Per the Deletion review comment which you removed , to echo your comment, I'm not sure what part of "five days" you don't understand. What is the correct venue to complain when an AFD is closed out of process and the history is removed, then the deletion review is closed out of process. The rules for deletion review say it should stay up for 5 days, and this one was closed after 13 hours, with the vast majority of editors opposed to the speedy deletion and removal of all traces of the AFD. If you don't want people appending comments to the "closed" deletion review, then don't allow people to close it 13 hours after it is opened, when their viewpint is losing. Allow editors such as myself a chance to add our views. Did the owner of the Super Secret Number the Wikipedia Foundation and demand that all traces of it be removed? Did the Wikipedia legal counsel ask that oversight be applied? Is there any log to show when oversight actions are taken? Do you feel that when oversight removes something a comment to the effect should be added to the discussion page for the affected AFD? I am just checking to see if there is a process and that it is being followed. Thanks. Edison 03:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Please read this thread to get an idea of what's going on. Long story short, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an activism zone, publishing the key exposes us to danger, and there's no encyclopedic merit in doing so anyway. -- Cyde Weys 11:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
(I happened to notice this because your talk page is on my watchlist) I think it should also be noted that, although it appears to have come out after that discussion, there is advice from the EFF at this point stating that their interpretation of the DMCA points to the publication of the key being illegal and the safe harbor provision being inapplicable; in other words, we can't just wait for a notice. -- Philosophus T 12:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC) In the absence of the Office saying anything, I'd much rather listen to the Electronic Frontier Foundation for my advice on this issue than some self-styled legal "buff" on WP:ANI. The EFF employs real lawyers. The people saying it's okay on ANI are not, and are just speaking from an amateur (and potentially very harmful) understanding of law. -- Cyde Weys 20:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Premature closing of deletion review?
Per the Deletion review comment which you removed , to echo your comment, I'm not sure what part of "five days" you don't understand. What is the correct venue to complain when an {{ORGANIZATION}} is closed out of process and the history is removed, then the deletion review is closed out of process. The rules for deletion review say it should stay up for 5 days, and this one was closed after 13 hours, with the vast majority of editors opposed to the speedy deletion and removal of all traces of the {{ORGANIZATION}}. If you don't want people appending comments to the "closed" deletion review, then don't allow people to close it 13 hours after it is opened, when their viewpint is losing. Allow editors such as myself a chance to add our views. Did the owner of {{ORGANIZATION}} and demand that all traces of it be removed? Did the Wikipedia legal counsel ask that oversight be applied? Is there any log to show when oversight actions are taken? Do you feel that when oversight removes something a comment to the effect should be added to the discussion page for the affected {{ORGANIZATION}}? I am just checking to see if there is a process and that it is being followed. Thanks. {{NAME}} 03:45, 3 May 2007 ({{ORGANIZATION}})
Please read this thread to get an idea of what's going on. Long story short, {{ORGANIZATION}} is an encyclopedia, not an activism zone, publishing the key exposes us to danger, and there's no encyclopedic merit in doing so anyway. -- {{NAME}} 11:49, 3 May 2007 ({{ORGANIZATION}})
(I happened to notice this because your talk page is on my watchlist) I think it should also be noted that, although it appears to have come out after that discussion, there is advice from the {{ORGANIZATION}} at this point stating that their interpretation of the {{ORGANIZATION}} points to the publication of the key being illegal and the safe harbor provision being inapplicable; in other words, we can't just wait for a notice. -- Philosophus T 12:10, 3 May 2007 ({{ORGANIZATION}}) In the absence of the Office saying anything, I'd much rather listen to {{ORGANIZATION}} for my advice on this issue than some self-styled legal "buff" on {{ORGANIZATION}}:{{ORGANIZATION}}. The {{ORGANIZATION}} employs real lawyers. The people saying it's okay on {{ORGANIZATION}} are not, and are just speaking from an amateur (and potentially very harmful) understanding of law. -- {{NAME}} 20:20, 3 May 2007 ({{ORGANIZATION}})