Archive 1 * Archive 2 * Archive 3 * Archive 4 * Archive 5 * Archive 6 * Archive 7 * Archive 8 * Archive 9 * Archive 10 * Archive 11 * Archive 12 * Archive 13 * Archive 14 * Archive 15 * Archive 16 * Archive 17 * Archive 18 * Archive 19 * Archive 20 * Archive 21
I have contributed to Wikipedia since 2006 and have been an admin since the middle of 2007 with a couple of long breaks due to on and off-wiki stress. Historically I have worked mostly on deletion discussions and at one time was one of the most prolific AFD closers. From November 2012 to early 2014 I closed most DRVs but am no longer very active there. I am a strong proponent of applying the GNG to article content - especially for BLPs.
I am mostly inactive now. If you have a question or a request don't be surprised if there is a delay for an answer. I have no problems with you asking another admin on my behalf.
January 1, you had closed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_December_24#Peter_Shankman as delete.
Page had been substantially revised by Lamona on Dec 31, right before it was closed out on Jan 1, to eliminate many of the errors I had made in trying to respond to the original AfD. I was wondering if you could look at that version, and let me know your opinion on recreating it? Thanks for your consideration.
- I don't think the sources had improved and until that happens this is still going to fail the GNG. Spartaz Humbug! 11:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz. I wanted to clarify following a comment you made here, on AN here. MastCell made between 30-35 edits on the Jeffrey Smith article not one as you said. I very deliberately did not take a position on whether this constitutes involvement and also noted with good faith MastCell's closure. This was in no way poisoning the well, but was a fair and accurate point. I thought about whether I should sit on the information or post it and very nearly didn't given MastCell's treatment of me in the past. I deliberately did not want to respond to him the way he has relentlessly responded to me. In the end, I feel that this was information that I had, and it was fair to all editors to post it and not hide it, and which should be posted in as neutral a way as I could post it letting other decide how and if to use it, and staying out of this discussion. I don't need or expect a reply.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC))
Hi, you recently participated in an AN discussion, then later closed it citing admin opinions. However, you should not close a discussion when involved, and there were two involved admin opinions you cited for your closure. There are still remaining questions, and no consensus about the topic at hand.prokaryotes (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Spartaz, FYI: Prokaryotes reverted your close of his topic ban appeal so that he could continue arguing it. I'm sort of speechless, so I'll leave it to you to decide how to proceed. MastCell Talk 04:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Please stop posting on my talk page, Spartaz. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I saw your comment here on Prokaryotes' talk page before it was deleted. Although I agree with you that it was not his/her place to unclose the discussion, I wanted to address one comment you made: "Your flashmob had the desired effect of driving away uninvolved comment." If it is true that uninvolved administrators (or anyone else) are too afraid to comment on discussion regarding GMO issues (or anything else controversial), that is a very serious problem for Wikipedia, and will nearly assure that our articles are not NPOV, since the side of a disagreement with more editors would always win--even if they are wrong and biased--if all univolved editors steer clear. There is constant abuse of basic WP:PAG and if one of us who notices it raises an issue, walls of text are created by the violators and their buddies, confusing the matter and as you say, "driving away uninvolved comment." As an experienced Wiki-editor, I cannot stand reading walls-of-text and distracting and irrelevant side discussions, and so I am not surprised that this is, in fact, what is probably going on.
I have seen this so many times and I find it utterly disgusting. If an issue is raised at a noticeboard of a clear violation of PAG, those violating the PAG will indeed drive away comment by creating walls-of-text and confusion. And if the side breaking the rules does that, what do you expect those who see the violation to do? Say nothing? They will all participate as well--which is exactly what you saw happening.
The noticeboards have become a joke on this issue because typically only involved parties comment. When I see a violation of PAG, I consider bringing it to a noticeboard, but always ask: Why bother? It's going to be the same old drama between two sides of an argument just moved from the talk page to the noticeboard. That is not how the noticeboards should should work. But that is how they DO work. There is no distinction between involved and uninvolved editors, and I consider that a very very serious problem. Uninvolved parties should be making the final decisions, not the involved parties. Just like a court. Instead, it is a free for all where gangs are permitted to rule and decent editors are punished or banned when they see the problem and try to stand up to the gangs. Not acceptable IMHO. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)