Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jake Wartenberg: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:17, 27 October 2009 editMZMcBride (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users190,641 edits →Request for examples of no-consensus deletions: +reply← Previous edit Revision as of 22:22, 27 October 2009 edit undoNathan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,146 edits →Clarify?: commentNext edit →
Line 240: Line 240:
:I regret we disagree. My "perspective" is that an administrator should not stake a very clear position in a deletion debate, modify relevant policy in the midst of that debate under an inaccurate edit summary, and then ''close'' that deletion debate without consensus (while relying heavily on the revised policy, but without mentioning the revision whatsoever). All of this without ''any'' regard to their prior involvement in the debate. The repercussions of this chain of events alone are serious and regrettable, but the unwillingness to answer any of the questions or concerns raised above, let alone take any sort of responsibility for the significant lapse in judgment, is just too serious to ignore. Further, selecting criteria that apparently minimizes accountability to the community is not something in which you or he should take pride. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 20:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC) :I regret we disagree. My "perspective" is that an administrator should not stake a very clear position in a deletion debate, modify relevant policy in the midst of that debate under an inaccurate edit summary, and then ''close'' that deletion debate without consensus (while relying heavily on the revised policy, but without mentioning the revision whatsoever). All of this without ''any'' regard to their prior involvement in the debate. The repercussions of this chain of events alone are serious and regrettable, but the unwillingness to answer any of the questions or concerns raised above, let alone take any sort of responsibility for the significant lapse in judgment, is just too serious to ignore. Further, selecting criteria that apparently minimizes accountability to the community is not something in which you or he should take pride. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 20:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
::It is completely untrue that I have been unwilling to address this. I commented at the DRV yesterday, admitted that I have been mistaken in some of my actions, and explained my reasoning in all of this. The criteria I have chosen is more restrictive than the default, but less so than what many admins use. — ] ] 21:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC) ::It is completely untrue that I have been unwilling to address this. I commented at the DRV yesterday, admitted that I have been mistaken in some of my actions, and explained my reasoning in all of this. The criteria I have chosen is more restrictive than the default, but less so than what many admins use. — ] ] 21:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion that Jake could be recalled over this (a suggestion implied if not overtly made, perhaps because its unlikely in the extreme) serves no other purpose than to be inflammatory. We don't recall administrators over a single ill-advised action, particularly when they admit their errors and undertake not to repeat them. Allow Jake (who is a relatively new administrator) to learn from his mistakes, like we all do. ]] 22:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


== Question == == Question ==

Revision as of 22:22, 27 October 2009

User:Jake Wartenberg/header

This is Jake Wartenberg's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 5 days 
  • I will probably reply here.

Click here to leave me a message

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 15 sections are present.
The Signpost
24 December 2024

Happy Jake Wartenberg's Day!

User:Jake Wartenberg has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Jake Wartenberg's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Jake Wartenberg!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Re. 166.109.0.203

Another IP from the same group (BOCES) was give a 1 year block today (166.109.0.249). Please consider a span block for all BOCES addresses, as they seem to be churning out an alarming rate of vandalism.   Nezzadar ☎   19:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK Copyright Violation

Hi, the current DYK image of the A,A sculpture is a copyright violation. I probably shouldn't handle things directly, since I know the artist personally. Could you please check into getting it removed? The article itself is fine, it's just the image that should be taken down. --Elonka 01:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey there Elonka. I removed the image from the DYK template. The file is located here if you wish to nominate it for deletion. Regards, NW (Talk) 01:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.  :) I'm in touch with the file uploader now (who has also posted other images by the same artist). Their intentions were good, I think they were just unaware of the copyright issues, and they seem amenable to simply going through and deleting the images themselves. --Elonka 01:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Completing DYK prep areas

Do you know how to add a hook that has an image included to the DYK prep areas? I can't figure out how to do it and I can't find instructions anywhere. Thanks for your help. LargoLarry (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The example image is right above the hooks. You just replace it. — Jake Wartenberg 05:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

strider11 problems

I unclosed Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Strider11 to add more IPs. I see that you denied the speedy deletion of several categories because they were populated, but they had been populated almost all in the same day by one IP, which had also been doing edits similar to Yousaf.san, one of the socks in that case (aka, the banned user created the cats and then populated them by adding other users to them, with no evidence that he asked for permission or that there was any real need to have that cat in the first place). I am undoing those edits so the categories will now be empty. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize that he had added the users himself. I will delete the cats. — Jake Wartenberg 23:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:70.48.112.221

In the past, this individual has abused talk page editing privileges during the block. Also we don't need him figuring out what text string the abuse filter is preventing him from putting onto Misplaced Pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Changed the block settings. Thanks! — Jake Wartenberg 05:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for rollback

I would just like to thank you for granting me rollback rights. I have found it immensely useful to revert vandalism using Huggle Thanks again!--Michaelkourlas (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem! — Jake Wartenberg 22:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"In cases of BLPs of marginal notability we default to delete when consensus is unclear"

Mind pointing out that policy to me? RMHED 00:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

See here. Best, — Jake Wartenberg 00:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "especially if the subject has requested deletion, where there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete."

Doesn't exactly meet the above does it. RMHED 00:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Just to be clear, that policy says "may be closed as delete." So the close was allowable, but not required under policy, and the statement "in cases of BLPs of marginal notability we default to delete when consensus is unclear" is not technically correct since defaulting to "keep" in those situations is not verboten. You might want to consider rephrasing your closing statement, unless I'm off the mark here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Done, thanks. — Jake Wartenberg 00:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin closure

I disagree that David Shankbone is of "marginal notability" so this loophole you appear to have found does not apply. It is unreasonable to claim someone is of "marginal notability" when there were clearly hundreds of people involved in that last AFD. How often does that occur? DGG clearly stated that Shankbone was not even a borderline notability case. You labeling him "marginal notability" is your own opinion, and clearly you are allowing your position as Misplaced Pages administrator to override the wishes of the community. Please undo your error. Thanking you in advance, Varks Spira (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Politely disagree. Numerous people (not including me -- as I have not contributed to the discussion) have explained the issue on the page. I agree with Jake's closure. Cheers, Antandrus (talk)
This AFD was closed several hours ago as Keep. Now it has been closed as No Consensus with a loophole thrown in that makes it a Delete. The Keep closure was undone, and the Delete closure will also be undone. There is clearly No Consensus to delete. In other words, do not delete the article because the community is undecided and the status quo will have to remain. We have not agreed to move forward in a new direction, so the status quo shall remain. Varks Spira (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • In view of the huge disparity between two decisions, two hours apart, I predict this will end up at WP:DRV, although I've no desire to take it there myself; both decisions were arguably correct, and both arguably incorrect. However, interfering with an admin's decision, entrusted by the community, when it is within the limits of discretion, is unhelpful and unless bad faith can be shown, unconstructive. I have no view on the article itself, since I've only browsed it. It's perhaps better to take a step back right now, let the dust settle, and only then consider responses. Rodhullandemu 01:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I'm sorry but that was a bad close. There were good reasons in that debate to delete (BLP1E being the best), but Risker's arguments have nothing to do with WP:DEL as far as I can tell. Plus you claim that we often delete BLPs that meet WP:N. Again, there is no such policy, guideline or closure history. I'll let someone who writes better than I file the DrV, but I'd ask that you seriously reconsider that close as the only real possibility: no consensus. There clearly wasn't one. Hobit (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

      • I do not feel strongly over whether DS should or should not have an article here. I do feel strongly that the CJR article was essentially sufficient proof of notability to dispel all arguments about borderline notability and admin discretion. . As is, the close seems to offer good reason to revisit the rule that a non-consensus BLP can be closed as delete. I can see closingas you did in the hope of getting the matter behind us, and I might well support you if it would do that, but it won't: there will surely be another 7 d at deletion review. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • At some point, travesty AfD closes will need to be dealt with by something more severe than simple overturns at Deletion Review. You made a mockery of the process. But I'll take that back if there's a rule somewhere (somewhere official) that non-consensus BLPs can be closed as delete. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC) BigtimePeace cited it here so I do take it back. I'd looked before but hadn't seen it. My apologies. Now I'm going to look over the vote explanations on the AfD page to see if you can plausibly claim a lack of rough consensus, taking into account votes that were contrary to policy or that ignored policy, because if your determination of that is bad enough, it'll make for a good DRV overturn argument. In a deletion like this, where the raw count is relatively close and with so much participation, you should always provide a more detailed explanation of how you arrived at the idea there was no consensus. JohnWBarber (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem is, it wasn't even a no consensus. It was a keep. The previous admin clearly and thoroughly showed with great detail and fairness that a substantial majority of well-argumented AfD !votes were keep ones. One thing is to say that AfD is not a simple vote, another is completely disregarding the feeling of the community. --Cyclopia 02:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Rather than hounding the closing admin, why not simply initiate a discussion at WP:DRV? If the closure was incorrect, it'll be overturned accordingly. –Juliancolton |  02:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Unless policy changed since the last time I looked at it, you're supposed to consult the closing admin before initiating a DRV. It's also a good practice to "hound" any admiistrator who takes a controversial action with such little explanation, pour encourager les autres. JohnWBarber (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • To John, the "rule" in question can be found here (I also mentioned this to you during the AfD) though the language is currently being edit warred over. See the page history of our deletion policy and the discussion on the talk page of the AfD and you'll see what's going on. Cyclopia in my view the AfD could legitimately have been closed either as keep, delete, or no consensus—simply because you think the previous admin's close was better (and I'll grant you it was more thorough and carefully done) does not mean it was the only possible outcome. Difficult AfDs like this can be read different ways by different admins, and that is legitimate and merely par for the course around here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • (ec, 2X with below) Bigtimepeace, yes, you're right to cite that section of DEL. I just noticed you'd cited it on the AfD page as well. I looked at DEL and must have misread that part, perhaps because I expected, when I read the flawed, equivalent passage in WP:DGFA (a guideline) that it would've been updated to reflect DEL, the policy. Silly me. (DGFA is different in that it only provides for deletion in these kinds of circumstances if the subject asks for it.) JohnWBarber (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I think that any AfD that can be read as both keep and delete by different reasonable admins should be no consensus, pretty much by definition. Hobit (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
      • In general I would agree, but this AfD was rather exceptional for several reasons. My argument is that it should have been closed as "no consensus," but that the question of whether to "default" to keep or delete was very much an open one. Thus in point of fact both a keep or delete end result were possible. Technically speaking I think the type of close Jake did should have been worded no consensus, default to delete, but the end result is the same and there's no need to be overly wonkish after the fact. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
        • There was a discussion on this earlier this year . Consensous at the time was fairly opposed to no consensus defaulting to delete. I don't object to a wider discussion, but I do object to an admin acting as if a policy proposal that was soundly rejected is policy. Hobit (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Jake, would you please undo your closure (and your undoing of the previous closure)? You are clearly involved. You voted at the DRV to overturn at 18:10 Oct 25. At 18:44, you tried to change the relevant part of the deletion policy. At 00:40 Oct 26, you overturned the admin's decision to keep. That's clearly not acceptable. The policy and best practice is default to keep on borderline notables, unless the subject has requested deletion. And, regardless of that, involved admins, or admins with strong feelings in either direction, shouldn't be closing these debates. SlimVirgin 03:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with Slim Virgin and echo her request. You are an involved admin. I'm going to wait on the DRV for a while and see what happens. — Becksguy (talk) 03:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with SlimVirgin too. That is, I agree with her here where she strongly argues that default to delete is the right thing to do. She was right then, you are right now. ++Lar: t/c 01:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I put that forward as a proposal 18 months ago to help borderline notables who didn't want bios, and it failed as a proposal. The issue here is that Jake unilaterally decided to change the policy anyway, regarding a DRV that he had commented on and was therefore involved in, then proceeded to overturn an AfD, citing a policy that he himself had just changed, and then deleted the article. That's a misuse of the tools by any standard. No matter how any of us feel about the particular issue, what Jake did should be strongly discouraged. SlimVirgin 02:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Jake, I'm finding that I have to cross out more and more of my comments on this page as I learn more about your ... adventuresome behavior. I assumed I'd misread deletion policy, but it turns out you changed it by fiat, then used that change (silently -- that is, without properly explaining that you were relying on it when you posted your very inadequate closing statement). This isn't just wrong, it's disruptive. It really is the kind of thing that should get you blocked. It's incredibly insulting to all the people who participated in that AfD in good faith, and it's impossible to ascribe good faith to you. Your behavior really is just stunning. I hope anyone reading this will go participate in the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Deletion policy#Default to delete for BLPs. It might actually be a good thing to change that policy, but not right now. You've really tainted everything you touched. JohnWBarber (talk) 04:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with User:SlimVirgin above, and regrettably have to agree with several points raised by User:JohnWBarber. The lack of transparency on your part is quite disconcerting. You made a significant and relevant change to the policy in question here with an inaccurate (at best) edit summary, while this discussion was ongoing. You made a clear argument at the deletion review on the discussion. Having revised the policy, and having clearly become involved in the process, you shortly thereafter closed the discussion (with an entirely different analysis from the earlier, also questioned, close), citing the very policy change you had made hours before. This would be a snowballing comedy of errors if it were funny; as it is, it's simply a series of very inexplicable, and seemingly escalating lapses in judgment. Reverse your closure and allow an involved administrator to close the article based on current consensus and current policy. user:J aka justen (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I never edited the article or participated or commented about this before, so I'm an uninvolved party. I agree that this was a close call and it would have been better handled by a different admin. I'm writing here to note that, based on the time stamps, it appears that the AfD was closed within the first possible minute (given the two-hour reset). That's not the normal course of business. Combined with the other factors, it shows a lack of disinterest. A second point, off-topic here, is that this subject is fairly likely to receive further coverage and if so the article could be recreated legitimately, meaning that all of this effort has been a waste. Let's try to handle this in a manner consistent with any other BLP.   Will Beback  talk  07:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I also agree with SlimVirgin. A closure based on a policy just changed by the closer should have no weight and be grounds for automatic reversal at Deletion Review. Good faith should always be assumed, but administrators have a responsibility that their actions present an appearance of good faith and objectivity, as much as possible.John Z (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I endorse SlimVirgin, JohnWBarbour et al. statements above. There are several problems with this closure 1)A clear -even if for sure not unanimous- keep majority of reasoned arguments was deemed a no consensus 2)It was defaulted to delete, even if there was no clear BLP problem or deletion request by the subject 3)It was defaulted to delete after the closing admin changed the policy wording to endorse his own decision 4)The closing admin asked also for overturn in previous DRV over a technicality, and was thus involved 5)The previous thorough analysis of the AfD by the previous closing admin was totally disregarded. --Cyclopia 11:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Me too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Yll Hoxha

Could you please review your "No Consensus" close as keep of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Yll Hoxha. Was evidence presented that this individual was more than questionably notable? Hipocrite (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, I'm very confused: Jake closed this BLP AfD as "no consensus" and kept the article? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
In his defense, he hadn't yet changed the policy. :-) Hobit (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Both of those comments are unnecessary. –Juliancolton |  21:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd say the barnstar is a lot more inflammatory. Hobit (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to take a look at this one? Hipocrite (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this on your list of things to respond to? Hipocrite (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Earth Song

You protected the article "Earth Song" after a self-pitying and weak complaint from contributor "Pyrrhus16" who now continues to edit/revert on the basis of a creepy obsession with Michael Jackson. Please explain further. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.99.30 (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: The "AFD"

The Admin's Barnstar
For your close at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David Shankbone. Regardless of what happens in the ensuing aftermath, it took a lot of guts for you to step up to the plate and close that very complicated, convoluted, and hotly-debated AFD; you deserve at the least to be commended for that. I don't think too many other administrators would have even bothered to close that AFD for fear of criticism and flaming, regardless of the decision; an admin would have came under the same criticism if they closed as "no consensus" or "keep". MuZemike 21:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. — Jake Wartenberg 21:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Ridiculous. You don't deserve an award. You created a firestorm and whether or not you did it all on purpose needs to be determined. Varks Spira (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Jake, ignore this "new" user, who is trying to provoke you. Don't let folk provoke you. But don't stay silent either. Make your views heard, but in doing so make sure you stay calm and reasoned. (do as I say, not as I do, I think the saying goes)... ++Lar: t/c 01:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this barnstar; thanks for taking the responsibility to close this debate and your actions were spot on in my view. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

DRV opened on the Shankbone AfD

An editor has asked for a deletion review of David Shankbone. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. JohnWBarber (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for examples of no-consensus deletions

You wrote in the DRV: "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." Can you give some examples, please? SlimVirgin 02:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm compiling a list. It won't be complete, as there are thousands hundreds of AFDs I'm clicking through, but should be sufficient to illustrate the point. Lara 02:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Will it make the point that this is common practice, something that WP:DEL should catch up on? JohnWBarber (talk) 02:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Common practice or commonsense? Definitely the latter, and so far they go back over 8 months, so hopefully the former. Database query is running and will hopefully produce useful results. Original run had faulty regex. Anyway, I'm manually clicking through contribs of editors I recall having seen such closes from. Lara 02:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Lara, just a few examples will do. It would be good if Jake would find them himself. Given that he's the one who's relying on this as the reason he changed the policy, he should have some examples at his fingertips. SlimVirgin 02:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
There's no reason for Jake to find them himself. He, like myself and others, know that they exist. Who goes clicking through hundreds or thousands of contribs to find them is entirely irrelevant. Default to delete for BLPs was once your stance too. Perhaps you know of some. Help would be appreciated. Lara 02:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
There's every reason for Jake to be the one responding here. He's the admin who changed the policy, who overturned an AfD closure, and who deleted the article on the grounds that it's often done that way. And he's the one people are complaining to. Therefore, he's the one who ought to be replying here and offering examples. As for the link, that proposal was defeated. No admin should be acting as though it wasn't. SlimVirgin 02:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
All irrelevant. Anyone can do the search. Doesn't matter who does it. And you of all people should know that policies change through precedent. Lara 02:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(od)If needed, one can produce thousands of unchallenged edits which go against basically every policy. Should therefore we conclude that the policy is to be changed? Do we have to accept vandalism or POV violatins, because there are routinely unchallanged vandalism or POV violations on WP? If these people closed AfDs against policy, this is all gold for DRV. Policy must change by a broad and informed consensus, not because a few editors bend or disregard current policies. --Cyclopia 02:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, one can give many examples of BLP AfDs being closed every day listed as no consensus. The bottom line is that a minority has repeatedly failed to get a consensus for changing policy and then decided to ignore policy and go through and do what they wanted anyways. Trying to point to those actions as evidence of a new consensus is almost laughable. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Your stance on most things BLP is laughable, what's your point? Lara 12:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Disagreeing with you on certain issues isn't the same thing. It might help if you would actually respond to what people wrote rather than engage in ad hominem attacks. (I incidentally doubt that you can even correctly articulate what my position is on BLPs. I understand you'd rather think of me as sort of evil entity who stands against all that is good and holy but that's not the way the universe works as much as you might want everything to.) JoshuaZ (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Amusing that you seem to think your comment which I responded to was helpful. And I'm not sure you could articulate your stance on BLPs, Josh, but I'd be interested to see you try. Lara 16:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Looking them over, nearly all of them are by just two admins, almost all of the other ones have an additional rationale (request by the subject, or being unsourced). This is not evidence for a change in policy, this is evidence for a small group of admins ignoring established precedent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
That would be sample bias, she looked through the contributions of admins she could remember closing afds that way. Viridae 13:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I just went through those admins' contribs, sort of sporadically, because my time is limited. Lara 16:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
This should be your "evidence" that process is changing? If so, I can sleep well at night. First of all, about half of them are closures by User:Lar, which, despite his attempts in the current Shankbone DRV to present himself as the new guru of Misplaced Pages, is (still) not, and so presenting mostly his own contribs as evidence for consensus is a bit undue. But let's see them one by one...
So, we have 4, maybe 5 closures with a clear and still unchallenged "nc, default to delete". Half of these examples were by the same admin. Now, how long is the list of "nc, default to keep" BLPs? --Cyclopia 13:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh check your logs, none of those deletions you claim have been overturned were. They are all eother redirects or recreations (which haven't been re-afd'd - not the closing admins responsibility. They differ enough from the original to not fall under CSD G4) Viridae 13:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I stand half-corrected on this detail. No overturns (I didn't check, agree), but I see no redirects either. Recreations most probably. Anyway, it means that subject was notable after all, and that "nc+keep" would have only helped. --Cyclopia 13:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Viridae 13:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that. Fred Shapiro to Fred R. Shapiro. It seems only a redirect for title accuracy reasons. Unless he's a different Fred Shapiro -can you confirm that? --Cyclopia 13:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I can. It's a different person. Hipocrite (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I stand corrected and I corrected above. Now, we have at this point 5, maybe 6 true closures of this kind, mostly by a single admin which is known to have a strong stance on "dead tree" criteria for BLPs (see discussion on WP:DEL). We have two cases in which the article was subsequently recreated and therefore didn't need deletion. Other cases are not even close to what happened to David Shankbone bio: keep !votes were either completely inconsistent or totally absent. As an "evidence" that it is changing, it looks as credible as creationist petitions. --Cyclopia 13:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Concerning Björn Söderberg, nobody in the discussion, and especially the closer, who explicitly quoted BLP and the contentious point on closing non-consensus ones, noted that Mr. Söderberg was murdered and therefore dead, and thus beyond the reach of BLP. By the way, another poster here and I are sometimes confused. I am the evil entity who stands against all that is good and holy! It's tough work, but somebody's got to do it. John Z (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
(arbitrarily indenting) The issue with the generation of a list like this is that it's been taboo for years to say "default to delete," so many admins close on the side of delete in cases where the voting is split. They don't shout from the rooftops about it (or even note it in their closing usually), but it happens all the time. Humorously, there's been hesitance to create such a list of deletion discussions because of what we've seen here—people trying to hop up and down and threaten to take all of these old closures to deletion review. This is all pretty tiresome. I echo Scott's comments below to Slim. What gives here? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
It is not a "threat". Deletion did not comply with current policy or was otherwise debatable = Needs review. I see nothing odd in that -that's exactly what delrev is for. What I find odd is that violation of policy is heralded not only as normal, but positive, with people declaring that policy will "change by precedent", willingly ignoring any community consensus on such a policy change. --Cyclopia 20:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
No. Problematic deletions need review. These deletions weren't problematic. Stop trying to make hay. (Or, keep trying, but your current attitude with regard to biographies of living people may quickly meet a topic ban. This is getting quite out of hand.) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I really am confused here. SlimVirgin originally PROPOSED that policy ought to be a "default to delete" for BLPs - indeed she championed that position along with Jimbo, (myself) and others. Sarah, you once argued that it was only the only "responsible" thing for Misplaced Pages to do in the face of BLPs. Why are you now championing the opposite position? Yes, granted your excellent proposal, to make a "default to delete" solid policy, failed. But policy is created by doing and not by legislating. In fact, many many admins have been occasionally closing as "default to delete" for low-notability BLPs. And the closures have often been upheld on review. It may not be current solid policy - but we are moving in that direction, and it is certainly a closure "within admin discretion" although certainly not mandatory. I wrote an essay on this some time ago (see Misplaced Pages:Borderline biographies) with little objections, and there are hosts of precedents (many of which you have supported).

Now. my understanding is that policy pages should described practice and not proscribe it. Therefore the page should indicate that some admins DO occasionally default to delete on BLPs, and that, while it remains controversial, DRV has in fact upheld such closures on a number of occasions. If the page says that BLP deletion discussions ALWAYS default to keep if there is no consensus, then the page is quite simply wrong. They don't always.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarify?

I wanted to clarify with you (as is advised), whether you are willing to use the default process for recall, or whether you may have specific criteria already outlined that I'm not seeing? user:J aka justen (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right, I should have specified a process. I use this one. — Jake Wartenberg 11:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, to clarify: do you mean you intend to use that process going forward, or that you believe that process applies retroactively (rather than the default process)? user:J aka justen (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The process I linked to is the one you should use. — Jake Wartenberg 21:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin recall, really? Hell in a hand basket. That's where this place is going. Lara 17:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

All due respect J, this is why I don't allow non-admins to vote for my recall (and why I also require a week-long wait before initiating a request). Take a step back and try to see the bigger picture, please. At the moment, it would appear you've lost all sense of perspective. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I regret we disagree. My "perspective" is that an administrator should not stake a very clear position in a deletion debate, modify relevant policy in the midst of that debate under an inaccurate edit summary, and then close that deletion debate without consensus (while relying heavily on the revised policy, but without mentioning the revision whatsoever). All of this without any regard to their prior involvement in the debate. The repercussions of this chain of events alone are serious and regrettable, but the unwillingness to answer any of the questions or concerns raised above, let alone take any sort of responsibility for the significant lapse in judgment, is just too serious to ignore. Further, selecting criteria that apparently minimizes accountability to the community is not something in which you or he should take pride. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
It is completely untrue that I have been unwilling to address this. I commented at the DRV yesterday, admitted that I have been mistaken in some of my actions, and explained my reasoning in all of this. The criteria I have chosen is more restrictive than the default, but less so than what many admins use. — Jake Wartenberg 21:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion that Jake could be recalled over this (a suggestion implied if not overtly made, perhaps because its unlikely in the extreme) serves no other purpose than to be inflammatory. We don't recall administrators over a single ill-advised action, particularly when they admit their errors and undertake not to repeat them. Allow Jake (who is a relatively new administrator) to learn from his mistakes, like we all do. Nathan 22:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

How do I suggest that someone creates a page about a subject that I think should be covered by Misplaced Pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karriem14 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Try WP:RA or WP:AFC. Plastikspork ―Œ 22:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)