What I Learned When a Wikipedia Troll Deleted My Page
Response
What a great start. Nice clickbait, calling someone you don't know a "troll". For the record, the article was deleted by the administrator with the user name Ymblanter, a highly respected Wikimedian, who has probably never been called a troll by a senient being before.
AMY OSMOND COOK
The real rules of the game are hidden,...
Response
There are two partial truths here, as any experienced Wikipedian can tell you that there are some unwritten rules. It is also the case that some rules might be hard to find if you don't know where to look. That said,
Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines is hardly hidden, and virtually every welcome message provides links to relevant rules
AMY OSMOND COOK
...political...
Response
Let's be charitable and note that
politics "is the process of making decisions applying to all member of each group". If that's what she meant, she's spot on
AMY OSMOND COOK
...bizarre
Response
I have no doubt that some of our rules, taken out of context, will seem bizarre to the uninitiated, but she hasn't claimed that there are a few bizarre rules she's using the broadbrush implying that most are bizarre. You might think that a claim the strong identified in the subtitle would be fleshed out in the article. You'd be wrong.
AMY OSMOND COOK
My page was devoured by Wikipedia trolls.
Response
Nice imagery. A factual statement "an article about me was nominated for deletion on the basis that it didn't demonstrate notability iand a consensus of editors agreed" doesn't deliver the same visual image of a pack of editors "devouring" an article. Never mind that "devouring" sounds like multiple, inappropriate edits were made to the page when in fact at least one editor tried to improve it. And "trolls" oh boy does she like the word trolls.
AMY OSMOND COOK
After having my own page on the site for several months,...
Response
A common error made by people who don't know much about Wikipedia but one might hope that anyone who did any research would understand that Wikipedia had an article about her, rather than her claim that she "own page". She even cites a version of our ownership policy so there's no excuse for not knowing this. I understand that many subjects may not initially know this but after extensive discussion with legal counsel she still thought it was her own page? Sounds like some facts are unable to penetrate her skull.
AMY OSMOND COOK
...one Wikipedia editor decided my page should be taken down.
Response
I understand that a casual reader might think a single Wikipedia editor can take down a page but she claims to have done some research so she ought to know that this is extremely rare in any case and isn't true in her case. So why is she claiming this? Any individual editor can nominate an article for deletion, but even in the case of speedy deletions, there are typically two people involved in in the case of articles for deletion several editors are involved. Maybe the truth doesn't support the narrative she wants to weave?
AMY OSMOND COOK
The editor happened upon my page and decided I lacked notability.
Response
I doubt you know the circumstances that led D GG to nominate the article about you but he didn't "decide" that you were non-notable, he nominated the article for deletion on the basis of notability issues with the expectation that it would be discussed. If he had the authority to simply "decide" he would have deleted the article without discussion but that's not the way we do things.
AMY OSMOND COOK
After a voting process that lasted several weeks,...
Response
Discussions are normally open for seven days; this one was open for 15. It's a stretch to call that "several" weeks but that would be nitpicking so I will move on.
AMY OSMOND COOK
with a wide array of comments -- from “she has seven pages of Google results!” to “Supersize my delete vote!” -- my page was taken down.
Response
It is absolutely true that there were a variety of comments — that's exactly the point of the deletion discussion to elicit comments. She didn't think it fit the narrative to point out that the comment about seven pages of Google results was made by a professional acquaintance who has never edited Wikipedia other than to contribute to this discussion. That's permitted, but let's not make the mistake of thinking some independent editor supported the retention of this article. No one outside of her personal friends and professional acquaintances supported the retention, so the article was deleted in accordance with our processes. Something that happens hundreds of times every week, and wouldn't usually merit an article in the news.
AMY OSMOND COOK
The editors violated every rule in the book (and I know because I read them all), but it didn’t matter.
Response
Obvious hyperbole, but for an exaggeration to carry any weight it has to have at least a ring of truth to it. I doubt there is a person living on the face of the earth who is read every rule in Wikipedia and I'm absolutely sure that Amy didn't come close. And apparently, she not only read every one of them but identified that we violated every single one of them. She hasn't yet identified a single rule that was violated but if she can manage to do so I'll commit to identifying 10 rules that were not violated for every one that she can identify.
AMY OSMOND COOK
I went 15 rounds in the virtual boxing ring and lost.
Response
First, it isn't about you. It's about an article written about you. Yes, I get it that you might take it personally but don't. In 15 rounds in a boxing match is again overstated hyperbole. You made a couple comments at the AFD and talked to a couple people. I take it that boxing isn't your forte. One round in a boxing match would be hyperbole, 15 is laughable.