Wikipedia:Deletion review/David Shankbone

David Shankbone – I believe I am uninvolved in this issue, having not been involved in any of the previous discussions, and having not been involved in any major policy positioning on whether BLPs should be a special case. Therefore, I am going to close in a manner as close to policy as the very unusual situation allows. Endorse. Question 1 - should Jake Wartenberg have closed the AfD, having been involved in editing the relevant policy? Answer: Clearly - no. Question 2 - Was there any consensus in the original AfD? Answer: Clearly - no. Question 3 - was the closer, regardless of involvement, justified in closing as No Consensus, default to delete? Answer - Yes, that was within his remit. This is a BLP, and therefore should not automatically default to Keep. The policy clearly allows for No Consensus delete in this situation, even if that is not the only option. Question 4 - Thus, is "Endorse" the correct decision at this DRV? Answer - Yes - "This page exists to correct closure errors in the deletion process" - there was no obvious closure error. The only issue that needs to be addressed here is this one. Question 5 - Is Shankbone notable? Answer: Irrelevant. I've read the original AfD a number of times, and there are good arguments on both sides (and equally, really poor arguments on both sides). Question 6 - How would you have closed the original AfD? Answer: It's obviously No Consensus. A lot of it depends on whether you consider the CJR review to push the subject across WP:N. But it's very, very marginal. More importantly that, again, is irrelevant at this DRV. Question 7 - What is the next step? Answer - clearly, the next step, should anyone wish to re-instate this article, is to have it userfied (I will do this, as will many others) and update it so that it is very clear that the subject is notable and then have it moved back into mainspace (preferably via DRV, but YMMV). Question 8 - But there is clearly a majority here to overturn this close? Answer - yes, there is, but very few of them have addressed the main issue - was there an issue whereby the closer closed the AfD incorrectly, regardless of the side issues? This is not a second AfD on the subject. There is a consensus that the closer should not have closed the AfD, but, given that he did, did he close it wrongly? The answer has to be no - if another admin had closed as he did, most of this DRV would be irrelevant. The DRV may well have still been filed, but it would be a very different one from that which we see here. Question 9 - what would be the alternatives to your close? Answer - Overturn to No Consensus, which would be followed, inevitably, by another very swift AfD, inevitably followed by more drama and further wasting of many, many, editors time and effort. For the actual path to follow with the minimum of drama, see the answer to Question 7. I don't think there is any consensus to have to go through this issue yet again. Question 10 - should this DRV be used to set precedent for future BLP "default to delete" decisions? Answer: Absolutely not - each should be weighed on its merits. Question 11 - did you take any note that the filer of the DRV was a sock? Answer: No - it would have been filed anyway. – Black Kite 23:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Note: Transcluding this discussion apparently broke the DRV main page due to its length. To view this discussion, please access Wikipedia:Deletion review/David Shankbone directly. Thanks. Tim Song (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second DRV discussion of this fiasco of an AfD (the first involved a too-early close). Before closing, the closing admin, User:Jake Wartenberg went over to the deletion policy page, Wikipedia:Deletion policy and changed a section of relevant policy so that closing admins could delete AfDs about marginally notable subjects if there was no consensus in the AfD (normally we keep when that happens in an AfD). Previously, the policy had required that the subject ask for the page to be deleted in order for the closing admin to close under these circumstances. Wartenberg had no consensus to change the policy page and hid his change under an innocuous edit summary ("rephrase") [1] He mentioned the policy provision that he had changed in his closing argument (In cases of BLPs of marginal notability we default to delete when consensus is unclear.[2]). Soon after the close, Wartenberg was asked where this policy was that he had cited [3] He replied by pointing to his edited version of the Deletion policy page. [4] Never did he point out that he was the one who had changed the page shortly before his close. And he would have been well aware that the point had been disputed during both the AfD and the first DRV. (He has said he didn't realize he'd be closing this AfD when he edited the policy page. [5]) I think this pretty much establishes that the closing was done out of process. (For his efforts, which insulted the many editors who put time and care into the AfD discussion, Wartenberg has been given a barnstar.)

I wrote up a timeline with more details, quotes and links at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/David Shankbone#Shankbone AfD closing timeline. It includes a number of editors saying there was no consensus at that AfD.

Would it have mattered anyway? One admin who said he was working on an AfD close said in the first DRV that his close would have resulted in delete. But the discussion seems to show a lack of consensus. Despite assertions by some editors, I haven't seen evidence that there's some kind of admin tradition of deleting in these kinds of circumstances. We have a policy (whether or not it's been violated in the past), and it should be followed in the most contentious AfDs. To go against policy is allowed under WP:IAR -- but not if there is a consensus lacking in an ongoing discussion, which was the case. It's a horrible precedent. The fact that Wartenberg seems to have felt he needed to change the WP:DEL policy page and that Lar seems to have felt he needed to start a discussion on the talk page for WP:DEL to retain the language of Wartenberg's change shows that the closing was against policy. Do we care about following policy, or is policy just a figleaf we use when we want to justify something that we just happen to want? Insulting editors who have done nothing wrong -- the participants in the AfD -- just makes the encyclopedia look bad, particularly with the people we should value the most, our own editors. JohnWBarber (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the outcome of the closure per my longer comment at the first DRV. (I am presumably the sysop referred to in the second sentence of John's third paragraph) However, I definitely agree that this situation could have been handled better as far as Jake editing the policy page and commenting at the first DRV before closing the AfD, and I expect that he will learn from this. And as for the whole thing with the current conversation about BLPs defaulting to delete on WT:DELPOL, that really is a different matter, and I hope that it can be handled there rather than be entwined with this AfD. NW (Talk) 00:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that was you I was referring to. Wartenberg certainly will NOT learn from this. He certainly hasn't so far. He thanked a user for giving him the barnstar and hasn't responded adequately to the storm of criticism on his talk page, on the AfD discussion page and on the WP:DEL talk page. In the AfD, one editor, Scott Mac, announced that he hoped some admin would violate policy (The rules are unenforcable, because they do not upscale to the number of problematic articles. Changing that on wikipedia is not done by legislating, it is done by setting new precedents. Deleting articles like this is exactly the way, and the only way, to change things.). [6] No, rogue behavior by admins bending rules to do what they want should be discouraged. Continuing to bend policy just encourages the bad behavior we've seen here. Was the close within process or not? Everything in this discussion should turn on that question (but of course, if editors here don't believe in following the rules anyway, I guess DRV rules won't matter either -- that's not a comment about NW). JohnWBarber (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, that is not violating policy. It's making policy. Policy here, for the most part, is descriptive. It describes what we do, not prescribes what we cannot do. ++Lar: t/c 01:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Surreptitiously editing the page under a nondescript edit summary and then citing it as justification for a close is not making policy, it's gaming the system and as such is disruptive -- you know, that thing editors do that gets them blocked in normal circumstances, or sometimes desysopped. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - What the policy page says does not matter. Let's not assume bad faith of the closing admin. Instead, focus on the issue at hand -- was the article properly deleted? I said it was because the support arguments appeared to be weak. The closing admin correctly weighed the opinions, rather than merely counting noses. Jehochman ^Talk 01:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The closing admin cited the policy passage he changed. He acted without a basis in policy. He did not have a rough consensus by any stretch of the imagination. There was wide agreement on that in the first DRV, and there has been no good argument showing that there was a rough consensus for delete. And yet it was on just that weak point that he changed the policy and cited it. Sorry, it's just a little too obvious. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Arbcom is thataway. But be careful what you wish for, I don't think you'll like the outcome. I'll give you this, the timing of the edit to the policy page to move it closer to reality might not have been the best. But the policy IS shifting. Are you, like Canute, standing in the way and telling the tide not to come in? ++Lar: t/c 01:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        As a famous group of philosophers once said: You say you want a revolution [...] But when you talk about destruction/ Don't you know that you can count me out JohnWBarber (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I hope Lar is being somehow ironic in this discussion. "telling the tide not to come in"? Give me a break. --Cyclopia ^talk 02:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I whole heartedly support, applaud and second the comments and thoughts of editor JohnWBarber. I must be misunderstanding something here, an admin single handedly made an edit/change in policy to strengthen his case for his ideology, right? Why is there even any of this nancy discussion, empeach the admin, done and done. Otherwise, I will be making some policy edits as well to suit me tomorrow. Like I am the new Director here, I decide notability, etc. Count me in to standing in front of your stupid tide along with anyone else who will do so. Although I think it's only a ripple... Turqoise127 (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and after that I'm honestly not sure what to do. I had hoped User:Jake Wartenberg would have taken the chance to respond to the numerous questions, concerns, and suggestions on his talk page before it came to this, but it looks like he has not be able or willing to do so thus far. The reasons are simple: the deletion wasn't supported by policy, it wasn't supported by consensus, and the closing administrator was clearly not uninvolved in the process. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. I don't think this venue is an appropriate place to debate the whole process that went on here, or the debate happening over deletion policy, just the outcome for this AfD. So I'm not looking at who did what, or when. In this close, the admin seems to be well within the bounds of discretion in closing as delete. NW's opinion at the earlier DRV show that the close was not outside those bounds. Kevin (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DRVs are supposed to be about whether the closing admin acted out of process or not. That's the issue. There is supposed to be no other issue, unless you've got some sourcing to add. JohnWBarber (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deciding that the correct outcome was reached by an incorrect process would not be a good outcome here. Kevin (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (edit conflict)

As DrVs are largely about process (read the top of the page) that's an interesting opinion. And as I don't think the outcome was right, not one to be overly worried about :-) Hobit (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to keep as per nom and per arguments below. I think it is worth to quote in its entirety the thorough analysis made by the previous closing admin:

Extended content

“

The result was very difficult to reach. For a large discussion like this, I will be honest and say that I count votes. However, I don't simply tot them up, see if one side has a majority, and call it that - were that the case, there is a 58-51 margin in favor of keeping, however with only 53% support by the numbers that would be no consensus. On the contrary, I count votes based on how strong the arguments are. In this discussion, the primary arguments seemed to be the following:

For deletion: "This is puffery of Shankbone/Wikinews" "Non-notable, sources only give passing mention" "Sources explicitly state he's unknown" "If he weren't a Wikipedian, he wouldn't have an article in the first place" "Tinderbox for BLP problems" "Citations are poor"
Against deletion: "Notable, sources cover him in enough detail" "The sources in question have a high enough reputation to confer notability" "He met with the President of Israel" "Notable outside of Wikimedian involvement"

These arguments, except those I'll note in a moment, I considered "valid" arguments. I also took count of the number of "invalid" arguments, these being comments that were simply "per XYZ" without adding additional information; additionally, some of the main arguments I listed above I consider to be invalid. "Tinderbox for BLP problems", for example, is not a reason to delete. Flagged revision is reputedly on its way, and in the meantime and even after that, protection can be used to stop any defamatory content from being added. What may happen is not a reason to delete. Similarly, simply stating "He met with Shimon Peres" is also invalid; that was a one-off thing and notability is not inherited nor passed off via handshake and photo shoot. That example isn't as strong, because many of these comments went on to discuss how it was well covered in sources, which is a valid argument. I also took note of "marginal" comments, which made up the grey area between valid and invalid; a "per XYZ" comment that added a small amount of personal opinion, for example, might fit here. Comments that stated simply "Delete, not notable" or "Keep, clearly notable" without providing any explanation why were marked as invalid or marginal depending on whether the user had commented previously or some other small points were made.

All this considered, my actual vote tally went as follows:

For deletion: 29 valid arguments (at least 2 of which made particularly strong points), 11 marginal, 9 invalid, and there was one argument (and the subsequent per x) that was just so off the wall I didn't know where to put it
For keeping: 46 valid arguments (at least one of which made particularly strong points), 8 marginal, 4 invalid

Counted this way, the keep arguments make up over 60% of all those considered valid, a clear majority in a situation where you have over 100 people commenting. The strong deletion arguments I reference here include the one first made by User:Kevin: "[CJR] states "[...] he's relatively unknown outside the Wiki community", so even they don't feel he is particularly notable." This, I felt, was a firm counter to the fact that the CJR coverage was very substantial; a reference claiming that someone isn't notable is unusual, however can be just as important as one supporting notability. However, User:Becksguy's analysis of the sources provided did a through job of demonstrating that there was additional substantial coverage elsewhere, and did appear to be a strong deciding factor in other comments. User:Bigtimepeace's deletion argument was also taken into account, being substantially separate from most of the rest of the discussion, and focusing more on the other aspects of keeping the article. However, as I note above, there are administrative measures that can be implemented to protect against defamation, and these points were similarly made in the discussion as well. Throughout the entire discussion, there were good counters to all arguments made, however deletion debates are based primarily on strength of argument, and in reviewing this debate it seemed clear to me that those in favor of keeping the article were making the better cases.

All of this taken into account, I feel as though there is a strong consensus here that, based on policy-related arguments including notability, neutrality, and verifiability, there is no reason to delete this article at this time, and should be kept and continually monitored for BLP violations and problems with citation. Therefore, I am closing this discussion as consensus to keep, and requesting that anyone who wishes to contest this please speak with me before going to DRV. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

”

The previous close, despite the controversy and ultimately DRV due to its improper timing (~7 hours before the week period) has been praised on the admin talk page even by editors disagreeing with the outcome, because it did a wonderful work of assessment of the situation. And the picture, which didn't change significantly when AfD was reopened and reclosed, is that of a significant majority of meaningful arguments for keeping. The closure we are debating here instead ignored the previous admin closure, handwaved BLP concerns without explaining how he did weigh, and first transformed this relatively clear keep to a no consensus, and then used this already debatable decision to default to delete, based on his own edits of the policy. This is a disgraceful dismissal of the community consensus and as an editor I feel extremly concerned that community debate has not been taken into the right consideration by admins. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: A simply beautiful red link. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The closing admin may want to note MZMcBride's comment at the previous DRV on this (and discount his comment here): Overturn: Strongly. In high-profile AFDs, there is a much stronger requirement to follow the letter of the policies. [7] JohnWBarber (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is reasonable to believe that MZMcBride (who is an admin) has a different opinion because of different circumstances. Triplestop x3 02:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Err, I filed the original AFD. My objection to the previous AFD (early) closure had to do with members of the community being unfairly disenfranchised. Jake closed the AFD at the appropriate time (though I suppose that doesn't mean we should discount the other surrounding issues that subsequently emerged). This article should not exist on Wikipedia. Count or discount my vote here, I don't particularly care—I've said my piece. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Most keep votes seem to merely state that he is notable, while more of the delete votes give actual rationales for why he is not. Given this and the BLP issues I believe the close was plausible. Triplestop x3 00:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to quote just a sentence from the previous closure: However, User:Becksguy's analysis of the sources provided did a through job of demonstrating that there was additional substantial coverage elsewhere,. There have been plenty of editors and discussions actively working to demonstrate notability, not only simply stating it. One can disagree with such arguments, but please don't give a false view of the AfD. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to count it that way, about 47% of the votes were delete. However a greater percent of keeps were one line comments. No consensus/delete seems to be reasonable Triplestop x3 01:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I have no issues with the process here. Proper close, and proper red link. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there is enough BLP garbage on this encyclopedia. Why defend this except out of a wikinavalgazing or a doctrinaire addiction to inclusionism and rule-mongering. If those wishing to retain it cannot generate a consensus for doing so, then there's no need to cry over it. A redlink here won't do any harm whatsoever. For an arguement as to why such closed as this are a good thing, see my essay Wikipedia:Borderline biographies. Enough drama, move on.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was consensus, and it was consensus to keep. It was more than 60% of reasonable arguments to keep. The admin disregarded that. That's why we're here at DRV, among other things. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a consensus there, and neither did the closing admin. I suppose we disagree about which arguments are "reasonable", but I think from the two-ing and fro-ing it is pretty obvious that we don't have any consensus here,--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus? Where? As you said, One can disagree with such arguments, but please don't give a false view of the AfD. Triplestop x3 00:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See previous admin closure, quoted in its entirety above: "Counted this way, the keep arguments make up over 60% of all those considered valid, a clear majority in a situation where you have over 100 people commenting." -see collapsed box above for full justification. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that, and I disagree with "valid", and with the count. Look, I respect that you see things differently, everyone seems to have a different opinion here, that's what I mean when I say that there is evidently no settled consensus.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a vote, remember? And looking at the merits of the comments and the BLP concerns there is clearly no consensus at best. Triplestop x3 00:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wanting to actually adhere to rules we actually are supposed to adhere to is not "rule-mongering". When editors who are not admins blatantly refuse to follow rules, they are blocked. When admins do it ... they get "endorsed" There was a time and a place to argue the merits of deletion. This is the time and place to argue the merits of the close. JohnWBarber (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not and never has been simply a matter of following rules. We don't block people for "not following rules" either. At least I hope not.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not and never has been about flouting rules. There is actually a reason why they've been written up. There is actually a reason why there's a discussion right now at the talk page of WP:DEL. There was actually an attempt by Wartenberg to change the rule. Two can play the exaggerate-the-other-side's-argument game: Wikipedia is not supposed to be about chaos. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to an uninvolved admin. Voting to revert the old close, editing a policy, then closing based on the edited policy is "conduct that might appear at first sight to violate policy." Hipocrite (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion without prejudice either for David and his excellent contributions to the project, or for Jake, the brave closer of the debate: and with my profound condolences for the inevitable execrations to come to the brave soul who closes this debate. It was a no-consensus, and as a BLP, we should default to delete. Antandrus (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus: Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. But, of course, if the rules don't matter, Mr. or Ms. Closing Admin of this DRV, you just close however you want to. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The close was definitely and badly mishandled. If necessary, it can be relisted, or we can pick a truly uninvolved admit to re-assess the current AfD. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per above endorses (happy to write out in own words if appropriate) Privatemusings (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn on process only; changing the policy and then doing the close - regardless of intent - doesn't work well. I stress I am expressing no opinion on the discussion itself as I did not comment in the AfD and I was considering closing it myself (after the first one). Not suggesting I would close if it is overturned as a result of this DRV, but if nominated, I would accept... Frank | talk 00:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The original early closer determined precisely 60% support to keep after discounting votes at his discretion. This is not steadfast. Different admins come to different conclusions. NuclearWarfare was drafting a close during the same time Hersfold was drafting his. NW and Hersfold had both taken the time to write out thoroughly detailed rationales, only NW was waiting until after the appropriate closing time to close whereas Hersfold jumped the gun by six hours and 40 minutes. So at the same point in the AFD, two different admins had come to two different conclusions. For anyone to assert that keep was the clear consensus here is stating their interpretation, not making a statement of fact. In the hours following the reopening of the AFD, additional arguments for each side came in, a particularly weighty one by Risker, so considering one admin had already come to the conclusion that the discussion was a delete, it's not a stretch to have another admin come to the same conclusion in the end. As for the specifics of the close, while not as detailed as the previous two discussed here, it hit the basic points. Even with consideration given to the citing of policy one has changed themselves, which I'm confused by, the conclusion to delete was still within admin discretion. As Doc g noted, policies change through precedent. As traditions change, policies are updated to reflect that. As more people realize the issues the project faces with BLP, the more consideration we see given to the BLP policy. No consensus is just that. No consensus to delete and no consensus to keep. Admins should have discretion to go either way depending on the circumstances in each individual case. In the cases of BLPs, that discretion is particularly important. Lara 00:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I appreciate very much Lara's argument: even if I disagree, at least it is one of the first well-explained endorses I've seen in this DRV. That said, I understand that Hersfold close may be discussed, but he made it very clear and open which his criteria were to consider and weigh !votes. I suggest you, and other people disagreeing with that close -which is, as far as I know, the most thorough analysis of that AfD, even if a bit premature and herein debated- to put down a counter-analysis of the AfD that addressess the rationales put in by Hersfold. This would help understand rationally which are the points on which we base our disagreements. About the policy, the problem is that policies should change by community consensus, not by a single admin precedent. The discussion on such policy change is ongoing and currently it doesn't show a consensus towards the "default BLP to delete" interpretation, I'd say.--Cyclopia ^talk 01:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not by one admin, but by bunches of them. Every BLP that is deleted after no consensus is one more article that demonstrates that policy is changing. This was by far not the first article closed this way and hopefully it will by far not be the last. Policy sometimes shifts abruptly, sometimes gradually. I suspect this is one of those latter times. I was content to ignore AfDs and DRVs of BLPs but I think it's time my voice was more consistently heard. Policy will shift. Or the encyclopedia will suffer for it. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. ++Lar: t/c 01:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, please, you are not the new Messiah. "It's time my voice was more consistently heard". "Policy will shift". "Lead follow or get out of the way". Please, stop this messianic nonsense. It is possible that policy will change (discussion now seems to suggest otherwise) but this is not your personal cult. --Cyclopia ^talk 01:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so foolish to think that I alone can dictate anything, much less that I am anything other than one voice. But I think you will find you may well have awoken something in more editors than just myself. Again... lead, follow, or get out of the way. Your views are very far out of the norm. Most of humanity cares more about humanity than it does about this project. ++Lar: t/c 01:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My gosh what have I stumbled upon here? You know, I may be passionate, lacking in tact, etc, etc, but at least I,m not weird... What kind of nonsense is this? Someone needs to leave the .... pipe at home. Several editors for whatever reasons wish to be deletionist and non inclusive to the max. You all cooperate in AfD's and other places pushing your POV. What has awaken is you, from sleep, and you have gotten out of bed from the wrong side obviously... Turqoise127 (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling him "weird" and saying to leave the "pipe" at home is a pretty blatant personal attack. I agree, your comment is passionate and lacking in tact, so you may want to step away from the discussion for a bit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering it was not a clear cut case, Cyclopedia's opinion is not that far of the norm. Plus your comment does sound really arrogant (btw, I endorse the deletion of this article). Garion96 (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admins should have discretion to go either way depending on the circumstances in each individual case. But they don't. If Jake Wertenberg had actually made a case that so many of the "Keep" !votes should be discounted and then showed how the remaining "Delete" votes were a consensus, you'd have a case. But he didn't. The discussion just did not go that way. There were too many Keep votes with good arguments and not enough Delete votes with good arguments to overwhelm them. And Deletion discussion clearly states that with no rough consensus, the AfD faults to "Keep". JohnWBarber (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were too many Keep votes with good arguments and not enough Delete votes with good arguments to overwhelm them. Your interpretation. Lara 12:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was your interpretation, too. In the first DRV after Hersfold's close at 16:34,[8] you said (17:55), "I fail to see how a strong consensus could be pulled form this discussion, much less in support of keeping," (link to the first DRV page: [9]) -- or does that mean you think there was a weak consensus? After the AfD was reopened, there were three additional Keep votes and three additional Delete votes. Other editors, some in favor of Endorse, some Overturn, stated at the first DRV that there was no consensus: Majorly (18:04), Nomoskedasticity (18:09), Abecedare (18:36), and Tim Song (18:51), and NW seemed to imply it (18:07). That's five or six editors out of 18 pointing out that there was no consensus. I don't think anyone said there was a consensus. John Wartenberg also thought there was no consensus, according to his closing statement. Many editors here also think so. So it's not just my interpretation. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was never my interpretation that the keep votes were stronger than the delete. That was yours. And I never said it was just your interpretation. Others surely agree with you while others agree with me, and yet others have a different opinion. Lara 01:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A rough estimate shows 47% to be in favor of delete and 53% in favor of keep in the end. Correct if mistaken. Triplestop x3 01:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 1

[edit]

Overturn and refer to Arbcom. There's various sorts of bad faith going on here, but we can't possibly endorse a situation where the closer rewrites the rules just before closing and then closes in accordance with his rewrite. On the other hand, if the nominator's statement here is factually correct, then we're at least potentially in summary desysopping territory, and that's not within DRV's jurisdiction. The high-profile nature of the case and the abusive behaviour alleged here puts it squarely in Arbcom's bailiwick.
Further, BLPs do not default to delete. There is no consensus to say they do. !Votes that imply otherwise should be rejected out of hand as spurious.
Still further, there was no consensus in that discussion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Per Frank. Chasing policy just so you can get your way in a given debate strikes me as a disastrous idea. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion This process is just more navel gazing. If you take out Wikipedia from this story and drop in some other notable website, there'd have been 5 delete votes at this AfD, and zero to one keeps. The closing administrator properly ignored comments that had faulty reasoning (such as ILIKEIT). Jehochman ^Talk 01:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? We would keep any article with this degree of sourcing. It meets WP:N by a mile. One person in the AfD walked each source and showed it met WP:N by a wide margin. I think you'll find the common AfD/DrV !voters all came out on the same side (keep). It was all the delete !votes coming from people who rarely attend these that caused it even to come into debate. And many of those arguments were WP:JNN or if he's notable, so am I. Hobit (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The admin A) commented on a previous DrV for the same article a few hours previous B) changed the relevant policy before he closed the AfD (which was quickly reverted). I'm told he closed it within a minute of when it became eligible to be closed. He certainly isn't an uninvolved or independent admin on this topic. Even if I supported the outcome based on the discussion (which I most certainly do not, there was no consensus either way) I'd !vote to overturn this. I'm saddened that those who got their way are so supportive of this. Process is important, and process was broken here. Hobit (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, optionally relisting if anyone really believes the discussion would turn out differently. The discussion was, while probably a no consensus by pure numbers, trending toward keep, and the keep arguments did address the issue of appropriate sourcing in depth. The article's subject has specifically declined to object to the article [10], so I'm unsure who BLP is "protecting" here? This seems to have been done to make a point, not to protect anyone. When the article's subject specifically declines to ask for protection, wouldn't it seem a little paternalistic and patronizing to decide that, well, we know better and we're going to give it to him anyway? That aside, several varied sources which covered the article's subject in depth were presented, so there's no question of "marginal" notability in any case—multiple substantial sources satisfy the general notability guideline. Regardless, however, I cannot have confidence in this close given the behavior of the closing administrator, especially after another administrator had already decided otherwise. If that administrator felt the close was in error (including that it had come too early), the proper course of action would be for him to approach the closing admin, state his concerns, and bring the close here if they could not come to agreement, not to unilaterally overturn the standing decision. As to those who assert that this would have turned out differently if the subject were not a Wikipedian, I think the opposite is true. Were the subject not a Wikipedia editor, I think most of the comments would have been "Plenty of sources, they address the subject directly and in depth, including interviewing a head of state, what's the problem here?" Of course, that's just my speculation, but so is any other proposed outcome had the subject not been who it was. But regardless, the closing admin was clearly involved, and it was highly inappropriate for him to close the discussion in any way. If he had a strong opinion on the matter, he should do what any previously involved admin is welcome to do—participate in the discussion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse - one more default to delete. ++Lar: t/c 01:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Current deletion policy: pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. Your opinion is against policy. You know, the one you've been attempting to change. If you succeed in changing it, will you be bothered if the policy is ignored? JohnWBarber (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Policy pages are not legislation, but a record of "what tends to happen". Lar's views contradict the page, but not neccessarily the policy. It seems that there is some disagreement as to what the page should say.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The almond at the top of WP:DEL disagrees with you: This page in a nutshell: Administrators have the ability to delete articles and other Wikipedia pages from general view, and to undelete pages that were previously deleted. These powers are exercised in accordance with established policies and guidelines, and community consensus. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and reclose This discussion can serve as a honeypot for administrator smugness, or it can actually serve to do justice. This game was rigged in a way that reminds me of the Soviet basketball "victory" at Munich. The only way for this to end fairly is to overturn, allow an uninvolved administrator to review the debate, the initial closure, the policy change, the second closure and the timeline overall, and then make an unbiased final ruling based on the merits of the arguments made in the debate. Anything short of that can only serve to reinforce a suspicion that more than one or two of the current administrator class is actually harming rather than building the encyclopedia by shifting its supposed neutral point of view to one of their own liking which they can then use to control the project. To paraphrase Joseph N. Welch, do you who endorse this blatant manipulation of words and rules in favor of a weakly argued closure ruling have no sense of fair play? Sswonk (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I urge the administrator closing this discussion to disregard the opinions of those who posit conspiracy theories. This is just a situation where well-meaning people disagree. Jehochman ^Talk 01:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Positing a conspiracy theory is not the same as suggesting that unfair practices only serve to reinforce the beliefs of those that do so, which is what was suggested by me above. If people have quit the project because they think cabals exist to manipulate rules and events, this unfortunate closure action has the potential to add to their numbers. Sswonk (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If done by a truly uninvolved admin, ~~this closure~~ finding a consensus to delete, although harder to justify rephrased, Tim Song (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC) would be within the closer's discretion, and, consistent with my reluctance to second-guess AfD closures in general, as I noted in the first DRV on this very AfD, I would endorse it. But the closer in this case is not an uninvolved admin. He !voted in the first DRV to overturn, opining that the first close was invalid. He changed the pertinent policy during that DRV, a few hours before he closed the AfD, in partial reliance on the policy he just changed.[reply]
"Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice." I find it extremely disquieting that many who were !voting to overturn the first close on the ground that it was about 7 hours early are now !voting to endorse this closure, which, if anything, is tainted by much more serious procedural infirmities. Regardless of the merits of ~~the close~~ the result rephrased, Tim Song (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC) - which, as I said, I believe would have been within an uninvolved closer's discretion - I think that the procedural infirmities here have so infected the process as to render the result itself unsafe. Therefore, overturn, either for a truly uninvolved admin to close, or, if I were closing this, to no consensus, defaulting to keep. There is no consensus whatsoever that no consensus on BLPs default to delete. Tim Song (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is, as you say, not be a consensus that BLPs must default to delete. However, it is (also as you say) within a closing admin's discretion.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~An uninvolved closing admin's discretion.~~ Tim Song (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC) It is within an uninvolved closing admin's discretion, perhaps just, to find a consensus to delete. It is not within the closer's discretion, involved or not, to find no consensus, and then default to delete. Tim Song (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC) rephrased and expanded. [reply]
  - Yes, but we agree on the principle. Personally, I'm look at the merits of a close (or indeed those any edit) rather than at the person of the closer, but we can vary on that.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree with letting an "uninvolved" admin closing this. It seems that there are many different opinions on this among admins so you are pretty much throwing the dice. Triplestop x3 01:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I rephrased my wording to better reflect what I meant to say. And Scott, I disagree. If we are to entrust something to someone's discretion, we had better make sure that they are not otherwise involved in the matter. Would you let your co-defendant's lawyer handle your case in court? Tim Song (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse a sensible and per policy close. Crafty (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I was a rather vocal participant in the AfD and subsequent discussions (on Jake's talk page in particular) so I'm hardly uninvolved, but I couldn't agree more with what MZM says. There is so much work that needs to be done on Wikipedia. We have hundreds of thousands of dubiously sourced articles, and likely even more topics that don't yet have articles at all. It's frankly a bit ridiculous that we've exerted so much energy into this marginally notable topic that can at best be classified as navel-grazing; I have lots of respect for both David and the users involved in this discussion, but this article is simply not suitable for inclusion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus- that AFD should never have been re-listed in the first place. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus per Umbralcorax. There was no consensus there, not even close. In fact, we couldn't even keep the facts straight; apart from questions about the number of !votes on one side or the other, is the amount of misinformation that was used in many people's justifications. And also the numerous points raised that have no bearing on Wikipedia's definition of notability or standards for verifiability. To have any hope of achieving a consensus, I believe we'd need to have a careful re-listing that summarizes and analyzes what was said in the first discussion, so that we're all working from the same facts. -Pete (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am noticing that most endorsers are taking this as AfD round 2 3. With a few good exceptions (Lara/Jennavecia for example), they are not debating the AfD process but, again, the article. I want to emphasize that an AfD discussion already has been done, and that what is highly controversial here are circumstances of the closure. I would appreciate -and the closing admin of this DRV too, probably- if we stick debate to the AfD process and not the article itself. --Cyclopia ^talk 01:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Making this close after having made the edit to the policy page and casting a vote in the DRV was a mistake. I don't think that this mistake rises to the level of invalidating my closure, though, so I will not be reversing it. The intent in making that edit was to change the policy to better reflect actual practice; admins close no consensus BLP AFDs often as delete. So, please understand that my closure does not rely at all on that edit, and that I didn't have this particular AfD in mind when I made the edit. — Jake Wartenberg 02:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you see why this mistake looks so bad, Jake?
  On your other remark, those few admins who close no consensus BLP AfDs as delete consistently get overturned here. The DRV regulars aren't confused about this at all.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm searching for examples of AFDs closed as such, can you link to some DRVs that overturned any. I've not seen any in my search. Lara 02:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - For example, David O'Connor from 9th July. You will not see any cases where DRV endorses a close in which no consensus has been defaulted to delete.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - PS: The page for 7th May contains the most recent discussion on DRV of this exact issue (i.e. should there be special provisions to delete BLPs?)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps the reason you didn't bother to provide links is because neither of those is in any way shape or form even remotely related to the discussion at hand, making no mention in the close of no consensus default to delete. The first was about a COI issue in the close. The second didn't even go through AFD, it was speedily deleted by an involved admin. Care to provide links to any relevant DRVs or do they not exist? The list of ncdtd BLP AFDs are located at User:Jennavecia/Notebook. Lara 05:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The 9th July one was a BLP where a lack of consensus in the debate was misinterpreted as "delete" by the closer, and subsequently corrected by DRV; the 7th May one contains detailed discussion of this specific issue, as advertised.
        The list of bad closures at User:Jennavecia/Notebook is, frankly, a disgrace and I am astonished none of them were brought here. Lar's many closures we can safely interpret as the actions of someone trying to bring about a change that does not have consensus via the back door. I am quite certain that Lar is acting in good faith here, but he should be implementing policies, not engineering them. Fritzpoll explained on the talk page of one of those AfDs that he did not' mean to imply that BLPs should default to delete on no consensus. The tiny handful of remaining bad closures we can dismiss as error, where admins have implemented a policy they erroneously believe exists.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        This project's carelessness with BLPs is a disgrace. Lara 02:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        And you think concentrating even more veto power in the hands of Wikipedia's infallible and underworked admin corps is a good solution to that?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators says As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it. breaking that rule, especially in such a contentious AfD is a darn fine reason to reverse it. Hobit (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jake, are you seriously arguing that you voted to overturn in a DRV, then changed the deletion policy to make deletion easier, and then deleted, but when you changed the policy you didn't have that particular AfD in mind—even though it was sandwiched between two actions related to that AfD? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poor and misleading phrasing on my part. I meant that I wasn't planing on involving myself further at the time, but I am sure I was thinking about the events surrounding the article. — Jake Wartenberg 21:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Jake's closure. Regardless of whether one believes the article ought to exist or not, what Jake did is unacceptable, and no one should be encouraging him to think this is how admins ought to behave. He made his views known in the first DVR, voting that Hersfold's closure should be overturned at 18:10 Oct 25. [11] That made him involved. Thirty-four minutes later, at 18:44, he made a significant change to the deletion policy, with a misleading edit summary, to allow borderline BLPs to default to delete even when the subject has not requested it, [12] a proposal that has been defeated several times over the last few years (and which I supported myself though what has happened here gives me pause for thought). Six hours later, at 00:40 Oct 26, he overturned Hersfold's close, relying on the policy change that he himself had just made, and closed the AfD as delete. [13] He then deleted the article himself, even though he was an involved admin. [14] There could not be a clearer example of an out-of-process deletion. He has made matters worse by ignoring requests on his talk page to overturn his actions, [15] not replying to them at all, which has made this second DRV necessary.
To avoid yet more escalation of the situation, it's important that whoever closes this DRV be completely uninvolved with BLP deletion issues, IRC, Wikipedia Review, or with any of the key parties. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus – with due respect given to Jake, who I think made a very difficult call of the close, (We still would have been going back and forth if he or another admin closed other than "delete".) I don't know if I would have interpreted the consensus the same way he did, especially regarding that there is a lack of even rough consensus about the closure of such AFDs. MuZemike 02:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Wikipedia should be a passive observer to the largest extent possible, and its active contributors should remain off article space. In some cases, where major mainstream media have picked up stories about an individual whose notability rises to beyond a shadow of a doubt, like Jimmy Wales, we have no choice and must include a page. But in less notable cases editors should remain invisible. Also, I strongly believe that in general, the presumption in marginal notability BLP AfD should be to delete. This has been supported in the past by many, if not most Wikipedians who are sensitive to BLP issues. Each BLP page is a magnet for vandalism and malicious edits, and we are already strapped trying to keep the notable ones sane. Adding a myriad of marginally notable BLP pages will reduce the overall quality of the encyclopedia and hamper our efforts of keeping junk and libel off its pages. Crum375 (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Absolutely the right thing to do. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I see no problem with the way this was closed. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 03:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The deletion rationale was sound. As far as the bigger picture goes, it does appear that Wikipedia has finally, thankfully, shifted to a position that BLPs on marginally notable or arguably notable subjects should default to delete when there is not a clear consensus to keep. Cla68 (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I miss that discussion? user:J aka justen (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The second close was procedurally preposterous. Changing policy and basing a close on it? As bad, or worse, than "!voting" and closing. As SlimVirgin says "There could not be a clearer example of an out-of-process deletion." No consensus was clearly the only outcome, and based on the policy at the time of the AfD, and now, the default was keep. It is secondary at DRV, but the deletes, particularly the one quoted in the close, were IMHO conspicuously badly argued, ignored policy and evidence, and refused to engage the keeps' commonplace, strong and well supported arguments. (Bigtimepeace's was a notable exception.) If Shankbone were not a wikipedian, there would be no chance at all of a delete. Comparably sourced articles are essentially never deleted. As Hobit notes above, AfD regulars, deletionists and inclusionists alike, were strongly for keeping.John Z (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not endorse deletion, do not overturn either, just do nothing. Given his edit of the deletion policy page and his participation in the previous DRV, Jake Wartenberg should not have closed this AfD, period point blank. I'm happy that the article was deleted, but in no way can I "endorse" the close just because I !voted delete in the AfD. When there is the appearance of impropriety (as there is here), decisions made by admins immediately become controversial, generate ill will, and suck up community time, so we should not endorse those sort of decisions even if we like them (and even if they accomplish something important, like taking a step forward on the BLP problem, which is incredibly important). Those blithely endorsing and saying they see no problems with how Jake closed this should ask themselves how they would feel if the circumstances were entirely reversed (admin edits WP:DEL to weaken admin deletion of BLPs and then closes the AfD as "keep"). I'm not into process for the sake of it, but it was violated pretty severely here, and I can't very well ignore that, particularly when a number of good-faith editors are genuinely and legitimately upset about it. Given all that, I should seemingly support overturning this (and understand why many do), but I think that's a terrible idea and worse than the status quo (which is not good). We cannot simply default to the earlier close by Hersfold (it was strongly rejected at the first DRV) and there clearly will not be consensus here to overturn this completely to a "no consensus, default to keep." The only acceptable (but really unacceptable) option is to undo the close and let yet another admin re-close this. But we all know that will be a crap shoot. Two admins closed it completely differently, and a third admin (Nuclear Warfare) was planning to close it in a slightly different way (but more akin to what Jake did). Whoever steps up to the plate next will face the same criticism others have. What if, and this is a non-trivial possibility, their closing statement and rationale (whatever the decision) is just plain bad? Do we come back for DRV number three? I think we can all agree that David Shankbone (no offense David) is not a core (or even slightly important) topic for Wikipedia, and it's hardly a travesty if we don't cover it. If he continues to get covered in the press such that we have more sources, the article could be re-created at a later date. Or not. It's not a big deal, and the best thing for us to do right now is to let sleeping dogs lie. Surely that sounds self-serving since I supported trashing the article and it's sitting over there in the trashcan, but if this is overturned and the article is restored I'll say the exact same thing. Finally I agree with SlimVirgin that the person who closes this DRV needs to be completely and utterly uninvolved, ideally to the point that they have not been following the situation at all. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse end result, though not the method of achieving it. Jake's behavior seems to merit dicussion elsewhere; however this board is not the venue for it. Had another admin, who had not been involved in editing the policy page in question, actually closed the AFD with the same result, there would be no issue here. So, while Jake's behavior over this issue is a problem, the end result would be no different had a different admin closed with the same result. --Jayron32 04:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this is the right place. Deletion review is supposed to be about whether the closing admin was in-policy, not whether we disagree with the result. —Finell (Talk) 04:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides, this is not a case where every reasonable closer would have reached the same result. We don't even have to guess. We know it. Tim Song (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep: I disagree with the second closure to delete. I agree with JohnWBarber's analysis in opening this deletion review. Absent a request by the subject of a marginally notable BLP, the default is keep. Regardless of motives, the deletion policy was correctly described until it was changed during the AfD with a misleading edit summary. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy also supports keep as the default in the absence of consensus. It observes, "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known." More directly, it states: "Page deletion is normally a last resort." This policy page recommends taking extra care for accuracy, assuring that content is supported by reliable sources, and compliance with other content guidelines. Objectively, Shankbone satisfies Wikipedia's relatively low standard of notability; many of the editors who supported deletion acknowledge this, but supported deletion for non-policy reasons. I agree with Hersfold's first closure-to-keep analysis although, especially in retrospect, it might have been better if he had waited 7 full days, even though the extra hours didn't change anything: when Jake Wartenberg closed the AfD for the second time, the state of consensus (or lack of it) had not changed, but he reversed Hersfold's result. Both the process and the result stink. —Finell (Talk) 04:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
overturn If this had been closed as a deletion I could easily see a series of closing arguments that would have made me endorse the close. However, changing policy yourself without any consensus or discussion and then using that "policy" to justify a closing discussion sounds like something out of Kafka or Josef Heller. Maybe people should just close everything the way they want and modify policy pages accordingly to justify it. I can see some really interesting results happening for fair use images and that's just to start. Jakes own, prior involvement in discussing the AfD here and elsewhere just makes the close even more ridiculous. The fact that the subject wasn't of marginal notability and that the sources clearly put him well within notability(as demonstrated by the analysis in Hersfold's early close) means that there's no even a good reason to get this into the no consensus range to even try to claim that should go to deletion. No consensus is not the same thing as "lots of people were shouting." Policy and sourcing make the correct decision clear. Jake's involvement and attempts to change policy are simply agravvating factors making this close even worse. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Plea to administrators: Many of the "endorse" supporters acknowledge that the way Jake Wartenberg closed the AfD was against policy, but they either agree with the result, think that the Shankbone article isn't a "core" topic, don't care much about the result, or have other reasons. Since the issue here is whether the closure was according to policy, these editors' comments actually support overturning the closure. I urge whoever ultimately closes this deletion review to consider the important issues of procedure and policy, rather than count these as "votes" for endorsing closure. Please do this one the right way for the right reasons. Thank you. —Finell (Talk) 05:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the contrary, the question is whether or not the article should be undeleted; which is the practical result of an overturn here. The discussion of what sanctions (if any) should befall the closing admin based on his actions should be held elsewhere; but the question is whether or not the article should remain deleted or should be undeleted is the salient point here. --Jayron32 05:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not interested in pursuing "sanctions" against anyone. It would be nice if Jake acknowledged that he was wrong. Hersfold had the grace to reopen his own closure, even though in his opinion he reached the correct result for the correct reasons (and I and many others agree with him). He could have said, Deletion review is thataway. —Finell (Talk) 05:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Look, the whole point is that this discussion should be solely whether the result of the AFD should be overturned or not, and to say that a users vote should be discounted because you don't like his/her reasoning; or worse that that vote should be counted as the opposite of its intent!?! is a major problem. Many editors have espoused the position that the situations that surrounded the closure were problematic, but not in a way that would lead them to conclude that the result should itself be overturned. That seems like a perfectly fine conclusion to reach, and yet you advocate that anyone who feels that way should have their opinions discounted or be counted among those they disagree with instead? That seems a real problem. Let all the opinions and discussion stand as it is; a closing admin here will weigh them as he/she sees fit. --Jayron32 05:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, the whole point of the discussion can be found at the top of the deletion review page "... Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate." The whole point here is to correct process fixes. So yes, those !voting based on the content (other than how it applies to the process) should largely have their !votes discounted. I say largely because IAR is policy too. Hobit (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Except that I was not argueing about the content of the article, and neither are the people Finell is claiming should have their votes discounted. The arguement is whether or not the result of the AFD should be overturned based on the strength of the arguements at the AFD. In other words, though I concede that the closing admin misbehaved in the act of closing this debate; that another uninvolved admin who had closed the debate would have closed it the same way. So, since it is my belief that the misbehavior of the closing admin did not have a substantive effect on the result of the closure, based purely on the strength of the arguements at that AFD, that there is no reason to overturn the result. Finell has argued that people cannot argue that, and I simply do not understand why. --Jayron32 13:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        There was a significant process problem. No one disagrees with that. The first DrV overturned the first close not because people felt the close was wrong (I thought it was right) but because of the process violation. This one has a much more significant process violation and the same thing should happen. Hobit (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 2

[edit]

Endorse There was no clear consensus in the AfD (though I think that there was a strong lean towards deletion) and this closure was in line with the normal way in which no consensus AfDs on living people are handled. Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The close was done correctly, this is the way we should close BLPs with no consensus. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. You should recuse yourself from closing a controversial AFD if you have a strong opinion on the matter and let someone who has a more disinterested and impartial view do that. There are only a few things which trump consensus, e.g., clear and gross violations of the verifiability policy, and legal matters such as copyright. The opinion of the closer does not trump the opinion of the community. Closing as a delete, contrary to a significant number of good faith keep opinions from people who have a great deal of experience and clue about what is encyclopedic, is a slap in the face. Given that Jake 1) voted to overturn the first close, 2) changed the policy to justify deletion, and 3) obviously has a strong opinion on the matter, he should have seen instantly that closing was an improper action. The sad thing about the DRV process is that since many people wanted this deleted, they are going to run around endorsing the deletion, no matter how proper or improper the closer's conduct was. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely. I agree with this very perceptive view, and I also think it's a pity there are users who are treating this DRV as a referendum on whether BLPs should default to "delete" on no consensus. That discussion should be taking place on the talk page of WP:DEL, and indeed it is, where it is generating more heat than light.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse process correctly followed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You felt Jake was an uninvolved admin? Hobit (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OVERTURN, then RELIST, and LET THE DISCUSSION REMAIN OPEN FOR THE FULL FUCKING AMOUNT OF TIME. I'm sorry but this is a botched job that was botched not once, but twice. Excuse my French, but this totally calls for a do over. JBsupreme (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey supreme.... you clearly feel strongly about this one, but would you mind sort of not shouting and swearing? Praps you could make your point in a friendly fashion? It'd be appreciated. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus. Changing a policy to support your point of view is, at best, poor form. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - I'm twitchy about the policy changing beforehand (tho' I agree with it), but in the main I agree that the closing admin's deletion was in-process given the lack of clear consensus yet with a clear leaning towards delete - Alison ^❤ 10:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if there was any clear leaning, it was towards keep. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and let someone else close it, someone who isn't so obviously trying to use this as a vehicle for a policy change. I couldn't give a flying fuck whether there is an article on David Shankbone, but anyone who thinks this one was done properly, according to policy as it stands and in keeping with the requirement that the closing admin be uninvolved, is -ahem- dissembling either to themselves or to the rest of us. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion An uninvolved observer looking over the arguments at the AfD would have to conclude that there was no clear consensus on the debate. The arguments for keep were well written, but fairly transparent that their true motivations were to keep the article as a laudation for its subject. WP:BLP boils down to "do no harm." There was no way we were ever going to have a neutral biography on such a marginably notable subject. Several editors lined up to protect any material critical of the subject, including his own image contributions, from apearing in the article on the dubious grounds that they were an "attack" on the subject. The editing of policy before the closure is troubling, but the outcome was the right thing to do. A correct combining of the spirit of WP:BLP with WP:DEL Chuthya (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know others ,but for sure I didn't want to keep for "laudation for its subject". I didn't have the slightest idea of who Shankbone was, apart that he is a WP editor. The article was informative to me -I didn't know Wikinews managed to interview a head of state, for example (I guess I should read it more,heh)- and it was in my opinion a well sourced article about a clearly notable subject. That's it. Please don't try to read other people's minds. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More so, if there was no consensus, we default to keep. Hobit (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit is correct and the policy that underlies his remark is WP:BLPDEL.

I think there are three issues to consider here: (1) Is there sufficient consensus arising from this DRV or elsewhere to change what BLPDEL says? (2) Was it reasonable for Jake to vote at the previous DRV, then amend the policy, then close according to his amendment? and (3) Is there sufficient consensus at this DRV to overturn the actual deletion?

Trying to step back from the issue and look at the consensus, I would think that the emerging answer to all three questions is "no", and we may well be looking at an outcome of "no consensus to overturn". But I think it would be best if the person who closes this DRV would please consider all three of the questions I've listed and answer each one separately, together with any others that might emerge in the discussion, in a detailed closing rationale.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and reopen to allow for a closure by an administrator who was not previously involved in this matter. The comments above indicate that there is sufficient reason to perceive the closing administrator as insufficiently neutral. No opinion about the merits of the closure. Sandstein 13:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn It's obvious that the administrator who closed was not neutral and also didn't follow policies. This can't be allowed to set the future ways of doing things. We need to follow policies and esp. when it's so divided in the community like this one was. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and put this tortured drama whore of a process to bed. We don't tally the numbers here, so users who keep hounding the 60-40 business are missing a fundamental point of the AfD process. "No consensus, thus delete" was the proper path to take here, and the closing admin arrived at it soundly. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

60:40 is not about counting heads robotically. It is about counting the heads who made sound and plausible arguments. Read the criteria used by the previous closing admin -you are free to debate them of course but it was not mere "counting". It was weighing too. That said, the process of this AfD was admitted as tainted by the closing admin himself here too. Do we need much more than that? --Cyclopia ^talk 13:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is about counting plausible arguments, which were in short supply on the "keep" side. The "tainted" cris are weak wiki-lawyering IMO. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn There were no current BLP issues and only potential(ie theoretical ones) and the subject of the article did not request deletion. The wording of policy did not allow for a default to delete until the closer changed the wording just 2 hours before closing. Now that this change is being discussed there is plenty of objection to it at the deletion policy. BLP is all to often used when BLP is not the issue. This closing admin also participated in the DRV for the previous AfD and thus is not an uninvolved admin. No assumption of bad faith here, I would just like to see it closed by someone else. Chillum 13:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Quoting Crohnie above "the administrator who closed was not neutral and also didn't follow policies"; additionally, the closing summary was a poor, weak thing that didn't adequately summarise the views that had been expressed. Andrew Dalby 14:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn People, just say no to BLP policy activism on Wikipedia. Or one day a policy that you don't agree with being changed, will be changed, in this same slip-shod manner. If the winds of change have been effective, and defaulting to delete is now the common outcome for no consensus BLPs, or there is sufficient support for this change off the back of this shitstorm (arguably looking in here), then PROVE IT properly, with a dedicated discussion on the general issue, that can be properly referred to in years time. Then you can change the policy citing this proof, and deal with this specific closure as well. It is going to be frankly ridiculous if 'result was delete per David Shankbone' becomes a new policy shortcut around here. MickMacNee (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And as others have pointed out, Shankbone did not request deletion, and he most certainly is not someone who does not seek to be a non-public figure, so the edit warring over the deletion policy seems irrelevant, he fials two of the three purported acceptable reasons for deleting no consensus BLPs. And if we are deleting controversial BLPs now because it might get screwed with in future, then let's all just pack up and go home now. MickMacNee (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse because we have enough crap "articles" (this one was essentially a bunch of random news articles and blogs chucked together in a random fashion that barely discuss Shankbone - we don't even know his date of birth for goodness' sake). It was a borderline case, and there was definitely no consensus to keep, so the only alternative is to delete, as it's one less BLP fan page to worry about. Majorly talk 15:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this is a similar example of such a 'fan page'? MickMacNee (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Connolley meets the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. Mr. Miller does not meet the criteria of WP:CREATIVE. Chuthya (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And which criteria does Connolley meet in ACADEMIC? Prior Afds, unsurprisingly, give no indication. As for Shankbone and CREATIVE, plenty of people argued he meets 2 and 4 for his Peres interview, certainly enough for a 'no consensus' close on basic notbaility, forgetting all the BLP issues. MickMacNee (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Connoley's extensive bibliography passes the professor test. In contrast, Mr. Miller's one head of state interview does not qualify as "originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" or has his work "either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries." If interviewing a head of state qualifies someone for a BLP, then we better get cracking on the interviews of everyone who asked President Obama a question at a town hall meeting. Chuthya (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asking for a simple restatement that you think he meets WP:ACADEMIC, I asked you precisely which criteria of that guideline he actually meets, and how? 'Look, publications!' is not showing how he passes ACADEMIC. As for Miller, you've missed out one important detail that separates him from the Obama examples you give, and hence your assesment of the criteria w.r.t. Miller is probably flawed. MickMacNee (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Connoley's extensive bibliography speaks for itself. I don't think I need to rehash the entire professor test here for you; you can read it yourself. And as Majorly says this isn't the forum for it. If you feel it warrants one, start an AfD debate. Be sure you fit your waders first. As for Mr. Miller, if the AfD were re-opened, how could you show that the Peres interview originated "a significant new concept, theory or technique" or qualifies any parts of a, b, c, or d above? None of the arguments at the first AfD ever addressed this issue or quantitatively demonstrated that he passes any of these tests, and I'm curious if you could convince me that he could. Chuthya (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the debate, you will see numerous arguments form many people describing the notable aspect of the interview. As for Connelley, yes, let's continue it there, you've already seen the link. Hopefully you can convince me not to start an Afd based on not meeting ACADEMIC, but currently, I have to say you aren't doing a very good job of it so far. MickMacNee (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@MickMacNee: if we were discussing the article on William Connolley, I would opine there. But, since we are not, I don't think it relevant here. The point is, the voting result was close, and therefore it is best practice, especially with BLPs, to delete it, and if we make a mistake, we can either undelete or recreate. We don't need articles that were not agreed to be kept by a strong consensus. Majorly talk 18:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had anticipated this, so I invite you and Chuthya, and any other interested party, to come and chime in here: Talk:William_Connolley#WP:ACADEMIC. MickMacNee (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, with regret. I don't particularly think it a good idea to have endless debates on contentious issues. But regardless of your opinion on the merits of this article, it seems the closing admin didn't show sufficient disinterest (as evidenced by the earlier DRV comments, policy edits and posting a close within a minute of ending time), and should left the close to another administrator more able to dispassionately judge the merits of the arguments presented. henrik•talk 15:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - could have used a different closer, but the close is appropriate. As Majorly notes, this was borderline. People want to overturn this because of the closer, which just means that we do this again, and again, and again... how'bout we just leave it alone as it is, let the drama llama die a natural death, and go improve some articles? (Oh, right, I forgot which website I was on. Carry on.) Tony Fox (arf!) 16:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Question: Where do the "deletionists" find the supposed policy that we delete if there is no consensus to keep? When I asked this question at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/David Shankbone, I was pointed to Jake's short-lived, unilateral change of the deletion policy page; that is now back to the real policy. What about this additional policy at WP:BLPDEL: "Page deletion is normally a last resort." For the record, I do not know and personally do not care about David Shankbone, and I never edited that article. I care a lot about upholding good policies. Majorly says that "there was definitely no consensus to keep, so the only alternative is to delete". One could just as easily say, "There was no consensus to delete, so the decision was to preserve the status quo and keep." That, in fact, has always been the general policy. Do you really think that all the articles on fictional histories of fictional superheros are more encyclopedic than this one? As for other "marginal" BLPs, compare Don Panoz, with only one reference in one regional newspaper. —Finell (Talk) 16:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you seriously comparing this article, on a citizen journalist who's interviewed some famous people, with an international businessman, race track owner,and founder of a successful international race team? Uh... yeah. Well, anyhow, I believe our precedent for this type of BLP deletion started with Daniel Brandt, and has been used a few times since (can't turn them up just now, but they're out there). Tony Fox (arf!) 18:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm certainly not a deletionist, but I'll point you to my essay WP:BBLP, which advocates admins should consider using the discretion we give them to do this.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your essay is not policy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If only there were (subjunctive like whoa) some sort of cute banner we could stick at the top of the page explaining the distinction between essays and policies. Alas. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The close seemed to violate every guideline of WP:DGFA#Deciding whether to delete which states:

Whether consensus has been achieved by determining a "rough consensus"
Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants.
As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it.
When in doubt, don't delete.

Colonel Warden (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Decision of the closing admin was appropriate and that is the only criterion we should use for judging here, not whether proper procedure was followed or not. In fact, in my opinion it was followed as the closing admin was reasonably uninvolved. Pantherskin (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the result, but not the method. Like some here, I agree that the article should have been deleted. That said, I think that the rationale for deletion was flawed. AfD is not a vote but a discussion, where the strength of the arguments are analysed and weighed up in order to reach a consensus. Discussion of vote quantity or percentage is not helpful in understanding the quality of these arguments and how they relate to policy. With that said, a better approach would be as follows:

The primary guideline of relevance here is WP:BIO, an extension itself of WP:N. The basic criteria starts out by saying that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". There are also additional criteria - for any biography a person must have recieved a notable award or honour, or made a widely recognised contribution that is part of the enduring historical record ((WP:ANYBIO). For people who work in the creative arts such as photography or journalism, there are advanced criteria available at WP:CREATIVE. While there is no doubt that Mr Shankbone fulfils the basic criteria, there is considerable debate over meeting the more advanced criteria. This is most likely why there is no consensus

By expanding to encompass the general notability guideline WP:N, we find a more generic guideline of notability. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". By this standard alone, one would think that Mr Shankbone had gained notability. But then again, is the topic of these articles about Mr Shankbone directly, or about a leading Wikipedia editor visiting the head of state of Israel? Again, one could argue that apart from the Brooklyn Rail article the predominate focus is about am editor who was invited to Israel by the Foreign Ministry

It is relevant that we then turn to the policy WP:BLP. As far as balancing policy against guidelines are concerned, policy is intended to take prescedence. From our analysis when looking at WP:N above, one is drawn to the section about single events - WP:BLP1E. In this case, the policy states that "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options". In this case if a merge and redirect was felt to be suitable, a suitable target would be the article on Wikinews, specifically the section on Interviews.

To conclude, I feel that an analysis of the notability aspects has led to a lack of consensus from among the community, and it's clear to see why it can occur. But when widening the analysis to include how our policies apply, together with reading what the majority of sources are telling us, that an end result can be argued. It can be demonstrated that the article largely falls within the remit of WP:BLP1E in it's current form prior to deletion, and while some contect can be merged with the relevant parts of Wikinews, most of the sourcing is already there. If a redirect is needed, it's cheap and easy to implement. Should Mr Shankbone's exploits in photography or journalism lend him notability outside of the single event that has dominated his career, the article would be a candidate for recreation. Till such time, I would endorse deletion or redirection as a BLP on the cusp of notability. Apologies for the lengthly analysis, Gazi moff 18:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy analysis, and I appreciate the effort. But it fails in pointing to WP:ANYBIO. As clearly stated, these are additional criteria for inclusion, neither necessary, nor, indeed sufficient. The controlling principle is WP:N. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen, I beg to disagree. WP:N is a guideline for inclusion. WP:BLP is policy. WP:BLP1E is a subsection of said policy. As policy overrides guidelines, it remains the overriding principle. Gazi moff 20:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The line "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." appears in both of the more specialized notability criteria above. Practice and policy support using specialized criteria for inclusion rather than exclusion. The biggest RS was the CJR piece. The first two paragraphs focus on Peres and Israel. The next dozen or so do not, at all. BLP1E applicability is not supported by the sources. Finally, as one of the 3 closures has been little discussed, I suggest we revert to RMHED's non-adminstrative closure, the best of the lot.John Z (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I feel that the WP:BLP1E element of WP:BLP - a policy - carry further weight here. The sources were all predominately written in response to Mr Shankbone's invitation to Israel. Although they go on to cover him in further detail, it is commonplace for news articles covering a notable event to describe those involved in more detail. Should Mr Shankbone become notable for more than his visit to Israel (which is what the bio was almost excusively about before deletion), then your point may be valid. Gazi moff 20:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"There are also additional criteria - for any biography a person must have received a notable award or honor, or made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record ((WP:ANYBIO)." implies a huge misunderstanding of the guideline. As noted above this is an additional criteria that might allow one to bypass WP:N, not an additional criteria. Wow. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I am aware of this, although I perhaps could have been clearer in this point. It's why my second point fell back to discussing WP:N on it's own merits, ignoring the expansion that WP:BIO provides. Hope this helps, Gazi moff 21:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said this somewhere else, but I can't remember where: The CJR article mentioned the Perez episode in the beginning of the article, but didn't depend on it. The article was about Shankbone. The point of WP:BLP1E is that focusing too much on one event warps a BLP article and may be unfair to the subject. The CJR article is mostly about other aspects of Shankbone: It is about him not the event. Here's what it says: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event [...] then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event. Risker covered some of this, and the closing admin cited Risker's argument, but it just misapplies WP:BLP1E so badly that it falls outside closing-admin discretion. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately on this point I disagree. The CJR article was based on the event - the title was even The Wikinews Ace:Why Shimon Peres sat down with David Shankbone. While it clearly goes into further detail about Mr Shankbone's past (as typically many articles of this type do), the focus is on the one event. In any case, the WP article before deletion was almost exclusively regarding this single event. It's not a misapplication of WP:BLP1E, it's a typical application of it. Many thanks, Gazi moff 08:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus, defaulting to keep. Jake should not have been the one to close this, given his vote on the previous DRV. If that wasn't enough, his unilateral change to the policy page while this was ongoing makes it even more shady. I'm willing to accept that Jake did it in good faith, but he should not have been the closer, and should have discussed the change before making it.The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Agree with closing admin's rationale. However, it really wasn't smart to alter the policy page before closing this AFD. Garion96 (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This AfD had three separate closures and two separate Deletion Review discussions. I think it is time to let go of the subject and move on. Warrah (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. Not sure how I missed this train wreck, although perhaps it's just as well. The closer, under the circumstances, should not have closed this AfD, and I favor an overturn to no consensus as a result. While WP:BLP applies to all articles, I don't find this case to be the best one to argue about the finer points of that policy. The real issue here is do we want articles on people whose primary notability arises from their activities on Wikipedia or its sister projects. We can have that debate elsewhere; I am not particularly thrilled about having a policy as important as BLP subjected to personality-driven Wiki-politics. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 3

[edit]

Overturn to no consensus, There is simply no excuse for an admin to change current policy in order to suit himslf, his ideology or opinion. What would it look ike if everyone did that? This needs to be reprimended to the highest extent possible. In addition, it was obvious that the notability discussion was a no consensus, thus double whammy for admin, another missed call by admin among the numerous recent missed calls (all leaning towards delete instead of obvious no consensus).Turqoise127 (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please get better Endorse arguments here?

It's been asserted that the arguments of Keep votes were weak in the AfD and the Delete votes were strong (and that's been disputed). Nuclear Warfare and Hersford are the only editors who have described the strengths and weaknesses in the AfD arguments in any detail, and Jake Wartenberg vaguely refers to them (which is pointless since he was justifying his close as "no consensus"). NW's closing argument, the best Endorse/Delete argument out there, has the assertion "Thus it is not a clear case of the "significant coverage in reliable sources" of WP:GNG being met."[16] No reason is given why the CJR article, all by itself, is not the significant amount of detail required to pass notability. I consider it a crucial argument (it's what changed me from Delete to Keep). That kind of sourcing regularly passes notability in AfDs, including BLPs, and WP:GNG is clear on the matter, so NW's assertion looks weak to me. Can the Endorse side give us an adequate argument that the Delete side had such strong arguments and the Keep side such weak ones that the article must be deleted, and that therefore Jake Wartenberg's vague reference to that was justified? It seems to me that's the only Endorse argument that could be justified, if it can be justified. And the "Keep" arguments would have to be shown to be so bad, with so many discounted !votes, that the Delete side just overwhelmed it with its wisdom in a rough-consensus, adjusted for discounted votes.
Wartenberg mentioned Risker's arguments in the AfD. Risker essentially said that the CJR article was inadequate coverage, despite the fact that it met the standard of WP:GNG for coverage in significant detail. She faults it, and the article, for not perfectly giving the subject enough coverage for a good article. That happens to be an argument I had before I read the CJR article. After I read it, I had to conclude that it gave enough coverage, together with the many minor sources, to give us enough information to provide an adequate understanding of the subject. Risker's reading of notability policy and its application here are both very strained. That article [17] gives us such details as: What Shankbone was doing before joining Wikipedia; Something about how he chose his name here; How he got those interviews; What specific things he's done on Wikipedia and how that's changed over time; How he does Wikinews interviews; the last paragraph of the article gives an evaluation of Shankbone's interviews. There is critical information there that balances out the PR-like statements that were in the Wikipedia article. In short, it's just the kind of detailed coverage we want in an article, and WP:GNG gives a green light to articles with that kind of sourcing. Risker's argument simply isn't credible on this, and neither is Wartenberg's closing.
There hasn't been an adequate response to points stressed by SlimVirgin and Tim Song on the fact Jake Wartenberg was involved in the discussion and therefore ineligible as a closing admin. That argument itself shows the delete was out of process and is itself reason enough to overturn. Add to it the objections over Wartenberg's DEL page edit, the out-of-policy delete despite no consensus and the strong Keep arguments on the AfD.

The real question everybody is asking themselves is: Will the closing admin here ignore policy or not? The real debate here is whether or not to trash Wikipedia policies in a continuing effort to delete a page that admins are going to find a burden to police. That real debate should be addressed with policy changes, not by ignoring policy and ignoring the state of consensus in AfDs. That's why editors (openly or implicitly) are arguing for or against actually following policy. JohnWBarber (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only question I happen to be asking myself is "why are you hand-wringing over other editor's opinions?" They stated theirs, you stated yours. Let the closing admin, when the times comes, evaluate them all and we'll see what happens. Tarc (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't handwringing. And given the poor behavior of closing admins, I intend to make it very clear by closing time just how bad your side's best arguments are -- maybe that will prod the next closing admin to give us something better than a closing argument that will just embarass him or her. I was going to say in that post that you should actually read WP:LAWYER if you're going to accuse anyone of wikilawyering, because it doesn't mean "advocating adherence to policies and guidelines", but I didn't want that post to get any longer, so I edited that out. But you should read it. JohnWBarber (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are several endorse arguments available that cite policy in the text above. To go through your other points in turn though:

While WP:GNG is one guideline (not policy) to consider, there is also WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE that describe further how notability can be inferred. Further to that, there is the overriding policy WP:BLP1E that also comes in to play - the original article text before deletion would be a strong candidate under this policy.
The policy WP:PG is a good start here, which explicitly states "Wikipedia does not have hard-and-fast rules, but editors are expected to abide by the principles laid down in policies and guidelines, except where there is a good reason not to". Should you feel that there is reason for concern about the behaviour demonstrated by the closing admin, I would suggest WP:RFC/U.

Hope this helps. Many thanks, Gazi moff 20:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There's a subthread above that points out how BLP1E just doesn't apply (see the CJR article -- it's just not about one event), and WP:GNG, which the article meets, trumps any other notability criteria -- meet that and you meet 'em all (all the rest are just alternatives). JohnWBarber (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse while I am not entirely happy about the edit policy before closure bit (mostly because it throws the close into a bad light - it was a correct clarification), the closer came to the right conclusion. No consensus, leaning a bit towards delete on policy grounds (counting votes I am fine with in RfA, definitely not in Afd), defaulting to delete. Indeed if you don't like this particular close, take the one that was being prepared when Hersfold‎ jumped the gun by seven hours (and discounted multiple delete votes because he apparently doesn't like per nom style votes) which also came to the conclusion that consensus was in favour of deletion. Viridae^Talk 21:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That two admins, who have made their opinion that the BLP deletion policy isn't as strong as they feel it should be, both wanted to delete this article is neither shocking nor informative. That an admin not in the BLP-drama circle closed it as keep (although I can't say I loved his closing statement) says a lot. That those very attached to changing BLP policy hounded said closer to withdraw says a lot, as does the final close came, within the minute, to as soon as it could be deleted per policy. Put differently, neither of those two closers were uninvolved in the larger discussion. I mean who starts writing a closing statement hours before the close on an article for which they aren't invested in? Hobit (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do, apparently. I saw the article in the AfD queue and began writing a fairly adequate closure rationale for it, after reading the depth of discussion. I double-checked the timestamps a bit afterwards, and saw that I was still several hours early, but decided to finish writing my rationale, as an intellectual exercise if nothing else. Of course I would have updated that rationale if I had ended up being the one to close it; that goes without saying. And I just have to say that I extremely dislike your non-assumption of good faith. NW (Talk) 22:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Get real. Endorsing a close so procedurally flawed because you like the result after you had your own close so ready to go. You, Kevin and Alison were to the WP:DEL discussion before anyone else. The three of you made it to the DrV for Flotilla DeBarge before any but one DrV regular (within an hour of the listing) and that one too was closed by Jake by the way. AGF isn't a suicide pact. Hobit (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time for you to either put up or shut up. Kevin (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you all to let us know if there was any collusion on or off wiki. The question has been raised a number of times and I've seen no real answer from those who appear to be involved. It seems really unlikely that events could have transpired the way they did without some coollusion, but if you all will clearly say no such thing happened I'll let it go. In any case I need to ask what "put up" means in this context. Hobit (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking only for myself, I can say that I do not know of any collusion between any editors. And I believe what Kevin meant by "put up or shut up" is that you have to have some evidence before you go off and make statements like that. I can't just accuse you of being a sockpuppet and force you to reply, now can I? NW (Talk) 03:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NW has the meaning of my request correct. I sometimes forget we don't all speak the same version of English. Kevin (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. You all have been following each other around !voting in the same way at the some places before even the regulars show up. Can I prove it's not a coincidence? Of course not. If a coin comes up heads 10 times in a row it doesn't mean the coin if fixed. Do I think I could make a case beyond a reasonable doubt? Yeah, I think it would be hard for a disintersted party to have any reasonable doubt given the large number of coincidences. Does this mean even if I'm right you all are doing something in violation of WP polices? I'd say that's a gray area. I'll let you all have the last word here if you wish. If you want to discuss this further, feel free to come to my talk page. I would like to hear Kevin and Alison answer the question though, here or elsewhere. Hobit (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to non-consensus on the basis of a bad faith closure. There's nothing else to call it. Closing a debate in favor of your own position when you had already been involved in the debate , changing the policy page on a substantial and disputed point to support your opinion, hiding it under a misleading edit summary, and then closing on that basis is about as wrong as an admin can be--all 4 actions are individually incorrect, and the sum of them is beyond anything that could be justified by IAR. IAR says the rules can be ignored if necessary, not that the rules can be rewritten into whatever one pleases. Viridea is wrong that the change is policy was merely a clarification--it may be their own desired policy, but it has never been supported by the comunity, at least not yet. It remains equally wrong whether the admins opinion on the article was correct or incorrect. Though I !voted keep, I myself am not completely sure of the merits, and would have hoped the issue had been disposed of. But the grossly improper conduct of the admin has guaranteed an increase, rather than a decrease in drama. Bending the rules to the extent it could be seen as cheating often has that effect. I urge those !voted sustain on the basis that the result is right to reconsider--they are in effect support an admin in an action they must know to be totally wrong. It's not a question of whether the close was against policy, which is equivocal, it's a question of making an unsupported change in policy to use as a basis for the decision. If the article needs to be deleted, a second discussion will settle the issue--by which time we might have a more easily defensible article. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- No. Jake shouldn't have edited the policy page when he did but the close was within discretion. Policy is descriptive not prescriptive. It describes what we do. If an admin closes a no consensus BLP as delete, and the article doesn't go to DRV, or if it goes to DRV, and the close is sustained, that is a piece of evidence that consensus is changing in that direction. If the article gets overturned at DRV, that is a piece of evidence that consensus is changing in the other direction. Rather than arguing that policy DOES say something, you need to argue that policy SHOULD say something, to sway others to sustain or overturn. Because policy here, at this point in time, is not clear cut. No consensus BLP as delete sometimes passes muster and sometimes doesn't. I've argued that policy SHOULD favor deletion for BLPs, elsewhere, at length. And I will continue to close them that way. Because I don't always get overturned. This is one of the BLPs where deletion is the right outcome. We have more important things to waste our time on than this fluff piece, and the amount of time we will sink into defending it from the many folk who will want to use it as an attack plaform far outweighs any possible positive value it brings the project. Further, No consensus default to delete is morally the correct thing to do. First, do no harm. BLPs actively cause harm to innocents whenever they are even a little bit away from completely NPOV and completely vandalism free. ++Lar: t/c 22:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Come on, he's closed it within a minute of when he could after changing the relevant policy and !voting on the article earlier. Are you claiming he was an univolved editor? He certainly seemed invested in that outcome. And no, this was well beyond admin discretion. The article plainly met our inclusion guidelines and there were more !votes to keep than delete. Getting a delete case out of those facts alone is really hard. Hobit (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - To clarify, he did not vote on the article. He voted in the first DRV. Also noting that him "closing within a minute of when he could" is not any sort of valid argument for anything. The first DRV was about a close that took place nearly 7 hours early. Closing a minute after the scheduled end (if that's even the case) isn't actionable by any stretch of the imagination. No point in diluting your arguments. Lara 05:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the policy change is so "descriptive", why is it having so much trouble getting consensus at the Deletion policy talk page? Looks to me like it's getting more and more prescriptive, and edging closer to proscriptive[18]. Lar, if you fail to change policy, what should be done in the future with closing admins who deliberately violate WP:DEL as it stands? Would you object to warnings and blocks? JohnWBarber (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You need to dial down the threats. DRV is intended to see if there is consensus that the close is endorsable or not, and if it is it sticks and if it isn't, it's overturned. A series of DRVs will shift policy, because policy in this area is not, and will never be, proscribing. If you think you can block an admin over a close made in good faith, you have another think coming. Keep up this sort of disruptive, argumentative badgering and you might find yourself blocked. ++Lar: t/c 03:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - (posted much later) I've had a lot of respect for you, Lar, and I may have worded this wrongly -- you certainly misunderstood what I intended to say. You need to dial down the threats. I'm not threatening anyone, I'm pointing out the fact that deliberately violating policy when you aren't able to change that policy is a clear case of acting Disruptive. How do you run an encyclopedia website when the admins deliberately violate the rules? If admins can do that, why bother having policies at all? And as I pointed out to you before, you're trying to change the policy language at the same time you're saying you'll violate the policy if it doesn't say what you want it to say. With respect, Lar, this is fundamentally illogical. It's also a dangerous precedent to the website. That's essentially what I thought I said. If what I really said looks like some kind of threat or over-the-top language, that's certainly not what I meant, so please accept my words in this paragraph as a kind of replacement. You should look at the final paragraph of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Enforcement: In cases where it is clear that a user is acting against policy (or against a guideline in a way that conflicts with policy), especially if they are doing so intentionally and persistently, that user may be temporarily or indefinitely blocked from editing by an administrator.[2] Bringing that up does not constitute a threat, either. Reminding you that deliberate violations of clear policy could result in blocks is a commonplace, obvious observation that your statements appear to contradict -- the kind of thing that should be pointed out in a discussion. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Lar, your own rhetoric both here and at the deletion policy talk page have hardly been exemplary. You need to learn that people can legitmately disagree with you without being evil or lacking compassion. Meanwhile, dealing with this issue more directly: If a majority of users clearly don't support no consensus moving to default (which looks like it is the case from the current discussion at the the relevant talk page and was the case the last two times people have tried to force through some variant of this rule) then engaging in such deletions is simply out of policy and not an appropriate use of the tools. Moreover, the response when one cannot get your desired support for a change in policy is to engage in such deletions knowing that the burden then switches at DRV where 1) many people will endorse simply because they'd prefer that the articles be deleted whether or not they are happy with the logic 2) the default situation is to keep deleted. Frankly, that's simply ignoring community consensus knowing you can get away with it and you think you know better than the community. That's less than ideal behavior. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll stand behind every word I've said, and take whatever lumps are coming for them. First,, I think people who feel having full coverage of every marginal BLP is more important than avoiding unnecessary harm to innocents do lack compassion. I will not apologise for that remark, because I feel that strongly about this matter. I don't think I ever called anyone "evil" in this discussion, though... and being wrong isn't the same as being evil by any stretch. As for the DRV process, this is how we find out where things are at. I have closed a number of BLPs as default to delete in the past and they have stuck. If every no consensus close as a delete starts getting overturned, we'll know that the tide did turn after all. But all the people asserting there is clear consensus against no consensus closes... they're wrong. because there isn't clear consensus. Clear consensus is overwhelming opinion. Which isn't there... as I say some of these stick. JohnWBarber is being, in my view, not just forceful, but actively disruptive, threatening all sorts of things with his rhetoric. This isn't the place to go into that matter further but if it doesn't stop, it will be brought to the appropriate place. ++Lar: t/c 03:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These threats are not appropriate, Lar. No admin would block John for his posts in this matter, and given how involved you are, you shouldn't be raising it as a possibility. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this behavior of his (in which he threatens other users) hasn't abated, this will be brought to AN/I. That's not a threat, and it matters not who actually does it, involved or uninvolved. Characterising it as a threat is typically inappropriate rhetoric on your part. As I said, DRV is one way how we find out if consensus is changing. JohnWBarbor tossing around "admins are going to get blocked" rhetoric is completely inappropriate. ++Lar: t/c 04:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec to Lar) You wrote to him above: "Keep up this sort of disruptive, argumentative badgering and you might find yourself blocked." Any reasonable person could interpret that as a threat, and it's not helpful. He's arguing in exactly the same way you are, and both are valid, though less colour would doubtless make things easier all round. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(added much later, after I was blocked and unblocked) I actually didn't make a threat, if you read my comment again. I asked a question. It implied no more than that someone could block. The "threat" was Lar's emotional interpretation. I can't block people: I'm not an admin. If I'd said, "You violate policy and I'll take you to AN/I (or wherever), is that even a threat? No, Lar's language was the language over the top here, and I don't consider that a threat either: people have the right to bring matters to AN/I if they think misbehavior is going on. It certainly was a hotheaded reaction. I've posted a reply a little bit above that would have been posted earlier if, coincidentally, I hadn't been blocked by one of Lar's fellow checkusers. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

both of you chaps (slim 'n lar) should know that it's probably not best for either of you to try and engage with the other for any reason really - I love ya' both, but this isn't helping - and anyway... one of you is obviously right, and one is obviously wrong. ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: Wikipedia:ANI#Speaking_of_socks... ++Lar: t/c 21:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most fascinating thing about your above remark Lar is how much you feel a need to pigeonhole those who disagree with you. As I've (and others) have argued before that defaulting to deletion doesn't get rid of the BLPs that are creating problems because the BLPs which get nominated and extensively discussed are then carefully watched and added to watchlists. So defaulting to delete doesn't substantially actually deal with problematic BLPs. Moreover, your argument could be made in the exact form for deleting all BLPs and acussing you of lacking compassion for not agreeing. Instead of treating everything like it is battle for the soul of Wikipedia it might help to actively try to discuss things with users even those you disagree with and not presume that everyone who disagrees with you is lacking in basic human emotions. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"the BLPs which get nominated and extensively discussed are then carefully watched and added to watchlists" ^{[citation needed]} ++Lar: t/c 04:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on that request for a citation... First, I think JoshuaZ is trying to stick me with supporting stuff I've never actually suggested, such as suggesting deletion of all BLPs. Bad idea, and not anything I ever said. However, see http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/milton-watchers.txt (thank you MZM for doing this!), which lists a snapshot of how many BLPs (as determined by pages in the appropriate category, so it may be imperfect, but it's a good approximation) have 0 watchers, 1 watcher, etc. Read it and weep. From that page:

56490 0

104664 1

80536 2

51603 3

32065 4

20376 5

Over 330,000 biographies have 5 watchers or less. So I think that JoshuaZ's theory about how not deleting marginals is a good approach... isn't worth much consideration. Maybe to solve the problem we better nominate all 330K of those after all? (that's a facetious suggestion for those having trouble distinguishing what JoshuaZ is trying to imply I said from what I actually did say)... ++Lar: t/c 11:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(arbitrary indent) because policy in this area is not, and will never be, proscribing. - Isn't policy proscribing by definition? Am I missing something? --Cyclopia ^talk 13:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclopia, I'd suggest reading through WP:PG. There's further reading from that page that describes how guidelines (such as Notabilitiy) and policies (such as Deletion and the Biographies of Living Persons) should be descriptive of what we do, and that these can change over time. Gazi moff 15:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, why don't you actually read what I wrote? It would do wonders for this discussion. I didn't say that you support deleting all BLPs, the point is that the same sort of logic you use would favor deleting all BLPs if it meant catching the bad few. The point is that in fact you don't really believe your rhetoric that we should do anything we can to get rid of bad BLPs. Moreover, you've ignored the fundamental point about marginal BLPs. Responding with a long list of how many have 0 or 1 or 2 watchers is utterly irrelevant to the matter we are discussing, because the entire point is that the BLPs which get to AfD then get watchers. And yes, users do add articles on AfD to their watchlists. AfDers themselves do so when they nominate, and many others add them when they look through and edit the article. As long as you are someone who has it set up so that editing a page automatically adds it to your watchlist then putting up for AfD easily adds many users even if one is only counting those who directly edit the article in response to or in a way related to the AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read it. Your snarky tone isn't helpful. You first made the argument that BLPs get watchlisted by the commenters. Your claim goes further though, that BLPs that get nominated and extensively discussed get carefully watched. That's an extraordinary claim. Do you have evidence for it? Is it more than anecdotal? I have anecdotal evidence against it. My own bloated watchlist. I wonder how many of the BLPs on my own watchlist really get a thorough review by me on a regular basis... I'd say almost none do. I wonder further if this is a problem others have... watching things but not really watching them? If this is in fact the case, your claim isn't worth anything. As I said before. I then made a tangential counter that there are a lot of BLPs that have no watchers.... it doesn't directly refute your argument, to be sure, but it shows the size of the problem. I don't claim that default to delete solves it. Or even makes a big dent. But it helps. And it certainly does NOT make the problem worse. ++Lar: t/c 16:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct that many people don't reread the BLPs on their watchlists regularly. They don't for a simple reason: The articles haven't been changed or the changes they see on their watchlist are by users they know and trust. If I see a change to a BLP on my watchlist and it isn't a heavily watched BLP then I'll go click on it and take a look. I suspect you will as well. If not, then you are contributing to the BLP problem yourself. So maybe pay better attention to your watchlist and stop trying to delete large swaths of content? JoshuaZ (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lar contributing to the problem? That's laughable. Kevin (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying repeatedly to delete lots of articles that aren't actually part of the problem while not actually dealing with real problems in biographies that arise on a daily basis isn't exactly helpful. Thinking one is helping with something isn't the same thing as actually doing so. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not address the unwatched BLP problem directly? If I knew how, I would add a thousand of the 0-watched ones right now to my watchlist. The activity is so low, patrolling them would not be a big job. Doing this in an organized way would go a long way to solving BLP problems.John Z (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John, tool server administrators will not allow for the production of a list of articles with no watchers because it could be misused by those with ill-intents. As it is, the tool will only report pages with 30 watchers or more. Talk to User:MZMcBride about possible alternatives for achieving this.

Josh, please don't attempt to make it seem as though you're a supporter of the BLP movement when the reality quite the opposite. Lara 02:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when an article is brought to AfD, it is often improved and watchlisted by interested editors during the course of the discussion. Sometimes an article is cleaned up enough to clearly become acceptable, whereas other times it becomes generally agreed that the best course of action is to delete it. The problem is the middle-ground - where the community cannot come to a clear agreement on the article. It is in these grey areas of inclusion that the concept to delete buy default is gathering ground, in part at least by the advocacy of Mr Wales. I'm not sure how going into further detail about the behaviour of editors at AfD helps to reduce the number of occasions when consensus cannot be reached. If it is being used to describe the risk of harmful content being inserted post AfD due to the number of watchers, I'm not sure if that's a valid case without some empirical data to support it. Many thanks, Gazi moff 15:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus (defaulting to keep). There is no need to relist and cause further drama here. Those who are encouraging (or worse yet, committing) this sort of behaviour should be ashamed. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endorsed this, and I don't find myself in any way "ashamed". Process is important, certainly, and JW would have done well to recuse himself from closing this particular discussion, but I think focusing on the political merits of the close rather than the practical outcome is likely to generate more drama. I'd like to ask that participants here ask themselves whether or not they endorse the deletion of the article. In my opinion, in such a contentious and controversial discussion as this, everything else falls outside the scope of this DRV. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julian, will you please familiarize yourself with DRV policy and then review your comment again? Process is exactly what a DRV is supposed to be about. If we're going to follow any rules at all. JohnWBarber (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse decision and troutslaps all around. Endorse decision as being within reasonable admin discretion, and reflecting emergent de facto practice for BLPs. Troutslaps to a) Jake for the sequencing of the edits to the policy page and the closure, which allows people to get hot around the collar and assume misconduct instead of the AGF explanation of Jake both wanting to clarify the policy page to reflect common practice as well as put it in action. b) to Jake again for failing to clearly disclose potential perceived conflict of interest in doing so - being transparent as to his actions and motivations could have saved some grief. c) to the original closing admin for closing needlessly early, but a mild troutslap at worst given his good natured and well explained self-reversal. Most of all d) to all of those who are rushing in to the discussin with stridency and pitchforks rather than moderation and seeking the understand the opposite point of view. Martinp (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When admins commit outrageous acts, outrage often follows, and someone always comes around with bigger troutslapps for the outraged than for the outrager. reflecting emergent de facto practice for BLPs Fancy wording. Translation: We haven't been able to change WP:DEL in either the present or the last discussion, so we've just decided to create the policy anyway because we know better than the rest of you. We'll make the policy ourselves. Is there any way at all that your position is different from my translation? JohnWBarber (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion per WP:IAR if nothing else, before Shankbone's porn brings Wikipedia into disrepute again GTD 23:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - if process is not followed, then the community is not respected and admins can go around like petty kings. I don't think the article should exist, but we've got to have the process. Everyking (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and close properly I don't think we should have the article, and from what I have read of the discussion I think the strongest arguments are for deleting. However, this close was just not proper or ok. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no-consensus, or relist per DGG. Whole close relies on a very dubious interpretation of precedent. Icewedge (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse BLP states "we must get this right", that would suggest that a large and overwhelming consensus would be necessary. It does not say "we must get this kinda right". No consensus on BLP always delete. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to Arbcom if people insist on arguing more. I have not been involved with this at all and have no idea about the true notability of the subject, but there is clearly way too much disagreement to say there is a consensus either way. The evidence that the closing admin was not acting in good faith is very strong and cannot be ignored. Even if the article "should" be deleted (I personally have no opinion either way), the way it was closed is wrong and IMO abusive. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your ability to determine Jake's mental status which would verify the state of mind he was acting in. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence speaks for itself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only way for anyone to make such declarations is to state that you know their inner most thoughts. Last time I checked, psychic powers do not exist. You can say someone is disruptive. You cannot claim that they are acting on bad faith. One person's disruption is another person's attempt to fix everything. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How 'bout this formulation, which doesn't require mind reading: Whatever his motivations, Jake acted in a way that is indistinguishable from (ham-handed) bad-faith manipulation in the way he edited the WP:DEL page and closed the AfD. If he'd reversed himself, as he should have, any DRV on this would have attracted maybe 8 editors. But it's all a bit beside the point, which is that he closed the AfD out of process in several ways. Quite a few editors on both sides of this discussion agree with that. He's said he did the wrong thing (although he won't reverse), and we don't need to talk about his motivations anymore. And if Juliancolton says he's a fine editor in many ways, I can accept that. JohnWBarber (talk) 05:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse. To claim that his behavior is indistinguishable from bad faith behavior requires you have to have psychic readings of -multiple- people who were operating under bad faith. Why do you and others persist in making claims about motives while it is really clear that you care more about end results? Do you feel that attributing motives will help you get that "win"? WP:BATTLE would suggest that such posts should be disregarded completely and blocks issued. Definitely looks like a "loss" from that line of reasoning. Perhaps you should change your tactic completely and focus on the policy issues instead of an admin who is rather clean and unblemished. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I usually wholeheartedly agree with you, Thaddeus, but in this case I'm going to have respectfully dispute your comment. I've known Jake on-wiki since he began actively editing in late last year. He is a dedicated and productive user with numerous featured credits under his belt, and his RfA passed unanimously (aside from one oppose which was later struck). I have never known Jake to act with anything other than the best of intentions, and I can't imagine this would be a drastic exception. He acknowledged his mistake and displayed a willingness to learn from it, so I'm finding it rather difficult to understand how his actions could be perceived as being made with malicious intent. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He did have plenty of opportunity to withdraw this close (as the previous closer did for what I'd call a lessor error) and at least one uninvolved admin asking him to do so before the DrV was filed. Interestingly those admins who felt the first close was so wrong (a few hours early) and immediately brought it to DrV are fine with this close. Juliancolton, do you think the mistake made here was less significant than the one from the first close? Hobit (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledging one's mistake and reverting one's own action are very different things. I'd wager that it would've been even less productive for Jake to simply overturn his close and leave the AfD in limbo while it awaited another uninvolved. I have no doubt that the close was a mistake; all I'm asking is for folks to stop assuming the closing admin went rogue. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Do you feel the first closer shouldn't have reverted his closure? Hobit (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify... I don't have a problem with Jake in general (for example I supported his RfA), but I do have a problem with this close. It is quite possible that he honestly believed that his position that the article should be here was correct. I can even believe that he honestly believed the wording of the policy didn't accurately reflect consensus. What I cannot believe is that he approached the AfD as an uninvolved neutral admin. Whether one believes that closing AfDs in line with one own's opinion is "bad faith" or not (certainly it could be done in IAR good faith), the close was clearly not proper either in circumstance or outcome. If one wants to argue that he violated uninvolved guidelines in good faith, I am not going to argue the point. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Possibly deleted for the wrong reasons (this doesn't make a good BLP test case), but the right result in this case. Wikipedia doesn't need to be covering itself in excessive detail. There are serious issues of conflict of interest and undue weight, as well as BLP, when it does. It's appropriate to check Wikipedia's tendency toward extreme navel-gazing by holding Wikipedia-related articles to a higher standard.140.247.248.180 (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn – For what it's worth, I did not participate in the AfD or the previous DRV and have no strong feelings about whether this article should exist or not. But if DRV is supposed to be examining the process, this close ought not to stand as it is. This is one of the more problematic closes I have seen. A closing admin needs to be a disinterested party if the goal is to evaluate the consensus of a discussion, rather than substituting one's own opinion. Without wanting to read minds, I suspect that the closing admin thought he was doing the right thing with regard to BLP concerns. At the very least, though, he ought to have taken into account how his series of actions would look to others. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I don't know if my voice will add much to this discussion, but I was pleased to see the article deleted, since it surely would have been if it was about a Los Angeles Times reporter with the same credentials. It is an issue of fairness, don't you see? Abductive (reasoning) 06:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close Drawn here by comments and links elsewhere by the proposer of this deletion review. Whilst Jake has admitted and apologised for his general handling of the matter - I personally cannot find fault with his actual reasoning for the close, and I support the result of that close as correct. I also wish to echo the comment made by Ottava Rima ... No consensus on BLP always delete. Quite frankly anything else would open us up to ridiculous abuse at the hands of any group of determined non-consensus driven !voters. From my point of view - I consistently remind myself that as wikipedia is not a primary source anything we delete is no real loss and this project has many more years and millions of edits left in it to resurrect articles once the fundamentals of inclusion guidelines are achieved for any specific subject.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 11:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Abuse of process and decision has zero basis in policy accepted by editors (as demonstrated by a change in policy, upheld by consensus). There is no default-to-delete for this situation, an idea which has been repeatedly rejected by the wiki-community. Whether one likes the outcome or not (and this shouldn't be a deletion discussion) there is no foundation. R. Baley (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to the policy statement that says "default to keep". There is none. WP:BLP, however, says "We must get the article right." Anything else is unacceptable, which would imply that Jimbo and the Foundation who instilled this policy, which is a policy that trumps all other concerns, states that in such situations we cannot have 50% doubts about it. That is strong policy and wikiphilosophical evidence directly contradicting you. If you fail to provide a link verifying where it says default to keep, then anyone reading these will ignore your comment as being part of "not a vote". Many of the above overturns already fall under this. The problem with AfD is that people are trying to treat it like a vote, and then force DRV into the same situation, which your post is one of. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. Here it is, WP:DEL: Under most circumstances, if there is no rough consensus the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate. The only exception is: Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look up the word "most" it does not mean all, and implies that only 51% of circumstances. That 49% is BLP. Furthermore, your statement does not preclude where they have not requested deletion but there is a large need. Instead, it shows that BLP -does- recommend such and clearly puts out one situation. Thank your for showing that policy is against you. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, nowhere is written that "that 49%" (??) is BLP, nowhere is written what does a "large need" means, etc. The policy is pretty clear in saying that apart exceptional cases the default for nc is: keep. WP:BLP also doesn't say anything on "defaulting on delete" -indeed it's under discussion and "oppose" opinions are in the majority. So, no, the exceptional circumstance is not BLP. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary.com, the word "most" is chosen for a reason. Please see the difference between "most" and "all" and conform your use of definitions to standard definitions. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, you're ignoring the fact that, in this case, it's specifically laid out why it says "most". In one certain exceptional case are no consensus closes allowed to result in a delete. That one specific case is when A: The article is a BLP, B: It is of questionable notability, and C: The article's subject is requesting that it be deleted. We can all agree that A is met, and we disagree over whether B is, but C clearly is not. Therefore, this is not a case where that exception applies, and no consensus would be a keep. All three of those conditions must be met in order to allow a "default to delete" close. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The language is very clear. Most only means most. It does not say "only one exception". Most does not have any implication of "all" or even close. Please don't misconstrue words with very clear definitions simply because you don't agree with the results. If you want to push your interpretation, you must verify it through WP:RFC. Until then, your words are not within our clearly consensus agreed upon policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the Foundation wants this proposal to be policy, they can make it so. Until that point, I believe the community continues to drive the development of policy, and it's fairly clear from this discussion that the proposal is not supported by consensus. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is already policy. And it doesn't matter what "consensus" says, because the only "consensus" saying that BLP is not to be enforced is a popular vote and does not meet the grounds for anything. Furthermore, BLP is a meta handed down proposal so popular vote does not change anything. Finally, this is not an RfC or Village Pump, nor can accuracy be determined in saying if BLP can be overturned as a policy. There is no policy stating there is a default to keep, but there is a rather clear policy on BLP that would say that having such a page with such a weak consensus is unacceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure per Lar's very convincing arguments. Skinny87 (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't Lar and you and other endorsers make those arguments at a relisting after overturning this case of tainted closure? I am adding a new section break after these 37K bytes, which is clogging my edit entry box and making things run slowly. Sswonk (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an "overturn and relist". Which is an acceptable view to hold, of course, don't get me wrong... I'm just not sure how many bites at this particular apple we need right now. If there's a consensus to be found here, or even a finding of non consensus, that seems like an outcome that we should live with instead of rerunning it and rerunning it. But I'd note that the substance of my arguments, that some folk are endorsing, are around the close, not around the outcome, so were this relisted, I'd make rather different arguments, ones about content, rather than policy. Which is as it should be, DRV is not supposed to rerun the XfD it's supposed to decide if there is consensus for the close. ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah -- well if it's "consensus for the close" that we're analyzing here, it ought to be abundantly clear that there is not consensus for Jake's close -- neither in terms of process nor of substance. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's too early to say for sure what the final outcome of this DRV will be, it has a few days to run yet (oh goodie!). But as it stands right now, there isn't consensus for any specific DRV outcome. Not endorse, not overturn, not relist. At least that's the view I have at this point. Whoever ends up trying to close this (won't be me!) will have loads of fun with it, to be sure. ++Lar: t/c 16:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I should think whichever way it ends, the closer will get a barnstar from one side and an AN/I thread from the other. I agree with you that there's no consensus at all at the moment. No consensus to overturn Jake's closure; but also no consensus for a policy change that would allow "no consensus" BLPs to default to delete. There may be a rough consensus that the sequence of events surrounding Jake's closure fell below the standards the community expects, since a number of "endorse" !votes have mentioned this, but that doesn't necessarily lead to an overturn.

I hope that an intelligible consensus emerges from subsequent discussion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree regarding the AN/I thread. A responsible closer could do many things that would mollify both sides. One obvious example would be overturning the closing on the grounds that JW lacked the appearance of neutrality required and remand it to another, indisputably uninvolved, adminstrator to reclose. Hipocrite (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 4

[edit]

Overturn to no-consensus, default to keep per Sjakkalle's and DGG's compelling arguments. Salih (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modified the above comment to make it unambiguous. Salih (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no-consensus would still allow for a delete. The argument is that no consensus on BLP = delete. You would have to say "overturn and put forth a policy in which no-consensus defaults keep", but this is not RfC so such is not an option. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except to overturn to no consensus does default to keep. The fact that a few people have said otherwise doesn't make it less so. Moreover, it is quite clear when someone like Salih says something like that they they are joining the chorus of people who disagree with the claim that no consensus on a BLP should lead to deletion. (It is incidentally interesting to note that the ongoing poll to try to get no consensus to result in deletion so far has users heavily opposing. Current count seems to be about 24 for and 34 opposed.) JoshuaZ (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there is no such thing as claiming an overturn to no consensus defaults as keep. You have to be -very- explicit about it. If not, then it falls under what it is now. This was a no consensus default to delete via BLP. Anyone saying "no consensus" must first put up an RfC to change the policy to say there can be no default to delete. As quoted above, the policy makes it acceptable to have such default to deletes. JoshuaZ, your problem is not with Jake but with the community agreed upon Policy. You must change it first before any of yours or your supporters statements become applicable for this discussion. As of right now, they are instantly disqualified under "not a vote". WP:RFC is that away. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24-34 ? that's not even rough consensus against, much less heavily. Heavily would be more like 8 to 52 (using that same 58 vote base, in my view. It's a majority, I'll give you that. But not a consensus against. ++Lar: t/c 16:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's nearly 60% on a nearly 60 people sample. Which is a good indication that, while there is significant minority support for that position, to accept it means going against what a clear majority of the community wants. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, Lar, since the policy states now that "default to delete" is an option only if the subject is requesting deletion, you would need a strong consensus for to allow it in other areas. That consensus is clearly not present. At no consensus, we keep the status quo, and clearly at this time "default to delete at any time upon discretion" rather than "discretion to default to delete if the subject is requesting deletion" does not have consensus to be implemented. As the subject here clearly is aware of the article and has knowingly declined to request deletion, that exemption does not apply here, and no consensus would default to keep. As it properly would have, had the closing administrator also not made a unilateral change to the policy that clearly, from the discussion on it, does not have consensus to be made. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)(to Cyclopia) Once again, you fail to understand or acknowledge that AfDs are not votes. 60% may have expressed a desire to keep, but not all of that 60% put forth legitimate, compelling, policy-based reasons to do so. "It is reliably sourced!" is an utter failure of a keep rationale. Tarc (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking of the AfD (and yes, I realize it is not a vote: read well what I wrote and endorsed above). We're talking of the current policy discussion at the talk page of WP:DEL. And that definitely needs a majority of heads to be considered consensual. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

60%? I see a lot of those you are counting as part of your said saying "no consensus", which is exactly what Jake said and defaulted to delete. Therefore, their claim of "no consensus" actually verifies him. Thus, you cannot actually use them since they would not actually contradict what he stated. Your concern is on something that policy allows. You want to change it, go to WP:RFC. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 60% isn't here, the 60% is for the ongoing poll at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy . Please try to read what I wrote. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try not to be so snide when you decide not to check first and see what I was even responding to - polling doesn't matter as there is no RFC to change the policy which allows it. Maybe you should remember that Wikipedia is not a vote, and that Policies have strong procedures to change. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava. Read above again. Both you and Tarc misread what Cyclopia and I were talking about, which are the numbers in the ongoing poll. That's completely separate from what is going on here. So yeah, that's not a tiny issue. Your reply is incidentally non-sensical: If a majority of users aren't in favor of a change in policy, yeah it shouldn't be being changed and yeah you certainly shouldn't use the proposed change to justify a controversial action. Why would you think otherwise? JoshuaZ (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This will be the third time that I've made it clear that I know exactly what you are talking about. Your constant claiming that I don't is just indicative of a greater problem. I have pointed out what is obvious - there is no default position within policy. You don't like it. The only thing you can do is start an RfC and put a default to keep. It is just that simple. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, policy is "default to KEEP", with the one exception of marginally notable BLPs where the subject has asked for deletion. This exception is not applicable here, as the subject has not requested deletion (Logic 101). If you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Deletion_policy#Default_to_delete_for_BLPs you will see (from eyeballing) a 2:1 or better reasoned majority for the current policy (default to keep) and against Jack's change. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, policy is that some things default to keep. The default decision on redirects is actually to delete (see WP:RFD). But the default decision on articles is to keep. This was an article, which I think does rather torpedo Ottava Rima's argument.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clearly given example of a suggestion that is about an -article-. Therefore, your claims of it not applying to articles is 100% wrong. Please do read things carefully. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I did read it carefully, I spotted the subtle point that David Shankbone didn't request deletion of his article. :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind, that is -one- example of an exception. That does not preclude other exceptions based on articles. However, it does make it clear that the exceptions would deal with our policies such as BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. A good point, well taken. There are exceptions to everything. Well, everything except death, taxes and rule 34. But I think the key point is that defaulting an article to delete is an exception, in the sense that it isn't a closure in accordance with the rules we understand apply to Wikipedia (and I do accept that those rules are often dumb).

This puts the onus on those who support the exception to bring the RFC. Where I'm going with this is, contrary to what you said earlier, the onus for an RFC isn't on those who want to apply the general rule.

I also want to make the point that the discussion on WT:DEL about whether BLPs should default to "delete" does not appear to be gaining the necessary consensus.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares if there is a default to keep or delete, there is already no specific requirement for either, and this DRV is based on a false claim that there is a specific requirement. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I care what the default position is. And I believe the default position for all articles is "keep". I think there is a specific exemption for BLPs where the subject requests deletion, and I do not think there is any other exemption for articles. Such is the status quo.

I also think that this DRV is being used as (yet another) referendum on whether BLPs can default to delete, and that the alleged confusion about that is being engineered by the side that thinks it should. Basically, I think it's a proposal that failed to gain consensus, and a semi-organised group of editors including Lar, Jennavecia, and you, Ottava, among others, is trying to bring it in through the back door.

This single issue is detracting attention from other issues around the close (such as the view that Jake was an involved editor, or that he edited the policy very shortly before he applied the version he'd written). I think these very grave issues are in danger of being ignored.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Well, I care what the default position is. And I believe the default position for all articles is "keep"." Then go to WP:RFC and start one asking for the policy to be rewritten. Right now, it does not say "all AFDs default to keep". Therefore, you cannot make such a claim. And if you think I am some how organized with Lar or Jennavecia, please do tell how that is possible. 99.9999% of the community knows that Lar and I have had a long standing feud between us that goes back a year. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say "BLPs default to delete" either. What it says at WP:DPR is:

Quote from DPR

If no consensus was reached, then the article is kept by default unless it regards a living person (see below). The decision should generally include a reference to the lack of consensus, such as No consensus - default to keep, in order to minimize ambiguity.
For BLP deletions, the deletion policy states "Discussions on relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete".

This vague and waffly compromise wording is open to all kinds of interpretations and you know as well as I do that a RFC won't improve matters. But interpreting it as "BLPs default to delete even when the subject has not requested deletion" is just spin, Ottava.

I'm apparently one of the 0.0001% of the community who doesn't know about your feud with Lar. I didn't intend to imply any kind of bad faith collusion with the phrase "semi-organised", but you've only got to read the Wikipedia Review to know there's a group of editors there who think BLPs on Wikipedia are some kind of evil commie plot. Or something. Hence "semi-organised" with reference to posters there who hold that opinion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made it clear that I have stated that there is -no- default position to either keep or delete. That is how the policy is written. Why do you state things that I have not said? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I simply didn't believe you could possibly think "pure admin discretion" is a good idea in this. Now I see that you really do think it's a good idea to give Wikipedia's admin corps even more arbitrary authority than they already have, I hereby give up.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per DGG's reasoning about this being an improper closure. I also find it rather odd that the AfD went from Hersfold's keep to delete without the introduction of any substantially new arguments. Also, I don't buy that "default to delete" applies in this case. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you "buy" something or not, you must prove that there is no ability within policy to default to keep. As such, you have not as it would be impossible. Keep in mind, your arguments here must be within policy to be considered. You have yet to meet this requirement. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LAWYER, anyone? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how you cite an essay that says accusations of such are insults and are inappropriate. Furthermore, explaining what our policies clearly says is not "lawyering". However, attacks against such are both incivil and go against our fundamental principles. Please don't violate our policies in such a manner. It is inappropriate for a discussion as this. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LAWYER, again? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another civil violation again? Please, before you quote things, actually read them. It tells you rather specifically -not- to use that term in a dispute. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In any case an accusation of wikilawyering is never a valid argument per se, unless an explanation is given why particular actions may be described as wikilawyering, and the term "wikilawyering" is used as a mere shortcut to these explanations." "Occasionally, editors who engage in semantic discussions about the language of a policy or guideline, or propose minor changes in the wording of a policy or guideline, will be accused of wikilawyering. In such cases, it may make sense instead to assume good faith and engage in the discussion productively rather than tar those editors with the wikilawyering brush. And simply being a stickler about Wikipedia policies/guidelines and process does not make an editor a wikilawyer" Ottava Rima (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at User talk:Ottava Rima - it's not productive here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strike your incivility above. You have already verified that you have no argument. You can verify that you are not here to disrupt by striking your breach of policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, but you are engaging in ridiculous lawyering which has nothing to do with what policy actually says. Would you prefer we have an essay at WP:PILPUL and refer to that? JoshuaZ (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JoshuaZ, please read the policy and realize that you have breached both WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. You have already shown a severe disregard for AFD, DRV, and BLP. We have policies for a reason. If you do not like the policies, put up an RFC seeking their change. Do not battle on pages and through out insults to try and push your viewpoint. That is unacceptable behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, telling you that your reasoning is flawed isn't a personal attack. Even calling a set of reasoning ridiculous isn't a personal attack. Go read WP:NPA yourself. And yes, we do have certain policies and they don't support defaulting to deletion. We've been over this before. Indeed, the fact that they don't is why there is an ongoing attempt to make the policy say so. Because you know... it doesn't. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"is flawed isn't a personal attack" but labelling someone as a Wikilawyer and being dismissive is. Read the essay. It makes it very clear. I quoted the pertinent aspects. Perhaps you should read things instead of assuming what they say and calling anyone who quotes them Wikilawyers. Your arguments might actually fit in with community wide consensus and be in harmony with our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Joshua, there is no -prohibition- on defaulting to delete. I already pointed that out. For your position, you would have to pass an RfC policy change to have such a prohibition. Not the other way around. Your persistence in denying such is extremely indicative of your overall argument, which is not within our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, I'll repeat this once more in hope that you understand it: Policy is clear about what no consensus defaults to. We wouldn't be having a long discussion on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy to change that if it didn't already have that. There wouldn't be a need to. As often seems to be the case Ottava, even if the people who agree with you, disagree with your entire train of logic. Frankly, I'm reminded of that conversation about copyright. You need to learn to listen to other people and understand when they explain why you are wrong. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JoshuaZ, it has been pointed out many, many times that the words on the policy make it blatant that only "many", and not "all", AFDs result in keep with no consensus. You cannot argue anything else, as the English language makes it impossible for you to do so. You can make attacks on my "train of logic", but your persistent argument goes against the English language as a whole. Your attacks, therefore, make you look like you haven't a clue or are being purposefully disruptive. JoshuaZ, you have an extremely horrible reputation when it comes to AFD and BLP for this very matter, and if you put up a public poll on the matter, I am quite confident that the majority would ask you to be topic banned from this very issue because of your persistent defiance of Wikipedia policy and consensus. Jimbo has already stated that you are wrong on the issue. I find your persistence disheartening and insulting. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to Ottava: by saying "I don't buy the default to delete" argument, I'm not just saying I don't like it. Rather, I'm stating that I don't think there's any substantial precedent for it that would apply in this case. The policy (prior to being edited by the admin who closed the AfD) [19] mentioned default to IF the subject requested deletion, which wasn't the the case here. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can not believe that such a thing exists, but Jimbo was rather clear on the matter and expressed that it did. I think I would believe Jimbo before you, especially since I haven't a clue about your background or expertise on Wiki Policy. Here is what he has to say. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think others (JoshuaZ, Stephan Schulz) address the use of the Jimbo quote below. No need for me to repeat them. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus/keep; there is no evidence of wide community consensus for defaulting to delete in this situation, and it goes against long-standing rules of thumb (e.g. "when in doubt, don't delete"). Given other substantial impropriety surrounding the close, better to take no action and reconsider at a later time, if necessary. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should look below and recognize that the only improprieties was on the bad faith creation of this DRV through policy violation. Furthermore, your "rule of thumb" does not exist, as the deletion policy gives a clear exception to when pages can close delete, which suggests that there is no "rule of thumb" as you claim. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure what effect this will have, if any, but JohnWBarber, the DRV initiator and primary agitator for Jake Wartenberg's head, is a now-blocked sock of Noroton. Tarc (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, that's unfortunate. I'm not sure that the long block was necessary given that it isn't clear to me that any abusive behavior occurred since Noroton never commented anywhere. (The standard for what socks can be used separate from a main account seems to change from day to day) JoshuaZ (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Check ANI before commenting that there was no abusive behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the pointer. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus, defaulting to keep. Trying to judge a consensus out of the original discussion is difficult at best, as attested by the fact that two different closing admins reached opposite conclusions. If the only concern about this closure was that the closer might have overweighted the delete arguments, I would not argue for overturning it. Unfortunately, the concerns about this closure are multiple, including the closer's recent editing of a policy that relates to his stated rationale, the controversial nature of the "BLP defaults to delete" policy position, and the closer's participation in the previous DRV. Any one of these might not be decisive but all three together make it impossible for me to endorse the close. (And I say this as someone who supports the "BLP defaults to delete" idea, at least in theory.) The fact that this had already been through DRV should have alerted any admin who had a potential COI to stay far away when it was closed. In other circumstances, I might have recommended overturning and relisting, or perhaps just letting a different admin close it. But this AfD already had a second chance from DRV and there is little likelihood of a meaningful consensus emerging out of the current mess by giving it more time to stew. So the article should stay, and if in a couple of months it still seems to show marginal notability, it can be renominated for a fresh discussion that would hopefully be carefully closed by a clearly uninvolved admin. --RL0919 (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus, defaulting to keep. The reasons why have been well spelled out before; to those, I'll add that, according to Durova, the subject of the article doesn't object to us having the article. Given that, BLP considerations do not apply, unless we judge ourselves better qualified to judge whether David Shankbone needs protection than he is or wants. So we judge the article according to our usual standards of verification and notability, all of which it meets. --GRuban (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo has stated that the article should be deleted. Are you going to be as dismissive to him as you are to the rest of us? Seeing as how he is the originator of the BLP policy and is the one who has invested this encyclopedia with our strict ethical standards and obligation, he seems to be very knowledgeable on what is appropriate and what isn't. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, based on the indent level of your comment, I'm not sure if you are replying to me or to GRuban. I'm not aware of having been dismissive towards anyone. --RL0919 (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever his involvement was with crafting BLP policy is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand; Jimbo is of course entitled to voice an opinion, but that opinion does not carry more weight than anyone else. I called for this article's deletion and endorse the AfD result, but certainly not for this "because Jimbo says so" rationale of yours. Tarc (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo is still the main authority on Wikipedia. He is still the backbone behind WMF. He understands what Wikipedia needs and what it legally requires. To be dismissive of -his- encyclopedia is rather strange and unseemly. There are alternatives that he is not directly part of. If your feelings about him are so dismissive, perhaps these would be welcome alternatives. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Ottava is wrong at another level in that BLP was first written by User:SlimVirgin and User:WAS 4.250. I'm incidentally a little worried by the borderline religious tone that Ottava seems to be using when talks about Jimbo as "the originator of the BLP policy and is the one who has invested this encyclopedia with our strict ethical standards and obligation." I'd like to think that ethical behavior comes from us as individuals not because a God-King has handed down a series of stone tablets. The lack of any coherent ethical concern in this situation given that David has no preference in either direction about the state of this article makes the BLP ethical issue simply not relevant in this situation. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JoshuaZ, we have been over this before and I have proven you wrong twice. SlimVirgin and Was did not come up with the idea on their own, and it fell out of a WMF statement on the matter. The introductory statements about BLP were directly quoted from Jimbo. Furthermore, your insults against me and Jimbo are just part of a long history of you attacking just about everything that makes this an encyclopedia. What is it that makes you feel such rancor towards Jimbo and his views on an encyclopedia that actually made the place that you frequent so often? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is also wrong about Jimbo's claim. What he actually wrote is "If I were to vote, I would vote very strongly for deletion" - i.e. he has an opinion, but clearly defers to the community process. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the vote was already over. Furthermore, his opinion is very important. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:No butt snorkeling. RMHED (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava: Please check your facts. Voting was still open when Jimbo made that statement. I usually agree with Jimbo, but not this time. —Finell (Talk) 01:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks rather apparent from the posts surrounding it that it happened while it was closed the first time. However, I'm not an admin so I can't verify that. Regardless, he expresses a clear opinion. The BLP policy is -founded- on his opinion. You can see it in the very first line of the policy. He says we must get it "right". He states there that the page should be deleted. You can disagree with him as much as you want. However, he is still the Founder and you are... I really haven't a clue what your expertise is on what Wikipedia should be or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant diffs: MZMcBride open AfD[20], Jimbo Wales comment[21], Hersfold close[22]. – Sswonk (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus/keep. The scale would be tipped and still can if Shankbone himself declared an interest in removing the content, similar to all other BLPs. Instead he posted a statement that Wikipedia has an opportunity to deal better with its pr issues including when its volunteers are mentioned in the media thus becoming the story. No, there clearly was an immediate and harsh vetting of all the sourcing and the end result seems that in no way would we delete this unless they were tied to Wikipedia. Clearly this was no consensus leaning toward keep. The almighty Jimbo's words can be placed by Jimbo himself and defended by himself rather than cherry-picked apart to present anything more than one person's opinion. The only person's opinion who should hold more sway than all other editors here is the subject of the article and they have also chosen to step back. -- Banjeboi 23:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This entire debacle boils down to one thing: it is unclear if Wikipedia consensus (not local consensus) agrees that BLPs should automatically default to "delete" on ambiguous AfD debates. Without that clarity, it's not really possible to determine if process was handled correctly.

I'm not a process wonk. I deplore process for process' sake. But, in this case, I'm not sure there's a good way around making a decision here. Thus, my compromise:

Due to lack of clarity on deletion policy regarding BLPs, we restore the article.
An RfC or discussion on Wikipedia talk:BLP ensues to determine what consensus is regarding the state of BLPs in a no-consensus deletion debate.
Once the debate is concluded and any relevant changes to policy are finalized, the article can be AfD-ed again.

Mind you, I'm not happy with it. I don't like going through hoops like this for what is (to me) a clear Delete. But, I think this is the best way to satisfy folks with the least amount of drama. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not unclear. It was proposed in May that BLP's default to delete, it was rejected. I was proposed again recently and is being rejected again. The community has not accepted default to delete. I am all for each of your suggestions though except that #2 is already happening on the deletion policy talk page where the community is not accepting the ides of default to delete. Restore, let the policy debate settle, someone can re-file AfD if they think so. Good idea. Chillum 22:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The community has also not accepted 100% default to keep (therefore, there is no "default" to keep). The community has made it clear there is no default on no-consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Ottava, I disagree. It has always been default to keep. At least since I became an admin 2 and a half years ago, and for some time before that. Right from the WP:AfD page: "If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept." It has always been there. Chillum 23:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Under most circumstances, if there is no rough consensus the page is kept" Dictionary.com defines "most" as not being equal to "all". Therefore, there can be no "default". Ottava Rima (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must be reading something different than me. The quote from our AfD procedure does not seem ambiguous to me, and it has indeed been that way for years. Yes, it does default to keep. Chillum 13:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, you're twisting words, and as it's been pointed out above that is refusing to hear it. If we had an article on the (nonexistent) country of Fictonia, and a subsection on its income tax system, imagine that it read: "Most Fictonians are required to pay an income tax of 20% of gross income. Fictonians who make under 20,000 Fictoners per year are not required to pay the tax." Would you presume this meant there are a lot more exceptions we just declined to mention? That would be an unusual reading indeed. When there's a "most of the time", followed by a specific enumeration of the exemptions that make it a "most", that generally means that those are the exemptions, not that you have carte blanche to ignore the income tax (or the deletion policy) whenever you don't like it. And that is how the deletion policy is worded—a rule, and its specific exception. It's linguistically equivalent to saying "A no consensus result defaults to keep, except when...". Continually trying to twist a single word in a policy in such a way as to make the sentence mean the exact opposite of what it says is lawyering. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A lengthy discussion regarding User:JohnWBarber was originally included here, but has been moved to the talk page. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 5

[edit]

Overturn and restore to this obviously correct earlier close. RMHED (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore. This debacle should taken as an object lesson as to why administrators should not attempt to impose "solutions" on a divided community, especially a sharply divided community. It is glaringly clear that "No consensus, therefore keep," while leaving many editors unhappy, would have been seen as a reasonable and policy-based close that would have generated no great controversy, and was therefor the preferred means of settling this. That the closer unilaterally and without consensus altered the applicable policy to preemptively support his decision irrevocably taints his close. Even allowing for administrator discretion, that discretion should only be exercised in ways that are not damaging to the community. The continuing divisiveness that has been created is far more damaging to the community and the Wikipedia project than allowing the article to stand would have, and is a compelling indication that the closer's decision was misguided. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and suggestion There is currently a proposal at WT:DEL that would call for indefinite semiprotection of BLPs that are closed as no consensus with disputed notability. While it's early in the game, that proposal does seem much more likely to gain support than the "default to delete" suggestion. The primary concern of those who wish to default to delete seems to be vandalism or the introduction of subtle bias. Likely, such edits would be undertaken by anonymous editors or new single-purpose accounts, as sanctions would be available against regular editors who engage in such conduct. Would anyone else consider this a reasonable compromise to end this divisiveness in a way that can address the concerns of both sides, rather than a decision that will, one way or the other, leave a lot of people bitter? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection is worthless; look at the Virgin Killer history. Tarc (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, semi-protection is not worthless, it's quite effective against vandalism. Is it 100% effective? Of course it isn't, nor is anything. Even deletion won't stop someone from putting "David Shankbone is a $)(*@)$(*@" somewhere else, so by that same measure, deletion is ineffective. To look at it another way, the lock on my front door will not stop a determined intruder, but very little will. It will, however, convince the casual doorknob-rattler (comparable to our average vandal) to walk away. On the other hand, burning down my house would be an extremely effective method of getting intruders to leave it alone. But since the second method would have disastrous side effects and be complete overkill, I lock my door and leave the gasoline for use in filling up the lawnmower. The same is true here. Let's lock the front door, deal with the occasional determined intruder as they come along (as was done quite effectively on Virgin Killer, did you check the history there?), and give that a shot before we resort to the big red button. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That completely sailed over your head, which was the fact we need to endlessly revert vandals who easily bypass semi-protection. The better analogy is "the front door is broken so let's put a piece of duct tape across to fix it, and if someone breaks through, by golly, we'll just put up another strip!". It is worthless at blocking vandalism, and just makes the admins feel good because they can say they "did something about it". Tarc (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it did not sail over my head, I disagree with you. It is condescending to state that disagreeing with your point means that I did not understand it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As condescending as "did you check the history there" was? Yea, I thought so. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that would've been better phrased to ask what you think the history shows, then. The article's been vandalized, that vandalism's been dealt with. Given how high-profile it became in the aftermath of the UK incident, it's not surprising to see some vandalism under semiprotection (that happened to George Bush, too.) We're not talking about high profile articles in this discussion though, nor any type besides BLPs, so I'm unsure exactly how the fact that some high profile articles are vandalized during semi is telling us anything we don't already know. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. As strongly as possible, in fact. I know that flagged revisions are "coming soon" (we've been hearing about it FOREVER) but until then we really ought to semi-protect ALL WP:BLP articles until we can get our act together as a community. JBsupreme (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. You think that we should semiprotect ALL BLPs (and I agree personally), and you disagree as strongly as possible with the idea of semiprotecting at least the ones who are not consensual ? --Cyclopia ^talk 13:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that semi-protection is worthless, rather, it is quite valuable and helpful. We should enable it on all WP:BLP articles until such time "flagged revisions" becomes reality here on English Wikipedia. JBsupreme (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sky must be falling, JBsupreme, it's the second time in a row we agree on something! :) --Cyclopia ^talk 15:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus, defaulting to keep - Improper action taken here. Changing a policy page then making a closure that wouldn't have been justified before that change was made is bad form at best. And, considering the proposal for this change to be implemented does not look like it is going to gain consensus, the closure was improper even in hindsight. VegaDark (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn In response to the closing administrators comments, its about the arguments, not the numbers. And if someone already made a valid argument, others can say support based on that person, without having to repeat the same thing. Dream Focus 05:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure per Lar, Jennavecia, and VirtualSteve. I personally cannot find fault with Jake Wartenberg's close, and I support the result of that close as correct. We must begin taking a tougher stand on BLP articles, especially ones like these which barely scrape what could be called notability. I also do note the obvious bad faith of the opening of this DRV, as the thread at ANI has uncovered the socking and probable intentions of the sock that initiated this discussion. Now, here's the real question: who in the world is going to close this DRV? GlassCobra 15:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you catch that he edited the policy page with a misleading edit summary and then closing the debate based on that policy? And that he closed a debate on topic he'd already !voted on? I can understand those who find fault but want to keep the closure. But I think the faults in the closure are pretty plain. Do you disagree? Hobit (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure I'd agree with that assessment. "BLP no consensus --> delete" seems to be a belief or opinion held by some admins as to how to approach difficult AfD closures on biographical articles. That this admin attempted to codify that into policy while closing this AfD at the same time was unfortunate and perhaps poorly-chosen timing, but ascribing ulterior motives...i.e. that Jake altered policy in order to close this discussion...is rather baseless and close to running afoul of WP:AGF. Tarc (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Jake's summary was that he was rephrasing the policy. He didn't make any statement that he was modifying the policy. That doesn't look very good. Then of course there's the side issue that is quite clear that the subject of this article has no desire for this article to be deleted so large concerns about BLP simply aren't reasonable in this case. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I normally notice you get to the bottom of things fairly efficiently, Cobra, but I think you're either missing or dismissing a lot here? As well as the policy modification issue that Joshua is pointing out, the closing administrator clearly took a position on the deletion of the article in the earlier deletion review, and followed that up with closing the reopened deletion discussion one minute after its expiry. Surely this chain of events must concern you a bit? user:J aka justen (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our goal here is to reduce the amount of potential harm that might be done. If the subject wishes their article to be deleted, then we should absolutely take that into account if an AFD is opened. However, the opposite is not true. For the record, Joshua, Shankbone has expressed no opinion one way or the other about the deletion of his article. Even if he were to wish his article not to be deleted, however, I believe we would have no choice but to simply not take his wishes into consideration. We are not a vehicle for promotion or advertising for marginally notable BLPs.

I quite agree with Tarc that we should not be assuming bad faith as to Jake's motives. He clearly acknowledged his bad timing in one of the above sections, and also stated that his closure in fact had nothing to do with the edit in question. Please make sure you have all the facts straight before suggesting that I may have missed anything. As for dismissal, I do indeed dismiss the opinions here that suggest that Jake's close was inappropriate because he'd expressed an opinion on a DRV for a previous improper close, just as I dismiss the opinions that we should not be attempting to foster a trend where we put the safety and reputations of our subjects ahead of having scores of unwatched, unreferenced, barely notable stubs. I happen to agree with Jake's edit to the deletion policy page, just as I agree with Lar about how serious BLP is. Our policy needs to reflect our current practices and is not set in stone. GlassCobra 17:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So even if a subject said to you that he wasn't worried about BLP violations you'd still argue for deletion out of BLP concerns? I'm amazed by the overall logic here. If a subject wants an article deleted then you favor that for deletion, if a subject doesn't want it deleted then we delete it because we don't want self-promotion. Is there any way in your universe that articles don't get deleted? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the result, but not the method per Gazimoff. Decision to delete itself was appropriate, but method how it was done seems problematical.--Staberinde (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow just is not an option here, and there doesn't appear to be a need to debate that fact. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Per WP:SNOW, I don't think a magic bullet is going to come along in the next four days that will change the likely outcome here, which is and will be No consensus...do nothing—see Bigtimepeace waaay up there. Although I am for a Strong Overturn, I know that result would only make things worse. I suggest declaring a snowball and allowing the AfD result, a rare but IAR allowed "No consensus, delete", with an agreement to make it policy going forward to prohibit actions like Jake's in a very loud way. No more participating admins supporting a previous overturn move, changing policy in a backhanded way and then closing using the policy edit they made as rationale, de-sysop or long block will result. That sort of statement should be added to the relevant policy pages. No need to harm Jake, he apparently is a little sorry for what happened. But, this type of action must be precluded and met with opprobrium in the future. I apologize to my fellow overturners if this seems like an abdication of my !vote and their !votes, but I sincerely do not believe any progress is being made on this page. Please take time to consider this before ripping me a new one in response. We all know David Shankbone now, real life readers can go to his user page until a better, more stable and less controversial article can be written. Sswonk (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT. Can we not taint the process any further, please? Let this discussion run its course. Some of us like to take a break from Wikipedia without the need to declare a wikibreak. JBsupreme (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Started by a sock? Hard to taint the DRV further. Again, please don't shout. Sswonk (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- [EC]I think this is so broken from a process viewpoint that letting it stand is a mistake and a horrible precedent. I'm hopeful we'll get the closure overturned and an uninvolved admin will reclose. Even if that's to delete it will solve 90% of the problem associated with this AfD. Hobit (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am hopeful too, but reality sunk in and I don't see the overturn happening. No need to shout, it is draining enough to have to read all of the ardent views of well respected people. Important, yes. That is why accompanying policy declaration is suggested. I will let the rest be comments by others. Sswonk (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I am sure you are aware, WP:SNOW is neither a guideline or policy. "Common sense" would dictate that this would be the worst possible situation in which to apply WP:SNOW, so I am just astounded and absolutely flabbergasted that you would suggest it. Sorry! JBsupreme (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No problem. Have to make mistakes to learn, no further debate on snowing is expected or desired. Sswonk (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - To closing admin: The above mini-thread was windowshaded a little while after I started it. I was trying to figure out a way to get both sides to agree to one thing: that the (possibly absent minded and unintentional but nevertheless flawed) closing by Jake could serve as a textbook example of what not to do in the future. Obviously, WP:SNOW was shot down very quickly. I was assuming the sockpuppet block of the opener of this discussion had clouded things so much that "no consensus" was going to be the result. Since then, User talk:JohnWBarber#Unblock request has added another twist. For the third time, this the final one, I want it to be unambiguously clear to you that I !vote for overturn and you can ignore the above snow suggestion, it was a mistake. I do not think the closure of the AfD we are discussing was at all fairly done and it shouldn't stand. Sswonk (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to keep. The discussions above conivince that keep was the correct option, and the the deletion was done outside of process. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus -> keep. There wasn't a clear consensus to delete in this AFD; if anything, the 'consensus' was leaning towards keep, but there wasn't really a consensus either way. Essentially then, the question here is, 'Is it appropriate to close a no-consensus BLP as Delete?'. It's been claimed that this is common practice (which it may or may not be) and that this is policy (which it currently is not, and it seems consensus is against it). This is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation, of course: how this DRV is closed will help determine what our policy is in this area. But from the comments so far, it seems that the view that no-consensus BLPs should be closed as delete is a minority one, and in particularly contentious cases like this one, such a bold approach is unwise. The conventional and considerably less drama-filled option is 'default to keep'. Given that with this close there were additional concerns about the good-faith of the closer, we should consider his close irregular, and re-close this as no consensus - that is, keep. Robofish (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:David Shankbone just added a note to the talk page indicating that he would support whatever outcome is decided here, in an effort to "end the drama." While I can appreciate his disappointment in the utter failure of our policies and procedures here, I continue to believe that we cannot accept the precedent set by the complete disregard for the integrity of this process. We should act on subject requests for troubled wp:blp deletion, not allow the metadrama to drive subjects to accept deletion. user:J aka justen (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a responsible attitude to say that we will make publicly available material on living people who are only borderline notable unless they contact us and ask us not to? What about those people who don't speak English, or who don't use the internet, or who just don't know there's an article about them? Should we contact them and ask for permission? This is the problem with the "default to keep" position - it disenfranchises the people who need help the most, either because of language or technical barriers, or because they are simply unaware it exists. Like the malicious rumour spread behind someone's back, it continues to do harm until the person knows about it and can confront it. We can, and should, be better than that. Gazi moff 08:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have policies in place to ensure only reliably sourced information is included in biographies of living people, we need to enforce them better. However, your comment and my response are more relevant to the deletion policy talk page, not this deletion review, and if you wish to discuss what you believe to be deficiencies with that policy, it should be there. user:J aka justen (talk) 10:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an argument for defaulting to deletion. That's a classic example of an argument that proves way too much in that it implies that we should just get rid of every single Wikipedia article because there's some chance that the subject might want it deleted. That's ridiculous. Moreover, that's particularly ridiculous in this case because we know the subject's preference. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, and even J said in his comment above, Joshua, Shankbone has expressed no opinion no whether his article is kept or not; please do not put words into his mouth. You also appear to be exaggerating Gazimoff's opinion in order to make your position stronger. He is obviously not arguing for every article to be deleted, and it's disingenuous of you to suggest as such. The BLP position that is being put forth by various people here would apply only to non-notable or barely notable BLP articles, see the AfD of the movie producer who requested his article to be deleted and was obviously denied (can't recall the name at the moment, can anyone lend a hand?). GlassCobra 18:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JoshuaZ, I think you may be strething my statement too far. I'll try to net it further in order to illustrate the area in which it sits. Now, there are some clearly notable people in the world. There are also some (such as myself) who are clearly not notable. In the middle, there's a fair spectrum of people that the community would find difficult to agree if the person is notable or not. This particular AfD may be poor example of that, but I'm sure everyone can understand that there is a middle ground of articles that although as individuals we may have some quite strong views, as a community it isn't clear that an agreement is met. Now for these articles, currently we state that we will only delete them if we specifically recieve a request from the user. That very step makes Wikipedia insular - if a subject is unable to express their wishes because they don't know the article exists, or because it's in a language they don't understand or because they don't have the level of IT literacy required to perform this task. It is very easy for us as educated individuals with an understanding of these things to say "just tell us and we'll delete it", but many people simply can't. That we would maintain a barely qualifying BLP on them due to their misfortune in this area is a disturbing trait, and one which does not sit well with me. I hope this makes sense. I'm not arguing for wholesale deletion of huge tranches of article space, I'm just arguing that people who have not interacted with Wikipedia directly are afforded the same dignity we would grant those who take the time to contact us expressing their desires. Hope this makes sense, Gazi moff 22:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The movie producer in question is Don Murphy. And I suggest you reread what I wrote. The point is that an argument that just as well argues for deleting everything isn't a very good argument. One should understand that: It doesn't mean that you believe or Gazi believe that we should delete all BLPs. The problem is that the line of logic suggests we should. That suggests that the line of logic is flawed. See the difference? Incidentally, Shankbone has made it quite clear that he at most is indifferent to whether or not he has an article. He's said that quite explicitly as you could see if you were paying attention. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indifference is no opinion, and I obviously did see his statement. Your poor attempt at insulting me by insinuating that I was not "paying attention" is quite unnecessary and counterproductive. GlassCobra 20:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well forgive me, but acussing me of putting words in someone's mouth and then playing word games about whether or not we know his opinion is a bit annoying (hint, no preference is a position. It is the position he has taken. That's not terribly complicated). I suppose since you seem to enjoy twisting words and acussing people of being "disingenuous" were about par for the course. Instead of complaining about other people being "unnecessary and counterproductive" you could, I don't know, actually respond to the content of the statements? JoshuaZ (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, you are correct. I apologize for suggesting that you were putting words into Gazimoff's mouth. While I am not Gazimoff and should not be assuming that I know the specifics of his viewpoint, I was incensed by your statement that his logic was "particularly ridiculous in this case because we know the subject's preference," because that is not the case. I invite you instead to reply to the statement that I left above the collapsed section. I will be happy to discuss with you there. GlassCobra 20:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess. Quit the petty bickering. Gazimoff's comment does not imply that every BLP should be deleted, and GlassCobra was right to point out that to suggest such appears to be a dirty tactic to further one's own argument. Gazimoff is saying we don't want to make things so restrictive that editors can't argue for deletion in the absence of the subject's direct request. Nothing in his comment suggests or implies every BLP should be deleted. Making such a claim, then arguing against, only serves to distract from the point. Going back to it, there are far too many issues to limit BLP advocacy to the articles where the subject has expressed concern. Also, responding directly to J's We should act on subject requests for troubled wp:blp deletion, not allow the metadrama to drive subjects to accept deletion, that isn't much of an arguing point. We don't have a lot of cases where the subject sits watching, "indifferent" to the results. We also don't need to suggest that the wishes of a subject who has a desire to use Wikipedia to self-promote should lead to an end of discussion to save them from the metadrama.

The fact of the matter is that David is of questionable notability and there is a great potential for BLP issues here, not to mention the other raised concerns regarding self-promotion and COI issues. Those who support deletion are well within their right to argue the points here, and while Shankbone has not requested the deletion of the article, which would save a lot of discussion, he's also not fighting to keep it, which under the circumstances wouldn't sway me from my position anyway. Lara 21:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but there's nothing dirty pointing out that an argument proves too much. Taking an argument to its logical conclusion and saying "see that's a bad result" is Reductio ad absurdum. If you think there's something dirty with that you may need to take up an issue with the classical Greek logicians. I'm struck by the double-think in your above argument. On the hand, you claim that the article should be deleted because of BLP concerns and yet also want it deleted because you are worried that it is self-promoting. Well if that's the case, then the subject isn't apparently worried about what you claim is a BLP concern. You can't have it both ways. Either there's a BLP problem or there's a self-promotion problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, for the record, you're happy to accuse him of having "a desire to use Wikipedia to self-promote". That seems rather unhelpful and logically flawed. If he were in fact doing that he's done a rather poor job and anyone with as much experience would have easily found a way to inject themselves in plenty of media outlets and high-profile public events - especially if they lived in a media capital of the US. No, instead he has taken photos of and written about other people to benefit Wikipedia. But let's go ahead and assume the worst. -- Banjeboi 21:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think lara says what you feel she is saying - maybe give it another look and see if you agree? Privatemusings (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statements: "We also don't need to suggest that the wishes of a subject who has a desire to use Wikipedia to self-promote should lead to an end of discussion to save them from the metadrama." and "there is a great potential for BLP issues here, not to mention the other raised concerns regarding self-promotion and COI issues." Seem rather clear, I find the whole concept absurd. He's been wikihounded and, I believe stalked in RL, so what logic steps us into him writing an article or in any way promoting himself. Sorry, I see a photographer wisely inserting his name into the file name as is rather common and pretty much breaking every self-promotion rule one may conjure. -- Banjeboi 21:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

now you've lost me a bit at the end there - do you feel David is "pretty much breaking every self-promotion rule one may conjure" - or maybe do you feel that Lara feels that - or maybe that's another quote from somewhere I've missed? Regardless, I felt Lara was making a few discreet point most of which didn't really relate directly to David (but to the arguments and concepts raised in relation to this matter by others) - I felt you were perhaps in danger of conflating things a bit... Privatemusings (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant to say that if David was self-promoting he was doing a really bad job and certainly could easily do much better. I feel Lara was accusing David of using Wikipedia to self-promote and COI editing but if they can make clear what exactly they meant I'd be happy to revisit the issue. -- Banjeboi 22:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please show me examples of other photographers who insert their name into the file names of their images here or on Commons? Also, note that on file pages David also links to his blog, which is not specific to his photography and is used to speak negatively of living individuals. The editing history of one of his alternate accounts, which is not connected to his main account and you argue shouldn't be despite it currently being in violation of WP:SOCK, evidences potentially serious COI issues, including with this biography on him considering he's heavily edited in relation to this person, his friend, who created the article. David has both created articles relating to this person and linked them throughout other articles. This, as you may be aware, using the aforementioned sock. Lara 22:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photographers inserting their names is common practice with ... photographers. The rest of your comment speaks less about David than about an interest in spinning history to achieve some rationale for harassment IMHO. I'm hope I'm wrong but it sure feels that way. Others can decide how to view such opinions. -- Banjeboi 22:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about photographers in general. We're talking about Wikipedia being used for self-promotion. David is the only one that puts his name in titles. That's mostly irrelevant. It's just illustrative. I'm also not harassing David. I had been exchanging emails with him periodically over the past several months. I emailed him regarding this as well to ask him about his position on his article. During this exchange, which was initially cordial, I asked him about his knowledge of the creation of the article, where he denied any knowledge of either that or the identity of the editor. This contradicts what he told at least one other trusted user. The edits of his sock account shows a clear connection to the author of his BLP. Feel free to dispute these points, but simply saying I'm spinning history doesn't make these things untrue. The diffs are there. Lara 01:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing is very strange to me. From here it looks like neither self-promotion or any kind of COI on his part. Do you have a reason to believe otherwise? Hobit (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus → keep → do it all over. Not an appealing prospect, but the first close was technically invalid and the second close has too many dubious circumstances around it. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "do it all over" do you mean re-run the entire AfD from scratch, or just have a third admin come in and re-close it as you suggest? Because while I think a lot of people would be okay with the latter, the former is probably about as appealing to most of us as eating a sandwich made from poo. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The latter if you can find an admin who's previously uninvolved and has masochistic tendencies, the former if not. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I for one would welcome our poo-sandwich serving overlords. Tarc (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - Jake's handling of this was very poor indeed. Altering the wording of a policy, with no discussion, and then shortly thereafter citing it in support of how he was closing an AfD should not occur. There have been various suggestions of "clear consensus" - some for delete, others for keep; all seem silly to me. There was no consensus in that AfD. The result should be overturned, AFD reopened, and closed again by a completely uninvolved administrator (someone who has participated neither in editing the article, the AfD, nor either DRV). LadyofShalott 00:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jake stated on this very page that his closure of the AfD had nothing to do with the edit to the policy page, and has acknowledged his poor timing. However, it was an entirely good faith close. GlassCobra 01:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was done in good faith (and my AGF karma is put very heavily under stress by this case), it remains that the closer edited a policy without seeking consensus (nor having it, see talk page of WP:DEL), and then deleted following his own policy that had freshly added to that page. Good faith or not, it was extremly bad process, and he has acknowledged that. --Cyclopia ^talk 02:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly had something to do with the closure in that it was the very policy that he referred to in the closure. I agree he may not have been planning to do the closure when he made the change as he claimed. What I don't understand is how 2 hours later it either slipped his mind or he somehow did not see the conflict of interest. Perhaps not bad faith, but certainly bad judgment only compounded by a failure to reverse his close when requested by several people to. Chillum 02:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the good or bad faith question was mentioned in response to my comment. I deliberately did not speculate on Jake's motivation, only his actions. His actions were incorrect, regardless of his motivations. LadyofShalott 16:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 6

[edit]

Note: In case people did not see the note at the top of the page, this page has become so lengthy that transcluding it actually broke WP:DRV. I have changed the page to transclude only the header, the links, and a brief note directing people to this subpage. Tim Song (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus and keep The two previous closures of the Afd[23][24] are both preferable to the dubious circumstances of the third closure. Ty 05:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to non-consensus on the basis of a bad faith closure and than keep without prejudice. Please reinstate this article as soon as possible. I want to read it; and, in case you'd like to know why it matters to me more, I suggest you begin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (2nd nomination)‎. --Poeticbent talk 22:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask an admin for a copy of the deleted page for reference purposes. There may be a documented procedure for doing this. —Finell (Talk) 22:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meta discussion of this particular opinion, collapsing. Please continue on talk or elsewhere if you must. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Declarations of bad faith without evidence is a direct violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Please try to make statements based on our policies instead of "voting" and adding personal attacks in that vote. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, plenty of evidence is presented above. Jake Wartenberg participated in a previous discussion on the article, then changed the deletion policy to reflect exactly what he wanted to do (and from the discussion on the issue, clearly did not have consensus to do so). Whether this reflects bad faith or simply bad judgment is a matter of opinion, but to state there is "no evidence" simply because it wasn't reiterated for the umpteenth time is, once again, a case of you not hearing it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no proof of Jake doing this in bad faith, and your statement above is highly incivil. You cannot attack people like that and it is severely inappropriate. Your behavior undermines any argument you can possibly have. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't express an opinion myself as to whether it was bad faith or bad judgment, as I don't know. Jake stated that it was unintentional but a poor judgment call, but it did look very bad. Commenting that someone may have exercised poor judgment is not uncivil—any venue such as DRV, RFC/U, or any such exists to examine if there was a bad judgment call. You are, yourself, questioning my judgment with your own comment. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how you are making attacks here in a group effort while wikistalking to other pages. Do you know how many rules you have broken since you started arguing on this page? You haven't expressed an "opinion". You have attacked and attacked. Wikipedia is not a Battleground, and your arguments here are invalidated by your approach and behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have had Jimbo's talk page on my watchlist for years, as do many editors. I have commented there before, you may easily enough verify that through my edit history. If you believe that I am acting disruptively, you are welcome to bring that up at an appropriate venue. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet looking at your contribs, I see no recent activity there until I show up. Funny how aggressive you are here, and yet your absence there suddenly disappears when I make a post. There is far more evidence of impropriety than anything can be held against Jake, and it is clear that with such actions your statements here are completely inappropriate. There have already been seven exposed sock puppets that were promoting for the restoration of this page. Here you are wikistalking in order to push your aggressive view. There are tons of personal attacks and incivility from those who want to keep the page. The "keeps" have really respected out policies as of late and really showed that they care about the encyclopedia's best interesting. Instead of making many personal attacks, incivil statements, wikistalking, and attacks against good admin, perhaps you should re-evaluate what an "encyclopedia" is. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, if you believe that I am behaving disruptively, you are welcome to bring that up at an appropriate venue. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm letting you disrupt here more and dig your hole so deep that someone will just block you outright without allowing you another forum to spread disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus - Don't get me wrong, I do not have anything against change and improvements made to Wikipedia policy, however in my opinion I believe as an admin. that no admin. should have the power to change policy without a discussion first in the proper channels and then after a consensus is reached in regard to the suggested change. This was not done. Another thing is that an admin. actively involved in an AfD should not be the one to close the same because it is a COI, conflict of interest. The closure of an AfD should be the responsibility of an uninvolved admin. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus defaulting to keep Per many of the overturn comments above, the less than ideal handling of the closure by the closing admin and the rejection again of default to delete at WT:Deletion policy which shows that by being closed as default to delete the closure was against policy. Davewild (talk) 09:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Close, Endorse Method. The sheer scale of participation on this DRV demonstrates the value of the exercise. Change the policy, apply it to a test case, judge the outcome. Clearly we see there is no consensus for the change. But all the handwringing about process and misleading summaries, etc..., DGG wailing 'bout how it's the worst thing he's ever seen, sheesh. Who gives a shit about the minor details? Any time a large and diverse number of editors can discuss policy and consensus it is a damn good thing. So I see this as a valuable exercise; it should happen more often. (Although I note the importance of providing an honest and open edit summary at all times.) Eusebeus (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with the deletion of the article? You mean to say that an article is deleted with a policy that has no consensus, there is a big discussion and it is found that the community does not like the policy or the closure, so we keep the article just because discussion is good? What is the point of a discussion if we don't act on its outcome? We get the benefit of the discussion regardless of if we overturn or not, and creating a big mess is not the best way to create a discussion. It is disruptive to Wikipedia and there are other ways to get one's point across. I don't think for one second that Jake did this to create a shitstorm of a debate, and anyone who did that on purpose would be lacking in judgment. Chillum 16:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The policy already allows for no consensus delete. There is no policy statement expressing that you always keep or always delete. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Under most circumstances, if there is no rough consensus the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate." While that's not always, it's pretty darn close. Hobit (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- There is a clear separation between the word "most" and "always" that you are failing to recognize. There is a explicit -non- prohibition of such an action. That means that Jake was within standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. By explicitly stating that "under most circumstances ... the page is kept", and then that discussion concerning BLPs with marginal notability when the subject requested deletion may be closed as delete, the policy implicitly excludes other "defaulting to delete" closes. Tim Song (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- There is no need to swear or to insult DGG. You have been warned about incivility many times before. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus and keep per reasoning explained here; however, any specific diffs that in any way appear as libelous to the subject and that vandals can revert back to can and should be deleted from the article's edit history. There appears to be sufficient interest in this article by our community and if the subject is backed by reliable sources, we should continue to provide such a summary for our readers. Also, I hope y'all had a Happy Halloween! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. A reasonable interpretation of the discussion (the fellows notability appears to be in-universe, if that makes sense).Bali ultimate (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus and keep IMO the default to delete is not the best solution to a tightly disputed ambiguous ending as this was...Modernist (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus and default to keep. Mostly per DGG and the procedural problems raised by this close. I say this despite the fact that if I had voted in the AfD, I would have voted to delete. In short: I don't think that this article should be in the encyclopedia; but I don't think that was the consensus of the AfD, and I disagree with the way in which that AfD was closed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to Keep per the first close by Hersfold as "Keep".

This AfD was closed three times; first by Hersfold as Keep @ 16:37 Oct 25, second by RMHED as No Consensus (NAC) @ 00:29 Oct 26 (overturned), and third by Jake Wartenberg as Delete @ 00:40 Oct 26. There is something horribly and terribly wrong when three closes are so different, especially by the two admins that are at polar ends.
Hersfold has a long, thoughtful, cogent, and articulate rationale for keeping based on a careful and complete analysis of the AfD. I can't say much more about his close that he didn't already say, so I include it here by reference (which means it's now also part of the DRV discussion as if it was copied and pasted here).
The last close, by Jake Wartenberg, has been poisoned and invalidated by his actions as documented by the particularly compelling arguments made by DGG: Overturn to non-consensus on the basis of a bad faith closure. There's nothing else to call it. Closing a debate in favor of your own position when you had already been involved in the debate , changing the policy page on a substantial and disputed point to support your opinion, hiding it under a misleading edit summary, and then closing on that basis is about as wrong as an admin can be--all 4 actions are individually incorrect, and the sum of them is beyond anything that could be justified by IAR. Jake was promoted on August 24, 2009, so he had been an admin for only two months when he closed this AfD. I am assuming good faith intent to improve Wikipedia on his part, but with insufficient experience and judgment in doing so as an admin. Fruit of the poisonous tree applies here and Jake's close must be overturned in such a FUBAR situation.
Part of Jake's closing rationale included: A lot of weight was given to those delete arguments that cited issues with uncorrectable bias (example Risker) and BLP concerns. Except that there were no BLP issues and no uncorrectable bias. Using future potential BLP issues as a delete reason is WP:CRYSTAL. Nothing in the article was a BLP violation. And uncorrectable bias doesn't exist, certainly not in this article, as the normal article editing process corrects any bias that might show up. And there are venues for that. And there are sufficient RS to improve the article. This argument is invalid as a deletion rationale, per WP:BEFORE. One of the major points Risker makes is that the article is too much trouble to maintain. That's a hell of a poor reason to argue for deletion. Bring on Flagged protection rather than delete BLPs and destroy content. Deleting BLPs to prevent speculative future correctable problems (or even current ones) is like destroying the village to save it, a quote from the Vietnam War. I fight BLP violating content as well, but without advocating the deletion of articles because they are too much trouble or because some people think they are BLP magnets. That's the price we pay for open editing and failing to implement sufficiently better protection mechanisms.
Once Hersfold reverted his close, it would have been much better if this AfD had been closed by a trusted and uninvolved admin with a lot of experience in closing very long, convoluted, and contentious deletion discussions. Also by one strictly neutral on default to delete closings for BLPs and the other issues raised. Lots of drama could have been avoided.
Further, there is a three prong test to delete BLPs. (1)There must be no clear consensus to keep, (2) The subject must be only marginally notable, and (3) The subject must have requested deletion.
1. Herfold's careful analysis and determination that the consensus was Keep demonstrates that the first prong fails. Six hours doesn't make a significant difference that accounts for a 180 degree swing from a Keep to a Delete close. Again, his close included by reference.
2. Being marginally notable is a subjective characterization. Even those arguing for deletion admit Shankbone is marginally notable, although I believe he is more than that. It's like a school cut off grade of 65. If you get a 68, you pass. You can argue it's marginal, but it's still a pass. There were six RS that showed more than marginal notability, despite the claims of spurious sources, also upheld by Hersfold in a clear description of notability, using my RS summary. Notability also argued by many others in the AfD. Hersfold clearly described how notability was satisfied. It was out of process to ignore that.
3. Clearly Shankbone did not request deletion, so the third test prong very obviously fails.
Despite those that claim there is support for default to delete, there clearly isn't community consensus. As evidenced by the talk page at WT:DEL. The three prong test fails (especially the third one) and therefore the default to delete argument, as well as the delete argument, clearly fails and can't be used here.
Policy as descriptive is back-ass-wards. Policy guides practice, and sometimes forces practice. From WP:POLICY: Policies describe standards that all users should normally follow. In other words, it's prescriptive and sometimes proscriptive. Policy is derived from community consensus discussions in the policy forums, not by individual editors deciding it's wrong and attempting to create precedents. An example analogy might be that a cop decides that Americans buying and driving foreign cars has bankrupted Detroit. So he tickets the drivers of all foreign cars (or impounds them), hoping to create precedents and pressure to change the law to outlaw foreign cars. With the intent of improving America's economy. Just like I believe everyone commenting here intends to improve Wikipedia even if we differ on how to best do that.

— Becksguy (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This rationale is one of the most well-thought-out ones i've seen at this DRV (or any deletion discussion, for that matter), and I urge the closing admin to weigh it accordingly. It nicely sums up most of the valid arguments, and a good number of the less-than-valid ones. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this rationale completely. Kudos to Becksguy. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a whole lot of wiki-lawyering about the closures and reopenings, coupled with personal attacks and failure to assume good faith of Jake to me. Tarc (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see an explicit declaration of good faith. "Jake was promoted on August 24, 2009, so he had been an admin for only two months when he closed this AfD. I am assuming good faith intent to improve Wikipedia on his part, but with insufficient experience and judgment in doing so as an admin." What i'm seeing here is a lack of good faith about Becksguy's rationale. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree strongly with some of the points by Becksguy (particularly what I view as rather inapt analogies to Vietnam and Detroit), but there is one major flaw that needs to be pointed out. The fruit of the poisonous tree scenario certainly can be applied to Jake's close of the AfD, but it would apply to Hersfold's as well and that ought not be brushed aside. While some folks like that rationale a lot better (and I fully admit it was more detailed and cogent), the simple fact is that the first close was too early and therefore out of process. Not only that, there was a previous DRV which was running fairly strongly in favor of overturning or relisting (at a 2 to 1 ratio) such that Hersfold did in fact re-open the AfD. Becksguy is arguing here that we should basically "overturn and keep per Hersfold," but that would completely ignore the fact that an earlier DRV already invalidated Hersfold's close, whether we like it or not. People concerned (legitimately) about Jake's close because of process problems should for the sake of consistency also have a problem with Hersfold's early close which also went against policy and consensus at the ensuing DRV. And simply saying "seven hours is no big deal" is not a reply here, for as Hersfold admitted in the first DRV "it's clear that the majority here believe I was incorrect in closing the discussion this early." That fact cannot be ignored. What Beckguy and others of his view should be arguing for (and what I think many endorsing deletion if not Jake's close would support) is an overturning and re-opening of the AfD, wherein yet another admin offers yet another close (without waiting for additional comments). Re-starting the AfD would be ridiculous, but there are too many poisonous trees around here, and a fresh close with new rationale is probably what's needed. Technically I suppose that would be a "relist" but with no further discussion, which probably is not strictly kosher in DRVs but is probably the best way out of this given the discussion above. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- "This rationale is one of the most well-thought-out ones i've seen at this DRV (or any deletion discussion, for that matter), and I urge the closing admin to weigh it accordingly." Indeed, it should be weighed accordingly. I should perhaps point out then, for the information of the closing admin, the fact Becksguy is a former associate of Shankbone [25], so may be biased in his opinion. Additionally, has attended at least one meetup with him. Regards, Majorly talk 22:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of thedeletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.