Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:33, 12 August 2019

12 August 2019

Nathaniel Phillips

Nathaniel Phillips (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Nathaniel Phillips plays today in the 2019–20 DFB-Pokal for VfB Stuttgart against F.C. Hansa Rostock. According to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues this is "a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues". So he meets WP:NFOOTBALL now. He meets WP:GNG as well. Yoda1893 (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment A new article was created now by S. A. Julio and I found another version at Draft:Nathaniel Phillips. Maybe these versions can be united? --Yoda1893 (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

JK! Studios

JK! Studios (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Introduction

Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines were not followed in the closing of this AfD as delete. Essentially three policies or guidelines were ignored in favor of the minority position. The most egregious of the three departures from policy: User:Lourdes became involved in the discussion siding with the delete ivoters, and when I mentioned that Lourdes should not be the XfD closer of this AfD because of involvement, Lourdes retroactively marked their involved comments as "administrative” with a what appeared to be a taunting note to make a point and then went out of their way to be the XfD closer on this AfD (links and chronology below). Recently another editor asked on Lourdes talk page, to have a copy of the article (in case any editors want to see it) after Lourdes deleted it, and so the original article is here.

1. WP:CONSENSUS Essentially the XfD closer (User:Lourdes) chose the delete argument that this comedy troupe is a corporation and must pass WP:NCORP instead of WP:ENT A guideline for ensembles.
2. WP:NOCONSENSUS is the next possible closing result: there was a 7 keep 4 delete ivote result.
3. WP:CLOSEAFD An admin who is uninvolved and has not participated in the deletion discussion will assess the discussion for consensus. or An editor in good standing who is not an administrator, and is also uninvolved...

XfD closer Lourdes became involved in AfD discussion both editorializing and commenting

Lourdes became involved in the AfD when editorializing the relisting of the AfD - when questioned about that editorialized relisting, the administrator came to the AfD and commented publicly. Another [https://en.wikipedia.org/search/? title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/JK!_Studios&diff=next&oldid=909260342 editor disagreed] with Lourdes assessment of what constitutes WP:RS. Lourdes commented in the AfD and again supported the minority position. I suggested that Lourdes closing the AfD would not be appropriate per WP:CLOSEAFD, Lourdes then retroactively marked their involvement as "administrative". I commented that the demonstration of power by Lourdes does not benefit the project. A few days later I was quite surprised that Lourdes went out of their way to close the AfD in favor of their own bias, in what I can only determine is a display of power. If any other administrator closed this AfD there would be much less controversy.

In conclusion

This AfD did not follow procedure and in the closure of this AfD Lourdes ignored WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOCONSENSUS, and WP:CLOSEAFD. I asked the administrator to reconsider that closing. In addition another editor has commented on Lourdes talk page. I do not believe the actions of Lourdes benefited the project or reflected well upon this administrator as an arbiter on the project.

• Overturn I participated in the AfD and I believe the delete decision should be overturned for these reasons. Lightburst (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Void close with no prejudice. WP:CLOSEAFD says, An admin who is uninvolved and has not participated in the deletion discussion.... Lourdes participated in the discussion. They argue that their participation was only, administrative comments, but by the time we're down to dissecting exactly what participate means, it's time to move on and let somebody else close it. Even if the close wasn't strictly forbidden, it certainly was poor judgement and troutable. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Reclose. While I think the close reflects the notability guidelines for organisations, since it's here partially on basis of WP:INVOLVED, I don't see the benefit of debating the finer points of what counts as involvement. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Reclose Someone else should close it. He was certainly involved in the discussion, and only an uninvolved administrator is suppose to close things. Dream Focus 02:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Closing admin comment: The AfD was opened by Domdeparis, and re-listed twice, including once by me. Lightburst (who has opened this Deletion review) came to my talk page to query my initial re-listing mentioning that vote stacking was in favour of keep, his preference. I gave them the explanation on my talk page of why the keep !votes were discounted during my re-listing. Lightburst proceeded to the AfD page and mentioned that my explanation was condescending and claimed that I was an involved admin – this is even before I had left any comment in the AfD (post the re-list). The AfD is on my watch; and when I noticed the above statement by Lightburst, I left a reply at the AfD containing the following response (I am breaking down the sentences of that single response to enable editors to decide whether any of my sentences in the AfD shows me as being involved (words in square brackets are for clarity)):

1. First group of statements in my response: Here, I have re-clarified to Lightburst what my talk page statement meant: "I am sorry if my response sounded condescending. I was pointing out to your apparent lack of understanding of our reliable sources/verifiability guideline/policy and misunderstanding of what consensus means. I listed out exactly why none of the keeps were worth consideration ."
2. Second group of statements in that single response: As Lightburst had alluded on my talk page, and repeatedly thereon, that consensus is a vote count, my response clarified what consensus meant for any article: "While you may continue believing that consensus is equivalent to voting, it is actually not. If you find even two reliable, independent non-primary sources that have covered the subject significantly (please don't include interviews or press releases; read WP:RS), there's no number of delete !voters who would be able to get the article deleted.... And vice versa."
3. Third group of statements in the same response: This is a response to Lightburst calling me involved even before I had left any comment in the AfD and demanding that someone else should close the AfD. "On your other query, there's no hard and fast rule on my closing this AfD; any other admin can too. Or I will, if I reach here first, when the re-listing period is over."
4. For readers's benefit, here's my earlier re-listing comment, which Lightburst claims (above) makes me doubly involved: "I would have gone ahead and deleted the article given the evident consensus, but just on the side of caution as someone might find a couple of reliable sources (as suggested by multiple editors), relisting this"

Post my relisting comment and a single response of mine (as described above), Lightburst claimed again that I was involved, a claim assessed and rejected by editors like HighKing and Domdeparis.

• WP:INVOLVED quotes: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'."

In my clear view, all the statements I have made to Lightburst constitute reasonable discussion and explanation of my re-listing and advice to them on their query about consensus and about what approach they should follow in determining consensus. I don't believe any of these make me involved. If any editor thinks otherwise, please point out which statement makes you feel I am involved. If, like RoySmith says, leaving any statement in an AfD makes an admin involved, then we should simply get rid of WP:INVOLVED and have a one-line rule. Thanks, Lourdes 03:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse I'm really not fussed about any of this as I think the analysis of the keep !votes and the close itself was absolutely correct. That being said, there are problems with the procedure - I'm convinced the only reason the involvement happened was because the relist was questioned, but I don't have any problems with this being reclosed by someone else, but I also don't think this should be overturned to no consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 06:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse (Came here because of this.) Nothing fishy here; just the normal disruptive keepist revisionism and attacking admins who close in a way they don't like. See also this where the closing admin explained a relisting a week earlier, pointing out that many of the "keep" !votes needed to be dismissed, and no indication was given that this explanation was not accepted. That after a week there was one new SPA !vote and one new delete !vote, and now the discussion has come to DRV seems somewhat questionable. Forcing a relisting admin to make a string of administrative comments so that you can then claim they are too "involved" to make a close seems like a bad-faith attempt to game the system. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hijiri88 has a history of following and hounding me (there are 3ANIs between us). This is not the place for these squabbles but FYI: recently the editor agreed to a voluntary IBAN (Hijiri88 has had 6 enforced Ibans and did not want another one). Lightburst (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hijiri88 has had 6 enforced Ibans and did not want another one is an unsubstantiated personal attack. That's all I'm going to say on the matter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Void closure, best that the closer be uninvolved. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse despite the fact that I opened the discussion I genuinely believe that the closure was done correctly and Lourdes was at no point involved despite multiple efforts to drag them into the discussion and get them involved. The comments made by Lourdes were clearly uninvolved analysis of the arguments made by the different participants. I don't know if this is a usual tactic to try and get decisions overturned but it certainly smacks of WP:SOURGRAPES. At no point in the discussion did Lourdes make any comment about the notability of the subject. They relisted the discussion with this comment I would have gone ahead and deleted the article given the evident consensus, but just on the side of caution as someone might find a couple of reliable sources (as suggested by multiple editors), relisting this. Lightburst went to their talkpage to ask for an explanation about the relisting and seemed satisfied with the reply commenting Thanks! I was not sure you applied the WP:CONSENSUS policy correctly...or our other policy WP:NOCONSENSUS. and then 3 days later had a total change of heart and wrote this I went to the relister's page to question the relisting comments, and I got a very condescending response. I only hope that a different uninvolved admin closes with a fair reading of this AfD.. Admittedly Lourdes' first reply on their talk page was a little short and then they replied with a comment on the deletion discussion that may seem a little peeved (possibly brought on by the volte-face) but still remained in the domain of "advice about community norms". If Lourdes had closed the discussion without relisting it as they were well with their administrator's prerogatives to do so we wouldn't be here. If anyone should complain it's the delete !voters but I for one was feeling magnanimous! --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn and re-close. It is not for an administrator to wade into a debate, set a standard of proof for either side to meet, and then close the debate in accordance with that standard. That's called adjudication; administrators do not adjudicate but determine consensus. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse I fail to see how the administrator could possibly be accused of being "involved". If anything, the administrator assisted the Delete !voters by pointing out (several days in advance of the closing) their incorrect interpretation of policy/guidelines and their lack of rebuttals. But there's something potentially more sinister and disruptive at play here. For me the most worrying aspect is the "Rescue Squad" participation which smacks of meat puppetery. I provided a short analysis on the !voting of three editors here. Does anyone else see a problem here? HighKing 11:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there a similar way of canvassing delitionists? From what I can gather from the different comments it is the number of !votes that counts towards consensus and not the quality of the !votes. The simple fact that a group of inclusionists communicate AFD discussions to each other regardless of the subject matter looks very much like canvassing to me. --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Disturbing accusation from the High King and troubling comments from Domdeparis. The ARS improves articles. Domdeparis nominated the article for deletion, ARS members made improvements to the article - I made two myself... This accusation and or conspiracy theory has no place on a deletion review. Lightburst (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Like it or not, but anyone canvassing for delete votes- even to cancel out canvassing going the other way- is going to get blocked for it. Reyk _YO! 14:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Reyk:Don't worry, my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek! I personally would never canvass either one way or the other. The extra sources that were added were all very clearly analysed by HighKing. I would like to point out that Lightburst totally inappropriately used an WP:ADHOM comment in reply to HighKing's !vote The HighKing votes to delete at AfDs 89.2% of the time. in an attempt to discredit him. This unfortunately backfired because the link he used to show that HighKing is a deletionnist gave some very impressive !voting stats "Without considering "No Consensus" results, 94.4% of AfD's were matches and 5.6% of AfD's were not." despite having participated in nearly 2,000 discussions. When you start to try and discredit a !vote in this way one can legitimately pose the question as to whether this is not some kind of crusade against deletion !votes. This was followed up a few days later by another adhom comment from a a different member of this "Squadron" including some very impressive latin legalese to add gravitas to the accusation. The very fact that they use a military term for their group is worrying in itself and points to some kind of bellicose attitude towards AFD. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The fact that more editors disagreed with the High King's interpretation should carry weight on Misplaced Pages where consensus is supposed to matter. You and the High King were in the minority and you had an agenda because you nominated the article for deletion. You should take a look at the work of the ARS before you make these wild claims. Demonizing the ARS is a wrongheaded approach on this deletion review. FYI: you can find monsters if you believe in them and look for them. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn - I find myself agreeing with the "keep" arguments made in the original discussion. The article had enough good sources to bring it well over stub status. For now, the article is good enough to keep, and there is momentum to continue to improve it. The user Rollidan has a copy of the article in his userspace and has expressed interest in continuing to build it up. However, the article would be more likely to grow and develop in the mainspace.Worldlywise (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn Plainly, the Keep arguments are overwhelming and clearly moire numerous than the deletes. To the extent that "policy" was being interpreted, the clear WP:Consensus was that the delete arguments were wrong, and failed on the merits. The closer 'wore too many hats', and conflated the oles of advocate, commentator and closer, presuming to exercise a Liberum veto over a clear consensus. This was a WP:COIand a violation of WP:INVOLVED,The blatant procedural irregularities became inextricably intertwined with the merits, and rendered the whole exercise ultra vires and void ab initio. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse- I don't see any issue with the result. It seemed to reflect the strength of the arguments presented. And I don't think procedural quibbling is helpful here. Reyk _YO! 14:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn or Reclose per RoySmith. Regardless if one agrees with the close result, the closer was unquestionably involved with the AfD. As Roy said, if we are at the level of nit-picking what involvement means, and the closer is defending themselves with a wall of text trying to explain things, it is easy enough to let someone else close it. Also the closer's choice of wording comes across triumphant ("One down! Two down! Three down!") followed by a personal attack directed at Lightburst: "you personally have little idea of what is meant by reliable sources" - there is smoke there is fire. -- GreenC 15:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Overturn Not convinced that there was a good cause here to override the majority opinion. Even though it is a new company, there was media coverage that was growing steadily over time. The closing admin had a strong opinion, and, while there is room for diverging points of view, I'd say that, on balance, we'd be better off overturning this for now.Patiodweller (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)