User talk:MBisanz

Hi, This is just my talk page, feel free to leave any advice on my edits or ask for help on anything. If you feel I've abused my administrative or BAG powers, please see User:MBisanz/Recall for further instructions to request their removal.

Eric O'Keefe

While referencing U.S. Term Limits I came across a red link for Eric O'Keefe. I know he had a Wikipedia page before hand, so upon further investigation, I see that you removed his page. I would like to know why?

This person played a large role in one of the most influential political movements in recent history. During the 1990's numerous U.S. States adopted term limits for elected officials. O'Keefe was instrumental in the success of this movement. He also published a book that received high praise from Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman.

It would be a disservice to users of Wikipedia to not have access to biographical information on O'Keefe. I strongly urge you to reconsider your decision to delete his page and bring back the information of an individual whose work, agree or disagree, has played a substantial role in our political system.

Iupaulies (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Stellar Crisis Removal

I am puzzled as to why all reference to Stellar Crisis has been removed from Wikipedia.

Stellar Crisis was the first browser based game on the web. It was listed in the list of multiplayer brower games. [List_of_multiplayer_browser_games] and as every game in that list has a reference page there was also one for Stellar Crisis.

I can see that some attempt was made to validate the information on that page however although links to the web sites serving that game and the yahoo user group were given it is surprising that no query was sent to any of the three server sysops. (There's a term you don't hear anymore; sysop.)

The Silver Dart was the first airplane flown and has historic significance. There is only one copy made for the 100th aniversary. The validity of this plane & it's flight is validated through the people of the area and notes of the developers. This is the same type of material that validates Stellar Crisis. If I interview the old guys where would I be able to get it published. The magazines are dying. We put it in Wikipedia.

Stellar Crisis has historic significance. It is unfair to remove it.

Attempts to use the wayback machine which was only started in 1996 see FAQ to verify existence of a site for 1993 seems ineffective however it can validate back to 1998. The archive shows sites active in Dec 12, 1998 and 1999 If you wish to maintain historical accuracy adding the phrase "claims to have launched in 1993" would not be unreasonable. Deletion is!

You appear to have found the article and although it gives only a cursor reference to Stellar Crisis. Publicizing a free game is significant in an advertiser paid magazine. Do you consider the stellar-crisis room web site to be published or gamestats.com from 1999 or on everything2

The following instruction page available on sourceforge is dated as "Revised 5/5/97" and other documents on sourceforge present the year as 1992 although the source code for version 2.9 shows 1996.

The list of servers is available at servers and on the front pages at the links above for 1998, 1999.

I'll dig around and see what other references I can get to validate the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strider22 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Why was this active game removed from the browser based games list? This is even more puzzling.

Strider22 (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community decided to delete the article in this discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stellar Crisis for lacking notability in reliable sources. You would need to file a WP:Requests for undeletion at this point. MBisanz ^talk 07:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

First I should acknowledge that although I saw and contributed to earlier page versions, I did not see the article upon which you based your decision.

As I read the policy it indicated that I should discuss with you, the deleter, first. Are you simply saying you won't change your mind and don't want to discuss this or is my reading of the policy inaccurate and I need to progress to an undeletion request?

Stellar Crisis is at least as notable as The Continuum and KDice. I'm not looking at further examples as this isn't a competition. If it is your decision, should I prepare an article for your review? Strider22 (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I am more than happy to discuss it with you. The participants at the deletion discussion found the article did not have citations to reliable sources. Wikipedia requires an article to have coverage in reliable sources in order that the article be notable. That is why the article was deleted. I've looked over the article again and would find myself hard-pressed to change my mind on the close. MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wait a minute. You are the final arbiter? Despite there being what I think were reasonable compromises to explore, you can simply say, 'Delete'? I'm not comfortable with that. I note that you wrote an article on a bowling alley, which I'll assume is something you consider notable. I don't accept that. In fact, I think it's absurd. I'm hoping the administrator review process is considerably less capricious than this. Brrryce (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You kept Forestle

Thanks! You decided to keep the entry Forestle based on WP:SNOW. Could you please explain this guideline; I read the wiki page but do not fully understand what it means in the current case. Does it mean that the case FOR keeping the entry was very clear from the discussions? This might be particularly important as the Forestle entry early had a speedy deletion tag that was removed after a short presence. Second, the notability issue is still marked at the top of the Forestle entry page, although essentially every important aspect of Forestle has external references that in my view are fully suitable. I would very much appreciate your help. --Subwaynyc (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It means the unanimity of the people saying to Keep at that AFD meant the AFD had a snow ball's chance in hell of resulting in a Delete. Other editorial issues like Notability should be dealt with at the article talk page or at the relevant Wikiproject. User:DGG knows alot about Notability, so I might ask for his help. MBisanz ^talk 22:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations and the hint. Subwaynyc (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You closed Articles for deletion/Pre channel early

Uhm, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pre channel almost two days early (28 days in February...). Relisted: 00:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Closed: 04:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC) This was not a clear consensus deletion and it was currently split about 50/50, especially as the nom withdrew the AfD (withdrawn long before the first relist), which put it at an exact 50/50 split. There was also a source from an actual book, and not a "self published" book. Please double check. Thanks. Tothwolf (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It was listed on the 15th, it was past due, not early. Also the AfD sure looks like a delete to me, it only looks close if you see it as a vote. Chillum 04:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't overdue. It was relisted twice instead of a no consensus close the first two times. A relist still has to go through the normal 5 day listing. I had already removed two sections from the article that prompted the initial nom and first two delete votes, which is likely why this thing got relisted and no one else really felt like voting delete. Tothwolf (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No, relists don't have to go through the normal 5-day listing. Juliancolton (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In the various early AFD closing discussions, no one has ever voiced an objection to closing a relist after the five day period but before the 10 day period. This was already working on 14 days. Please see WP:RELIST and WP:DRV. MBisanz ^talk 04:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So why wasn't this closed as a no consensus before we got a few more drive-by deletes? Going by the discussion this was still clearly a no consensus issue. If not for the fact that we actually found sources I'd have voted delete on this one myself. (Sorry to hear about your knee, I didn't have your talk page watchlisted so I hadn't seen you mention that until now. Probably a bit cliché but hope you feel better soon.) Tothwolf (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Because AfD is not a vote. Also, by talking about him closing it earlier, are you saying that you are complaining that he closed it "early" as Delete, but would not have complained if he had closed it "early" as Keep? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'd have likely asked the same thing if had been closed early as Keep. IMO the only possible outcome of that AfD given the current discussion that I'd seen was no consensus. Tothwolf (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern. AFDs generally get closed whenever a patrolling admin gets around to them. There are maybe 10 admins who patrol AFD on a regular basis, so closing times are fairly random. In this case what tilted me more towards Delete was that Capitalistroadster and Sloane came back after the improvements were made and still thought it should be deleted. Now if you can convince Dynaflow or Frozenevolution that it is ok, that would tip it towards a No Consensus close, but without any indication of change of their opinions (they did have 10 days to come back to the discussion), it is sort of stuck here. MBisanz ^talk 05:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the things that's bothering me here is the first two "voters" never bothered to come back and follow up after the unreferenced sections were removed. Capitalistroadster didn't see the references on the Talk page (or read the full AfD until I made a bold comment pointing out the references were on the talk page). Then he changed his reasoning that they should be in the article (which might be valid if not for the fact we located them after the AfD was initiated and had planned to rework the entire thing anyway). As for Sloane...eh... I can't take anything he said seriously. Would it be appropriate to post links to Sloane's talk page here? (I ask because worry those might turn into a can of worms...) Tothwolf (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I closed the AFD, so it is my can of worms, feel free to post to anyone who is involved in it to look here. MBisanz ^talk 05:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, let me rephrase that, would it be appropriate to post links here linking to Sloane's user page? Tothwolf (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, although I'm not sure why, I can find it easily enough :) MBisanz ^talk 05:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh...persistent little vandals aren't they...shesh... Anyhow, I tried to WP:AGF but after I stumbled across these hidden/secret pages:

• User:Sloane/GameAfD's
• User:Sloane/Conspiracy, Paranormal & Fringe Theory AfD's
• User:Sloane/Various
• User:Sloane/911TMCruft

...the only conclusion I could come to is the guy lives to nom things for AfD and vote to delete everything on AfDs. I just couldn't take him seriously at that point (and I saw these before I left a followup for him in the AfD.) Tothwolf (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Then there's this: [1] I didn't even notice that until I checked his talk page's edit history tonight. Tothwolf (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not really seeing how this relates to the article in question. I mean just because someone was blocked for editing at another article isn't a reason to discount their comment at AFD. Unless you can show me something Sloane has done wrong at this article. I can't do anything further. MBisanz ^talk 07:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That link might help explain why he didn't bother to come back and clarify? Have a look though the AfDs from the redlinks linked from his pages above. If you look close you'll spot the different usernames he has used. These look like trophy pages to me... This is why I can't take anything he said in the Pre channel AfD seriously. Tothwolf (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well that really isn't a strong enough reason to go back and change the close. I think the best bet at this point will be getting more high quality sources and taking it to WP:Requests for undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 07:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you see what I meant I guess? I mean [2] yikes...
We already had sources that covered the material left in Pre channel and they were on the talk page. The nom checked them and seemed ok with them as did some of the others who weighed in during the AfD. I've got a full archive (all revisions) of Pre channel anyway. I thought this might happen so I carefully archived everything so I can work on rewriting/merging it and the other related articles that need major work later. At that point I'll likely just do a redirect and request a history undeletion to remain GFDL compliant. I'm more concerned at this point with the fact that there are people on wiki who are just here for a delete thrill. I suspected there were a few here and there, but this one disturbs me.
Btw, I might as well ask here since I'm thinking about it... Are you handling things for Rjd0060? I wasn't sure if I should post things to his talk page or yours?
--Tothwolf (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirects are fine by me, so just flag me or anyone else down to do the GFDL undeletion. Yea, it concerns me with such meatball:VestedContributors, but I can't do anything about that, so I just do other things. I'm covering for Rjd while he is traveling, so what can I do for you? MBisanz ^talk 07:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess we work on whatever we can...
I've got a number of {{prod}}s that I'd uncovered that Rjd0060 deleted but I wasn't sure who to ask about them. He hadn't been active so I wasn't sure if something had happened to him or what. I'm not really ready to deal with those articles just yet, I've just been compiling a list while cleaning up the rest of the IRC stuff. I'll see if I can get them sorted out in the next day or so.
Btw, I discovered a few AfDs that were initiated and led by two people in retaliation after their own IRC project's article got deleted (that article has since been recreated after it became notable) but the articles that were deleted covered competing projects that were already notable. What's the proper course of action for dealing with that sort of COI mess? It's blatant and one of the two guys even mentioned he was going to do it in the AfD for his project's article. Should I provide links to those here? Tothwolf (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No, not worth it here, I can't do anything about that sort of thing on my own. You might try posting to WP:AN. I can handle undeletions of his PRODs whenever you are ready. MBisanz ^talk 08:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll work up a list of the prods. It looked like someone went though the entire category of IRC networks (and maybe some others) and prodded pretty much everything. It left an awful mess of redlinks in the templates and it took me awhile to figure out exactly what had happened.
What would be the best way to present that COI mess at WP:AN? These two guys actually tried an AfD on a third article after they succeeded with the first two but it looks like they gave up their plan of getting all the other articles deleted after the third one failed. Looking at their account histories it seems like they created their accounts just for the purpose of dealing with their own project's AfD but then almost immediately targeted those other articles after it got deleted. I actually have those links ready at hand because I've been trying to figure out the best way to deal with the mess they created.
--Tothwolf (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just look at current threads, define the issue, the facts, and ask for admins to review and act on them. MBisanz ^talk 08:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

<insert break here>

I thought about this and decided I should clarify some things for the record as I still consider this a bad close. There just wasn't any way to consider this AfD as anything other than no consensus. I would take it to DRV if not for the fact that DRV doesn't seem to be worth the trouble and would otherwise take up a lot of time I'd rather spend working on other articles.

Here is a breakdown of the AfD itself (nomination:withdrawn, keep:3, delete:4):

• nomination: Zetawoof -- (withdrawn after sources were located)
• delete: Dynaflow "There's no way I can see it passing WP:V, let alone WP:WEB" -- Seemed to be referring to sections of the article that were removed for failing WP:NOT / WP:EL, never came back to clarify.
• delete: Frozenevolution "Cannot find any reliable sources as per nom its unlikely that reliable sources do exist." -- That's funny, I managed to find some, including a dead tree book reference that is also used in some of the other Warez articles.
• keep: My own comment and vote where I pointed out we had sources.
• relist: "no consensus" (20 February 2009)
• relist: "no consensus" (25 February 2009)
• keep: Letsdrinktea -- "Looks notable enough and has potential"
• delete: Capitalistroadster "unless references from reliable sources are added." -- Didn't read the AfD or see that that references had been placed on the talk page for discussion.
• delete: Sloane "As no references." -- Also didn't seem to read the AfD...
• My comment pointing out the references on the talk page again...
• keep: MichaelQSchmidt "and allow continued improvement of the article since there is an active good faith effort to address the nom's concerns."

If this wasn't "no consensus" then it should have been closed as a delete instead of being relisted twice. Further discussion did not help with consensus and obviously did not help improve the article as it is now flagged as deleted.

--Tothwolf (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Note

If you have the time, you may wish to see this message I left to you on Commons: [3] When there is 199 outstanding flickr images and images have been waiting to be reviewed for 1 full week...something is seriously wrong here. I wish SterkeBak was around to clean this up but he's gone. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD for Austenasia

You closed it and deleted it, but it seems someone moved it to Empire of Austenasia, where the AfD notice is still visible? Not sure how that works or what I can do. §FreeRangeFrog 01:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it. Thanks for noticing. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:RfC

Yeah, I meant to add this back then but forgot. It won't get any comments, but it'll be there at least. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclear demolition

Why'd you close as a redirect? I think almost everyone thought that the content was thoroughly unsuitable for Wikipedia, so why preserve the history? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I could delete the history under the redirect if you wanted. Fire's comment on the likelihood of a search term was very strong though. MBisanz ^talk 04:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no pressing need to delete the edit history as far as I can tell. In any event, reasonable close. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a reasonable search term, but nearly everyone strongly agreed that the article's actual content was original research/made up or a hoax. Multiple editors calling it "ridiculous" or expressing severe reservations as to the concept ("What is this", "My goodness", "[only] God knows", etc) is especially compelling and makes me think the content should be permanently removed since it will never be of use anywhere on the project. I won't make an issue of this if you disagree, but I was surprised that such an obvious consensus to nuke the content led to a redirect closure. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Per your arguments, I deleted the history of the redirect. MBisanz ^talk 05:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to listen. I enjoy working on this project with receptive editors. :) Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD review request

Please reconsider deletion of Jack Talbert, discussed [here]. Of the two editors who voted Keep, one clearly did not read the article or review sources (this is easily determined by observing that his reason for voting keep was faulty; he stated that Talbert was an inventor, a claim neither Talbert, nor the article makes), and the other was Talbert himself, the author and subject of the article (conflict of interest). Neither of the sources establish notability, if closely examined.--E8 (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It came down to a disagreement over notability. I could have pushed it towards deletion, but I felt there was good faith disagreement over the notability of the subject. I would suggest a merger or redirection to Gasoline Vapor or an AFD in another couple weeks when the fate of Gasoline Vapor is known. MBisanz ^talk 04:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Prods and a much larger mess, help requested

I've mostly finished sifting out the prods from the red links list although I'm not ready to have them all restored just yet. I'd like to have them restored slowly so I can have an updated version ready for each article as they are restored. I was able to pull copies of this batch of prodded articles from deletionpedia so I have copies to work with.

What troubles me is while going though all of these links for the final sort, I noticed a pattern and upon further digging discovered a connection with a much larger issue. It doesn't have anything to do with the admin who deleted them (he was just deleting expired prods) but I have some concerns about the person(s) who prodded them. I think this is going to warrant further investigation and I'm requesting help in sorting out this mess. I'd been absent from Wikipedia for a long time until this last year for personal reasons and I really don't know who to contact now since things on Wikipedia seem to have changed a lot since I was originally active. The very reason I returned to Wikipedia last year is I noticed articles were disappearing from the Internet Relay Chat categories. I initially noticed articles were disappearing while I was working on fixing a bug in some software. I had been using one article as a quick reference and when I happened to try to pull it up again, it had been deleted. It has taken me this long to finally get to the bottom of this mess and what I've found really disturbs me. I hope you can bring this to the attention of the correct people so we can right the problems and make sure this doesn't happen again.

There were at least 14 articles that I can find that were mass-tagged with a {{prod}} template in this batch. There may have been others but these are the articles I could find going by the red links that I removed while reworking the navigation templates. These are not all of the IRC articles that disappeared but these are the articles I can easily connect to the same mass-prod.

Here is the list that I have so far. I'm not ready to have them all restored just yet but I would like you to restore one that I'm just about done reworking which I'll mention below.

• Abjects
• AbleNET
• AfterNET (redirect: Afternet)
• AustNet
• BRASnet
• Blitzed
• Byxnet
• GamesNET
• Global Gamers (redirect: Global Gamers Center)
• IRC-Hispano
• IRCHighway (redirect: Irchighway)
• LinkNet
• NetGamers
• UniBG

Two of the 14 articles are already back on Wikipedia. You restored AbleNET last week and Byxnet was recreated from what appears to be a snapshot version by one of its editors (I guess he didn't know how to contest a prod). AbleNET's talk page currently needs a history merge, Byxnet itself needs a history merge for GFDL compliance, and Byxnet also needs a talk page restoration.

AustNet appears to have gone though an AfD so I doubt you can do much with this one yourself but maybe other admins can get involved and help fix this larger mess.

IRCHighway for some reason isn't showing up in the deletion logs. I'm not sure what's going on with that one. Its redirect still shows up though and I was able to pull a copy of the article itself from deletionpedia.

The article I'd like to have restored first is Abjects. I believe this is the one that kicked off this mass-prod. As you were already aware, AbleNET was deleted outside of the rules for a {{prod}} since it had already gone though an AfD. It also had plenty of references and clearly was a notable topic even if the article was (and really still is) in need of major attention. (I'm currently trying to help the other editor who asked to have AbleNET restored clean up the references section and include {{cite}} templates.)

Abjects contains a section and a reference linked to a court case [4] initiated by Hal Turner against 4chan.org, 7chan.org, Ebaumsworld.com, NexisOnline.net, Abjects.com, and John Does 1-1000. This alone more than made Abjects a notable article even though like AbleNET, it was poorly written and needed major work.

After I discovered the Hal Turner connection and court documents, I started digging deeper into online postings made by Hal Turner on a number of fringe sites where he posted and discovered what seems to be a loose connection with this mass-prod of IRC articles. It appears that one or more supporters of Hal Turner or someone somehow connected with this group decided to try to rid Wikipedia of IRC-related articles. Nothing firm was stated that I saw but there was a general unhappiness within his group of supporters over the information available on Wikipedia. I haven't checked the edit logs of the other IRC network articles just yet but I'm wondering if the rest of the Internet Relay Chat networks were similarly targeted and prodded. If this is the case, I would expect that the Rizon article would have also been targeted as it just so happens to be the home of 4chan.

In any case, this mess is a bit overwhelming and I'm requesting assistance in trying to sort it all out. I can rewrite and improve the articles themselves but I feel that I'm reaching my limits on digging into the larger issue. Any assistance you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

--Tothwolf (talk) 07:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I know you are really busy right now so this can wait if need be. If there is someone else you think would be better suited to help handle and clean up this mess handing this off to someone else would be ok too. Thanks! Tothwolf (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the Abjects article. I suggest taking your research to WP:COIN, they have good people who can help you further on the front. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've reworked Abjects and I think its much better now than it was previously. I've also reworked Rizon but the vandals are still removing content. I tried taking it to Requests for page protection but even with 40+ links to the diffs showing the long term ongoing vandalism, comments left by the vandal claiming to use automated processes, and logs of past semi-protections someone tagged the request as declined.
If there was any content on the talk page for Abjects we should probably also get that restored. As I mentioned above, AbleNET's talk page currently needs a history merge (if it existed), Byxnet itself needs a history merge for GFDL compliance, and Byxnet also needs a talk page restoration (if there was any content there as well).
I guess I'll go ahead and try to fix up AbleNET's references next and then figure out which of the other prods I want to tackle after that. (Btw, I've discovered even more articles that were part of this mass-prod batch but I still need to sort them out. This is an awful mess.)
--Tothwolf (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think I merged all the histories. Let me know if you need anything else undeleted. MBisanz ^talk 20:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I finally put the info I had so far for this specific batch of articles into a table and put it on the WikiProject IRC/to do page. I'm not quite sure what to start with next. This is a much larger mess than I originally thought. (And this isn't even the mess I mentioned earlier about the software authors nominating competing project's articles after their own project's article was deleted.) Tothwolf (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ratchet & Clank Future: (TBA)

I noticed you just deleted that article (thank you, by the way), but Guinea pig warrior (talk · contribs), the creator of that article, has decided to move User:HK22/Unnamed Ratchet & Clank Future Sequel (created by HK22 (talk · contribs)), in which I prodded earlier but the user userfied to the userspace) to Ratchet & Clank Future: (TBA) after you deleted it. I'm thinking that this is more of a dispute resolution issue (a user wanting to de-userfy another user's article into the mainspace against that user's wishes) than an admin issue (I did inadvertently tag for G4 here but reverted here after discovering what happened. I don't know if admin help is needed here, but since you were the deleting admin, I thought I would let you know. Thank you, MuZemike 08:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, HK22 probably should be ask what he wants to do. MBisanz ^talk 08:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Heavy metal in Muslim majority countries

Can you re-open the AFD and extend its duration? There is no consensus to merge the content into heavy metal music: two editors suggested that but after I made a reply, one of them has changed his mind into delete. I can only assume the other editor has not returned to the AFD and seen my response. In any case, that means only one editor thinks it should be merged into heavy metal music, another editor thinks its should be merged into black metal, another thinks it should be kept while two editors (including myself as nominator) think it should be deleted. --Bardin (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I closed as a Merge into either article. WP:RELIST only permits relisting for a lack of comments, not a disagreement of comments. Merging can be discussed at the article talk page, AFD is just for deciding retention of the article. MBisanz ^talk 21:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think four comments qualify as a lack of comments, especially since not one of those four comments were in agreement with another. Also, Heavy Metal Music is nothing more than a redirect so there's little chance that anyone will complete the merge. You might want to change it accordingly. --Bardin (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Four is a good number of comments, and there was definitely consensus to not retain the article. Merging it presented the best compromise method of dealing with it. I moved the merge tag to the talk page with the proper capitalization. MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

2 DRVs

Hey MBisanz, I thought I'd inform you about these...I opened Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_2#T._Love & Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_2#Jordan_Johnson_.28Singer.29 (2 AfDs you closed) because there were some issues with IP socking that may have changed the outcome. Please stop by, if you can, and add your input. Cheers, — Scientizzle 17:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That new VP page...

I'm gonna invoke WP:IAR here -- that "Redundant policies" village pumps page is just ridiculous, and I really don't think an immediate delete would be controversial. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:18, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)

I agree, thanks. MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish genocide (WWI)

Hi! Am I wrong or did you only delete the talk page, and not the article? Sardur (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

An oversight I am sure. I took care of it. Chillum 06:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks! Sardur (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Chillum! MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Recall request (moved from your user page)

Hi -

I still haven't heard a reply back from you re: your deletion of African Americans in Davenport, Iowa after the deletion discussion had advised against doing so. So I filed a report against you. Brrryce (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Brrryce - MBisanz's close was probably wrong, but you're likely to find that a recall won't be successful. Have you tried bringing the case up at deletion review? WilyD 18:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• I responded in User_talk:MBisanz#Daveport_Iowa.3D. You placed a comment in a smiley template in another section. If you want to recall me, fine. But I would ask you take the article to WP:Requests for undeletion as recall desysops a person, it doesn't recreate the article. MBisanz ^talk 02:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of MogileFS article

i've moved the discussion of your deletion of the MogileFS article from Rootology's talk page to my own since his talk page seemed like a silly place to have the discussion--Rootology didn't comment on it and you didn't follow up on my reply to your comment there. Rather than clutter up his talk page, the discussion of the deletion is now here. --Craigster0 (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Tige Boats AfD Discussion

I was curious if the page I recently authored was still up for deletion. It has been put up twice for discussion and I have noticed that no one in the community has objected to the article. I wanted to get your thoughts on if there were any revisions that needed to be made to make it Wikipedia worthy. I think the original dilemma is now solved seeing that the article now has credible notability . Thank you assistance!Mlsizemore (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know that particular field well. I was just relisting since few people had commented at the discussion. Right now it looks like it will close as a No Consensus Keep, so it should be ok. MBisanz ^talk 20:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for the timely response. I just couldn't get a hold of "Mr. Senseless" so thats why I left a comment on your talk page. Thanks for the info!Mlsizemore (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

We Are One

I hope you have considered Ricky81682's KEEP for "We Are One" in this discussion for your decision in this discussion. Not to mention the MERGE votes... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 09:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

ps: Regarding this comment I ask for a more thorough discussion of "We Are One".--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 10:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting only redirects the article, all the content is still under the redirect, so it can be merged (the effective difference between Merge and Redirect in zero). WP:RELIST permits the extension of discussions only when there is a lack of comments (one or two), there were more than that, so relisting wouldn't have been possible. Also, I think I finished the history merge you tagged. MBisanz ^talk 21:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, in the case of "Spokes..." the content is not available anymore. Same for "Binge and Grab". I don't know what exactly makes them less notable then "We Are One", but you might tell me. Also, I've made a note at the "Welcome..." discussion, which points out the double standard, being used on Wikipedia. As for the merges, 1 out of 9, yes. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 22:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've closed a good number of AfDs, and it never ceases to amaze me how two nearly identical articles can have different results just because different people comment in the discussions. It is a real double standard, I agree, mitigated to some extend by deletion sorting, but otherwise no solvable. Redirects are generally harmless, so if you want me to restore content under a redirect, let me know where and I'll do it. MBisanz ^talk 22:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Just do the remaining 8 history merges if you want. I have to nominate dozens of Beatles and Pink Floyd songs now... ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 22:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, MBisanz. You have new messages at HexaChord's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OTRS query

Hello. Could you check out m:OTRS Ticket:2009030410054823 and review my protection of Jeanne Boylan? I protected the redirect for three months as per this request at WP:RFPP, however another editor is disputing this [5]. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

OTRS ticket supports the idea of protection of the redirect per the deletion policy for marginally notable subjects. MBisanz ^talk 21:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

EPiServer

Could you please tell me why you said the afd is keep? I know afd's are not vote but the three keeps are all arguments that it exist. Personally I would have waited or at most said no consensus. 16x9 (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well WP:RELIST does not permit relists when people have commented. And given all of the comments after the relist were keep, it moved it that way. Also No Consensus defaults to Keep, so it is the same effective close. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

How did you determine keep? was it a vote to you? 16x9 (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

See User:MBisanz/AfD for a more detailed discussion. In this case several established users disagreed over the notability of the article. The promotional nature of it was cited as a reason to delete and was corrected by a user. OwenBlacker provided several sources. That tipped it to Keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I would add that the subject is clearly notable and to me, it was nowhere near close to a delete. I missed the AfD but this is a clear keep.  Frank  |  talk  02:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank Frank, but most of those are PR. I guess I will agree to disagree.

BRFA request

I'm still "getting there" with Bot flagging, so forgive a stupid question, but it appears that SoxBotVI has long had its flag? --Dweller (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, that means the flagging crat never updated the approved page, it is Cobi's fault here. Also, if you want an easier way to update the page, you can change {{BRFA|SoxBot VI|2|Approved|22:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)}} to {{subst:BRFAA|SoxBot VI|2|Flagged|22:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)}} and it'll make the botlinks code for you. MBisanz ^talk 21:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Fred M. Levin

Can you explain to me how canvassing clearly happened? Which on of these did I violate? I used limited scale, a neutral message, audience was non-partisan, and it was done in the open. although several people said Levin was not notable as a scholar, no one discussed the issue that I raised that perhaps he should not be judged as a scholar but as a therapist. You also said that I attacked people. Where in the deletion review did I attack anyone? Mwalla (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)mwalla

	Scale		Message		Audience		Transparency
Friendly notice	Limited posting	AND	Neutral	AND	Nonpartisan	AND	Open
	↕		↕		↕		↕
Inappropriate canvassing	Mass posting	OR	Biased	OR	Partisan	OR	Secret
Term	Excessive cross-posting		Campaigning		Votestacking		Stealth canvassing

FYI, I've already tried explaining to Mwalla that he's getting rather WP:POINTy about this, but got reverted. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Your message was not neutral and you asked for help at the AFD, that is canvassing. MBisanz ^talk 23:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

FlatPress

I would like you to reconsider the deletion of FlatPress article. If you look at the Weblog software article, "Free and open source software" section, three of the first four applications have less content than the FlatPress article. Also, FlatPress is one of the few applications that do not require a database, only a web server and PHP. Alexandrul.ct (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlatPress was open 10 days and had many users supporting deletion. I suggest you find more reliable sources documenting it and then take it to WP:Requests for undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me butting in here, but see if this one would help:
Blogging for Dummies
by Brad Hill
ISBN 0471770841
pg 369
I'd think that would handle WP:N and WP:RS...--Tothwolf (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Kentico CMS

The discussion for the AfD on this article was closed by you with the comment "The result was no consensus." Since I voted and argued to keep the article, this is fine with me as the net result is to keep. But I'm wondering how you can say there was no consensus??? The majority of people who took the time to comment voted to "keep". Proxy User (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

A couple of the keep comments were made by WP:SPA accounts, in particular, 194.213.50.164's was not based on any part of our policy. In the end though, the comments by yourself and JulesH though did balance it into an NC. MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Greenfinger AfD redirect

Following the result of this AfD discussion which you closed as "keep", the nominator chose to redirect the page. This redirect was contested, and the nominator redirected again with the summary: "the consensus was NOT to keep the article. in any case, redirecting an article is not a matter for AfD.". While technically true that AfD does not have authority over redirects, I believe forcing this action is contrary to the spirit of your AfD close. Your views on this matter would be appreciated. (I am a previously-uninvolved third party.) – 74  03:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

AFD does not preclude a redirect. Redirects can be decided at an article regardless of the AFD result. Disruption can be handled at WP:AN/EW. MBisanz ^talk 04:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The redirect in question cited the comments in the AfD as consensus for redirect. While I agree that the article can be redirected/merged outside of AfD, this particular usage seems biased to me, occurring 17 minutes after you presumably didn't feel consensus favored redirect (unless you are opposed to closing as "Redirect" for technical reasons?). – 74  04:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

My reason for keeping the article is that Andrewjlockley indicated there was new information and Stifle agreed. Redirection can be decided at the article's talk page, and deleting the article makes it more difficult if the talk page later decides to copy it to another wiki. MBisanz ^talk 06:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

JasonR

Hey there.

I wandered across your post to Ed Poor's talk page regarding User:JasonR's access level. This may have already been answered, but I don't see it here...

JasonR was an employee of Bomis before Wikipedia took off, and he did some programming work for Wikimedia and was granted rights for doing a few specific tasks in software management. This was before teh wiki had graphics or any sort of popularity. To my knowledge he no longer works for the foundation or Wikia.

Happy editing to you. Keegan^talk 08:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that is the sort of thing I had been hearing in poking around, but your confirmation is good. MBisanz ^talk 08:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Holy Cow

So I logged in this morning, saw the RfA talk page, saw the RfdeR, and thought, "How long until Jimbo steps in?" Sure enough, didn't take much more than my twelve hour shift. I agree with you that it was supposed to be a theoretical debate but damn, that ball got ran with. Good job starting the discussion though, now we have the precedent of "There seems to be an incorrect assumption and undercurrent here, though, which is some notion that the community has the sole and sovereign right to determine who is given the admin bit. This is not true, has never been true, and will never be true." I've been waiting to read that for a long while. Good stuff, IMO, came out of this though it will be a long while to sort out the pieces. 99.206.202.180 (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, that was me. My thirty-day cookie expired. Keegan^talk 06:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Tige Boats

I see the page I authored was deleted by you. I do need a question answered though, why does one person saying "delete" constitute deletion? Apparently sources are irrelevant according to you and wikipedia.

User:Mr Senseless (talk · contribs) and TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) supported deletion, no one other than you opposed it during the 10 day period, they showed a lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, per the deletion policy I closed as delete, you can appeal the decision at WP:DRV. MBisanz ^talk 23:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thanks for all your work in AfD and RfD!!! §hawnpoo 23:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll second the barnstar and I also would like to let you know that I found your conduct at the recall exemplary. Synergy 00:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A comment on your system for recall

Hello Matt. You survived a trial of your own process! Here's a few advantages of your system:

1. Asking the filer to specify the admin powers misused
2. Use of clerks, which makes your scheme more believable
3. Short time interval (48 hours)
4. The person who wants to recall you has a choice. They can file under your scheme, or they can open a conventional de-adminship proceeding.

I wonder if the threshold for filing a case could be made higher. Even an WP:RFC/U needs two people to certify. If you were truly abusing admin powers, wouldn't at least two people be mad at you? Asking the filer to have at least 600 edits would be another idea. I notice that the people to whom admin recalls are advertised get grumpy if they think a minor issue has been treated as grounds for de-adminship. Making it slightly harder to file a request could be beneficial to them as well as you. (Even if your scheme put higher standards on the filer, anyone could still file a conventional de-adminship proceeding, so nobody would be disenfranchised from recalling you).

In your recall form, what is the purpose of the heading 'Editors who agree with filer'? It seems that only the votes of administrators will count towards a recall. Is your form intended as a place for anyone to add comments and discussion, or do you just want the signatures of the five admins who support recall? EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In the original version a recall needed admins and editors, I changed that later after seeing other admins' recall processes. I'm toying with the idea of some higher bar for filing, I don't like edit count, so I was toying with something like "rollback or admin userright" or maybe "100 edits and 30 days". I should know a little later. MBisanz ^talk 03:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hussein el gebaly

Was not no consensus, you should reconsider and take the arguments and policies into account or extended the time it was up for vote.Troyster87 (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:RELIST only permits relist if there is a lack of comments, established users had comment in favor and in opposition to deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hussein el gebaly, no consensus was the only possible close. MBisanz ^talk 05:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)