User talk:Jake Wartenberg/Archive 3

Any particular reason you decided to block before he responded, despite my clear choice to wait until he did? ÷seresin 03:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone brought it to my attention, and I thought 30 days had been enough time. Please feel free to unblock if you disagree with my action. — Jake Wartenberg 03:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone brought it to your attention. I am going to read that as: IRC machinations. Anyway, I'm not going to unblock, but it's on you now. ÷seresin 08:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jake,

My name is Diligence 5960. I was recently accused of sock puppetry for adding a comment on Glenn Beck's page. This comment (which has since been removed by a different editor) was a simple statement saying that if we include a controversy section on this page, we should do it for all political commentators. Two other editors are included in this charge who I have not even heard of prior to this incident. I became a member of Wikipedia about a month ago and have only one account, but I have only edited by including that one comment. I was pretty much at the level at learning how to edit, hence the reason for the delayed amount of time between creating an account and editing my first discussion. I do feel that the charges are not in bad faith, but that they are false; at least on my end. How would I go about proving that the charges are false, and that I am innocent? Thank you for your time. Diligence 5960 (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Diligence 5960 11:12 (EST) 27 August 2009

Sorry, the comment I posted was not deleted. My mistake.Diligence 5960 (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a good way to prove your innocence, but fortunately you are innocent until proven guilty. I don't expect anything to come of the case. — Jake Wartenberg 17:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You asked me to report additional cases on the original sockpuppet's page. He's back. How? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've taken care of it. I'll have a checkuser done, too. — Jake Wartenberg 23:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Per what policy was this shortcut deleteable? It's making a bunch of red links in edit summaries now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Just came by to ask the same thing. Amalthea 21:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm just pile-on at this point. Thanks for restoring it. — Σxplicit 21:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was using an autodelete script; I must have clicked a wrong link. I hope it didn't cause too much disruption. — Jake Wartenberg 21:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, alright, thanks. Might want to tweak that script though, a deletion summary of "per speedy deletion policy" isn't particularly helpful for newbie editors. Cheers, Amalthea 21:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, that's just the default. I didn't realize I had actually done anything. — Jake Wartenberg 21:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh :) Amalthea 21:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

At least the main page isn't deletable any more or it will be because of the speedy deletion mandate! ;-) -- Mentifisto 22:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with the mass-reverts. I'm still baffled as to that user's activities: it's not quite disruptive enough for vandalism, but shows a single-minded bizarre determination. I dunno, someone really OCD? Thanks for the help! MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jake, may I remove the sock puppet accusation off of my talk page? Thank you. Diligence 5960 (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Most definitely. — Jake Wartenberg 01:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say I love the Jimmy goes swimming comp, except the first image isn't obviously the one used for the merge. It think it would be clearer and more impacting if you cropped and flipped File:Atul Chitnis and Jimmy Wales.jpg, maybe even colour corrected it too. I know all that stuff is part of the manipulation but it needs to be more obvious than it is at present. Cheers, mikaul^talk 03:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Jake..

I've managed to get myself into what seems like the beginning of a dispute meditation scenario. I am not a mediator. I do not believe (from what I have seen through my own cursory investigations) that this dispute can be resolved via our mediation process. Although I am not biased myself toward any of the parties involved, I cannot help but feel that while User:Xenos2008 edits in good faith, their edits are biased to the point of violating NPOV, to say the least. Now, I don't really believe that these edits constitute vandalism, per se, but do believe that on the whole these edits are nonconstructive. I have no clue what ought to be done about this, so I pass the buck to you. Advice? Action? Ignore? Should, perhaps, based on my edits, I become a mediator?

Clueless,𝕭𝖗𝔦𝔞𝔫𝕶𝔫𝔢𝔷 ^talk 03:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I only recently became an admin and you probably have lots more admin experience than I, but I happened to be looking at the edit which resulted in this block when it happened. I had just concluded that the edit didn't deserve a revert, and was wondering whether some of the other warnings on User_talk:IH8reggins were deserved when you blocked him indefinitely.

The reason given for the block is that the account is a vandalism-only account, but I've looked at the user's contributions and it looks to me as if two [1][2] of his eleven edits clearly deserve reversion/warning. this one should have made it clearer that the assertion re Francis was not WP's opinion, should have included a page-numbered supporting cite from the autobiography, and contained what looks like an inadvertant unclosed Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). and hence a range block was implemented against his IP addresses and his user IDs (except one) were blocked as well ^[1].

User: Gurbinder_singh1 was lucky that his user account was finally investigated, and he was found innocent through check-user during User:Morbid Fairy’s new sockpuppet investigation^[2]BUT even though it was me only who did days and days of research to expose User: Morbid Fairy aka User: Heliosphere^[3] but no one has (check-user) investigated so far if I am sock of any of these guys.

Since a truth has come out, so please do justice and unblock an innocent editor User: Gurbinder_singh1 and please clear my blocking record as well. It hurts me all the time that some injustice had happened with me and other innocent editor and my IP was tagged with a blocking historyfor life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.210.210 (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I would request the respected admin to look into this request. Why the request of this editor is being ignored. He has presented strong proofs...--99.51.223.161 (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, have you deleted user:logos5557 accidentally? Because, it does not qualify for G11, and your first comment while removing sppedy delete tag (which was put by atheanera) was the same. Perhaps, you might have mixed it with User:Logos5557/Ra (channeled entity)? Logos5557 (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've restored it. Note that it will likely be deleted when the MfD closes. — Jake Wartenberg 20:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry but I guess my user page has nothing to do with User:Logos5557/Ra (channeled entity). Or am I missing something?Logos5557 (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it was the stuff in the collapsed box. — Jake Wartenberg 20:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. However, I guess users can place quotes from books, films, etc. in their userpages. Nevertheless, I can remove the stuff if it is breaching any policy/rule.Logos5557 (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I understand you are the admin who did the speedy delete of Kara Kennedy Allen on the grounds that this article was previously deleted. I would argue that new information about this person has arisen since June. Further this article is a brand new article, not a repost of the article that was deleted in June. I would ask that you bring the article back so its deletion can be discussed by everyone. Thanks. --Crunch (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Allrighty. I've put it back. Good luck. — Jake Wartenberg 00:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder that per WP:RELIST, relisting AFD discussions more than once is strongly discouraged. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but not me -- User:Doncram wrote most of the article. I added a few minor details. There's a certain irony here -- I've created more than fifty lighthouse articles (most of them stubs) in the last couple of months -- and the one that gets nominated for DYK wasn't mine. If you'd like, take a look at VRB-25, which I did write. Cordially, Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Jake,

So I've added some substantial content on my page. Enough to where I thought I should ask for guidance on how to proceed now. Is there any cleaning up that needs to be done? I want this to be up to Wiki standards, and for it to be informative, unbiased, and solid.

Thank you Jake for all your help 64.60.32.210 (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

		The BLP Barnstar
		Your hard work on BLPs in general, and at User:Lar/Liberal Semi specifically, is much appreciated. That page has now been sunsetted (and I hope never to need to bring it back) but the work you did there (whether by bringing articles forward, reviewing them, or protecting them... or even by questioning or criticizing the process!) was of great help to the project. See you in the trenches! ++Lar: t/c 01:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. — Jake Wartenberg 02:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this guy. Just a question for you - I know WP is not censored, but this IP's last unblock request sure looks like an attack / -BLP to me... Shouldn't this be blanked? I just don't want to step on the reviewing admin's toes by removing it.  7  03:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I zapped it; anyone can find it in the page history if they want. There just isn't any reason to have that kind of stuff lying out in plain sight. — Jake Wartenberg 04:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - thanks.  7  04:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

May need to block them from editing their own talk too... User talk:125.168.110.93‎ - still showing attacks at another editor.  7  04:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I just rollbacked the user and semi'd the talk page. — Jake Wartenberg 04:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A person has been continually forcing gameguide material, original research, and trivia onto specific articles. Check the history of this article and you will see a range of IPs, all originating in Britain, forcing through the same edits on various articles. I was hoping you could do something about it, it has been reported before, but no action has been taken. Whoever's behind this IP seems to follow the user [[3]] and revert his edits and those of others who undo these reverts. 13:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you do the same to Route 6 (MTA Maryland) and MTA Maryland (Route 6) as you did to MTA Maryland 24 Route and Route 24 (MTA Maryland). Thank You :D.--Lamborghini man (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. — Jake Wartenberg 15:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My first DYK! thank you GainLine ♠ _♥ 12:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, um, I can't seem to find the Doodle Jump article hook I substantially expanded on the homepage. So what was the hook used so I can archive it?--Freaky Face Films (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You can see that on the article's talk page, here. — Jake Wartenberg 21:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You left me a message about this fail, and said to ask you questions here. I don't care about it but I wondred why it was failed. Was it not big enough or something? It doesnt matter but I wanted to know for next time. Thanks. 龗 (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For being an awesome good sport and coding something fun. Durova318 04:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The pleasure was mine. Thanks for the laugh! — Jake Wartenberg 04:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the essay under my user page, I noticed your comment when removing it. It's in the main space now as Wikipedia:Editors are not mindreaders . I was just following my own advice and editing initial drafts in my user space.--RadioFan (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Of course you can also move pages and have the redirects deleted. — Jake Wartenberg 19:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course. I wanted a fresh start in this case.--RadioFan (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you disambiguate type locality in the first hook in queue 1? I think it should be linked to Type locality (biology). Shubinator (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. — Jake Wartenberg 19:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Shubinator (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

snake fetus article. deffs shouldnt have deleted that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silentpotato (talk • contribs) 23:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for caring. DS (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Make sure there aren't unresolved issues when promoting a DYK article. Here I had two issues that the nominator hadn't responded to. Thanks for helping out at DYK! Shubinator (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. I'll be more careful in the future. — Jake Wartenberg 01:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Plz see this Photo. This is the photograph of Gautam Kalita taken from a public felicitation function. I want to upload this file in my article. Can I do that? If so, what license tag should I fix?--Xeteli (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you own the copyright for the image? — Jake Wartenberg 19:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does work now, I thought I had to be at least four days old? Programmer101 (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Administrators can override that. The limit is to prevent people from creating accounts to use Twinkle for vandalism or disruption, which was clearly not your intention. — Jake Wartenberg 15:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Lupin's Anti-vandalism tool works also :) What I find odd is if Lupin's tools only work for autoconfirmed users, why did it work for IE? although, IE is real bad with it, so I'm going to stop thinking at start undoing! (It still doesn't stop me from wondering though) Thanks Programmer101 (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about that one. — Jake Wartenberg 15:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Thankyou, I'm far to lazy to work out colour codes :) Black Kite 22:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure; that's what is known as OCD ;) I can't stand it when they are just a little bit different. — Jake Wartenberg 22:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, in this[4] reference it states the following:

"Nor is religious terrorism peculiar to the Abrahamic faiths and their offshoots. For instance, Sikhism has proved prone to it also, with the assassination of Indian Prime Minister Indira Ghandi (in retaliation for what was perceived as the Indian Army’s desecration of the Golden Temple in Armritsar in 1984) leading to a wave of violence that was to claim over 35,000 lives. As with other religious terrorism, this violence was motivated by political as well as religious considerations – in this case the establishment of an autonomous Sikh state. Such was the stated aim of groups such as Dal Khalsa and Dashmesh. Among the most notable instances of Sikh terrorism was the 1985 bombing of an Air India airliner which killed 328 people.

But the article then states :

Religious terrorism has been used in the struggle for Indian independence movement from British rule,[4] and the Khalistan movement from Indian rule.[5][6] It has been suggested that addressing extremism requires both political and religious action.[7]

It should state, Sikh Terrorism is used in the struggle for the establishment of an autonomous Sikh state. Redifining Sikh terrorism by watering the definition to include colonialism is not Sikh Terrorism.

As for the Jamestown Foundation for being a dubious source, (along many others it should be pointed out) The News link above alongside the recent killings in Vienna prove the absolute contrary, yet the editors here on Wikipedia accused journalists of being Jewish or right wing (see discussion)

I put this for your attention since the pattern of using talk pages or discussion leads to eventual deletion by 2 particular users..

Heliosphere (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Heliosphere are you not a sockpuppet of a previously banned account? I think I will report you. Thanks --Sikh-History 07:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted one edit on this article,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sikh_extremism&diff=315565424&oldid=315234024

Since there seems to be various attempts to associate one Sikh sect, Namdharis to be associated with Khalistani Terrorism when in fact they along with Mahatma Gandhi fought British Colonialism, this is one of many distortions that make the article absolutely ridiculous.

Heliosphere (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I would advice Mr. User: Heliosphere to discuss his issues in the article's talk page so that he could get attention of other editors who have worked hard to improve this article. Since article name is Sikh extremism, so it must show all the sikh sects/individuals who did wp:notable extreme acts while fighting against British, India, Mogul rulers etc. It does not matter if some Sikh(s) (while doing extreme acts) sided with Mahatma Gandhi or if some Sikh(s) was/were criticized by Mahatama Gandhi because of their extreme acts, if some Sikh did extreme acts for India OR if some Sikh did extreme acts against India, it can become part of the article as long as 'this act' is notable wp:notable. It appears that all the editors (who improved Sikh extremism ) are duly following wikipedia policies and I would advice editor Heliosphere to do the same instead of his wp:pov pushing and routine violation of wikipedia policies which resulted multiple blocks against several of his accounts and a range block against his IP addresses. I believe that articles should not be tilted per any individual's wp:pov pushing/desires AND these should not accomodate any individual's hate against any religion/race/caste either.--135.214.150.104 (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Could you review the consensus to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic Series, Vol. 1 (Selena) that you closed a couple days ago? The redirects, I believe, should go to the corresponding original albums as listed, as opposed to the resulting target page. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Thanks for letting me know. — Jake Wartenberg 23:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jake, would you mind undeleting File:Zigong People's Park Zoo.jpg. There was a note on it asking that a local copy be kept if it's uploaded to the Commons. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, the reason is that the rules on the Commons seem to be different, and I've noticed quite a few images uploaded there only to be deleted; this has happened even when they have OTRS tickets and are clearly PD. Also, when people have uploaded in the past, they sometimes don't include all the information on the image page, which means other people later question it, and so on. Plus, if there are issues, they don't come up on my watchlist, as I rarely go to Commons, so I don't see them in time to fix them. For all these reasons, I prefer to keep a local copy too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi I'd like to start an article on the World Sikh Organisation, I have included some relevant material on the Sikh Extremism article which some extremist editors will object to (no doubt vandalize) even assuming all the best faith in the world, it would probably result in complaints to various admins as I'm usually hounded around as you may have noticed.

Could you kindly advise me on going about this, as this organisation recently sued CBC for $110 Million for 'misinformation' I hope the picture is clear

I will enclose some links which I hope to use, thank you

• http://www.nriinternet.com/NRIpoliticians/2007_News/Samosa_Politics/index.htm
• http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1387
• http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/114440572-sikh-extremism-enters-mainstream-canadian-politics

Heliosphere (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

These look like either blog or not notable references. I think they cannot be used. Thanks --Sikh-History 16:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Jake, can you kindly take a look at this revert

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sikh_extremism&diff=315957263&oldid=315951943

The changes are ridiculous, I mean the Indian Army is listed as an 'Extremist organisation' under the article Sikh Terrorism, The Gadhar party (similar to Nelsons Mandela's ANC ) is also listed in the same article, neither of these are proscribed terrorist organisations: List of designated terrorist organizations

I think the article is making wikipedia look like just a joke Heliosphere (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Satanoid/Morbid Fairy/Heliosphere/Analtap stop being ridiculous, you are not assuming good faith. You are removing cited references time and again. I was going to report you for breaking WP:3RR, but gave you the benefit of the doubt. If you bothered reading the references you would see there is a big difference between the Indian Army and the Indian NATIONAL Army. The latter was described as a terrorist organisation led by an extremist Sikh. The Ghadr Party again described as an extremist organisation led by an extremist Sikh. One more revert and I will seek to get you blocked. --Sikh-History 21:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The Indian National army is not a sikh terrorist organisation which is what the article is about

Please move discussions to relevant talk pages.Thanks--Sikh-History 11:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

[5] AN/I diff. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: despite the title of this section, this thread in question is entirely about me. I suppose this is some sort of effort to get you involved b/c I was the one who granted the unblock request to this supposedly "excessive block". --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Jake Watenberg, the AN/I page appears to require that I notify the user that I am discussing. The thread is primarily about ThaddeusB's behavior, but I do mention that your block was excessive in length at the start of my post. "You must notify any user that you discuss, as a courtesy." --69.225.5.4 (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Could you possibly take a look at File:Nongar header sohail93.png and let me know your take on it? Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on the article it was in, I deleted it as G11. — Jake Wartenberg 15:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Or Sikh extremism as it has been renamed/ or 'watered down' has serious issues of references/bias.

I will add that 2 users have had serious warnings from other admins and editors for using Wikipedia as a platform for radicalising articles especially Sikh Extremism, ISYF and Dabinderjit Singh. (See archived talk pages on Sikh Extremism) You can do this by analysing the history of those articles. These have been archived rapidly.

I will also add that Sinneed and Sikh-History do not WP:LIKE exposure of news about Sikh-Extremism as they wanted the article deleted as well as the news about the Austrian murders and accusations that certain journalists are right wing because they are simply Jewish and reported on Sikh Terrorism The whole article is so biased and twisted, any changes you make are followed with reversals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sikh_extremism/Archive_1#Sikh-history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sikh_extremism (see parts 9,10,34)

The point I am making here is that there is VERY selective editing by removing important information which I will point out.

Could you please kindly take a look at this revert,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kim_Bolan&diff=301201592&oldid=293390154

Now, regading the Canadian award winning journalist, Kim Bolan who has had multiple death threats against her by Sikh Extremists, here you see a typical revert by Sinneed where he deleted many positive yet truthful aspects about herself (such as being an award winning journalist), surely this makes wikipedia a poor source just because a few extremists come together and lobby a poor admin who is unfamiliar with the subject matter combined with the fact that there will those who are intent on using wikipedia as a tool to propagate their own views.

This is typical of many 'selective edits' where relevant information has been deleted

- I will point out later, a list of these edits if you require

Please see the canvassing here between the two fundamental editors that have accused me and you seem to have fallen for the bait

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sinneed&diff=prev&oldid=304878765

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Irbisgreif&action=edit&section=8

Hi, according to the change logs, you deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saio.jpg with the comment that it already exists in Wikicommons. I'm not sure what happened, but the original photo that was uploaded was incorrect (not the one intended to be released into the common domain) and was subsequently replaced with the correct photo (mainly orange in colour). With your delete, the correct photo has now disappeared and the old, incorrect photo has come back. I have no idea how this could have happened. I've had problems removing the incorrect photo (which has been picked up in articles in other languages), but now it seems the correct photo has completely disappeared. Any suggestions how I can get the correct photo back and remove the old? Ka-ru (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I upload that image to commons. Should be all better now. Sorry for the inconvenience. — Jake Wartenberg 20:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. I'm not sure if you know the answer, but do you know how I can remove the old photo? It still appears in the file history and it should not be there. Ka-ru (talk) 06:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You can ask a commons admin to do that. I've had good interactions with PeterSymonds. — Jake Wartenberg 06:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: your summary for this edit. The article content disagrees with you, strongly: In 1977, he was arrested in Los Angeles and pleaded guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor", and this has been cited in the article. Unless you have a better reasoning here, there is little reason the article shouldn't give some mention to the criminal history the subject is infamous for in the first paragraph. --Mysidia (talk)

That isn't the same as child molestation. — Jake Wartenberg 04:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jake. Could you comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:WillOakland please. I want to make sure there are no undisclosed circumstances regarding WillOakland. It looks like the account should be indefinitely blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 16:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

W/re the gallery in the "distant relations" section of Family of Barack Obama, each relationship cited a WP:RS. However, the reason I'm pinging your talkpage is actually not to debate this issue privately (I already know what you would argue in this regard, after all) but instead to question your coming to the article and deleting only part of this type of charting. Why did you not remove the chart illustrating the relationship between Obama and Queen Elizabeth II? Since a substantial portion of the population of the US could have a similar chart drawn, why do you believe this chart in this instance passes muster? ↜Just M E here , now 00:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ps - If you could await the result of the discussion here --> Talk:Family of Barack Obama#Gallery of distant relationships and chart of Obama's relationship to the House of Windsor -- before removing the chart (or both charts, for that matter), I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! ^{:^)} ↜Just M E here , now 00:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

17:18, 28 September 2009 Jake Wartenberg (talk | contribs) deleted "Kawaks" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: Non-notable emulator; no coverage by reliable sources.)

who're you to tell what is notable and what is not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.244.94.162 (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The article was deleted through our proposed deletion process because an editor asserted that there was not significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. If you would like, I can send it to AfD for people to vote on it there, instead. — Jake Wartenberg 21:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jake, I noticed that you recently blocked this IP for vandalism. If it's possible, could you delete its talk page and then restore it sans the first comment from the IP? There's a particularly hateful attack against the US President in the edit summary. Warmly, –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 04:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Done, though I would say this is on the mild side of things - we don't usually go to the trouble for things that are simply offensive. — Jake Wartenberg 04:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I appreciate you taking the time to delete/restore the page and I will try not to be so prudish in the future. :) Warmly, –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 04:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the edit warring block there was no diff to show an attempt to resolve through a talk page, and the warning diff was a basic vandalism warning[6].

In addition to this the editor who made the 3RR report was quite likely responsible for editing the article using an IP [7] and therefore was just as responsible for edit warring as the IP user that you blocked.

Sorry, but in my opinion this was a bad block, considering the possibility of sock puppetry, the warning NOT being given, there being no attempt at discussion on the article talk page and the fact that the editor who made the report had recently been blocked for edit warring [8] and more recently warned about edit warring [9].

They should both have been warned or both blocked. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied on AN3 report. — Jake Wartenberg 15:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I hope they both calm down with the edits. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There's still a grammatical error in the original text of the edit notice that needs fixing: articles to article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Got it. — Jake Wartenberg 05:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Jake, Julia Gillard is a member of the Labor Party but her electoral district is Lalor. If you click the Lalor article, you will see that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.64.45 (talk) 05:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. — Jake Wartenberg 05:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Fall 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
• Commons:Wikis Take Manhattan (our cool team galleries)
• Streetfilms: Wikis Take Manhattan (our awesome video)

WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

• Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project

148 Lafayette Street

between Grand & Howard Streets

FOR UPDATES

Please watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the report on 24.196.232.201 on AIV? It seems to be overlooked in the backlog. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, another user took care of it as soon as I hit the "Save" button. Carry on :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please restore the page Radio Rainbow International or explain why you removed it. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nico7323104 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There was consensus to delete it here. — Jake Wartenberg 20:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 

Hello, Jake Wartenberg. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Message added 04:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dabomb87 (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for your signature at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/A poilu on leave. Durova³²² 06:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Doctor Sunshine has reverted your closure of a thread on WP:AN/I here. It seemed polite to let you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Since SPI seems to be protected right now, I hope to find some help here. Recently, new IP sockpuppets of User:NisarKand/User:Khampalak/User:Alishah85 have reappeared, propagating POV and falsifications (see Ghurids, Muhammad of Ghor). I have complained to various admins, but nobody feels responsible, especially became the English Wikipedia does not have any admins for Oriental Studies or Iranistics. The user has over 100 banned sockpuppets, and now, he is editing with his IPs: [10][11][12][13]. It is obvious that he does not have much knowledge of the subject. So far, User:Ketabtoon has acted as meatpuppet for him (see for example here). Their edits are against the academic consensus, their references are tertiary and unreliable.Admin help is needed. Thank you. Tajik (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any protection keeping you from filing an SPI case. Can you follow the process here to file a case? Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 01:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hope you're good :-) - I noticed that you deleted the page I brought across from 'mywikibiz' concerning the allegations that FT2 may have used an alternative account. FT has clearly denied these allegations, but the diff.s and on-wiki stuff contained in that page seem to me to raise some questions which it would be good to resolve. I've chatted about this with Jayvdb here, and reviewed heaps of pages. What I haven't yet seen is any real on-wiki discussion of the specific diff.s / allegations - perhaps you've seen it, and could maybe flick me a link? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

ping :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how I can be of assistance here. While I am not aware of any onwiki discussion of the accusations, FT2 has contacted arbcom regarding the matter and provided an explanation privately. He can't discuss it on-wiki because it could be taken as provoking Peter Damian. — Jake Wartenberg 01:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey ummm... I started working on this page. I havent lied or misinformed anything... Can you please restore my page sir? I am just adding the information of this song like the many other songs like Big Pimpin, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidchris191 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the website you're looking for. Pages here must be on notable subjects and generally do not contain lyrics. — Jake Wartenberg 02:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So, if I remove the lyrics and only list the credits and history, then the page can stay like other music song 'wikipedia pages'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidchris191 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Just drop me a line when you fill out the review. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have not forgotten :) — Jake Wartenberg 21:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Three against two doesn't seem to be a "community" or even local consensus, especially when the arguments for "list" are backed by community policy and guidelines, while WP:OUTLINE is a controversial, failed, policy. Verbal chat 08:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Simply because we don't yet have a policy on outlines does not mean they are not allowed to exist. Your unilateral moving of pages en mass under controversial circumstances is completely inappropriate — you can't dismantle an entire category of article by yourself without consensus. I'll add my voice to those of many other editors who have asked you to stop. Recommend you start a RfC or MfD on OOK if you don't think it should exist. — Jake Wartenberg 21:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually you are incorrect. I have not unilaterally moved pages, except initially with 2 or 3 articles that started as outlines. All my other moves have been reverting undiscussed moves that do not have consensus, and I stand by thoe moves and will revert any more moves I come across that do not have consensus. The RfC is being developed. I have acted in accordance with wikipedia policy my reverting page moves that do not have consensus. The "unilateral moving of pages en mass under controversial circumstances" is what I've undone, per standard policy that we return to the status quo. Verbal chat 21:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As I recall in most of those cases the page had been an outline long enough that its state represented the status quo. I don't think any of those moves where controversial at the time, either, unlike yours. — Jake Wartenberg 21:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Jake, you are correct. Verbal has been unilaterally moving pages that have been called outlines for many months, regardless of who named them that. It is disruptive to change established title names (titles that have been in place for a long time) without discussion. In many cases, Verbal has changed the names to titles that those pages never had - that's not reverting as he claims but blatant moves. In this spree of moves, Verbal has unilaterally changed moves made by multiple editors, including me, Cybercobra, Gregbard, and Robert Skyhawk. I don't know if there are others. Here are some moves Verbal did of key pages in the WP:OOK, with well-established outline (hierarchical) formats:

• "List of logic topics" - was Outline of logic since June 2009, and was Topic outline of logic since June 2008 before that.
• "List of string theory topics" - renamed to Outline of string theory by Cybercobra on September 29, 2009.
• "List of radio topics" - was Outline of radio since March 2009, and Topic outline of radio since October 2008. Was originally "List of basic radio topics".
• "List of watershed topics" - moved to Outline of watershed by Robert Skyhawk on Oct 5, 2009.
• "List of basic game topics" - was Outline of games since March 2009, was Topic outline of games since October 2008.
• "List of drawing topics" - was Outline of drawing since March 2009, was Topic outline of drawing since October 2008. Was originally "List of basic drawing topics", created in November 2007, and has never been called "List of drawing topics" until Verbal's rename of it.
• "List of basic algebra topics" - was Outline of algebra since June 2009. Was Topic outline of algebra since January 2009. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topic outline of algebra.
• "List of robotics topics" - was Outline of robotics since March 2009. Was Topic outline of robotics since October 2008. Was created Sept 26, 2006 as "List of basic robotics topics".

Please undo the damage Verbal has been doing, please revert the names back to "Outline of" and please move protect those pages. Thank you. The Transhumanist    22:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The "Outline of" naming convention is not without its flaws. "Outline of [abstract topic]" is generally quite fine, but I can definitely say "Outline of drawing" is just plain confusing. The less abstract the topic, the greater the chance of it sounding weird (like "Outline of watershed", IMO). Nevertheless, some of the listed moves don't seem to be an improvement over their "Outline of" titles. But anyway, I don't have much context for what this discussion is about, I just came by via a talkpage message. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for compiling this list, Transhumanist. I think that reverting all these moves probably needs consensus, despite the fact that they were done in an improper manner. I don't think there is any way to do a group requested moves request, though. As I have already said, Verbal shouldn't move any more pages. — Jake Wartenberg 22:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to add my strong objecton to Verbal's almost, but not completely, unilateral activities. I do not think the whole "outline" thing is perfect, specificallly the obnoxious talk page tag, however cannot deny that it is a superior form of organization to mere "lists." Therefore it is a legtimate and praiseworthy contribution. Perhaps it should only be limited to academic departments which more appropriately lend themselves to "outlines" (rather than say "water"). I had expanded the "outline of logic" in its capacity as an outline. That is the appropriate title for it. The move was inappropriate, as was a subsequent edit to repurpose it. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with above. Verbal is causing an edit war on all pages he moves in this manner. His move log proves it. -- penubag  (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The place to discus this is at a central discussion. I have acted properly, whereas TT is the primary cause of most of these problems. He should also stop shopping admins. Verbal chat 08:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I support Verbal to the degree where he has undone the undiscussed mass moves and name changes made by TT. Verbal is undoing the damage done by TT. Until the outlines project has gotten a policy change to justify the actions of TT, there should be a consensus for such changes achieved by discussion on each talk page. The outline project is not above our policies, which requires consensus.

In several of the titles listed above, the "Topic outline..." title is less ambiguous and weird than the "outline" title, while "list of" has no problems at all as regards ambiguity. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I know it's a dead issue, especially as I wasn't online during the time anyway, but the reason you gave for denying my unblock request was nonsense. You claimed I did not address the reasons for the block, when I did respond to exactly what the admin who blocked me accused me of doing and proved that it was wrong. I certainly can't defend myself against any and all accusations you might separately think up. Worse than that, it should be up to the admin in question to both fully articulate reasons for the block and also prove them. Admins who do not bother to do that should be blocked themselves so they understand that blocking is not something to be taken lightly. Even if the accusations you came up with separate from the blocking admin were accurate, which is highly subjective and should be applied to all involved editors fairly (which was certainly not done in this case), the length of the block was absurd. Please do not weigh in on such matters unless you take the time to get informed about the specifics of the situation and are willing to treat all involved parties, including other admins, to the same standards of behavior. Based upon the completely bogus claims the blocking admin made, if anyone should have been blocked it would have been him. DreamGuy (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the unblock. --Longer comment on my talk page, please post any replies or discussion there, in order to try to stop dispute/discussion spreading further-- Yours, Verbal chat 19:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Jake - apologies for not making this clear, but this user has exercised his right to vanish from the English Wikipedia. Accordingly, I've deleted the redirect from his old to his new name, and protected the page from re-creation. This will not, of course, affect his status as a banned user. Cheers — Dan | talk 19:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I was just coming here to ask a question about the recently-vanished user, but it's about the page logs, which are confusing the heck out of me. When I look at the page log, the third most-recent entry is 18:11, 18 October 2009 Jake Wartenberg (talk | contribs) restored "<userpage>" ‎ (3 revisions restored), followed by two protection actions. I would interpret this as meaning that there exists a page with that name, with 3 revisions in the history. Yet the page doesn't exist! What am I missing here?

I'm sure you guys are doing the right thing with the vanishment (which serves as a cautionary tale to not use your real name on Wikipedia :), I'm only trying to understand the logs, or perhaps the malfunction in my own brain circuitry. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This conversation is now over here. ArbCom has asked that the redirect be restored; that is what I was acting on. — Jake Wartenberg 22:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:List of logic topics.

Verbal has clearly failed to achieve consensus for his rename of this article.

The Transhumanist    00:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There is consensus on the mathematics project page, and there had been an agreement that all lists - including those that I had returned to list names (and this was a revert) - should remain so named until a consensus for outlines had been established. Please undo this move and await the RfC. The Transhumanist is making misleading comments about this situation and has also accused me and other users of libel. Verbal chat 06:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The mathematics project is not the only stakeholder in the area of logic. Please, in the future contact the philosophy wikiproject on matters concerning logic issues appropriately. Please do give up on the logic outline. It clearly is an outline more than a list.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

An outline is a list, and until the WP:OUTLINE demonstrates some form of community consensus then these moves should not take place. Having it covered by the outline project and their style guide (which goes against the MOS) makes it much less flexible. Verbal chat 07:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you moved the list/outname/whatever with an edit summary saying "consensus on talk page". I think that's not correct. People on the talk page only agreed that they 'opposed' something, but it was actually opposite things they opposed. A closer look shows The Transhumanist, Gregbard and penubag arguing for the move that you did, Verbal against it, and SmokeyJoe for not doing any further moves at all until certain specific conditions are met. Hans Adler 12:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jake, why are you participating in and encouraging this edit war? Now the "move" tab is gone and the original title (List of logic topics) can't even be restored. It looks like your complicity is going to have to be included in the RfC/U. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Transhumanist has continued his disruptive moves, doing double moves so that he cannot simply be reverted, despite the central issue not being resolved. He has also accused me and other editors of libel, without support, and misrepresented article history, the comments of others, and his own actions. This has gone on too long and he has had multiple warnings from those involved, uninvolved and admins. I ask that you take some action against him to prevent further disruption and until he removes his accusations of libel from his talk page. Verbal chat 05:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I fear Jake is an accessory to this dastardly situation since he is guilty of improperly moving at least one article. He let the crowd from the Outlines project pressure him. The "move" tab is now gone from both the new and original articles, making it only possible for admins to move it:

• Outline of logic and the original List of logic topics

He needs to explain his behavior and the situation. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jake:

User:Daedalus969 has left a total of eight heavy-handed messages on my talk page within six hours after I have warned him repeatedly to stop. He continues to do so even though I have threatened to report his behavior to WP authorities. This conflict started over an edit I made to Where the Wild Things Are (film). However, Daedalus969 keeps posting messages on my talk page even after I agreed to leave the edit off of the article until I could improve it with additional citations. This now feels like cyberstalking.

I want to report him to WP authorities but I really don't know where to go with such a complaint. Can you point me in the right direction? Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Greetings. Your name was offered up as clerk who could be approached re: sockpuppets. Unfortunately, I suspect that Emilblonsky may a puppet for DrBat, who recently objected to my reworking of the Abomination article (Emil Blonsky is the character's real name). The comment left in an edit summary here [14] is also in line with another comment for which the editor was warned [15]. Can you help with the steps, as the procedure seems a tad unclear at [16]. By the by, the link See #Quick CheckUser requests. just bounces you back to the same section of the same page.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You caught me on my way off to bed, so I don't have time to look into this, unfortunately. If you follow the instructions here someone should get to it before I do. Best of luck. — Jake Wartenberg 03:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

who recently objected to my reworking of the Abomination article (Emil Blonsky is the character's real name).

I joined Wikipedia in March 2008. Your conflict happened in late 2009. --Emilblonsky (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jake,

I'd like to "fix" the notification on Sal Castaneda's page. How can I add citations that are more appropriate?

Thanks,

Brenda. Brenda234 (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Brenda234_2000@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenda234 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Brenda234 (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[17] –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• and another on Talk:Outline of water. -- penubag  (talk) 09:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • (redacted - thank you penubag) I'm attempting to start the RfC process to resolve this issue. All comments are welcome, within reason (keep them civil).Verbal chat 10:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

See title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.122.222 (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Jake Wartenberg has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Jake Wartenberg's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Jake Wartenberg! Peace, Rlevse 00:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Another IP from the same group (BOCES) was give a 1 year block today (166.109.0.249). Please consider a span block for all BOCES addresses, as they seem to be churning out an alarming rate of vandalism.   Nezzadar ☎   19:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the current DYK image of the A,A sculpture is a copyright violation. I probably shouldn't handle things directly, since I know the artist personally. Could you please check into getting it removed? The article itself is fine, it's just the image that should be taken down. --Elonka 01:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey there Elonka. I removed the image from the DYK template. The file is located here if you wish to nominate it for deletion. Regards, NW (Talk) 01:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) I'm in touch with the file uploader now (who has also posted other images by the same artist). Their intentions were good, I think they were just unaware of the copyright issues, and they seem amenable to simply going through and deleting the images themselves. --Elonka 01:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

Mind pointing out that policy to me? RMHED 00:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

See here. Best, — Jake Wartenberg 00:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• "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)

(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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

• • • 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)
      • 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)
  • [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 [18] 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)

• 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. --Cyclopia^talk 02:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)

• 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)

• (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)

• I think you caught a version that was BOLDly changed and then reverted. Hobit (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oh wow. So I did. See my comment below. JohnWBarber (talk) 04:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• • 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)
    • 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)
      • There was a discussion on this earlier this year [19]. 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)

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. [20] 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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. --Cyclopia^talk 11:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Me too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Just to try to make things clearer for everybody, I put together this timeline: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/David Shankbone#Shankbone AfD closing timeline -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

In his defense, he hadn't yet changed the policy. :-) Hobit (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Both of those comments are unnecessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the barnstar is a lot more inflammatory. Hobit (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

		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)

Thanks. — Jake Wartenberg 21:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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. --Cyclopia^talk 02:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Your stance on most things BLP is laughable, what's your point? Lara 12:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Björn Söderberg
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Lynch
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Putnam
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Tsai
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Brown (sports broadcaster)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qu Xin
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl J. Field
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Schoep
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Shapiro
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Dunsmore
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Theon
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soundman
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khristine Hvam
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd
• Lara 12:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

That would be sample bias, she looked through the contributions of admins she could remember closing afds that way. Viridae^Talk 13:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I just went through those admins' contribs, sort of sporadically, because my time is limited. Lara 16:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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...

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Björn Söderberg : Was apparently considered a BLP1E even by keep votes. Not a very good closure if you ask me, but makes more sense than the Shankbone one.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Lynch : Overturned Recreated apparently -the article is there.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Putnam : Deleted against policy apparently by personal interpretation of Lar. I will bring it to DRV.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Tsai : Overturned apparently -article is there.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Brown (sports broadcaster) - No keep !votes. Should have relisted, but it's not a "nc" with keep !votes.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qu Xin : Consensus to delete
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl J. Field : Arguments from the 2 keepers all basically useless, so basically consensus to delete.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Schoep : Genuine deletion against policy by personal interpretation of Lar (again). Will DRV too.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Shapiro : Overturned apparently -article is there.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Dunsmore : Seriously against policy. Will DRV.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Theon : Seriously against policy. Will DRV.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soundman : No keep !votes, consensus to delete
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khristine Hvam : Unsourced BLP with keep votes basically useless, consensus practically to delete.
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd : Seriously troubling deletion. Will DRV, but gotta read it in detail.

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? --Cyclopia^talk 13:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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) Viridae^Talk 13:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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. --Cyclopia^talk 13:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[21] Viridae^Talk 13:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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? --Cyclopia^talk 13:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I can. It's a different person. Hipocrite (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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. --Cyclopia^talk 13:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

(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)

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. --Cyclopia^talk 20:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Disagreeing with you implies a topic ban? --Cyclopia^talk 23:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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."[22]

Just so everyone is clear. Lara 06:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Striking through comment per notes from JohnWBarber that lead me to believe he was editing in good faith.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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. Striking through, see above comment for explanation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. --Cyclopia^talk 12:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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. --Cyclopia^talk 15:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)