Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/David Shankbone

tally?

anyone keeping an eye on rough tallies of comments? jus curious :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably not, since the actual number will have little bearing on how the discussion is closed and subsequently acted upon. The closing admin (if there is one availible. At this point, after seven days, every admin to ever weild a mop at en.wikipedia should have commented here or in the original AFD) will judge an appropriate course of action based upon the strength of the arguements presented in the discussion. The number of people voting one way or another certainly have an influence, but it is usually not the primary influence, in how a discussion like this is closed. If you want to make a count and post it here, feel free, but it is likely to have little effect on the closure; since there is no magic "consensus" number that must exist to determine how the discussion will be closed. --Jayron32 05:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was curious, and I counted approximately 48 Overturn and 37 Endorse (~56.5% Overturn). But I invite people to recheck. --Cyclopia^talk 14:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The closing administrator, whoever they may be, will have to take into account those that are simply !voting keep and delete and so forth, and weigh those arguments that are actually relevant to deletion review. The raw numbers might give some idea of the alignment of the mob, but the points about the failure of the integrity of the process here is what is relevant. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I know well (and the numbers are not guaranteed at all to be right). I just was curious. --Cyclopia^talk 15:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As I expected, this DRV is pretty much becoming a No Consensus result, so whatever decision the closing admin makes is likely to draw ire. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm sure that everyone involved will quietly accept the decision and return immediately to writing and improving NPOV article content. Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Call a doctor, I think he's hallucinating! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) By my rough count, there are 52 arguing overturn, 36 arguing endorse, and 4 not endorsing the process but believing the article should remain deleted nonetheless. A significant portion of those arguing for endorse (especially the early !voters) primarily argued "delete," while almost every overturn expresses significant concerns with the integrity of the process (or lack thereof, in this case). I think there's a consensus, among those commenting on the process, that there were actions taken that seriously compromised the decision reached, and that's what deletion review is intended to address. That being said, I regret that the outcome here likely depends entirely on who decides to make the close, just as was the case with the original deletion discussion. That's an unfortunate fact, whatever the result. user:J aka justen (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP > process. Viridae^Talk 01:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There were no overwhelming wp:blp issues with the article being discussed here; it was well sourced, and vandalism was being dealt with swiftly. user:J aka justen (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Any vandalism at all = the real point as to why default to delete is necessary. Cla68 (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

By that logic Barrack Obama needs to go since it suffers quite a bit of vandalism that is dealt with quickly not just a tiny bit that is dealt with quickly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that, if you see below, we've evidently caused the article's subject distress through all of this drama, where the article didn't hurt his feelings a bit. It's an odd definition of "protection" that we have, and seems a bit of a demeaning one when we "grant" it despite the subject not wanting it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not about this one article, it's about all current or potential subjects of BLPs. And to be honest, until Wikipedia can start giving adequate protection to all BLPs via flagged revisions or something like that, they probably all need to go. At the very least we should protect those subjects who arguably don't belong here. They are a lot more vulnerable to defamation via their Wikipedia entry than President Obama, wouldn't you agree? Cla68 (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This AfD is exactly about this one article. People should not use an article to push an issue that does not apply. Chillum 02:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't agree. I think we've taken reaction to things like the Siegenthaler incident wayyyyyyyyyy too far (just like the fact it's the 20-car pileup you see on the news, they don't mention the 20000 people that drove through that same section and were just fine). Similarly, we've blown a couple of incidents way out of proportion. Sure, let's do flagged revisions, I'm all for it. I'm not even against semiprotection in cases where someone's concerned. But just deleting them, even when the subject does not object to their presence? Excluding well-sourced information? Deletions with lack of consensus? No, that's not how we do things. As to being "more vulnerable", no, I don't agree. It may be true that Obama's entry has more vandal patrollers, but it has more readers too. Some subtle nastiness there (especially that doesn't immediately stand out as vandalism) could easily be read by thousands upon thousands of people, and there are people who would be motivated to commit exactly that type of thing. The same is not generally true for BLPs of those not quite as famous—it may take a little longer for vandalism to get reverted, but well, it takes longer to get a pair of eyeballs on the article too. Does that mean we should do nothing? Of course not, and I supported the original iteration of BLP (no unsourced or poorly sourced negative information, and act strongly and immediately against any such). But since then, it's gotten way out of control, from censorship of perfectly well sourced information that someone may not like to this idea that one may unilaterally delete even if there specifically is not consensus behind it. We had a problem, but the sky is not falling because of it. We need a measured reaction, not a hysterical one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh—and this deletion review is indeed about this one article, this is a talk page for a single deletion review. If you'd like the more general discussion on the principle in general, it's here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, enough with the Obama carping. There is a huge difference between dealing with an article on the President of the United States and dealing with an article of a marginally notable individual, and one with questionable, flimsy sources to boot. Apples and oranges. This is why "default to delete" is a good idea; BLPs of marginally notable subjects are more of a harm to the Wikipedia than a benefit. Tarc (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Stating something doesn't make it true and your logic has been thoroughly countered by applying the same logic to an article that absolutely no one would want deleted. You have completely failed to explain why barely notable BLPs are "more vulnerable" than high profile ones - instead you have just repeated your statement as fact with zero evidence to support it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't think I really need to, honestly. Besides, now that we have the subject of the article saying "Feel free to endorse and delete", I'd take that as tacit permission to to just that. The DRV itself has been staggering along towards another "no consensus", so that should tip the scales towards "endorse" and bring this to a close. Tarc (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Shankbone is clearly and definitely not requesting deletion, so even if there was such as thing as "default to delete" in BLPs, this obviously isn't it. And it's clearly not true that the reliable sources are "questionable, flimsy sources". The CJR is unimpeachable as a RS in it's field of journalism. And the other five RS in my list are fully reliable as well. The DRV looks more like it's leaning towards overturn to me. Along with ThaddeusB, I haven't seen any objective evidence that show that the so-called marginally notable BLPs are more vulnerable. Until someone can prove it, it's just an unsupported opinion. — Becksguy (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the vaunted CJR article, the actual focus of which is more on the interview of Peres, and marginalized Shankbone as a "relative unknown" ? Yes, we've all been over this many times, but as much as you would like to treat DRV as AfD Round 2, that's not what we're here for. Tarc (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Except, Tarc, you are the one that brought up "questionable, flimsy sources", and that makes a rebuttal perfectly reasonable and necessary. — Becksguy (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Leaving the specifics above to the side, I find it extremely hard to credit the BLP views of anyone asking for "objective evidence that show that the so-called marginally notable BLPs are more vulnerable." While I'm fairly certain such evidence exists (I'm sure OTRS volunteers could tell some stories, though I imagine pretty much all of that info is private), it's not actually a question of needing evidence but rather applying common sense. Marginally notable BLPs of people most of us have never heard of are not heavily watched. Barack Obama and articles like that are (obviously we all know this). So while some vandal might be able to edit Obama's article to say that he is "the first Muslim president", or whatever, most likely that will stay there for less than a minute. If local successful businessman Mr. XYZ has someone come along and edit his article to claim (falsely, or even just without any evidence) that he has been accused of harassing female employees, that could easily sit there for months (surely we all know there are numerous examples of that kind of thing). Furthermore, if Barack Obama's article is edited to claim he is Muslim or a lover of Joe Stalin or whatever, it does very little real-world harm since everyone knows who he is and will generally not credit highly non-credible claims (with some, ahem, exceptions), and since he has a pretty good PR operation at his disposal (as do many extremely notable people). But people don't know Mr. XYZ as a general rule, and if, for example, someone considering a prospective business deal with him looked up his bio on Wikipedia and got it in their head that he was maybe guilty of sexual harassment, well I think we can all see how that could cause some problems and why Mr. XYZ would be pretty pissed at Wikipedia once he found out what was going on. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what Becksguy and ThaddeusB are saying, but if not then it's quite distressing that the above even needs to be explained. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism staying around longer is only evidence of vandalism staying around longer. It is not evidence that the information is seen by more people, nor is it evidence that more harm is done by such information. In all likelyhood, more people see vandalism in a short amount of time in a high-profile article than see it is a low-profile article in a large amount of time. Nor does deleting such articles solve anything at all. If someone actually wants to libel a person there is nothing stopping them from recreating an article or putting the false info in a different, related article - likely one that isn't a bio at all and may be even more poorly watched.

Again, stating that deleting barely notable bios will reduce BLP problems is an opinion, nothing more. Nor does stating it is common sense make it so. Even if true, you still have to demonstrate it is worth the trade off. If our only concern was protecting BLPs than we could do that 100% perfectly by shutting down Wikipedia. Obviously there is a great deal more to consider than just the possibility that someone might theoretically object to having a bio about themselves on Wikipedia.--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the marginal BLP issue in a nutshell. As Bigtimpeace points out, articles on marginally notable people are typically not heavily watched. MZMcBride has a tool that allows us to verify this. It's also confirmed by the edit histories of some older BLPs where obvious vandalism has sat unreverted for extremely extended periods of time. The further issue, however, is that there is often not a lot in available sources to confirm or dispute information placed in these BLPs. In OTRS tickets, we often get complaints from subjects who have found their articles to be inaccurate. Not necessary negative, so we're not talking about contentious material, which is what is covered by BLP for unsourced removal, but what one would consider basic facts (birth year, names of relatives, religious affiliations, details of city of residence or birth, etc.). They also find themselves misrepresented in their articles, whether it be academic or professional achievements being misrepresented or otherwise reported inaccurately. The issue is that with people like Barack Obama or other clearly notable people, someone enters some information that doesn't appear negative, but there's no sources, we Google and get 500 hits to confirm or find nothing and know it's not true and remove it. With the marginally notable, we see such information, we Google and there's not that much available period, it's not blatantly negative, so we leave it, because policy doesn't support removing any unsourced information from BLPs. If it did, we could speedy tens of thousands of wholly unreferenced BLPs. I think it's something like 54,000. That is the basic problem. Lara 01:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, another example of why BLPs on marginally notable people should be deleted- [1]. In this case vandalism to a BLP was used as part of a bullying and harrassment campaign against somebody. Cla68 (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Double ahem - no evidence of vandalism to the article in question. Hipocrite (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to endorse and delete

I'm going on vacation tomorrow morning and won't be around for a bit. Per this statement on my talk page, feel free to delete or endorse the closure to end the drama. Take care, David Shankbone 01:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That is very gracious. However, some of us are more concerned about the policy and the process, and the possibility that this article deletion might be used as a precedent for a change in what the community believes to be the policy, than with any particular article. —Finell (Talk) 06:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This article, regardless of which way the DRV goes, cannot be used as precedent for no consensus BLPs defaulting to delete. It was too heavily contested to set precedent. Lara 22:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be a very brave person indeed who tried to use this debate to set precedent for anything. One can only begin to imagine the size of the trout they would be slapped with for contemplating such a thing. Gazimoff 22:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a prize-winning-sized, and well-aged trout waiting for that brave admin, whichever way she goes on the decision. That's the way it goes in Dramapedia, into which we have been morphing over the last several years.

I agree with Jennavecia; no precedent will come from this. Probably just more drama from the usual suspects. Personally I think we need to aggressively eliminate borderline BLPs, but I'm only backing that up with my intuition of what the future will bring -- enormous and damaging scandals, more, and more, and more of them. Antandrus (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

User:JohnWBarber

Note: This discussion originally appeared on the deletion review project page. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've removed the collapsing of this part of the thread in order to respond to it in detail. Another option might be to move this to the talk page with a note here, because it is distracting. It doesn't matter to me how we handle these comments, so long as editors see that I've commented somewhere and have a chance to respond. I'm responding below. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

User:JohnWBarber has been blocked as an abusive sockpuppet of User:Noroton. Noroton has previously displayed his antipathy towards the subject of the article.[2] Therefore, it can be surmised that ultimately the intentions of bringing this to DRV are not about abuse of process but to potentially restore a BLP where the subject can be continually attacked by the nominator. Request summary closure and status quo for the article. Chuthya (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be well outside of ordinary DRV procedure. Since others have argued for overturning, the intentions of the nominator are not the only consideration.Chick Bowen 23:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really. It's policy to revert the edits of banned users and ignore their requests to define policy Chuthya (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Noroton is blocked, not banned. There's a big difference here. Tim Song (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The circumstances surrounding the nomination are unfortunate. But it is clear there are some very serious issues that need to be discussed. I've talked to the article subject since this and he still is apparently indifferent about whether or not we have an article. Given the large number of issues involved with the close and the many problems that have been discussed here, closing now would be a very bad idea given that we'd just have the nomination replaced by another one. Better to simply let the process go through. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It's somewhat clear from this that the subject strongly feels he deserves some sort of recognition on-wiki. However, he has wisely officially stated that he is "indifferent" knowing well that showing a preference for keeping the article would only fuel the arguments that it is a vanity piece. Chuthya (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is safe to assume someone else would have filed for the DRV. Just disregard the sockpuppets and give regard to the rest, like any other DRV. Chillum 23:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Chillum. This DRV was imminent. Let's just keep going on it. MuZemike 23:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

We revert edits by socks who are evading blocks, or editing disruptively. But then we can choose to stand behind them. If needed procedurally, I'll technically stand behind the edit of the sock that started this DrV (although for the record, not any of the rest of them) to the extent that you can consider me to have started it if you like. My read is that this is not really necessary but I do offer it, for the policy wonks among us (points to self and... oh.. you know who you are. :) ) because I don't want this closed on a technicality. ++Lar: t/c 23:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Lar. Two wrongs don't make one right. Sockpuppetry is almost always shameful, yet the DRV is completely fine. I was going to open it. --Cyclopia^talk 23:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur. I'm sure the fearless administrator who assesses this review can handle the evaluation without giving weight to the arguments made by the sock. Trying to extricate his frequent posts from the conversation above would turn the whole discussion into Swiss cheese. user:J aka justen (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's keep this going to it's natural conclusion. A procedural close wouldn't do any favours here. Gazimoff 23:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason obvious sock-puppet Chuthya is still editing? Hipocrite (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(intertecting) Hipocrite: What is you basis for saying that Chuthya is a sock? Who do you contend is the puppet master? —Finell (Talk) 00:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That should be asked and answered on his talk page, not here. It is off topic. Chillum 02:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we need personal attacks on editors? Please. The atmosphere is already suffocating enough. --Cyclopia^talk 00:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I came to Deletion Review to open this one, and was pleased to see that someone else already opened it. I knew nothing about about Barber, and only discovered afterward that the account is blocked as a sock. I certainly do not condone socking; I have no idea what the editor's actual motivations were. However, Barber's stated reasons for overturning the deletion of the article largely paralleled my own; I even referred to Barber's reasons when I posted my "overturn" message (not knowing that it was a sock account). Barber's "head" should not be counted in determining consensus. However, I would like Barber's statement to remain, if that is permissible under policy. If that is not permissible, I would revise my "overturn" post to eliminate my reference to Barber and to add the text Barber's statement (verbatim or paraphrased) to my own post. —Finell (Talk) 00:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Question: Does anyone object to collapsing this lengthy off-topic discourse? Tim Song (talk) 05:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Undone, for now, anyway, see top of this section. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• I was blocked and it's been announced here and elsewhere in a pretty breathless, drama-inducing way that, put all together, smeared me by giving the wrong impression of what I've done and why I did it. I'm pretty upset by it, and I'm going to respond to it. Someone might want to remove this to the talk page, but if so, a note should be left behind so anyone coming to this page knows there's a discussion about it and gets a chance to read and comment in it. I've also responded at ANI (diff page [3])

1. In early November 2008, I followed the spirit and language of WP:SOCK and started alternate accounts allowed by that policy. Aside from extremely minimal, unintentional violations since then, I operated them within what I read in that policy in early November of last year. I goofed in not keeping up with the changes in that policy, which have been major and much more restrictive. But the resulting violations of WP:SOCK never hurt anyone, didn't avoid legitimate scrutiny, didn't hurt the encyclopedia or disrupt anything and weren't done for any bad purpose. I edited quietly with each alternate account and on Oct. 5 resigned and finally stopped editing from my original account, User:Noroton. In maybe 11,000 edits over the course of the last 12 months or so with those new accounts, I edited constructively, never voting twice or participating under different names in the same discussion. Anyone can check it out. All of the accounts are listed on the talk page of this account.
2. That I was given a one-week block (since unblocked) doesn't mean that it was deserved. If the blocking admin had simply told me that my innocuous editing from separate accounts was no longer allowed by policy, I'd have immediately looked it up, confirmed the truth of that, stopped the edits and closed all but one account. That should have been what happened and what should always happen with a constructive editor who is not acting nefariously or disrupting the encyclopedia. It's how you would want to be treated if you'd made my mistake.
3. My participating in the Shankbone AfD or starting this DRV and participating in it could and should raise suspicions in a checkuser who discovered I'd had a conflict with Shankbone in my original user name. Rather than an unthinking, emotional response to this suspicion, everyone should take a sober look at the facts: Every statement I made indicates my motivations were about following policy and the facts, and I said nothing positive or negative about Shankbone himself because that wasn't what this is about and it wasn't my concern here; I changed my mind during the AfD based on new facts that came to light -- immediately after they came to light (I'm referring to someone finding a copy of the CJR article online), although my reasoning didn't change; my concern with the DRV centered on whether the closing admin had done it the right way and the lack of justification for the way it was done; I'd apologized to Shankbone months ago for some unfortunate comments I'd made about him on Wikipedia Review (I apologized without him asking me to); Shankbone himself doesn't see my participation as having a bad intent. Some have speculated that I wanted to save the article so I could add negative information to it or do worse. I've never done anything like that in the past, and I take BLP problems seriously. I do find some of DS's conduct (mostly off Wikipedia) appalling. That doesn't mean I want to hurt him or bias a BLP, but I don't plan to edit it if it survives.
4. Having said all this, I have to admit that what I did was just dumb. I should have realized that this would look suspicious to anyone who found out my connection with my old account (and it wasn't hard if you knew what to look for and looked closely -- it was probably much easier if you're a checkuser). That was my mistake, and it's part of what led to all the drama about this. I'd always assumed that if someone identified me with the old account, it would either be ignored because I wasn't doing anything wrong or I might get a message, even a warning, if I was found doing something technically wrong. I didn't realize WP:SOCK had changes so much over the past year. I should've been more careful and should have avoided even participating in this.
5. Although I didn't violate WP:SOCK in any harmful way, I think I may well have violated the conflict of interest rule by !voting in a page concerning the subject David Shankbone because I got into a conflict or two with the User:David Shankbone. I'm going to think about this more and probably leave a note about it somewhere on the page before the closing admin gets to it. I don't think any of us have thought about COI concerning this and there may be other editors who want to consider whether it applies to them.
6. Again, I apologize for my part in causing the drama. I did nothing intentionally wrong, but I did make some mistakes. If I think I need to, I might respond to some individual comments here, but probably not. If anyone wants to comment or question me, please do if you think it will help this DRV. Please respond at my talk page if it doesn't concern the DRV. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've thought about it, looked at WP:COI and see that it doesn't apply in a case like mine. I had a minor conflict with him some time ago, said some rude things about him and apologized. If I had a long, ongoing conflict, I think that would be different. JohnWBarber (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, JohnWBarber first voted to delete the article, on the grounds that the sources only mentioned David in passing. [4] I pointed out to him that the Columbia Journalism Review article was more than a passing mention. [5] On the basis of that, he changed to keep. [6] I intended to write to him after this DRV to say how refreshing it was to see someone change his mind according to the evidence. (I didn't know he was Noroton btw.) From that, I think it's safe to say that he was acting in good faith here. John, I should add that WP:SOCK has said since December 2008 that alternate accounts shouldn't take part in internal discussions, [7] added in accordance with the December 2007 Privatemusings ArbCom ruling, [8] but I can understand you not realizing it said that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Slim. Oddly enough, the same thing is happening on the AfD that User:Poeticbent just mentioned on the DRV page, and I've looked into a source that was presented to me and I'm about to change my vote to Keep yet again. JohnWBarber (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC) JohnWBarber (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

ding ding - no consensus.

It's borderline bonkers for anyone to assert that there's any sort of 'consensus' in the deletion review, in my view. It's also borderline bonkers to assert that it's somehow going to appear. I have a spare large plank of wood if an admin would like to borrow it to bang against their head for a while to prepare for closing this discussion. Good luck ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It is currently at 46 single-spaced pages with 36,000 words of text or somewhat longer than most law masters' dissertations, so you might be on to something here PM. MBisanz ^talk 00:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[Insert bad wikilawyering joke here] JohnWBarber (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

One obvious solution is to overturn the decision-maker, but not the decision. A sternly worded official warning to Jake Wartenburg that his two-part fuck-up was not small would go a long way to appeasing a great many people participating here, I suspect. Certainly, me. Hipocrite (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

that sounds pretty sensible actually - I vote Matt to write it up :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"Overturn the decision maker but not the decision" is meaningless. It's clear from the discussions at WT:DEL that "no consensus defaulting to delete" does not enjoy consensus. Jake has already realized he erred and apologized, so that part's largely over with. However, the clear outcome is that the close should not have been made the way it was, does not have consensus support, and should be reversed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon? There doesn't look to be consensus for anything in this DRV, as near as I can tell. If anything, the people who agree with the close and the people that agree with the close (but not the closer) appear to outnumber those who are voting to overturn the close. GlassCobra 03:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the exact count, and to be honest counting it up is a more daunting task than I'm willing to undertake—I won't be closing after all, and don't do headcounts even when I do. However, I was more talking about the concept of "no consensus defaulting to delete" in the absence of a subject request in general. That's been discussed extensively at WT:DEL, and there's no consensus behind it. Jake did make the edit to allow that, but it's clear that isn't being supported. Given that, "no consensus, default to delete" never should've happened here in the first place, and there's no consensus for it to happen now. One would hope the closer would consider that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which discussion you're looking at, User:GlassCobra, but my count shows 60 for overturn, 38 for endorse, and 4 for various other forms of endorsing the result but not the process. That certain doesn't look like any endorsement of the close in my opinion. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of Wikipedia Catch-22. If there really is "no consensus", then the proper procedure is to maintain the status quo, which in this case is to keep the article deleted; however the primary arguement against deletion (i.e. the primary "overturn" arguement) is that the closer did not follow the practice of "no consensus defaults to status quo", and thus we have a confusing mess. --Jayron32 04:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe we should all talk about this here for a while (perhaps until this page is as long as its colleague?) - you see, everyone putting their oar in and a sort of free-for-all chat complete with side topics, distractions, and maybe the odd blind alley or two is probably the best way forward at this point...... Privatemusings (talk) 04:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Except that there's always some people whose AfD position doesn't correlate with their DRV position, so the two camps never quite match up exactly and it's not quite Catch-22. It's a crapshoot, always, because it depends on who the closer is and what votes are discounted. I thought there were a lot of serious, policy-based comments here, and I hope the closer recognizes that. But it's a dice throw. JohnWBarber (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• I am absolutely perplexed at the maneuvering being proposed here in order to circumvent the proper result. There was no majority, let alone a consensus, to amend the deletion policy in a way which supports deletion. There was no majority, let alone a consensus to delete the article on David Shankbone. The proper result of the AFD was therefore to not delete the article. What is being proposed here is that due to fait accompli, we should not be amending the AFD to the correct result. If that is the outcome, we have effectively legitimized backdoor deletions without consensus on the principle that it is easier to obtain forgiveness than permission. That moves Wikipedia deletion process one step closer to administrator authoritarianism, ruled by the admins who can close the AFD the soonest, and one step further away from consensus decision making. I really don't want that to happen. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • This is why it is so appalling that Jake did not reverse his own error. On counts (and let's not pretend they don't matter): currently 61 overturn, 42 endorse, and since the total is roughly 100, those are roughly the percentages as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Sjakkalle -- there is some light in this tunnel. Historically, on a "no consensus" outcome at DRV, DRV used to default to "endorse". However, earlier this year, I raised a similar concern to the one you just expressed, and DRV participants amended that rule somewhat. The position is now that the admin who closes the debate has authority to "relist at AfD" in place of "no consensus to overturn". This is down to the closer's discretion, but I strongly feel a relist is the better of those two alternatives.

      I also think that to put a lid on this simmering cauldron of drama, it's absolutely essential that this DRV is closed by someone who has the community's unquestioned trust... can we take some measure such as asking that a bureaucrat rather than an ordinary admin closes it?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

      • Historically, almost without exception, crats have refused to wade into other matters like AFD or RFC while wearing our crat hats, since it encourages the idea that crats are somehow admins+ and that admins are therefore users+ and that Wikipedia is a hierarchical organization. I think that simply having a respected admin (regardless of what other tasks they do on the wiki), close the DRV will suffice. MBisanz ^talk 14:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
        • In understand that. My concern is that in this case, one of the questions before us is whether BLPs should default to delete. It may be hard to locate a respected and experienced admin who does not have a prior position on this, and I wonder whether it would be possible to identify anyone who could not be called "involved" by the disappointed side.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
          • If they were able to scrape up 12 people who has no opinion about O.J., I'm sure we can find one for this. Tarc (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
          • I was thinking along the same lines as S Marshall about trying to get a more authoritative closer for better, uh, closure. My thought was that an arbitrator might be a good closer. I think if a number of people here endorsed the idea, we might have some social pressure for other admins to back away and an admin might come forward. On the other hand, if some other admin barges in, there's nothing to be done about it and the whole exercise would just create more friction. The absolute last thing we should have is a relist. Everyone's heard all the arguments. Let the closing crap shoot take place. JohnWBarber (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
            • I should think arbitrators have more than enough crap on their plates already. Bureaucrats are also busy, of course, but perhaps to a lesser extent. Not that I want to enforce this, just raise the suggestion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• A while back I suggested that if an AFD is closed as delete without receiving a (numerica) consensus for deletion in the discussion, then is taken to DRV, where the closer's decision is not supported by consensus, the article should be restored. (This was limited to delete outcomes only because a keep decision could be reconsidered at a subsequent AFD). If we were to incorporate this into deletion/DRV policy, it would resolve highly contested disputes like this one as well as being more likely to reflect the overall will of the community. The situation we have now, where the identity and opinions of the closer take on disproportionate weight, even (perhaps especially) when the closer acts in good faith, is not conducive to collaborative decision making in intensely disputed cases. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh. my.

Community consensus explicitly ignored twice in a row. Wonderful. --Cyclopia^talk 23:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts precisely. Wonderful. Majorly talk 23:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It took some doing, but the page was deleted despite the lack of support from the community to do so. Chillum 23:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Which consensus would that be? I don't see any. Anywhere. Viridae^Talk 23:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Finding a "consensus" in this debate is akin to a ultimately futile reach for the acnestis. Cla68 (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly not so. What we are fighting over is what to do when there is a lack of consensus. Were there consensus either way, then we'd not have this problem. The AfD and DrV closes may be thought wrong (YMMV), but they are not against consensus, it's just that they don't enjoy consensus either. Anyone who says "consensus is being ignored" misunderstands consensus. Consensus is not a majority.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite's close of the DRV was a valid one, though that editor acknowledged there was at least one other valid option (overturn to no consensus), which was an important admission that suggests Black Kite took a thoughtful approach here. Similarly the AfD itself could have been closed in several different ways. As Viridae said there was no consensus for anything in this entire brouhaha (even in the DRV, those wanting to oveturn, who were a clear majority, were divided over what action to take after overturning, which was a critical question), and I think it's silly to pretend otherwise. As in real life often on Wikipedia there are no clear cut answers to difficult questions, and that was clearly the case here. It was pretty much a crap shoot that we ended up where we did, but the key thing is that we have reached an end, thankfully (I hope). I'm one of any number of admins willing to userfy the Shankbone article if someone wants to work on it. After all almost no decision is permanent around here, but hopefully we can all walk away from this one for awhile. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)