Jump to content

User talk:Jake Wartenberg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gazimoff (talk | contribs) at 00:21, 1 November 2009 (→‎Request for examples of no-consensus deletions: resp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Jake Wartenberg/header

  • I will probably reply here.

Click here to leave me a message

The Signpost
8 June 2024
 

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)[reply]

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

strider11 problems

I unclosed Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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

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 Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

See here. Best, — Jake Wartenberg 00:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]

(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)[reply]
Done, thanks. — Jake Wartenberg 00:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • I agree. I'm taking a 24 hour break from this issue. Varks Spira (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

      • 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)[reply]
        • the rule that a non-consensus BLP can be closed as delete. What rule? Where is it? JohnWBarber (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • [I crossed this out, but now I'm removing the cross-out line] 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 [1] 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)[reply]
  • 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. --Cyclopiatalk 02:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 | Talk 02:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • (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)[reply]
  • I think you caught a version that was BOLDly changed and then reverted. Hobit (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • There was a discussion on this earlier this year [2]. 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)[reply]

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. [3] 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 talk|contribs 03:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 talk|contribs 02:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --Cyclopiatalk 11:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Yll Hoxha

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

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)[reply]
In his defense, he hadn't yet changed the policy. :-) Hobit (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those comments are unnecessary. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the barnstar is a lot more inflammatory. Hobit (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you're not going to respond to this, I'm going to open a DRV. Please respond to the first query. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is more complex than whether Yll was more notable; there are many factors to consider. In the case of Shankbone one of the things I was worried about was sourcing (see Risker's vote at the AfD). It is within an administrator's discretion to default to delete or not; of course, a DRV would be meritless. — Jake Wartenberg 03:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you chose not to delete Yll Hoxha? You were not concerned over the sourcing there? Which of the sources in that article provides evidence of notability? Hipocrite (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Re: The "AFD"

The Admin's Barnstar
For your close at Wikipedia: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)[reply]
Thanks. — Jake Wartenberg 21:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Request for examples of no-consensus deletions

You wrote in the DRV: "The intent in making that edit [to the deletion policy] 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 talk|contribs 02:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 talk|contribs 02:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 talk|contribs 02:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

(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. --Cyclopiatalk 02:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Your stance on most things BLP is laughable, what's your point? Lara 12:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That would be sample bias, she looked through the contributions of admins she could remember closing afds that way. ViridaeTalk 13:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I just went through those admins' contribs, sort of sporadically, because my time is limited. Lara 16:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia, 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? --Cyclopiatalk 13:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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) ViridaeTalk 13:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Cyclopiatalk 13:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[4] ViridaeTalk 13:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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? --Cyclopiatalk 13:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can. It's a different person. Hipocrite (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Cyclopiatalk 13:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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. --Cyclopiatalk 20:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Disagreeing with you implies a topic ban? --Cyclopiatalk 23:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

I'm not championing the opposite position, Scott. What I think about BLPs and what I think about Jake's actions are entirely separate. I think he abused the tools when he performed that deletion, after expressing a view in the DRV, and after changing the policy to suit his purposes, but without mentioning he'd done so when he overturned Hersfold's closure. And then to make matters much, much worse, he said that his change to the policy and his deletion of the article were entirely unconnected. That's very poor behavior, and no one should be telling him otherwise.
As for the BLP issue, I did propose two years ago that delete be the default position on BLPs, and I supported that until this happened. Lara's list of deletions that Lar has undertaken, using the default-to-delete position, include at least a couple that seem inappropriate, but I'll have to read the articles carefully and look for sources before I can be sure. When I wrote that proposal, my intention was to help borderline subjects who don't want bios. I didn't intend to help people have articles deleted simply because they didn't like the subjects or their politics, so I'm having to rethink my position. But I can't do that properly until I've carefully read the sources for the articles Lara listed.
Regardless of any of the above, when a policy proposal fails, it has failed. Admins shouldn't act as though it hasn't failed. That's one of the key issues here. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I ought to clarify that, when I wrote above that I didn't intend to help people have articles deleted just because they don't like them, I wasn't implying that I thought Lar had done that in the deletions Lara listed. I was speaking generally, not about that particular list. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote that proposal, my intention was to help borderline subjects who don't want bios. That's not what you proposed. (Emphasis mine):
"When the biography of a living person is submitted for deletion, whether at the request of the subject or not, the default presumption in favor of retention is reversed. That is, if there is no consensus to keep the BLP in the opinion of the closing admin, the article will be deleted."[5]
Just so everyone is clear. Lara 06:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lara mixed up examples of several different kinds of deletions in the list she gave above. I've separated out here the ones that are no consensus deletions of BLPs that had independent sources, where the subject had not requested deletion. That list is here. There are six of them, deleted by three admins (four by Lar, one by Fritzpoll, and one by MZMcBride]. Six examples isn't enough to show that it's common practice to delete non-consensus BLPs without the subject requesting it, and some of them do seem quite notable, so it's not clear why they were deleted. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Just a few will do." That's what you asked for. That's what you got. Your opinion that they were "quite notable" would perhaps have served them better had you made it in their AFDs. However, others disagreed with you. Why they were deleted not only seems quite clear considering what's being discussed, but can be ascertained by reading the closing admins' rationales. Lara 13:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it seems Sarah's position bends with the wind of politics. As has been pointed out, and as she well knows, the proposal she put forward is that ALL BLP's would require a consensus to keep, regardless of the subject's wishes. Further, I find it frustrating that she now seems to care more about process and stamping on an admin for a poor judgement call in changing a policy page before closing a debate. This is the same type of myopic in-house battling that basically drove me from this project. Do we really do nothing about BLP abuse, in order to save the odd Shankbone bio? It is the "straining on gnats whilst swallowing camels" nonsense that makes it impossible to have a sensible debate about changing working practices to ensure our content is less damaging because people are too concerned with some internal spat. Sarah, I thought you were one of the deeper thinkers, with an ability to ask questions of "the impact of wikipedia on Society" rather than just on some petty inhouse rules. The point of "default to delete" was never about the odd Daniel Brandt or Shankbone article (both of which are atypical articles and bad case studies) it was always about lifting the inclusion threshold on low notability BLPs to create a culture where we'd start removing many of these useless and unmaintainable articles a percentage of which do real damage to real lives.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a goose-gander equivalence problem here. Have you considered that trying to change the policy on the back of a politically motivated deletion of a biography of someone who raised the ire of a group of max-level wikipedians is "straining on gnats whilst swallowing camels" nonsense? How many of these new "aredent BLP deleitionsts" showed up when someone proposed that we allow admins to speedy articles of subjects of minor notability that requested deletion? Camelsfleas and all. If you rope the BLP debate into this morrass, well, best of luck. Hipocrite (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes. As I said, this article is a rotten test case for any number of reasons. Not only will radical inclusionsist and the "we have no responsibility to living people" brigade oppose it defaulting to delete, there's no doubt a morass of people who either react to the subject himself, or who want to keep because "wikipedia is the centre of the universe". Equally, there's folk shouting for deletion for a number of personal reasons. Personally, I couldn't care whether Shankbone has an article or not. I'm commenting because I find Sarah's new-found animosity to the principle of "default to delete" surprising.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. If I was aware that default to delete was formally proposed, I probably would have supported it back in the ago, because I wouldn't have been able to think of an instance where default-to-delete could be used to harm a living person. Now I can - if, for instance, DS really cared about having a wikipedia biography (perhaps he mentioned the bio to someone?), then our default-to-delete of that article based on the political will of a bunch of max-level wikipedians who dislike DS would have harmed him. Now, unlike the people who are harmed by being called goat-rapists, it's not our responsibility to provide a biography on every marginaly notable person that wants one. However, previously, there was nothing to weigh against default to delete. Now, there's vengence AFDs promulgated by individuals of questionable motive. So, from someone who would have been a default to deleter, I'll tell you that I no longer support default to delete for individuals who have not or would not be expected to request it. Hipocrite (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hipocrite, please reflect on what you've just said. Really? You'd honestly weight the "harm" of some wikipedian being denied a BLP for vengeance reasons (if that's what happened - I dunno) with numerous innocent people being called "goat rapists"? Can I suggest that lacks all proportionality? No one is obliged to participate in Wikipedia, and the ultimate defence for any user who is adversely affected by participation is to leave. The alleged "goat rapist" has no choice, and no option to disengage. I'm afraid this is the type of "in house stuff matters more than real-world stuff" I was complaining about. I'm inviting you to reflect on it, because from my recollection your moral reasoning is normally fine.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not much good faith there Hipocrite, and it turns out you're missing a key point of information. One person we know is bringing politics, questionable motives, and the like to the table is User:JohnWBarber, now blocked as a sock of User:Noroton. Obviously the former account initiated the DRV and argued strongly for keeping the article in the AfD. Except Noroton has a severely negative view of David Shankbone ("you appall me", said Noroton in that diff). So why does he so desperately want the article kept? Hard to say, but pardon me if I don't assume good faith. You lack any evidence for bad faith and nefarious motivations among those who supported deleting the article, yet there's clear circumstantial evidence that the most prominent voice for keeping the article and overturning the deletion would love to make Shankbone look bad if possible. Ironically this kind of agenda-based editing of a BLP article on a prominent Wikipedian was a significant part of the delete rationale of many who commented in the AfD. Please meditate on that a minute, and then ask yourself if "default to delete" was actually used here to harm a living person, or if it was invoked as a way to prevent the kind of harmful editing that User:JohnWBarber or someone similar probably intended to engage in were the article kept. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple max-level wikipedians have commented negatively (over and over and over) on Mr. Shankbone at wikipedia review. I suggest that Noroton's revolting motive is to have as many people as possible comment negatively on Mr. Shankbone's notability here in an attempt to make him feel bad. Hipocrite (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a remarkable interpretation. I don't go in for trashing other Wikipedians at WR (I don't participate there, though I'll read it from time to time), but I know Noroton is one who has done that. If Mr. Shankbone is truly offended by people commenting negatively about his notability (it's objectively true that he's not very notable, and I'm sure he would admit that), then he has amazingly thin skin. I'm guessing he can handle it, so the line of attack you are proposing is not very plausible. Far more likely that the JohnWBarber account planned to bring "balance" to the Shankbone article later by adding whatever negative material he possibly could. Regardless, the fact remains that the article has proven to be a magnet for folks who would like to defame him, and our inability to guard against that is part of why people thought we should delete it. Your "David will be sad if he doesn't have an article, or if people say he is not very notable" sounds like it's coming from an alternative universe. I have no agenda or even firm opinions about the fellow, I just don't think we can do a good job with an article about him and we don't at all need it to be a good encyclopedia. I think that's where most of the "delete" people were. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many other shitty articles, why start the crusade on this one? And, let's be clear - the 'review Conspiracy Theory dujour is something about David orhastrating the entire keep campaign and writing the article and owning a newspaper or something - oh, tossed in with high-level wikipedians making gay-jokes ("Might be jackin' on asses though." from a sysop and 'crat on another project). Hipocrite (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I'm having second thoughts about default-to-delete is that I see now how it's being used. I'm currently rewriting the John Theon article that was recently deleted under this principle; see here for my version. That a BLP like this gets deleted is worrying, and any policy that's being used to justify this kind of deletion needs to be re-written to limit its application. Scott, you shouldn't claim I'm a "deep thinker" when you agree with me, then decide I'm just shifting in the wind when you don't. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That a few useful (and I don't think this is) bios get taken out is collateral well worth paying for doing something to protect innocent people. Wikipedia sometimes seems content to injure innocent people and only agree to change systems to protect them if there's absolutely no cost to any aspect of the project. I'd rather say that the current level of BLP damage is morally outrageous and Wikipedia has no moral right to protect a system that does this damage. I think deleting all biographies with this low level of notability is a price worth paying to remove hundreds of targets we cannot maintain.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen many examples of default-to-delete being used to protect innocent people. Its main use seems to be to delete BLPs that the subject hasn't objected to, but that editors don't like. That's wasn't what I had in mind when I proposed it 2007.
I agree that we need a default-to-delete for subjects who have complained. I support that without an AfD. If a borderline subject doesn't want a bio, he shouldn't have one, in my view, period. We also need to make it easier for subjects to lodge an objection with OTRS. I would support us having drop-down boxes on BLPs, displaying a dedicated BLP OTRS email address, manned by experienced editors.
But the issue of BLPs where the subject doesn't object is a different kettle of fish. There, we're into pure notability issues, and we don't have a sensible notability policy for living persons. Therefore, default-to-delete is being applied randomly, based on personal and political preference, which is bringing it into disrepute (perhaps unfairly) and that's why several people have changed their minds about it. It's a good thing when people change their minds in the face of new evidence or arguments, Scott. It shows they're willing to think the issues through.
One step forward would be to try to develop a coherent BLP notability policy. This seems to be the current page for people in general. It's not policy, and it's quite hard to follow. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 09:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise

Only allowing default to delete for "subjects who have complained" is too Wikipedia centric, too insular. What about BLPs that damage subjects, but the subjects haven't found their way here yet? Not everyone watches to see if they all of a sudden got a bio they have to worry about. ++Lar: t/c 20:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. Perhaps a compromise would be to have an opt-in system for borderline BLPs. That would satisfy people who are worrying default-to-delete will remove valid BLPs that no one's objecting to. We could retain default-to-keep, but only if the editors who want the article can show the subject has agreed to have one. Otherwise default to delete. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's something that I'd be happy to agree with. We already have a permissions system with OTRS for photographs etc, and it would be easy to extend that to biographical permissions as well. A suitable notice on the article talkpage with an OTRS link, and a pro-forma for them to consent to via email explaining how the bio would be maintained would be ideal. Gazimoff 21:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I as well see this as a good compromise. The loose end is what of those folk who don't respond when contacted? (or don't respond in time for the end of the AfD? ... since I assume we'd not necessarily notify all several hundred thousand folk at once I am guessing this would be done if an AfD was started? Or would it be more of an effort to start the wheels turning on reaching out to everyone?) I suppose that until the bio comes up at AfD it doesn't matter. A thought, if the person didn't respond in time, the closing admin could close saying "this one's marginal enough that it is a delete IF evidence comes in that the subject does not want it" and if it does, no new AfD/DRV would be needed??? ++Lar: t/c 22:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it could also be closed as NN but speedy restore if approval comes back post-deletion in order to circumvent DRV? Gazimoff 23:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We would have to work out the details, but thinking out loud: we could add to BLP and the deletion policy that the onus is on editors wishing to create or maintain a borderline BLP to ensure that the subject is informed of its existence, and agrees to it. We could create a form email for people to send out, pointing out to the subject that BLPs may contain both positive and negative information. The subject's email agreeing or objecting will be sent to OTRS, as with images. If the subject agrees, an OTRS ticket is added to the BLP talk page. If anyone proposes the BLP for deletion, we default to delete if there is no OTRS ticket, and we default to keep if there is.
This would apply only to borderline BLPs. Now, the problem it doesn't solve is vanity BLPs. There, the subject could create it, email OTRS to say its existence has his permission, and then we'd have to default to keep during any AfD. But it would solve the problem of attack BLPs, or BLPs where the subject is unaware of its existence.
To address Lar's objection: yes, this would be an effort to start turning the wheels. Anyone who has created a borderline BLP is hereby informed that they'd better make sure the subject doesn't mind, because otherwise if it's proposed for deletion, we default to delete. If a subject doesn't respond in time, but does later, any admin can reconsider the deletion using default to keep criteria instead. It sounds a little complicated, but really it's not. We already make editors jump through hoops to get image releases. All we're doing here is creating a few hoops to get borderline-BLP releases. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that crosses all the t's and dots all the i's... I'm on board. Let's bounce it around a bit more, somewhere more public, (just to make sure we 3 are not missing something) and then make it happen. It will require some new forms and maybe even a new OTRS queue but it's very doable. ++Lar: t/c 12:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should we propose it as a separate policy, or propose adding it to BLP and deletion policy? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I couldn't disagree more. No magazine, newspaper, book, or encyclopedia ever requires a "opt-in" to talk about a subject, and there is no compelling reason for WP for being different. One thing is being concerned about BLP impact on people life, another is to indulge to subject's whims by default. --Cyclopiatalk 12:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream publications have all kinds of editorial processes that we don't have. For example, if a reporter were to start writing an article about a person of borderline interest, and that person were to contact the editor to say the reporter had been in a personal dispute with him, and was now planning to write an article, the editor would step in. We lack all that, which is why we need some safeguards. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But we have editorial processes that mainstream publications don't have. Mainstream publications don't have constant peer review and are not constantly edited and remorphed by their own readers. In the case you cite, the editor would maybe step in, or maybe not, depending on what she thinks better for the magazine. The point is simple: Editorial decisions on what goes and what goes not in WP should depend from WP editors, not depend of on the will of the article subjects. We're an encyclopedia, not a PR engine nor a charity. --Cyclopiatalk 15:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone recently provided a number for the BLPs that no one has on their watchlist. I forget the figure but it was very high. It's because we're an encyclopaedia that we should be more careful with BLPs, and if the only way to do that is to ensure the subject is alerted, then so be it. Other reputable encyclopaedias don't include bios of marginal subjects. Publications that do, such as Debretts, not only obtain the subject's permission, but the subject gets to write his entry too. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can go with this. I'd suggest wording along the lines of:

"In the case of AfDs of living persons, where notability is an issue, and there is no consensus to keep the article, the closing administrator should close the debate as a default to delete, unless there is good reason to believe that the subject of the article is content to have an article on Wikipedia. If an article is deleted under this provision, and the subject's consent is later obtained, any administrator may summarily undelete the article. If consent is subsequently withdrawn, the article may only be deleted after a fresh deletion discussion.
"However, even where an article has the subject's consent, it may still be deleted if it meets the speedy deletion criteria or there is a regular consensus to delete it at AfD."

"Good reason" should normally mean OTRS, but common sense should prevail here. We should also have a page which we can point subjects to, which explains that 1) even if they do not consent, the community may still decide to keep the article. 2) what the pros and cons of an article are - the need to know that whilst we strive to uphold our BLP policy, we cannot promise this will always be successful.

Just some thoughts.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's good, but I like the idea of an OTRS ticket too, along the lines of image releases. Would that be complicated to set up? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS is fine. I just would want us not to be too rule-bound to it. There would seem little point in insisting that David Shankbone contact OTRS, or that we need to confirm that Daniel Brandt doesn't want an article. Some things will be obvious. We only need to insist on OTRS where there is doubt. The OTRS team can also be hard pressed, and if they start contacting subjects, by e-mail then you will tend to get those subjects corresponding with the OTRS team about the details of the BLP, and that (from experience) doesn't work. OTRS can remove clear BLP violation, but they can't help subjects beyond that: a fact subjects don't often understand. People will e-mail in to correct facts, and don't understand that their own testimony in an e-mail will not satisfy WP:V and can't be used to convince the non-OTRS editor who reverts to the error.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really really like the idea that when a subject writes to OTRS to object to an article (as they often do), that an OTRS op and nominate the article for deletion, and certify that they subject has objected and thus that the article must be deleted unless there is a consensus that Wikipedia required the article. That seems to me a good step forward.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. My other idea wasn't that OTRS should get involved as such. Simply that we consider creating a ticket system, similar to the one we have for images. So there would be an OTRS ticket on the BLP page: "The subject of this biography is aware of its existence and does not object, though this does not imply acceptance of the contents of any given version" (something like that). It would be up to the editors who want to keep the article to correspond with the subject, secure consent, and forward that consent to OTRS. Just like images. And only for borderline BLPs. With an OTRS ticket=default to keep if it's ever nominated for deletion. Without an OTRS ticket=default to delete. And then, in addition, your idea: any subject who complains to OTRS will trigger an OTRS AfD, which will default to delete (so long the nomination won't attract unwelcome and damaging attention, which will be for the OTRS person to judge). SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS is a good vehicle because it's set up to track these sorts of permissions-ish things. But I think we're all agreeing that it's not the only way to document this, and reasonableness is a good approach. ++Lar: t/c 23:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definately agree with you. So, what are the next steps? Are we at the stage where a proposal can be drafted, or is it worth checking with Cary first from an OTRS perspective? Gazimoff 23:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fired off a note to Cary. I'm assuming that logistically it's not that hard to create a new OTRS queue but that first there has to be a demonstrated need and a process to use it. I think setting up the queue won't be the hardest part of this :) ++Lar: t/c 00:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. I think we'll have to support in drafting some process examples, both as part of the proposal and as part of the set of materials for the OTRS-wiki in order to make sure the agents are comfortable with what's required. Gazimoff 00:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

You are right, I should have specified a process. I use this one. — Jake Wartenberg 11:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The process I linked to is the one you should use. — Jake Wartenberg 21:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree that it is fair to say that the default process would have applied up until today, per your statement on the matter at your RfA? The process you have chosen to use from today forward specifically prescribes a two week grace period before any changes to its content (and presumably any switch to that process itself) take effect. user:J aka justen (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recall is a voluntary process. If you wish to use it and have it actually go anywhere, you must respect Jake's wishes in this regard and use the criteria he linked to. NW (Talk) 01:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If an administrator has committed to the process, withdrawing from it or significantly altering the criteria would be widely viewed as problematic (made clear by the "grace period" present in the criteria User:Jake Wartenberg has asked to be used going forward). In any event, I have asked him to clarify a point that only he can clarify. user:J aka justen (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NuclearWarfare is correct. — Jake Wartenberg 01:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 T 22:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could not more strongly reject your allegation that my only purpose in beginning the steps towards a recall petition "serves no other purpose than to be inflammatory," and I regret the tactics being employed here to attempt to quash such a petition. If you believe there is no merit in such a recall, then we disagree, but my motives are not in bad faith and they are not designed to be "inflammatory," your assertions otherwise notwithstanding. Unfortunately, User:Jake Wartenberg made a series of escalating errors in judgment that have set a very dangerous and very unacceptable precedent: that administrators, in order to reach their intended result, can circumvent consensus and policy through an apparently deliberate lack of transparency, without any concrete accountability whatsoever. I recognize that he has only been an administrator for two months, and I agree that everyone should be able to learn from their errors, but the lapses in judgment he made here, and his subsequent efforts to circumvent a community-driven recall petition, were not simple mistakes. As evident at the deletion review and the relevant policy talk page, User:Jake Wartenberg has severely damaged the trust the community has placed in him, and that damage cannot be ignored. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you've gotten the idea that Jake's lost the community's trust. I'd very much like to see evidence to support this claim. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If he accepts that he has made a mistake, he would do well to reverse it. A single mistake that is corrected obviously would not lead to recall -- but when someone simply lets the cement dry it's rather hard to see that that person accepts that there was indeed a mistake. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think he admits he's made some mistakes with how he handled things. Unfortunately reversing them isn't as easy as hitting the undo button. For deletions, we have DRV. Other processes have similar mechanisms. Sometimes it is better to let the stone come to rest rather than trying to catch it as it falls. Gazimoff 22:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DRV became necessary only when Jake failed to heed calls to undo his close of the AfD. As evident here, this was a considered decision. What exactly is the point of saying "I did it wrong but I'm not going to fix it"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recognizing a mistake doesn't necessarily lead directly to reversing it - in this case, reversing it would short-circuit an ongoing debate and require yet another close (and probably another DRV). Many people have commented (as has Jake) that he made some mistakes in how this was handled; many have also said they endorse the outcome despite those mistakes. Cure might be worse than the disease in this case. Nathan T 23:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a recall over a single bad close, even an egregiously bad close seems to be really pushing it. I disagree strongly with Jake's close but am fully confident in Jake's ability to continue as an admin. I have full faith in his ability to use the tools appropriately. Recalling over this is a really bad idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan wrote, We don't recall administrators over a single ill-advised action, particularly when they admit their errors and undertake not to repeat them. That's not true, though it should be. Jake being recalled for this is unnecessary, however. Lara 03:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He revised a policy, and pointed people to it without mentioning he had just made a very significant revision (under a very inaccurate edit summary). He closed a deletion debate he was inarguably involved in, one minute following the close of discussion. These aren't minutiae. If he were to say, clearly and without reservation: "In retrospect, there were serious flaws with my close, and I should not have been the one to make the close," then we all wouldn't be here, we would be at the deletion review. Nowhere, that I see, has he acknowledged that he made any errors whatsoever here, and nowhere has he promised to review the decisions he made, determine what he should not have done, and said he will refrain from making those mistakes again. If he were to have done these things, I wouldn't be here. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a valid point. Certainly this is close to the limit of what sort of behavior would be considered requiring a recall. Some further indication from Jake that he understands how egregious his actions were would be helpful. So far, we're not seeing that. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He explicitly acknowledged his mistake; I'm not sure what more you could want. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is no single action. Everyone can make a mistake, but nobody is fit to be an administrator who would make a bad faith change in a disputed policy--it's that, rather than the close, that we should focus one: actually single handedly changing an important and much disputed policy to a version that had been rejected by the community, hiding it with a deceptive edit summary, and then immediately using it to close an AfD in a way that supported his previous opinion. This may be a one time occurrence. But nobody who had done such a thing even once ever would be confirmed as an administrator. That you did it makes it difficult for us to trust you again. You are now quibbling over the details of what procedure to use. If you were honest about the use of recall, you would facilitate a vote, not try to evade it. I think you are making a bad situation worse. There may perhaps be some explanation adequate to this, but i have yet to hear it. I could imagine many, but none of them quite explain this. I hope you will think better about this tomorrow, and make recall unnecessary; there is only one honourable course at this point. Lara knows what it is, & since she was honourable , she followed it herself. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1/ "rephrase" is not deceptive. That was the wording of the edit summary, no?
2/ Who first made the claim that the edit summary was deceptive. Does anyone know? Lara 03:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, my recall criteria are good. If a recall is so important, people should be happy to use it. Furthermore, the more "honorable" admins we have stepping down, the fewer honorable admins we have doing work. Being on the other side of the glass, so to speak, that argument makes no sense to me anymore. Lara 03:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lara, "rephrase" clearly implies a change in phrasing that would not have any meaningful effect on the intent or impact of the language. His change significantly modified the policy, the extent to which we can all see now on the talk page of that policy. I'm not sure who first interpreted his edit summary as "deceptive," but I'd prefer to simply call it really inaccurate. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I believe I know who made the original claim, but because I'm not sure, I won't assert it. However, I'll research it and if I'm correct, the same editor who first made this claim has a history of making significant changes to pages (including policies) and using edit summaries that not only are 100% deceptive and wholly unrelated to the changes actually being made, but also marks them as minor. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I know. But there is a difference in being deceptive, attempting to cover what one has done and prevent others from seeing it, and using an edit summary that is not detailed enough. He changed the wording. In my opinion, "rephrase" is not deceptive, rather it is vague. I'm not defending what's he's done here with the policy and the DRV. Not something I would have done, but recall is extreme. Lara 03:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lara, don't drag me into this in such an oblique way, using WR's criticism of me. Every single word you post here in Jake's defence, you dig him deeper into the hole. What started off looking as though he was badly advised on IRC, and was too young and naive to stand up to it, is now looking like something much worse. If you want to discuss me, do it on my talk page.
Jake, if you want to stop your reputation from being shredded any further, you might consider ditching the advice of your friends and speaking for yourself, because they are not helping your cause one bit. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for saving me the research. I didn't advise Jake to do anything, by the way, in case anyone is taking Slim's comments to be a reference to me. I was notified of both the policy change and the DRV close after the fact, playing no part in either. Lara 04:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, last time I checked, Requests for arbitration was not abbreviated WR. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV#SlimVirgin. Lara 04:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're not helping Jake by trying to undermine his critics, and by speaking for him when he should be speaking for himself. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. And I'm not trying. When people want to rake someone over the coals for something, it's worth noting when they've made the same mistake, multiple times, and to a much harsher degree. You're pushing for his resignation, so maybe you should spend a little more time reflecting inward and a little less time trying to strong arm your opposition. Lara 06:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to let that stand, no matter how often you say it. I've written and helped to maintain several policies, and my editing there can in no way be compared to what he did, and then how he used what he did. Stop trying to undermine people who are criticizing him. If you care about him at all, you'll help him to see that his actions, and more importantly how he responded to the criticism, was quite wrong. So long as you behave like this, you're making him think it was okay, and that it's really his critics who're in the wrong. The other thing you're doing is helping to undermine the BLP position you support. You've even turned me against it, which took quite some doing. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slim, there's a comment from Scott MacDonald above in need of your attention, if you would, please. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know Jake Wartenberg from Adam, but I know he screwed up here—basically twice (revising the policy page and closing the AfD), but they are part of the same broader mistake of not stepping back and seeing how bad what he was doing looked and in fact was. It was bad judgment, but no one has presented evidence that this was part of a pattern of bad judgments. If it was a one-off mistake, I don't think resigning adminship is necessary, and it seems unlikely Jake will be convinced to do that since there is hardly overwhelming consensus that this is worthy of desysop or resignation. Jake says his recall process is this, which requires the complainant to argue that Jake has abused admin privileges twice in six months. Those calling for Jake to step down or submit to recall should do one of two things, or both: 1) Investigate his past admin actions and see if he has made similar significant errors before (I gather he has not been an admin long so this should not be difficult); 2) Keep an eye on his activity in the months ahead, and if you see another major or even moderate screw up, initiate the recall process. If there is no evidence of past malfeasance, and if Jake does not make other significant errors in the next six months, that would suggest this was a one-time mistake, which human beings do make from time to time. This is a rather long way of saying that there's not much to talk about here on this user talk page. If you don't think Jake should retain adminship, you should probably start looking for past indiscretions or take the matter to ArbCom, though it's extremely unlikely they would take a case on this matter. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to waive the "twice in six months" requirement. — Jake Wartenberg 04:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recall requests made during the drama are meant as punishment for actions, not to prevent damage to the project. Reasoned requests are made after the dust has settled and the entire picture can be examined, including looking at past records and weighing all of it objectively. This is why many of the recall criteria have a mandatory breathe week. It's also why you find a lot of admins will suddenly go inactive when they find themselves in hot water. Rushing these things leads to the loss of good admins. Lara 04:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec with Lara) Well there you go. Anyone is now able to start a recall process if they so choose, I see a couple admins in this thread who are probably willing to do that, so if you find a crat and a couple of other users you're off and running. I think it was smart of Jake to loosen the requirements here (get rid of the requirement for a crat—which to me at least is far too restrictive—if you really want to "facilitate" a recall as DGG suggests above), and opening himself up more easily to recall should count for something in terms of administrator ethics and the like. I don't think he should fear a recall request since it strikes me as unlikely that a majority would support him losing the bit. Interestingly a couple of the admins who criticize Jake above (and don't get me wrong, I basically agree with their criticisms, if not their view that he should resign), do not seem to be in CAT:AOR themselves. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Opening himself up more easily to recall should count for something..." That would be true if he hadn't walled himself off to begin with. The default process, which presumably he subscribed to before today, puts it succinctly: "...this [process] presents a default procedure and set of criteria which may be chosen as a fallback at recall time to reduce controversy." user:J aka justen (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you undoubtedly know, most admins are not even in the recall category. I am, and my process is designed to be a lot less restrictive than the one Jake is using (which to me has far too many hoops to jump through before it really begins), but we should be glad he is using one at all, and that he has now loosened it significantly, making it possible for you to initiate a recall right now. No one is stopping you from doing that, and since you have a couple of admins in this thread who would probably support you I'm guessing you have a good chance of bringing the matter to a vote. Rather than leaving more comments here that further assume bad faith ("walled himself off to begin with"?--how on earth do you know that's what he was doing?), why not get to it with the recall business? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. And we would probably all benefit from some time to cool down. "If, after one week of discussion, the issue is not resolved to your satisfaction, you may submit a request for my recall on this page." — Jake Wartenberg 04:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← (Mostly in response to User:Bigtimepeace.) I don't care about "the right now." I care about the issues that remain to be addressed here. You're saying yourself that the process he selected earlier for this situation is more restrictive than yours, but it is, in fact, much more restrictive than the default process, and I don't think there's anything inaccurate about saying the effect (if not the intent) was to wall him off from the majority of this community. I'm well aware that recall is a voluntary process (as people keep pointing out here for whatever reason), but proclaiming your support for the process during your RfA but then imposing significant new hurdles when a recall petition becomes a reality is an issue. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so, and obviously put that in as part of the problem when you try to recall him, which, as Jake points out, you'll have to wait a few more days to do (hardly a big deal). Surely Jake is sick of the yellow bar lighting up at the top of screen every 10 minutes, so I'll leave off commenting here again, which is probably a good idea for everyone. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justen, may I humbly suggest that WP:RFC/U is that way. Otherwise, stop flogging the dead horse. It's getting tiresome. Jake's made some mistakes and he's admitted them. He's a two month old rookie admin that's still learning the ropes and he should be given the opportunity to learn from it. If you want to continue grinding your axe, I'd suggest that there are other ways to go about it instead of arguing here every five minutes. Many thanks, Gazimoff 08:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination, a "rookie" mistake. Further, if you were concerned by the frequency of the conversation, why post your message more than three hours (not "five minutes") after the last reply? The continuous mischaracterization of these concerns is what's getting "tiresome." user:J aka justen (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We've got his goat.

As an alternative to self-flagellation or a hair shirt, I have sentenced Jake Wartenberg to penance of hard labor restoring the scapegoat above for featured picture candidacy. Yes, it's encyclopedic...believe it or not... Let's get back to editing. David Shankbone's biography really isn't worth the fuss. Durova349 04:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

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

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

Edit War (Super Hero Squad)

Hello,

You recently reviewed an edit war on a toy page. See [[6]]

It appears the war is still going on, and now it's getting heated. I checked out the forum that's being deleted, and one of their mods is suggesting that the link is continuously removed in some evil plan and that XLinkBot is being manipulated into deleting a harmless forum. The IPs aren't participating in the discussion, just getting angry that their forum link gets removed. Can you offer any further insight or help? It's just ridiculously that there's this fight over a message board for toddler toys. Tomson elite (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MC10

Hey there.

Could you explain your reasoning behind your unblocking of MC10 (talk · contribs), please? — Coren (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can. Relevant discussion can be found here. Granting this kind of unblock request is unusual because it is almost always impossible to know if the blocked user is telling the truth. In this case, though, the user had a history of good contributions to vouch for them, as well as another established user who knows him in real life. Three other users agreed that unblocking would be a good idea, so that is what I did. I hope this makes things clear. If you need me to elaborate further, don't hesitate to ask. — Jake Wartenberg 20:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, missing context.  :-) For what it's worth, I'm not sure I would have unblocked in that situation— I think there are a few two many crossing edits to make the brother story stick very well. The question was raised because MC10 popped up to comment in an unrelated sock discussion, and the block history made it seem fishy. Thanks for the explanation. — Coren (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth lobbying a Wiki Administrator?

... or are your decisions guided by factual evidence? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.99.30 (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand the question. Of course the answer to the latter question is "yes". Is there anything specific I can help you with? — Jake Wartenberg 22:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you step in to close down an ‘edit war’ over an article to what extent is the decision influenced by lobbying from one side rather than a close examination of the edit history which, let’s be honest, can be extremely boring? I'm talking about Earth Song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.99.30 (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea behind protection is to force users onto the talk page to discuss their edits, not to make judgment on what version is preferred. Of course, I did look at the diffs. — Jake Wartenberg 22:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got that. Thanks for the response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.99.30 (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GAN

Did you have a chance to finish Talk:Fears in Solitude/GA1? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jake_Wartenberg&oldid=323193778"