it technically couldn't be considered a revert... when the page was deleted, its prior history was deleted along with it (despite still being available for perusal by admins). So I'd have to say he didn't violate the letter of the injunction, though perhaps the spirit. In any case, I had a recent disagreement with Netoholic over his Requests for de-adminship/Snowspinner page, so if any action ever needed to be taken over any possible violation of an injunction by him, for reasons of impartiality I'd prefer if you contact some other admin for that. -- Curps 04:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From User talk:Curps

I could have sworn I posted a copy of that comment myself to my own userspace, under that title. Posting it to Wikipediaspace may have been an overreaction, but as I said the first time I recreated the page, I simply could no longer remember if I had put that comment there, or something else -- or if there was something there already which I edited. My involvement in the project has spread to a number of pages -- I really have to look at my watchlist and contribs to see what I've done.

Whether I created the page, whatever the content, I don't see matters half as much as how the deletion was handled. If we begin to act in trivial matters with suspect method, it is a short step to substantial issues with suspect method, and this I abhor.

If Netoholic moved the offending page, I really don't see how he obliterated history or removed the automatic temporary redirect. Who helped him with that? Can you find out? You may be aware that ArbCom has temporarily enjoined Netoholic from some types of reversions; judging by the log times you Frazzydee showed me, his actions may have violated that injunction. If he had assistance in kicking sand over his tracks, I think that's a serious matter. Don't you? — Xiongtalk 22:54, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

If a page is deleted, it no longer shows up in your contributions list or your watchlist.

From investigating the history of the deleted page (this is available for perusal by admins), I see that:

• 03:17 UTC, April 10 2005: You created Wikipedia:Down the memory hole, with edit summary perhaps one copy will survive on the system
• 03:36 UTC, April 10 2005: User:Netoholic moved Wikipedia:Down the memory hole to your user space at User:Xiong/Down the memory hole, and put a "speedy deletion" notice (Template:Deletebecause) on the resulting redirect, citing the page move (I believe he is not an admin, and cannot delete pages himself).
• 15:59 UTC: Admin User:Mel Etitis acted on the "speedy deletion" notice and deleted the redirection page. Note the pages with a "speedy deletion" notice automatically get added to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, for attention by admins.
• 19:54 UTC: You recreated the page by adding content with edit summary: what was here? maybe nobody knows
• 22:17 UTC: Netoholic again added the "speedy deletion" notice to the newly created page, again citing as reason the move to your user space.
• 00:29 UTC, April 11 2005: While going through Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, I noticed the page and deleted it, but left a message on your talk page at the same time, alerting you about it [1].
• 07:19 UTC: You recreated the page by adding content with edit summary: more orwellian games
• 08:26 UTC: Netoholic again added the "speedy deletion" notice to the newly created page, again citing as reason the move to your user space.
• 09:47 UTC: Mel Etitis again acted on the "speedy deletion notice" and deleted the page.

I think moving the page to your user space was proper: any registered user can do a move, as long as it is not page-move vandalism, and given your edit summary (perhaps one copy will survive on the system) I think you knew at the time that the content didn't really belong in Wikipedia: namespace. Perhaps Netoholic notifying you of the move might have been courteous, but if the page was put on your watchlist when you created it, it would remain on your watchlist even after the move, under its new name.

Regarding Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), I don't know what may have happened there. Is it possible you simply clicked on "Show preview" rather than on "Save page", and failed to save it? That has happened to me a few times. It is currently impossible for any admin to delete any single version out of the history of the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) page... under normal circumstances, this could be done in a cumbersome way, by deleting the page and then selectively restoring only desired versions. However, 1) this would leave a trace, as the deleted versions would still be available for perusal by admins, and I see no such deleted versions in the history of that page, and 2) number 1 above can't even be done at the moment, because this page and many others on Wikipedia cannot currently be deleted at all, even temporarily, due to technical issues involving a software bug in the most recent Wikimedia software (the "block compression" problem).

So it is beyond any admin's ability to send any contributions of yours to Village pump (policy) down the memory hole. Conceivably, a developer could do it, but from my personal experience most developers don't get involved all that much in editing or editing disputes.

-- Curps 01:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to pull up that detailed record. I can tolerate most things, but not being kept in the dark.

I wrote quite a few words in reply before deciding most of it was unimportant. I don't really care that the page was moved or deleted; I've recovered from my understandable attack of paranoia -- "just because they're out to get you doesn't mean you're not paranoid" It's on the Pump and {divbox} is no longer under attack.

I think nothing you did was wrong, and although I want to talk with Mel Etitis, I don't think he acted in bad faith either. I want to know why he speedied a temporary redirect that is put there to prevent the sort of confusion I experienced -- the now-you-see-it-now-you-don't slight of hand -- but I'll warrant he just took Nh's {db|moved} at face value. You speedied too, but you noticed me; which notice I just failed to notice.

Leaving aside all of that, I want your opinion on this, specifically: The record shows that Netoholic moved the page, then speedied it 3 times. Is this a direct violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Netoholic_2#Temporary_injunction? — Xiong熊talk 03:05, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

From User talk:Mel Etitis

Preliminary, I want you to know I'm not jumping salty on you; I have no reason to think you acted in bad faith. But I have discovered that you speedied twice on Wikipedia:Down the memory hole. The first time was after Netoholic moved the page to my user space; the third time was after I'd scribbled something on the page, trying to figure out what was happening.

(The second time, Curps did the speedy, and put a notice on my Talk page -- if I'd noticed his notice, I'd not have made another experiment.)

I'd like to ask why you speedied the automatic temporary redirect the first time. After all, that redirect is put there just so fools like me will not chase our own tails trying to figure out what went where. I've got about 100 more edits out there than I can keep track of in my head; I depend on history and edit summaries to tell me what's going on. When you speedied without notice, you deleted not only the redirect, but all history, too.

Next, not a question, but a note: Netoholic did the original move, plus tagged the redirect and the two following experiments for speedy. Please be aware that this user is under a injunction against reversions in Wikipedia namespace. The matter is of some concern to me, because this user is stalking me throughout the project, meddling with many pages I touch, often bare minutes after I do so.

I leave it to you to decide if invoking speedy 3 times against the same page is indeed reversion. If you agree, then I ask you to use your authority as suggested. Thank you. — Xiong熊talk 04:24, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

From User talk:Frazzydee

Thank you for retrieving that interesting log. What do you think it means? How did Netoholic manage to also remove the automatic temporary redirect? Did he have assistance? Can his Big Buddy be identified? Does Netoholic's action violate his temporary injunction against some types of reversion? — Xiong熊talk 23:41, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

New discussion

This is a general discussion, not a private page of "mine". Please comment. — Xiong熊talk 06:13, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Violation of ArbCom injunction?

I take Curps' point, but I say Netoholic walks a very fine line indeed to say that is not reversion. If I hold Curps and Mel Etitis entirely blameless in this, it is because you acted in good faith to perform a speedy -- as an extension of process, rather than in your capacity as petty arbiters of content. It is not material that at least the second and third speedies may have been correct -- nor that the first, by its fruits, may not have been. Netoholic used you to return a Wikipedia namespace page to non-existence 3 times in a row.

If I wait until you are -- quite properly -- holding a loaded gun on a range, and deliberately step on your foot and shove your elbow, the gun may fire and kill a man -- for the sake of the argument, a drunken bum. Who is the murderer? — Xiong熊talk 05:05, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Xiong.... please lay off. Go do something productive. -- Netoholic @ 05:25, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Retricting Netoholic's participation in this project is the most productive act I can imagine at this time. I am implacable. — Xiong熊talk 13:43, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Deletion of automatic redirect

(more stuff moved in from User talk:Xiong)

I deleted the page because, as I recall, on the first occasion it contained nothing by some self-referential nonsense, and on the second occasion because it contained little if anything at all. That was aggravated by the fact that it was a 'Wikipedia:' page with a 'page-creation vandal' kind of name. The person who marked it for speedy deletion may have had an ulterior motive, but it was still the right thing to do.

What exactly did you intend by it? If it was something useful and sensible, perhaps we could sort out how best to name and create it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please allow me to take exception to your characterization of the petition now present at User:Xiong/Down the memory hole as "self-referential nonsense". It's true that as attacks become more sophisticated, complaints about those attacks become more complex. It's also true that more complex complaints demand a greater portion of the reader's time and attention. And it is certainly true that I am an inclusionist from way back, and would rather write long and omit nothing germane, than leave lacunae through which the small may crawl.

I beg you to read the content you so summarily deleted a pointer to -- read it thoroughly. I ask you to read all the discussion on this page, because all of it was provoked by your action. I do not say you acted in bad faith; but I say you were pushed into an unwise action by a user acting not merely in bad faith, but with actual intent to disrupt, and in violation of a specific injunction of ArbCom.

Certain principles are fundamental to a free society. One is the right of free discussion; another is the right of petition; another is due process. My post was a complaint to the community at large that my right of due process had been violated. Netoholic's removal of my petition to the community to my user space was a further violation of all these principles. Bad enough to move it; worse to call a speedy upon it, kicking sand over the tracks of this underhanded removal.

You did not delete the page; Netoholic moved it entirely away, leaving an automatic redirect -- and that is what you deleted. Make judgement calls if you will about what I am permitted to present to the community, but do not blind me after I have been gagged.

I admit that, under stress, I phrased my petition in extremely defensive language; I introduced it in actual fear that it would be summarily obliterated and wiped from the record wherever found. Ironically enough, that is exactly what happened to the particular copy of this petition I posted to Wikipedia:Down the memory hole. I ask you to ponder this irony.

Please allow me to point out that a metadebate in wikispace is a technically complex thing. Intervention in such debate demands a certain level of technical skill and attention to rather abstract concepts. Netoholic is a sharp fellow, with both intelligence and determination to follow these abstractions in detail. Any actor who fails to follow his actions with the same devotion to detail must inevitably become his cat's paw. — Xiong熊talk 14:20, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)