David Shankbone

David Shankbone (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is the second DRV discussion of this fiasco of an AfD (the first involved a too-early close). Before closing, the closing admin, User:Jake Wartenberg went over to the deletion policy page, Wikipedia:Deletion policy and changed a section of relevant policy so that closing admins could delete AfDs about marginally notable subjects if there was no consensus in the AfD (normally we keep when that happens in an AfD). Previously, the policy had required that the subject ask for the page to be deleted in order for the closing admin to close under these circumstances. Wartenberg had no consensus to change the policy page and hid his change under an innocuous edit summary ("rephrase") [1] He mentioned the policy provision that he had changed in his closing argument (In cases of BLPs of marginal notability we default to delete when consensus is unclear.[2]). Soon after the close, Wartenberg was asked where this policy was that he had cited [3] He replied by pointing to his edited version of the Deletion policy page. [4] Never did he point out that he was the one who had changed the page shortly before his close. And he would have been well aware that the point had been disputed during both the AfD and the first DRV. (He has said he didn't realize he'd be closing this AfD when he edited the policy page. [5]) I think this pretty much establishes that the closing was done out of process. (For his efforts, which insulted the many editors who put time and care into the AfD discussion, Wartenberg has been given a barnstar.)

I wrote up a timeline with more details, quotes and links at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/David Shankbone#Shankbone AfD closing timeline. It includes a number of editors saying there was no consensus at that AfD.

Would it have mattered anyway? One admin who said he was working on an AfD close said in the first DRV that his close would have resulted in delete. But the discussion seems to show a lack of consensus. Despite assertions by some editors, I haven't seen evidence that there's some kind of admin tradition of deleting in these kinds of circumstances. We have a policy (whether or not it's been violated in the past), and it should be followed in the most contentious AfDs. To go against policy is allowed under WP:IAR -- but not if there is a consensus lacking in an ongoing discussion, which was the case. It's a horrible precedent. The fact that Wartenberg seems to have felt he needed to change the WP:DEL policy page and that Lar seems to have felt he needed to start a discussion on the talk page for WP:DEL to retain the language of Wartenberg's change shows that the closing was against policy. Do we care about following policy, or is policy just a figleaf we use when we want to justify something that we just happen to want? Insulting editors who have done nothing wrong -- the participants in the AfD -- just makes the encyclopedia look bad, particularly with the people we should value the most, our own editors. JohnWBarber (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the outcome of the closure per my longer comment at the first DRV. (I am presumably the sysop referred to in the second sentence of John's third paragraph) However, I definitely agree that this situation could have been handled better as far as Jake editing the policy page and commenting at the first DRV before closing the AfD, and I expect that he will learn from this. And as for the whole thing with the current conversation about BLPs defaulting to delete on WT:DELPOL, that really is a different matter, and I hope that it can be handled there rather than be entwined with this AfD. NW (Talk) 00:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that was you I was referring to. Wartenberg certainly will NOT learn from this. He certainly hasn't so far. He thanked a user for giving him the barnstar and hasn't responded adequately to the storm of criticism on his talk page, on the AfD discussion page and on the WP:DEL talk page. In the AfD, one editor, Scott Mac, announced that he hoped some admin would violate policy (The rules are unenforcable, because they do not upscale to the number of problematic articles. Changing that on wikipedia is not done by legislating, it is done by setting new precedents. Deleting articles like this is exactly the way, and the only way, to change things.). [6] No, rogue behavior by admins bending rules to do what they want should be discouraged. Continuing to bend policy just encourages the bad behavior we've seen here. Was the close within process or not? Everything in this discussion should turn on that question (but of course, if editors here don't believe in following the rules anyway, I guess DRV rules won't matter either -- that's not a comment about NW). JohnWBarber (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, that is not violating policy. It's making policy. Policy here, for the most part, is descriptive. It describes what we do, not prescribes what we cannot do. ++Lar: t/c 01:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Surreptitiously editing the page under a nondescript edit summary and then citing it as justification for a close is not making policy, it's gaming the system and as such is disruptive -- you know, that thing editors do that gets them blocked in normal circumstances, or sometimes desysopped. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • What the policy page says does not matter. Let's not assume bad faith of the closing admin. Instead, focus on the issue at hand -- was the article properly deleted? I said it was because the support arguments appeared to be weak. The closing admin correctly weighed the opinions, rather than merely counting noses. Jehochman ^Talk 01:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The closing admin cited the policy passage he changed. He acted without a basis in policy. He did not have a rough consensus by any stretch of the imagination. There was wide agreement on that in the first DRV, and there has been no good argument showing that there was a rough consensus for delete. And yet it was on just that weak point that he changed the policy and cited it. Sorry, it's just a little too obvious. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Arbcom is thataway. But be careful what you wish for, I don't think you'll like the outcome. I'll give you this, the timing of the edit to the policy page to move it closer to reality might not have been the best. But the policy IS shifting. Are you, like Canute, standing in the way and telling the tide not to come in? ++Lar: t/c 01:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • As a famous group of philosophers once said: You say you want a revolution [...] But when you talk about destruction/ Don't you know that you can count me out JohnWBarber (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I hope Lar is being somehow ironic in this discussion. "telling the tide not to come in"? Give me a break. --Cyclopia^talk 02:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I whole heartedly support, applaud and second the comments and thoughts of editor JohnWBarber. I must be misunderstanding something here, an admin single handedly made an edit/change in policy to strengthen his case for his ideology, right? Why is there even any of this nancy discussion, empeach the admin, done and done. Otherwise, I will be making some policy edits as well to suit me tomorrow. Like I am the new Director here, I decide notability, etc. Count me in to standing in front of your stupid tide along with anyone else who will do so. Although I think it's only a ripple... Turqoise127 (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and after that I'm honestly not sure what to do. I had hoped User:Jake Wartenberg would have taken the chance to respond to the numerous questions, concerns, and suggestions on his talk page before it came to this, but it looks like he has not be able or willing to do so thus far. The reasons are simple: the deletion wasn't supported by policy, it wasn't supported by consensus, and the closing administrator was clearly not uninvolved in the process. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. I don't think this venue is an appropriate place to debate the whole process that went on here, or the debate happening over deletion policy, just the outcome for this AfD. So I'm not looking at who did what, or when. In this close, the admin seems to be well within the bounds of discretion in closing as delete. NW's opinion at the earlier DRV show that the close was not outside those bounds. Kevin (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRVs are supposed to be about whether the closing admin acted out of process or not. That's the issue. There is supposed to be no other issue, unless you've got some sourcing to add. JohnWBarber (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deciding that the correct outcome was reached by an incorrect process would not be a good outcome here. Kevin (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (edit conflict)

As DrVs are largely about process (read the top of the page) that's an interesting opinion. And as I don't think the outcome was right, not one to be overly worried about :-) Hobit (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to keep as per nom and per arguments below. I think it is worth to quote in its entirety the thorough analysis made by the previous closing admin:

• The previous close, despite the controversy and ultimately DRV due to its improper timing (~7 hours before the week period) has been praised on the admin talk page even by editors disagreeing with the outcome, because it did a wonderful work of assessment of the situation. And the picture, which didn't change significantly when AfD was reopened and reclosed, is that of a significant majority of meaningful arguments for keeping. The closure we are debating here instead ignored the previous admin closure, handwaved BLP concerns without explaining how he did weigh, and first transformed this relatively clear keep to a no consensus, and then used this already debatable decision to default to delete, based on his own edits of the policy. This is a disgraceful dismissal of the community consensus and as an editor I feel extremly concerned that community debate has not been taken into the right consideration by admins. --Cyclopia^talk 00:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: A simply beautiful red link. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closing admin may want to note MZMcBride's comment at the previous DRV on this (and discount his comment here): Overturn: Strongly. In high-profile AFDs, there is a much stronger requirement to follow the letter of the policies. [7] JohnWBarber (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is reasonable to believe that MZMcBride (who is an admin) has a different opinion because of different circumstances. Triplestop x3 02:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Err, I filed the original AFD. My objection to the previous AFD (early) closure had to do with members of the community being unfairly disenfranchised. Jake closed the AFD at the appropriate time (though I suppose that doesn't mean we should discount the other surrounding issues that subsequently emerged). This article should not exist on Wikipedia. Count or discount my vote here, I don't particularly care—I've said my piece. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Most keep votes seem to merely state that he is notable, while more of the delete votes give actual rationales for why he is not. Given this and the BLP issues I believe the close was plausible. Triplestop x3 00:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to quote just a sentence from the previous closure: However, User:Becksguy's analysis of the sources provided did a through job of demonstrating that there was additional substantial coverage elsewhere,. There have been plenty of editors and discussions actively working to demonstrate notability, not only simply stating it. One can disagree with such arguments, but please don't give a false view of the AfD. --Cyclopia^talk 00:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to count it that way, about 47% of the votes were delete. However a greater percent of keeps were one line comments. No consensus/delete seems to be reasonable Triplestop x3 01:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I have no issues with the process here. Proper close, and proper red link. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse there is enough BLP garbage on this encyclopedia. Why defend this except out of a wikinavalgazing or a doctrinaire addiction to inclusionism and rule-mongering. If those wishing to retain it cannot generate a consensus for doing so, then there's no need to cry over it. A redlink here won't do any harm whatsoever. For an arguement as to why such closed as this are a good thing, see my essay Wikipedia:Borderline biographies. Enough drama, move on.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was consensus, and it was consensus to keep. It was more than 60% of reasonable arguments to keep. The admin disregarded that. That's why we're here at DRV, among other things. --Cyclopia^talk 00:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a consensus there, and neither did the closing admin. I suppose we disagree about which arguments are "reasonable", but I think from the two-ing and fro-ing it is pretty obvious that we don't have any consensus here,--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus? Where? As you said, One can disagree with such arguments, but please don't give a false view of the AfD. Triplestop x3 00:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See previous admin closure, quoted in its entirety above: "Counted this way, the keep arguments make up over 60% of all those considered valid, a clear majority in a situation where you have over 100 people commenting." -see collapsed box above for full justification. --Cyclopia^talk 00:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that, and I disagree with "valid", and with the count. Look, I respect that you see things differently, everyone seems to have a different opinion here, that's what I mean when I say that there is evidently no settled consensus.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a vote, remember? And looking at the merits of the comments and the BLP concerns there is clearly no consensus at best. Triplestop x3 00:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wanting to actually adhere to rules we actually are supposed to adhere to is not "rule-mongering". When editors who are not admins blatantly refuse to follow rules, they are blocked. When admins do it ... they get "endorsed" There was a time and a place to argue the merits of deletion. This is the time and place to argue the merits of the close. JohnWBarber (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not and never has been simply a matter of following rules. We don't block people for "not following rules" either. At least I hope not.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not and never has been about flouting rules. There is actually a reason why they've been written up. There is actually a reason why there's a discussion right now at the talk page of WP:DEL. There was actually an attempt by Wartenberg to change the rule. Two can play the exaggerate-the-other-side's-argument game: Wikipedia is not supposed to be about chaos. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to an uninvolved admin. Voting to revert the old close, editing a policy, then closing based on the edited policy is "conduct that might appear at first sight to violate policy." Hipocrite (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion without prejudice either for David and his excellent contributions to the project, or for Jake, the brave closer of the debate: and with my profound condolences for the inevitable execrations to come to the brave soul who closes this debate. It was a no-consensus, and as a BLP, we should default to delete. Antandrus (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus: Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. But, of course, if the rules don't matter, Mr. or Ms. Closing Admin of this DRV, you just close however you want to. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The close was definitely and badly mishandled. If necessary, it can be relisted, or we can pick a truly uninvolved admit to re-assess the current AfD. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per above endorses (happy to write out in own words if appropriate) Privatemusings (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn on process only; changing the policy and then doing the close - regardless of intent - doesn't work well. I stress I am expressing no opinion on the discussion itself as I did not comment in the AfD and I was considering closing it myself (after the first one). Not suggesting I would close if it is overturned as a result of this DRV, but if nominated, I would accept...  Frank  |  talk  00:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The original early closer determined precisely 60% support to keep after discounting votes at his discretion. This is not steadfast. Different admins come to different conclusions. NuclearWarfare was drafting a close during the same time Hersfold was drafting his. NW and Hersfold had both taken the time to write out thoroughly detailed rationales, only NW was waiting until after the appropriate closing time to close whereas Hersfold jumped the gun by six hours and 40 minutes. So at the same point in the AFD, two different admins had come to two different conclusions. For anyone to assert that keep was the clear consensus here is stating their interpretation, not making a statement of fact. In the hours following the reopening of the AFD, additional arguments for each side came in, a particularly weighty one by Risker, so considering one admin had already come to the conclusion that the discussion was a delete, it's not a stretch to have another admin come to the same conclusion in the end. As for the specifics of the close, while not as detailed as the previous two discussed here, it hit the basic points. Even with consideration given to the citing of policy one has changed themselves, which I'm confused by, the conclusion to delete was still within admin discretion. As Doc g noted, policies change through precedent. As traditions change, policies are updated to reflect that. As more people realize the issues the project faces with BLP, the more consideration we see given to the BLP policy. No consensus is just that. No consensus to delete and no consensus to keep. Admins should have discretion to go either way depending on the circumstances in each individual case. In the cases of BLPs, that discretion is particularly important. Lara 00:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)I appreciate very much Lara's argument: even if I disagree, at least it is one of the first well-explained endorses I've seen in this DRV. That said, I understand that Hersfold close may be discussed, but he made it very clear and open which his criteria were to consider and weigh !votes. I suggest you, and other people disagreeing with that close -which is, as far as I know, the most thorough analysis of that AfD, even if a bit premature and herein debated- to put down a counter-analysis of the AfD that addressess the rationales put in by Hersfold. This would help understand rationally which are the points on which we base our disagreements. About the policy, the problem is that policies should change by community consensus, not by a single admin precedent. The discussion on such policy change is ongoing and currently it doesn't show a consensus towards the "default BLP to delete" interpretation, I'd say.--Cyclopia^talk 01:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not by one admin, but by bunches of them. Every BLP that is deleted after no consensus is one more article that demonstrates that policy is changing. This was by far not the first article closed this way and hopefully it will by far not be the last. Policy sometimes shifts abruptly, sometimes gradually. I suspect this is one of those latter times. I was content to ignore AfDs and DRVs of BLPs but I think it's time my voice was more consistently heard. Policy will shift. Or the encyclopedia will suffer for it. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. ++Lar: t/c 01:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Lar, please, you are not the new Messiah. "It's time my voice was more consistently heard". "Policy will shift". "Lead follow or get out of the way". Please, stop this messianic nonsense. It is possible that policy will change (discussion now seems to suggest otherwise) but this is not your personal cult. --Cyclopia^talk 01:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not so foolish to think that I alone can dictate anything, much less that I am anything other than one voice. But I think you will find you may well have awoken something in more editors than just myself. Again... lead, follow, or get out of the way. Your views are very far out of the norm. Most of humanity cares more about humanity than it does about this project. ++Lar: t/c 01:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My gosh what have I stumbled upon here? You know, I may be passionate, lacking in tact, etc, etc, but at least I,m not weird... What kind of nonsense is this? Someone needs to leave the .... pipe at home. Several editors for whatever reasons wish to be deletionist and non inclusive to the max. You all cooperate in AfD's and other places pushing your POV. What has awaken is you, from sleep, and you have gotten out of bed from the wrong side obviously... Turqoise127 (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering it was not a clear cut case, Cyclopedia's opinion is not that far of the norm. Plus your comment does sound really arrogant (btw, I endorse the deletion of this article). Garion96 (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Admins should have discretion to go either way depending on the circumstances in each individual case. But they don't. If Jake Wertenberg had actually made a case that so many of the "Keep" !votes should be discounted and then showed how the remaining "Delete" votes were a consensus, you'd have a case. But he didn't. The discussion just did not go that way. There were too many Keep votes with good arguments and not enough Delete votes with good arguments to overwhelm them. And Deletion discussion clearly states that with no rough consensus, the AfD faults to "Keep". JohnWBarber (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There were too many Keep votes with good arguments and not enough Delete votes with good arguments to overwhelm them. Your interpretation. Lara 12:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A rough estimate shows 47% to be in favor of delete and 53% in favor of keep in the end. Correct if mistaken. Triplestop x3 01:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 1

• Overturn and refer to Arbcom. There's various sorts of bad faith going on here, but we can't possibly endorse a situation where the closer rewrites the rules just before closing and then closes in accordance with his rewrite. On the other hand, if the nominator's statement here is factually correct, then we're at least potentially in summary desysopping territory, and that's not within DRV's jurisdiction. The high-profile nature of the case and the abusive behaviour alleged here puts it squarely in Arbcom's bailiwick.

  Further, BLPs do not default to delete. There is no consensus to say they do. !Votes that imply otherwise should be rejected out of hand as spurious.

  Still further, there was no consensus in that discussion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Per Frank. Chasing policy just so you can get your way in a given debate strikes me as a disastrous idea. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion This process is just more navel gazing. If you take out Wikipedia from this story and drop in some other notable website, there'd have been 5 delete votes at this AfD, and zero to one keeps. The closing administrator properly ignored comments that had faulty reasoning (such as ILIKEIT). Jehochman ^Talk 01:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? We would keep any article with this degree of sourcing. It meets WP:N by a mile. One person in the AfD walked each source and showed it met WP:N by a wide margin. I think you'll find the common AfD/DrV !voters all came out on the same side (keep). It was all the delete !votes coming from people who rarely attend these that caused it even to come into debate. And many of those arguments were WP:JNN or if he's notable, so am I. Hobit (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The admin A) commented on a previous DrV for the same article a few hours previous B) changed the relevant policy before he closed the AfD (which was quickly reverted). I'm told he closed it within a minute of when it became eligible to be closed. He certainly isn't an uninvolved or independent admin on this topic. Even if I supported the outcome based on the discussion (which I most certainly do not, there was no consensus either way) I'd !vote to overturn this. I'm saddened that those who got their way are so supportive of this. Process is important, and process was broken here. Hobit (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, optionally relisting if anyone really believes the discussion would turn out differently. The discussion was, while probably a no consensus by pure numbers, trending toward keep, and the keep arguments did address the issue of appropriate sourcing in depth. The article's subject has specifically declined to object to the article [8], so I'm unsure who BLP is "protecting" here? This seems to have been done to make a point, not to protect anyone. When the article's subject specifically declines to ask for protection, wouldn't it seem a little paternalistic and patronizing to decide that, well, we know better and we're going to give it to him anyway? That aside, several varied sources which covered the article's subject in depth were presented, so there's no question of "marginal" notability in any case—multiple substantial sources satisfy the general notability guideline. Regardless, however, I cannot have confidence in this close given the behavior of the closing administrator, especially after another administrator had already decided otherwise. If that administrator felt the close was in error (including that it had come too early), the proper course of action would be for him to approach the closing admin, state his concerns, and bring the close here if they could not come to agreement, not to unilaterally overturn the standing decision. As to those who assert that this would have turned out differently if the subject were not a Wikipedian, I think the opposite is true. Were the subject not a Wikipedia editor, I think most of the comments would have been "Plenty of sources, they address the subject directly and in depth, including interviewing a head of state, what's the problem here?" Of course, that's just my speculation, but so is any other proposed outcome had the subject not been who it was. But regardless, the closing admin was clearly involved, and it was highly inappropriate for him to close the discussion in any way. If he had a strong opinion on the matter, he should do what any previously involved admin is welcome to do—participate in the discussion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse - one more default to delete. ++Lar: t/c 01:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current deletion policy: pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. Your opinion is against policy. You know, the one you've been attempting to change. If you succeed in changing it, will you be bothered if the policy is ignored? JohnWBarber (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Policy pages are not legislation, but a record of "what tends to happen". Lar's views contradict the page, but not neccessarily the policy. It seems that there is some disagreement as to what the page should say.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The almond at the top of WP:DEL disagrees with you: This page in a nutshell: Administrators have the ability to delete articles and other Wikipedia pages from general view, and to undelete pages that were previously deleted. These powers are exercised in accordance with established policies and guidelines, and community consensus. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and reclose This discussion can serve as a honeypot for administrator smugness, or it can actually serve to do justice. This game was rigged in a way that reminds me of the Soviet basketball "victory" at Munich. The only way for this to end fairly is to overturn, allow an uninvolved administrator to review the debate, the initial closure, the policy change, the second closure and the timeline overall, and then make an unbiased final ruling based on the merits of the arguments made in the debate. Anything short of that can only serve to reinforce a suspicion that more than one or two of the current administrator class is actually harming rather than building the encyclopedia by shifting its supposed neutral point of view to one of their own liking which they can then use to control the project. To paraphrase Joseph N. Welch, do you who endorse this blatant manipulation of words and rules in favor of a weakly argued closure ruling have no sense of fair play? Sswonk (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I urge the administrator closing this discussion to disregard the opinions of those who posit conspiracy theories. This is just a situation where well-meaning people disagree. Jehochman ^Talk 01:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Positing a conspiracy theory is not the same as suggesting that unfair practices only serve to reinforce the beliefs of those that do so, which is what was suggested by me above. If people have quit the project because they think cabals exist to manipulate rules and events, this unfortunate closure action has the potential to add to their numbers. Sswonk (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If done by a truly uninvolved admin, this closure finding a consensus to delete, although harder to justify rephrased, Tim Song (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC) would be within the closer's discretion, and, consistent with my reluctance to second-guess AfD closures in general, as I noted in the first DRV on this very AfD, I would endorse it. But the closer in this case is not an uninvolved admin. He !voted in the first DRV to overturn, opining that the first close was invalid. He changed the pertinent policy during that DRV and a few hours before he then closed the AfD, in partial reliance on the policy he just changed.[reply]

  "Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice." I find it extremely disquieting that many who were !voting to overturn the first close on the ground that it was about 7 hours early are now !voting to endorse this closure, which, if anything, is tainted by much more serious procedural infirmities. Regardless of the merits of the close the result rephrased, Tim Song (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC) - which, as I said, I believe would have been within an uninvolved closer's discretion - I think that the procedural infirmities here have so infected the process as to render the result itself unsafe. Therefore, overturn, either for a truly uninvolved admin to close, or, if I were closing this, to no consensus, defaulting to keep. There is no consensus whatsoever that no consensus on BLPs default to delete. Tim Song (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is, as you say, not be a consensus that BLPs must default to delete. However, it is (also as you say) within a closing admin's discretion.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • An uninvolved closing admin's discretion. Tim Song (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC) It is within an uninvolved closing admin's discretion, perhaps just, to find a consensus to delete. It is not within the closer's discretion, involved or not, to find no consensus, and then default to delete. Tim Song (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC) rephrased and expanded. [reply]
    • Yes, but we agree on the principle. Personally, I'm look at the merits of a close (or indeed those any edit) rather than at the person of the closer, but we can vary on that.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree with letting an "uninvolved" admin closing this. It seems that there are many different opinions on this among admins so you are pretty much throwing the dice. Triplestop x3 01:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I rephrased my wording to better reflect what I meant to say. And Scott, I disagree. If we are to entrust something to someone's discretion, we had better make sure that they are not otherwise involved in the matter. Would you let your co-defendant's lawyer handle your case in court? Tim Song (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse a sensible and per policy close. Crafty (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I was a rather vocal participant in the AfD and subsequent discussions (on Jake's talk page in particular) so I'm hardly uninvolved, but I couldn't agree more with what MZM says. There is so much work that needs to be done on Wikipedia. We have hundreds of thousands of dubiously sourced articles, and likely even more topics that don't yet have articles at all. It's frankly a bit ridiculous that we've exerted so much energy into this marginally notable topic that can at best be classified as navel-grazing; I have lots of respect for both David and the users involved in this discussion, but this article is simply not suitable for inclusion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus- that AFD should never have been re-listed in the first place. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus per Umbralcorax. There was no consensus there, not even close. In fact, we couldn't even keep the facts straight; apart from questions about the number of !votes on one side or the other, is the amount of misinformation that was used in many people's justifications. And also the numerous points raised that have no bearing on Wikipedia's definition of notability or standards for verifiability. To have any hope of achieving a consensus, I believe we'd need to have a careful re-listing that summarizes and analyzes what was said in the first discussion, so that we're all working from the same facts. -Pete (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am noticing that most endorsers are taking this as AfD round 2 3. With a few good exceptions (Lara/Jennavecia for example), they are not debating the AfD process but, again, the article. I want to emphasize that an AfD discussion already has been done, and that what is highly controversial here are circumstances of the closure. I would appreciate -and the closing admin of this DRV too, probably- if we stick debate to the AfD process and not the article itself. --Cyclopia^talk 01:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Making this close after having made the edit to the policy page and casting a vote in the DRV was a mistake. I don't think that this mistake rises to the level of invalidating my closure, though, so I will not be reversing it. The intent in making that edit was to change the policy to better reflect actual practice; admins close no consensus BLP AFDs often as delete. So, please understand that my closure does not rely at all on that edit, and that I didn't have this particular AfD in mind when I made the edit. — Jake Wartenberg 02:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you see why this mistake looks so bad, Jake?

    On your other remark, those few admins who close no consensus BLP AfDs as delete consistently get overturned here. The DRV regulars aren't confused about this at all.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm searching for examples of AFDs closed as such, can you link to some DRVs that overturned any. I've not seen any in my search. Lara 02:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • For example, David O'Connor from 9th July. You will not see any cases where DRV endorses a close in which no consensus has been defaulted to delete.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • PS: The page for 7th May contains the most recent discussion on DRV of this exact issue (i.e. should there be special provisions to delete BLPs?)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators says As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it. breaking that rule, especially in such a contentious AfD is a darn fine reason to reverse it. Hobit (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Jake, are you seriously arguing that you voted to overturn in a DRV, then changed the deletion policy to make deletion easier, and then deleted, but when you changed the policy you didn't have that particular AfD in mind—even though it was sandwiched between two actions related to that AfD? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Poor and misleading phrasing on my part. I meant that I wasn't planing on involving myself further at the time, but I am sure I was thinking about the events surrounding the article. — Jake Wartenberg 21:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Jake's closure. Regardless of whether one believes the article ought to exist or not, what Jake did is unacceptable, and no one should be encouraging him to think this is how admins ought to behave. He made his views known in the first DVR, voting that Hersfold's closure should be overturned at 18:10 Oct 25. [9] That made him involved. Thirty-four minutes later, at 18:44, he made a significant change to the deletion policy, with a misleading edit summary, to allow borderline BLPs to default to delete even when the subject has not requested it, [10] a proposal that has been defeated several times over the last few years (and which I supported myself though what has happened here gives me pause for thought). Six hours later, at 00:40 Oct 26, he overturned Hersfold's close, relying on the policy change that he himself had just made, and closed the AfD as delete. [11] He then deleted the article himself, even though he was an involved admin. [12] There could not be a clearer example of an out-of-process deletion. He has made matters worse by ignoring requests on his talk page to overturn his actions, [13] not replying to them at all, which has made this second DRV necessary.

  To avoid yet more escalation of the situation, it's important that whoever closes this DRV be completely uninvolved with BLP deletion issues, IRC, Wikipedia Review, or with any of the key parties. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus – with due respect given to Jake, who I think made a very difficult call of the close, (We still would have been going back and forth if he or another admin closed other than "delete".) I don't know if I would have interpreted the consensus the same way he did, especially regarding that there is a lack of even rough consensus about the closure of such AFDs. MuZemike 02:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Wikipedia should be a passive observer to the largest extent possible, and its active contributors should remain off article space. In some cases, where major mainstream media have picked up stories about an individual whose notability rises to beyond a shadow of a doubt, like Jimmy Wales, we have no choice and must include a page. But in less notable cases editors should remain invisible. Also, I strongly believe that in general, the presumption in marginal notability BLP AfD should be to delete. This has been supported in the past by many, if not most Wikipedians who are sensitive to BLP issues. Each BLP page is a magnet for vandalism and malicious edits, and we are already strapped trying to keep the notable ones sane. Adding a myriad of marginally notable BLP pages will reduce the overall quality of the encyclopedia and hamper our efforts of keeping junk and libel off its pages. Crum375 (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Absolutely the right thing to do. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I see no problem with the way this was closed. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 03:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The deletion rationale was sound. As far as the bigger picture goes, it does appear that Wikipedia has finally, thankfully, shifted to a position that BLPs on marginally notable or arguably notable subjects should default to delete when there is not a clear consensus to keep. Cla68 (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Did I miss that discussion? user:J aka justen (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The second close was procedurally preposterous. Changing policy and basing a close on it? As bad, or worse, than "!voting" and closing. As SlimVirgin says "There could not be a clearer example of an out-of-process deletion." No consensus was clearly the only outcome, and based on the policy at the time of the AfD, and now, the default was keep. It is secondary at DRV, but the deletes, particularly the one quoted in the close, were IMHO conspicuously badly argued, ignored policy and evidence, and refused to engage the keeps' commonplace, strong and well supported arguments. (Bigtimepeace's was a notable exception.) If Shankbone were not a wikipedian, there would be no chance at all of a delete. Comparably sourced articles are essentially never deleted. As Hobit notes above, AfD regulars, deletionists and inclusionists alike, were strongly for keeping.John Z (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not endorse deletion, do not overturn either, just do nothing. Given his edit of the deletion policy page and his participation in the previous DRV, Jake Wartenberg should not have closed this AfD, period point blank. I'm happy that the article was deleted, but in no way can I "endorse" the close just because I !voted delete in the AfD. When there is the appearance of impropriety (as there is here), decisions made by admins immediately become controversial, generate ill will, and suck up community time, so we should not endorse those sort of decisions even if we like them (and even if they accomplish something important, like taking a step forward on the BLP problem, which is incredibly important). Those blithely endorsing and saying they see no problems with how Jake closed this should ask themselves how they would feel if the circumstances were entirely reversed (admin edits WP:DEL to weaken admin deletion of BLPs and then closes the AfD as "keep"). I'm not into process for the sake of it, but it was violated pretty severely here, and I can't very well ignore that, particularly when a number of good-faith editors are genuinely and legitimately upset about it. Given all that, I should seemingly support overturning this (and understand why many do), but I think that's a terrible idea and worse than the status quo (which is not good). We cannot simply default to the earlier close by Hersfold (it was strongly rejected at the first DRV) and there clearly will not be consensus here to overturn this completely to a "no consensus, default to keep." The only acceptable (but really unacceptable) option is to undo the close and let yet another admin re-close this. But we all know that will be a crap shoot. Two admins closed it completely differently, and a third admin (Nuclear Warfare) was planning to close it in a slightly different way (but more akin to what Jake did). Whoever steps up to the plate next will face the same criticism others have. What if, and this is a non-trivial possibility, their closing statement and rationale (whatever the decision) is just plain bad? Do we come back for DRV number three? I think we can all agree that David Shankbone (no offense David) is not a core (or even slightly important) topic for Wikipedia, and it's hardly a travesty if we don't cover it. If he continues to get covered in the press such that we have more sources, the article could be re-created at a later date. Or not. It's not a big deal, and the best thing for us to do right now is to let sleeping dogs lie. Surely that sounds self-serving since I supported trashing the article and it's sitting over there in the trashcan, but if this is overturned and the article is restored I'll say the exact same thing. Finally I agree with SlimVirgin that the person who closes this DRV needs to be completely and utterly uninvolved, ideally to the point that they have not been following the situation at all. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse end result, though not the method of achieving it. Jake's behavior seems to merit dicussion elsewhere; however this board is not the venue for it. Had another admin, who had not been involved in editing the policy page in question, actually closed the AFD with the same result, there would be no issue here. So, while Jake's behavior over this issue is a problem, the end result would be no different had a different admin closed with the same result. --Jayron32 04:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, this is the right place. Deletion review is supposed to be about whether the closing admin was in-policy, not whether we disagree with the result. —Finell (Talk) 04:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides, this is not a case where every reasonable closer would have reached the same result. We don't even have to guess. We know it. Tim Song (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep: I disagree with the second closure to delete. I agree with JohnWBarber's analysis in opening this deletion review. Absent a request by the subject of a marginally notable BLP, the default is keep. Regardless of motives, the deletion policy was correctly described until it was changed during the AfD with a misleading edit summary. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy also supports keep as the default in the absence of consensus. It observes, "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known." More directly, it states: "Page deletion is normally a last resort." This policy page recommends taking extra care for accuracy, assuring that content is supported by reliable sources, and compliance with other content guidelines. Objectively, Shankbone satisfies Wikipedia's relatively low standard of notability; many of the editors who supported deletion acknowledge this, but supported deletion for non-policy reasons. I agree with Hersfold's first closure-to-keep analysis although, especially in retrospect, it might have been better if he had waited 7 full days, even though the extra hours didn't change anything: when Jake Wartenberg closed the AfD for the second time, the state of consensus (or lack of it) had not changed, but he reversed Hersfold's result. Both the process and the result stink. —Finell (Talk) 04:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn If this had been closed as a deletion I could easily see a series of closing arguments that would have made me endorse the close. However, changing policy yourself without any consensus or discussion and then using that "policy" to justify a closing discussion sounds like something out of Kafka or Josef Heller. Maybe people should just close everything the way they want and modify policy pages accordingly to justify it. I can see some really interesting results happening for fair use images and that's just to start. Jakes own, prior involvement in discussing the AfD here and elsewhere just makes the close even more ridiculous. The fact that the subject wasn't of marginal notability and that the sources clearly put him well within notability(as demonstrated by the analysis in Hersfold's early close) means that there's no even a good reason to get this into the no consensus range to even try to claim that should go to deletion. No consensus is not the same thing as "lots of people were shouting." Policy and sourcing make the correct decision clear. Jake's involvement and attempts to change policy are simply agravvating factors making this close even worse. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plea to administrators: Many of the "endorse" supporters acknowledge that the way Jake Wartenberg closed the AfD was against policy, but they either agree with the result, think that the Shankbone article isn't a "core" topic, don't care much about the result, or have other reasons. Since the issue here is whether the closure was according to policy, these editors' comments actually support overturning the closure. I urge whoever ultimately closes this deletion review to consider the important issues of procedure and policy, rather than count these as "votes" for endorsing closure. Please do this one the right way for the right reasons. Thank you. —Finell (Talk) 05:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary, the question is whether or not the article should be undeleted; which is the practical result of an overturn here. The discussion of what sanctions (if any) should befall the closing admin based on his actions should be held elsewhere; but the question is whether or not the article should remain deleted or should be undeleted is the salient point here. --Jayron32 05:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not interested in pursuing "sanctions" against anyone. It would be nice if Jake acknowledged that he was wrong. Hersfold had the grace to reopen his own closure, even though in his opinion he reached the correct result for the correct reasons (and I and many others agree with him). He could have said, Deletion review is thataway. —Finell (Talk) 05:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Look, the whole point is that this discussion should be solely whether the result of the AFD should be overturned or not, and to say that a users vote should be discounted because you don't like his/her reasoning; or worse that that vote should be counted as the opposite of its intent!?! is a major problem. Many editors have espoused the position that the situations that surrounded the closure were problematic, but not in a way that would lead them to conclude that the result should itself be overturned. That seems like a perfectly fine conclusion to reach, and yet you advocate that anyone who feels that way should have their opinions discounted or be counted among those they disagree with instead? That seems a real problem. Let all the opinions and discussion stand as it is; a closing admin here will weigh them as he/she sees fit. --Jayron32 05:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, the whole point of the discussion can be found at the top of the deletion review page "... Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate." The whole point here is to correct process fixes. So yes, those !voting based on the content (other than how it applies to the process) should largely have their !votes discounted. I say largely because IAR is policy too. Hobit (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Except that I was not argueing about the content of the article, and neither are the people Finell is claiming should have their votes discounted. The arguement is whether or not the result of the AFD should be overturned based on the strength of the arguements at the AFD. In other words, though I concede that the closing admin misbehaved in the act of closing this debate; that another uninvolved admin who had closed the debate would have closed it the same way. So, since it is my belief that the misbehavior of the closing admin did not have a substantive effect on the result of the closure, based purely on the strength of the arguements at that AFD, that there is no reason to overturn the result. Finell has argued that people cannot argue that, and I simply do not understand why. --Jayron32 13:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • There was a significant process problem. No one disagrees with that. The first DrV overturned the first close not because people felt the close was wrong (I thought it was right) but because of the process violation. This one has a much more significant process violation and the same thing should happen. Hobit (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 2

• Endorse There was no clear consensus in the AfD (though I think that there was a strong lean towards deletion) and this closure was in line with the normal way in which no consensus AfDs on living people are handled. Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The close was done correctly, this is the way we should close BLPs with no consensus. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. You should recuse yourself from closing a controversial AFD if you have a strong opinion on the matter and let someone who has a more disinterested and impartial view do that. There are only a few things which trump consensus, e.g., clear and gross violations of the verifiability policy, and legal matters such as copyright. The opinion of the closer does not trump the opinion of the community. Closing as a delete, contrary to a significant number of good faith keep opinions from people who have a great deal of experience and clue about what is encyclopedic, is a slap in the face. Given that Jake 1) voted to overturn the first close, 2) changed the policy to justify deletion, and 3) obviously has a strong opinion on the matter, he should have seen instantly that closing was an improper action. The sad thing about the DRV process is that since many people wanted this deleted, they are going to run around endorsing the deletion, no matter how proper or improper the closer's conduct was. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely. I agree with this very perceptive view, and I also think it's a pity there are users who are treating this DRV as a referendum on whether BLPs should default to "delete" on no consensus. That discussion should be taking place on the talk page of WP:DEL, and indeed it is, where it is generating more heat than light.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse process correctly followed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You felt Jake was an uninvolved admin? Hobit (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• OVERTURN, then RELIST, and LET THE DISCUSSION REMAIN OPEN FOR THE FULL FUCKING AMOUNT OF TIME. I'm sorry but this is a botched job that was botched not once, but twice. Excuse my French, but this totally calls for a do over. JBsupreme (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey supreme.... you clearly feel strongly about this one, but would you mind sort of not shouting and swearing? Praps you could make your point in a friendly fashion? It'd be appreciated. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. Changing a policy to support your point of view is, at best, poor form. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion - I'm twitchy about the policy changing beforehand (tho' I agree with it), but in the main I agree that the closing admin's deletion was in-process given the lack of clear consensus yet with a clear leaning towards delete - Alison ^❤ 10:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if there was any clear leaning, it was towards keep. --Cyclopia^talk 12:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and let someone else close it, someone who isn't so obviously trying to use this as a vehicle for a policy change. I couldn't give a flying fuck whether there is an article on David Shankbone, but anyone who thinks this one was done properly, according to policy as it stands and in keeping with the requirement that the closing admin be uninvolved, is -ahem- dissembling either to themselves or to the rest of us. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion An uninvolved observer looking over the arguments at the AfD would have to conclude that there was no clear consensus on the debate. The arguments for keep were well written, but fairly transparent that their true motivations were to keep the article as a laudation for its subject. WP:BLP boils down to "do no harm." There was no way we were ever going to have a neutral biography on such a marginably notable subject. Several editors lined up to protect any material critical of the subject, including his own image contributions, from apearing in the article on the dubious grounds that they were an "attack" on the subject. The editing of policy before the closure is troubling, but the outcome was the right thing to do. A correct combining of the spirit of WP:BLP with WP:DEL Chuthya (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know others ,but for sure I didn't want to keep for "laudation for its subject". I didn't have the slightest idea of who Shankbone was, apart that he is a WP editor. The article was informative to me -I didn't know Wikinews managed to interview a head of state, for example (I guess I should read it more,heh)- and it was in my opinion a well sourced article about a clearly notable subject. That's it. Please don't try to read other people's minds. --Cyclopia^talk 12:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More so, if there was no consensus, we default to keep. Hobit (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit is correct and the policy that underlies his remark is WP:BLPDEL.

I think there are three issues to consider here: (1) Is there sufficient consensus arising from this DRV or elsewhere to change what BLPDEL says? (2) Was it reasonable for Jake to vote at the previous DRV, then amend the policy, then close according to his amendment? and (3) Is there sufficient consensus at this DRV to overturn the actual deletion?

Trying to step back from the issue and look at the consensus, I would think that the emerging answer to all three questions is "no", and we may well be looking at an outcome of "no consensus to overturn". But I think it would be best if the person who closes this DRV would please consider all three of the questions I've listed and answer each one separately, together with any others that might emerge in the discussion, in a detailed closing rationale.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and reopen to allow for a closure by an administrator who was not previously involved in this matter. The comments above indicate that there is sufficient reason to perceive the closing administrator as insufficiently neutral. No opinion about the merits of the closure.  Sandstein  13:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn It's obvious that the administrator who closed was not neutral and also didn't follow policies. This can't be allowed to set the future ways of doing things. We need to follow policies and esp. when it's so divided in the community like this one was. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and put this tortured drama whore of a process to bed. We don't tally the numbers here, so users who keep hounding the 60-40 business are missing a fundamental point of the AfD process. "No consensus, thus delete" was the proper path to take here, and the closing admin arrived at it soundly. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 60:40 is not about counting heads robotically. It is about counting the heads who made sound and plausible arguments. Read the criteria used by the previous closing admin -you are free to debate them of course but it was not mere "counting". It was weighing too. That said, the process of this AfD was admitted as tainted by the closing admin himself here too. Do we need much more than that? --Cyclopia^talk 13:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it is about counting plausible arguments, which were in short supply on the "keep" side. The "tainted" cris are weak wiki-lawyering IMO. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn There were no current BLP issues and only potential(ie theoretical ones) and the subject of the article did not request deletion. The wording of policy did not allow for a default to delete until the closer changed the wording just 2 hours before closing. Now that this change is being discussed there is plenty of objection to it at the deletion policy. BLP is all to often used when BLP is not the issue. This closing admin also participated in the DRV for the previous AfD and thus is not an uninvolved admin. No assumption of bad faith here, I would just like to see it closed by someone else. Chillum 13:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Quoting Crohnie above "the administrator who closed was not neutral and also didn't follow policies"; additionally, the closing summary was a poor, weak thing that didn't adequately summarise the views that had been expressed. Andrew Dalby 14:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn People, just say no to BLP policy activism on Wikipedia. Or one day a policy that you don't agree with being changed, will be changed, in this same slip-shod manner. If the winds of change have been effective, and defaulting to delete is now the common outcome for no consensus BLPs, or there is sufficient support for this change off the back of this shitstorm (arguably looking in here), then PROVE IT properly, with a dedicated discussion on the general issue, that can be properly referred to in years time. Then you can change the policy citing this proof, and deal with this specific closure as well. It is going to be frankly ridiculous if 'result was delete per David Shankbone' becomes a new policy shortcut around here. MickMacNee (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  And as others have pointed out, Shankbone did not request deletion, and he most certainly is not someone who does not seek to be a non-public figure, so the edit warring over the deletion policy seems irrelevant, he fials two of the three purported acceptable reasons for deleting no consensus BLPs. And if we are deleting controversial BLPs now because it might get screwed with in future, then let's all just pack up and go home now. MickMacNee (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse because we have enough crap "articles" (this one was essentially a bunch of random news articles and blogs chucked together in a random fashion that barely discuss Shankbone - we don't even know his date of birth for goodness' sake). It was a borderline case, and there was definitely no consensus to keep, so the only alternative is to delete, as it's one less BLP fan page to worry about. Majorly talk 15:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you think this is a similar example of such a 'fan page'? MickMacNee (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Mr. Connolley meets the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. Mr. Miller does not meet the criteria of WP:CREATIVE. Chuthya (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  And which criteria does Connolley meet in ACADEMIC? Prior Afds, unsurprisingly, give no indication. As for Shankbone and CREATIVE, plenty of people argued he meets 2 and 4 for his Peres interview, certainly enough for a 'no consensus' close on basic notbaility, forgetting all the BLP issues. MickMacNee (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Mr. Connoley's extensive bibliography passes the professor test. In contrast, Mr. Miller's one head of state interview does not qualify as "originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" or has his work "either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries." If interviewing a head of state qualifies someone for a BLP, then we better get cracking on the interviews of everyone who asked President Obama a question at a town hall meeting. Chuthya (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't asking for a simple restatement that you think he meets WP:ACADEMIC, I asked you precisely which criteria of that guideline he actually meets, and how? 'Look, publications!' is not showing how he passes ACADEMIC. As for Miller, you've missed out one important detail that separates him from the Obama examples you give, and hence your assesment of the criteria w.r.t. Miller is probably flawed. MickMacNee (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Mr. Connoley's extensive bibliography speaks for itself. I don't think I need to rehash the entire professor test here for you; you can read it yourself. And as Majorly says this isn't the forum for it. If you feel it warrants one, start an AfD debate. Be sure you fit your waders first. As for Mr. Miller, if the AfD were re-opened, how could you show that the Peres interview originated "a significant new concept, theory or technique" or qualifies any parts of a, b, c, or d above? None of the arguments at the first AfD ever addressed this issue or quantitatively demonstrated that he passes any of these tests, and I'm curious if you could convince me that he could. Chuthya (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Look at the debate, you will see numerous arguments form many people describing the notable aspect of the interview. As for Connelley, yes, let's continue it there, you've already seen the link. Hopefully you can convince me not to start an Afd based on not meeting ACADEMIC, but currently, I have to say you aren't doing a very good job of it so far. MickMacNee (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  @MickMacNee: if we were discussing the article on William Connolley, I would opine there. But, since we are not, I don't think it relevant here. The point is, the voting result was close, and therefore it is best practice, especially with BLPs, to delete it, and if we make a mistake, we can either undelete or recreate. We don't need articles that were not agreed to be kept by a strong consensus. Majorly talk 18:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I had anticipated this, so I invite you and Chuthya, and any other interested party, to come and chime in here: Talk:William_Connolley#WP:ACADEMIC. MickMacNee (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, with regret. I don't particularly think it a good idea to have endless debates on contentious issues. But regardless of your opinion on the merits of this article, it seems the closing admin didn't show sufficient disinterest (as evidenced by the earlier DRV comments, policy edits and posting a close within a minute of ending time), and should left the close to another administrator more able to dispassionately judge the merits of the arguments presented. henrik•talk 15:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - could have used a different closer, but the close is appropriate. As Majorly notes, this was borderline. People want to overturn this because of the closer, which just means that we do this again, and again, and again... how'bout we just leave it alone as it is, let the drama llama die a natural death, and go improve some articles? (Oh, right, I forgot which website I was on. Carry on.) Tony Fox (arf!) 16:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Question: Where do the "deletionists" find the supposed policy that we delete if there is no consensus to keep? When I asked this question at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/David Shankbone, I was pointed to Jake's short-lived, unilateral change of the deletion policy page; that is now back to the real policy. What about this additional policy at WP:BLPDEL: "Page deletion is normally a last resort." For the record, I do not know and personally do not care about David Shankbone, and I never edited that article. I care a lot about upholding good policies. Majorly says that "there was definitely no consensus to keep, so the only alternative is to delete". One could just as easily say, "There was no consensus to delete, so the decision was to preserve the status quo and keep." That, in fact, has always been the general policy. Do you really think that all the articles on fictional histories of fictional superheros are more encyclopedic than this one? As for other "marginal" BLPs, compare Don Panoz, with only one reference in one regional newspaper. —Finell (Talk) 16:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you seriously comparing this article, on a citizen journalist who's interviewed some famous people, with an international businessman, race track owner,and founder of a successful international race team? Uh... yeah. Well, anyhow, I believe our precedent for this type of BLP deletion started with Daniel Brandt, and has been used a few times since (can't turn them up just now, but they're out there). Tony Fox (arf!) 18:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm certainly not a deletionist, but I'll point you to my essay WP:BBLP, which advocates admins should consider using the discretion we give them to do this.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your essay is not policy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If only there were (subjunctive like whoa) some sort of cute banner we could stick at the top of the page explaining the distinction between essays and policies. Alas. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The close seemed to violate every guideline of WP:DGFA#Deciding whether to delete which states:

1. Whether consensus has been achieved by determining a "rough consensus"
2. Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants.
3. As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it.
4. When in doubt, don't delete.

Colonel Warden (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Decision of the closing admin was appropriate and that is the only criterion we should use for judging here, not whether proper procedure was followed or not. In fact, in my opinion it was followed as the closing admin was reasonably uninvolved. Pantherskin (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the result, but not the method. Like some here, I agree that the article should have been deleted. That said, I think that the rationale for deletion was flawed. AfD is not a vote but a discussion, where the strength of the arguments are analysed and weighed up in order to reach a consensus. Discussion of vote quantity or percentage is not helpful in understanding the quality of these arguments and how they relate to policy. With that said, a better approach would be as follows:

The primary guideline of relevance here is WP:BIO, an extension itself of WP:N. The basic criteria starts out by saying that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". There are also additional criteria - for any biography a person must have recieved a notable award or honour, or made a widely recognised contribution that is part of the enduring historical record ((WP:ANYBIO). For people who work in the creative arts such as photography or journalism, there are advanced criteria available at WP:CREATIVE. While there is no doubt that Mr Shankbone fulfils the basic criteria, there is considerable debate over meeting the more advanced criteria. This is most likely why there is no consensus

By expanding to encompass the general notability guideline WP:N, we find a more generic guideline of notability. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". By this standard alone, one would think that Mr Shankbone had gained notability. But then again, is the topic of these articles about Mr Shankbone directly, or about a leading Wikipedia editor visiting the head of state of Israel? Again, one could argue that apart from the Brooklyn Rail article the predominate focus is about am editor who was invited to Israel by the Foreign Ministry

It is relevant that we then turn to the policy WP:BLP. As far as balancing policy against guidelines are concerned, policy is intended to take prescedence. From our analysis when looking at WP:N above, one is drawn to the section about single events - WP:BLP1E. In this case, the policy states that "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options". In this case if a merge and redirect was felt to be suitable, a suitable target would be the article on Wikinews, specifically the section on Interviews.

To conclude, I feel that an analysis of the notability aspects has led to a lack of consensus from among the community, and it's clear to see why it can occur. But when widening the analysis to include how our policies apply, together with reading what the majority of sources are telling us, that an end result can be argued. It can be demonstrated that the article largely falls within the remit of WP:BLP1E in it's current form prior to deletion, and while some contect can be merged with the relevant parts of Wikinews, most of the sourcing is already there. If a redirect is needed, it's cheap and easy to implement. Should Mr Shankbone's exploits in photography or journalism lend him notability outside of the single event that has dominated his career, the article would be a candidate for recreation. Till such time, I would endorse deletion or redirection as a BLP on the cusp of notability. Apologies for the lengthly analysis, Gazimoff 18:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy analysis, and I appreciate the effort. But it fails in pointing to WP:ANYBIO. As clearly stated, these are additional criteria for inclusion, neither necessary, nor, indeed sufficient. The controlling principle is WP:N. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen, I beg to disagree. WP:N is a guideline for inclusion. WP:BLP is policy. WP:BLP1E is a subsection of said policy. As policy overrides guidelines, it remains the overriding principle. Gazimoff 20:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The line "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." appears in both of the more specialized notability criteria above. Practice and policy support using specialized criteria for inclusion rather than exclusion. The biggest RS was the CJR piece. The first two paragraphs focus on Peres and Israel. The next dozen or so do not, at all. BLP1E applicability is not supported by the sources. Finally, as one of the 3 closures has been little discussed, I suggest we revert to RMHED's non-adminstrative closure, the best of the lot.John Z (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I feel that the WP:BLP1E element of WP:BLP - a policy - carry further weight here. The sources were all predominately written in response to Mr Shankbone's invitation to Israel. Although they go on to cover him in further detail, it is commonplace for news articles covering a notable event to describe those involved in more detail. Should Mr Shankbone become notable for more than his visit to Israel (which is what the bio was almost excusively about before deletion), then your point may be valid. Gazimoff 20:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"There are also additional criteria - for any biography a person must have received a notable award or honor, or made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record ((WP:ANYBIO)." implies a huge misunderstanding of the guideline. As noted above this is an additional criteria that might allow one to bypass WP:N, not an additional criteria. Wow. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I am aware of this, although I perhaps could have been clearer in this point. It's why my second point fell back to discussing WP:N on it's own merits, ignoring the expansion that WP:BIO provides. Hope this helps, Gazimoff 21:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said this somewhere else, but I can't remember where: The CJR article mentioned the Perez episode in the beginning of the article, but didn't depend on it. The article was about Shankbone. The point of WP:BLP1E is that focusing too much on one event warps a BLP article and may be unfair to the subject. The CJR article is mostly about other aspects of Shankbone: It is about him not the event. Here's what it says: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event [...] then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event. Risker covered some of this, and the closing admin cited Risker's argument, but it just misapplies WP:BLP1E so badly that it falls outside closing-admin discretion. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus, defaulting to keep. Jake should not have been the one to close this, given his vote on the previous DRV. If that wasn't enough, his unilateral change to the policy page while this was ongoing makes it even more shady. I'm willing to accept that Jake did it in good faith, but he should not have been the closer, and should have discussed the change before making it.The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Agree with closing admin's rationale. However, it really wasn't smart to alter the policy page before closing this AFD. Garion96 (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This AfD had three separate closures and two separate Deletion Review discussions. I think it is time to let go of the subject and move on. Warrah (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. Not sure how I missed this train wreck, although perhaps it's just as well. The closer, under the circumstances, should not have closed this AfD, and I favor an overturn to no consensus as a result. While WP:BLP applies to all articles, I don't find this case to be the best one to argue about the finer points of that policy. The real issue here is do we want articles on people whose primary notability arises from their activities on Wikipedia or its sister projects. We can have that debate elsewhere; I am not particularly thrilled about having a policy as important as BLP subjected to personality-driven Wiki-politics. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 3

• Overturn to no consensus, There is simply no excuse for an admin to change current policy in order to suit himslf, his ideology or opinion. What would it look ike if everyone did that? This needs to be reprimended to the highest extent possible. In addition, it was obvious that the notability discussion was a no consensus, thus double whammy for admin, another missed call by admin among the numerous recthese threent missed calls (all leaning towards delete instead of obvious no consensus).Turqoise127 (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we please get better Endorse arguments here?

1. It's been asserted that the arguments of Keep votes were weak in the AfD and the Delete votes were strong (and that's been disputed). Nuclear Warfare and Hersford are the only editors who have described the strengths and weaknesses in the AfD arguments in any detail, and Jake Wartenberg vaguely refers to them (which is pointless since he was justifying his close as "no consensus"). NW's closing argument, the best Endorse/Delete argument out there, has the assertion "Thus it is not a clear case of the "significant coverage in reliable sources" of WP:GNG being met."[14] No reason is given why the CJR article, all by itself, is not the significant amount of detail required to pass notability. I consider it a crucial argument (it's what changed me from Delete to Keep). That kind of sourcing regularly passes notability in AfDs, including BLPs, and WP:GNG is clear on the matter, so NW's assertion looks weak to me. Can the Endorse side give us an adequate argument that the Delete side had such strong arguments and the Keep side such weak ones that the article must be deleted, and that therefore Jake Wartenberg's vague reference to that was justified? It seems to me that's the only Endorse argument that could be justified, if it can be justified. And the "Keep" arguments would have to be shown to be so bad, with so many discounted !votes, that the Delete side just overwhelmed it with its wisdom in a rough-consensus, adjusted for discounted votes.
2. Wartenberg mentioned Risker's arguments in the AfD. Risker essentially said that the CJR article was inadequate coverage, despite the fact that it met the standard of WP:GNG for coverage in significant detail. She faults it, and the article, for not perfectly giving the subject enough coverage for a good article. That happens to be an argument I had before I read the CJR article. After I read it, I had to conclude that it gave enough coverage, together with the many minor sources, to give us enough information to provide an adequate understanding of the subject. Risker's reading of notability policy and its application here are both very strained. That article [15] gives us such details as: What Shankbone was doing before joining Wikipedia; Something about how he chose his name here; How he got those interviews; What specific things he's done on Wikipedia and how that's changed over time; How he does Wikinews interviews; the last paragraph of the article gives an evaluation of Shankbone's interviews. There is critical information there that balances out the PR-like statements that were in the Wikipedia article. In short, it's just the kind of detailed coverage we want in an article, and WP:GNG gives a green light to articles with that kind of sourcing. Risker's argument simply isn't credible on this, and neither is Wartenberg's closing.
3. There hasn't been an adequate response to points stressed by SlimVirgin and Tim Song on the fact Jake Wartenberg was involved in the discussion and therefore ineligible as a closing admin. That argument itself shows the delete was out of process and is itself reason enough to overturn. Add to it the objections over Wartenberg's DEL page edit, the out-of-policy delete despite no consensus and the strong Keep arguments on the AfD.

The real question everybody is asking themselves is: Will the closing admin here ignore policy or not? The real debate here is whether or not to trash Wikipedia policies in a continuing effort to delete a page that admins are going to find a burden to police. That real debate should be addressed with policy changes, not by ignoring policy and ignoring the state of consensus in AfDs. That's why editors (openly or implicitly) are arguing for or against actually following policy. JohnWBarber (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only question I happen to be asking myself is "why are you hand-wringing over other editor's opinions?" They stated theirs, you stated yours. Let the closing admin, when the times comes, evaluate them all and we'll see what happens. Tarc (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't handwringing. And given the poor behavior of closing admins, I intend to make it very clear by closing time just how bad your side's best arguments are -- maybe that will prod the next closing admin to give us something better than a closing argument that will just embarass him or her. I was going to say in that post that you should actually read WP:LAWYER if you're going to accuse anyone of wikilawyering, because it doesn't mean "advocating adherence to policies and guidelines", but I didn't want that post to get any longer, so I edited that out. But you should read it. JohnWBarber (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are several endorse arguments available that cite policy in the text above. To go through your other points in turn though:

1. While WP:GNG is one guideline (not policy) to consider, there is also WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE that describe further how notability can be inferred. Further to that, there is the overriding policy WP:BLP1E that also comes in to play - the original article text before deletion would be a strong candidate under this policy.
2. The policy WP:PG is a good start here, which explicitly states "Wikipedia does not have hard-and-fast rules, but editors are expected to abide by the principles laid down in policies and guidelines, except where there is a good reason not to". Should you feel that there is reason for concern about the behaviour demonstrated by the closing admin, I would suggest WP:RFC/U.

Hope this helps. Many thanks, Gazimoff 20:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There's a subthread above that points out how BLP1E just doesn't apply (see the CJR article -- it's just not about one event), and WP:GNG, which the article meets, trumps any other notability criteria -- meet that and you meet 'em all (all the rest are just alternatives). JohnWBarber (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse while I am not entirely happy about the edit policy before closure bit (mostly because it throws the close into a bad light - it was a correct clarification), the closer came to the right conclusion. No consensus, leaning a bit towards delete on policy grounds (counting votes I am fine with in RfA, definitely not in Afd), defaulting to delete. Indeed if you don't like this particular close, take the one that was being prepared when Hersfold‎ jumped the gun by seven hours (and discounted multiple delete votes because he apparently doesn't like per nom style votes) which also came to the conclusion that consensus was in favour of deletion. Viridae^Talk 21:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That two admins, who have made their opinion that the BLP deletion policy isn't as strong as they feel it should be, both wanted to delete this article is neither shocking nor informative. That an admin not in the BLP-drama circle closed it as keep (although I can't say I loved his closing statement) says a lot. That those very attached to changing BLP policy hounded said closer to withdraw says a lot, as does the final close came, within the minute, to as soon as it could be deleted per policy. Put differently, neither of those two closers were uninvolved in the larger discussion. I mean who starts writing a closing statement hours before the close on an article for which they aren't invested in? Hobit (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do, apparently. I saw the article in the AfD queue and began writing a fairly adequate closure rationale for it, after reading the depth of discussion. I double-checked the timestamps a bit afterwards, and saw that I was still several hours early, but decided to finish writing my rationale, as an intellectual exercise if nothing else. Of course I would have updated that rationale if I had ended up being the one to close it; that goes without saying. And I just have to say that I extremely dislike your non-assumption of good faith. NW (Talk) 22:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Get real. Endorsing a close so procedurally flawed because you like the result after you had your own close so ready to go. You, Kevin and Alison were to the WP:DEL discussion before anyone else. The three of you made it to the DrV for Flotilla DeBarge before any but one DrV regular (within an hour of the listing) and that one too was closed by Jake by the way. AGF isn't a suicide pact. Hobit (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time for you to either put up or shut up. Kevin (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you all to let us know if there was any collusion on or off wiki. The question has been raised a number of times and I've seen no real answer from those who appear to be involved. It seems really unlikely that events could have transpired the way they did without some coollusion, but if you all will clearly say no such thing happened I'll let it go. In any case I need to ask what "put up" means in this context. Hobit (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking only for myself, I can say that I do not know of any collusion between any editors. And I believe what Kevin meant by "put up or shut up" is that you have to have some evidence before you go off and make statements like that. I can't just accuse you of being a sockpuppet and force you to reply, now can I? NW (Talk) 03:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to non-consensus on the basis of a bad faith closure. There's nothing else to call it. Closing a debate in favor of your own position when you had already been involved in the debate , changing the policy page on a substantial and disputed point to support your opinion, hiding it under a misleading edit summary, and then closing on that basis is about as wrong as an admin can be--all 4 actions are individually incorrect, and the sum of them is beyond anything that could be justified by IAR. IAR says the rules can be ignored if necessary, not that the rules can be rewritten into whatever one pleases. Viridea is wrong that the change is policy was merely a clarification--it may be their own desired policy, but it has never been supported by the comunity, at least not yet. It remains equally wrong whether the admins opinion on the article was correct or incorrect. Though I !voted keep, I myself am not completely sure of the merits, and would have hoped the issue had been disposed of. But the grossly improper conduct of the admin has guaranteed an increase, rather than a decrease in drama. Bending the rules to the extent it could be seen as cheating often has that effect. I urge those !voted sustain on the basis that the result is right to reconsider--they are in effect support an admin in an action they must know to be totally wrong. It's not a question of whether the close was against policy, which is equivocal, it's a question of making an unsupported change in policy to use as a basis for the decision. If the article needs to be deleted, a second discussion will settle the issue--by which time we might have a more easily defensible article. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • No. Jake shouldn't have edited the policy page when he did but the close was within discretion. Policy is descriptive not prescriptive. It describes what we do. If an admin closes a no consensus BLP as delete, and the article doesn't go to DRV, or if it goes to DRV, and the close is sustained, that is a piece of evidence that consensus is changing in that direction. If the article gets overturned at DRV, that is a piece of evidence that consensus is changing in the other direction. Rather than arguing that policy DOES say something, you need to argue that policy SHOULD say something, to sway others to sustain or overturn. Because policy here, at this point in time, is not clear cut. No consensus BLP as delete sometimes passes muster and sometimes doesn't. I've argued that policy SHOULD favor deletion for BLPs, elsewhere, at length. And I will continue to close them that way. Because I don't always get overturned. This is one of the BLPs where deletion is the right outcome. We have more important things to waste our time on than this fluff piece, and the amount of time we will sink into defending it from the many folk who will want to use it as an attack plaform far outweighs any possible positive value it brings the project. Further, No consensus default to delete is morally the correct thing to do. First, do no harm. BLPs actively cause harm to innocents whenever they are even a little bit away from completely NPOV and completely vandalism free. ++Lar: t/c 22:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Come on, he's closed it within a minute of when he could after changing the relevant policy and !voting on the article earlier. Are you claiming he was an univolved editor? He certainly seemed invested in that outcome. And no, this was well beyond admin discretion. The article plainly met our inclusion guidelines and there were more !votes to keep than delete. Getting a delete case out of those facts alone is really hard. Hobit (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the policy change is so "descriptive", why is it having so much trouble getting consensus at the Deletion policy talk page? Looks to me like it's getting more and more prescriptive, and edging closer to proscriptive[16]. Lar, if you fail to change policy, what should be done in the future with closing admins who deliberately violate WP:DEL as it stands? Would you object to warnings and blocks? JohnWBarber (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You need to dial down the threats. DRV is intended to see if there is consensus that the close is endorsable or not, and if it is it sticks and if it isn't, it's overturned. A series of DRVs will shift policy, because policy in this area is not, and will never be, proscribing. If you think you can block an admin over a close made in good faith, you have another think coming. Keep up this sort of disruptive, argumentative badgering and you might find yourself blocked. ++Lar: t/c 03:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lar, your own rhetoric both here and at the deletion policy talk page have hardly been exemplary. You need to learn that people can legitmately disagree with you without being evil or lacking compassion. Meanwhile, dealing with this issue more directly: If a majority of users clearly don't support no consensus moving to default (which looks like it is the case from the current discussion at the the relevant talk page and was the case the last two times people have tried to force through some variant of this rule) then engaging in such deletions is simply out of policy and not an appropriate use of the tools. Moreover, the response when one cannot get your desired support for a change in policy is to engage in such deletions knowing that the burden then switches at DRV where 1) many people will endorse simply because they'd prefer that the articles be deleted whether or not they are happy with the logic 2) the default situation is to keep deleted. Frankly, that's simply ignoring community consensus knowing you can get away with it and you think you know better than the community. That's less than ideal behavior. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll stand behind every word I've said, and take whatever lumps are coming for them. First,, I think people who feel having full coverage of every marginal BLP is more important than avoiding unnecessary harm to innocents do lack compassion. I will not apologise for that remark, because I feel that strongly about this matter. I don't think I ever called anyone "evil" in this discussion, though... and being wrong isn't the same as being evil by any stretch. As for the DRV process, this is how we find out where things are at. I have closed a number of BLPs as default to delete in the past and they have stuck. If every no consensus close as a delete starts getting overturned, we'll know that the tide did turn after all. But all the people asserting there is clear consensus against no consensus closes... they're wrong. because there isn't clear consensus. Clear consensus is overwhelming opinion. Which isn't there... as I say some of these stick. JohnWBarber is being, in my view, not just forceful, but actively disruptive, threatening all sorts of things with his rhetoric. This isn't the place to go into that matter further but if it doesn't stop, it will be brought to the appropriate place. ++Lar: t/c 03:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• These threats are not appropriate, Lar. No admin would block John for his posts in this matter, and given how involved you are, you shouldn't be raising it as a possibility. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If this behavior of his (in which he threatens other users) hasn't abated, this will be brought to AN/I. That's not a threat, and it matters not who actually does it, involved or uninvolved. Characterising it as a threat is typically inappropriate rhetoric on your part. As I said, DRV is one way how we find out if consensus is changing. JohnWBarbor tossing around "admins are going to get blocked" rhetoric is completely inappropriate. ++Lar: t/c 04:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec to Lar) You wrote to him above: "Keep up this sort of disruptive, argumentative badgering and you might find yourself blocked." Any reasonable person could interpret that as a threat, and it's not helpful. He's arguing in exactly the same way you are, and both are valid, though less colour would doubtless make things easier all round. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The most fascinating thing about your above remark Lar is how much you feel a need to pigeonhole those who disagree with you. As I've (and others) have argued before that defaulting to deletion doesn't get rid of the BLPs that are creating problems because the BLPs which get nominated and extensively discussed are then carefully watched and added to watchlists. So defaulting to delete doesn't substantially actually deal with problematic BLPs. Moreover, your argument could be made in the exact form for deleting all BLPs and acussing you of lacking compassion for not agreeing. Instead of treating everything like it is battle for the soul of Wikipedia it might help to actively try to discuss things with users even those you disagree with and not presume that everyone who disagrees with you is lacking in basic human emotions. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "the BLPs which get nominated and extensively discussed are then carefully watched and added to watchlists" ^{[citation needed]} ++Lar: t/c 04:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus (defaulting to keep). There is no need to relist and cause further drama here. Those who are encouraging (or worse yet, committing) this sort of behaviour should be ashamed. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I endorsed this, and I don't find myself in any way "ashamed". Process is important, certainly, and JW would have done well to recuse himself from closing this particular discussion, but I think focusing on the political merits of the close rather than the practical outcome is likely to generate more drama. I'd like to ask that participants here ask themselves whether or not they endorse the deletion of the article. In my opinion, in such a contentious and controversial discussion as this, everything else falls outside the scope of this DRV. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Julian, will you please familiarize yourself with DRV policy and then review your comment again? Process is exactly what a DRV is supposed to be about. If we're going to follow any rules at all. JohnWBarber (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse decision and troutslaps all around. Endorse decision as being within reasonable admin discretion, and reflecting emergent de facto practice for BLPs. Troutslaps to a) Jake for the sequencing of the edits to the policy page and the closure, which allows people to get hot around the collar and assume misconduct instead of the AGF explanation of Jake both wanting to clarify the policy page to reflect common practice as well as put it in action. b) to Jake again for failing to clearly disclose potential perceived conflict of interest in doing so - being transparent as to his actions and motivations could have saved some grief. c) to the original closing admin for closing needlessly early, but a mild troutslap at worst given his good natured and well explained self-reversal. Most of all d) to all of those who are rushing in to the discussin with stridency and pitchforks rather than moderation and seeking the understand the opposite point of view. Martinp (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When admins commit outrageous acts, outrage often follows, and someone always comes around with bigger troutslapps for the outraged than for the outrager. reflecting emergent de facto practice for BLPs Fancy wording. Translation: We haven't been able to change WP:DEL in either the present or the last discussion, so we've just decided to create the policy anyway because we know better than the rest of you. We'll make the policy ourselves. Is there any way at all that your position is different from my translation? JohnWBarber (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion per WP:IAR if nothing else, before Shankbone's porn brings Wikipedia into disrepute again GTD 23:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist - if process is not followed, then the community is not respected and admins can go around like petty kings. I don't think the article should exist, but we've got to have the process. Everyking (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and close properly I don't think we should have the article, and from what I have read of the discussion I think the strongest arguments are for deleting. However, this close was just not proper or ok. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no-consensus, or relist per DGG. Whole close relies on a very dubious interpretation of precedent. Icewedge (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse BLP states "we must get this right", that would suggest that a large and overwhelming consensus would be necessary. It does not say "we must get this kinda right". No consensus on BLP always delete. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to Arbcom if people insist on arguing more. I have not been involved with this at all and have no idea about the true notability of the subject, but there is clearly way too much disagreement to say there is a consensus either way. The evidence that the closing admin was not acting in good faith is very strong and cannot be ignored. Even if the article "should" be deleted (I personally have no opinion either way), the way it was closed is wrong and IMO abusive. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your ability to determine Jake's mental status which would verify the state of mind he was acting in. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence speaks for itself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only way for anyone to make such declarations is to state that you know their inner most thoughts. Last time I checked, psychic powers do not exist. You can say someone is disruptive. You cannot claim that they are acting on bad faith. One person's disruption is another person's attempt to fix everything. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How 'bout this formulation, which doesn't require mind reading: Whatever his motivations, Jake acted in a way that is indistinguishable from (ham-handed) bad-faith manipulation in the way he edited the WP:DEL page and closed the AfD. If he'd reversed himself, as he should have, any DRV on this would have attracted maybe 8 editors. But it's all a bit beside the point, which is that he closed the AfD out of process in several ways. Quite a few editors on both sides of this discussion agree with that. He's said he did the wrong thing (although he won't reverse), and we don't need to talk about his motivations anymore. And if Juliancolton says he's a fine editor in many ways, I can accept that. JohnWBarber (talk) 05:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I usually wholeheartedly agree with you, Thaddeus, but in this case I'm going to have respectfully dispute your comment. I've known Jake on-wiki since he began actively editing in late last year. He is a dedicated and productive user with numerous featured credits under his belt, and his RfA passed unanimously (aside from one oppose which was later struck). I have never known Jake to act with anything other than the best of intentions, and I can't imagine this would be a drastic exception. He acknowledged his mistake and displayed a willingness to learn from it, so I'm finding it rather difficult to understand how his actions could be perceived as being made with malicious intent. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He did have plenty of opportunity to withdraw this close (as the previous closer did for what I'd call a lessor error) and at least one uninvolved admin asking him to do so before the DrV was filed. Interestingly those admins who felt the first close was so wrong (a few hours early) and immediately brought it to DrV are fine with this close. Juliancolton, do you think the mistake made here was less significant than the one from the first close? Hobit (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledging one's mistake and reverting one's own action are very different things. I'd wager that it would've been even less productive for Jake to simply overturn his close and leave the AfD in limbo while it awaited another uninvolved. I have no doubt that the close was a mistake; all I'm asking is for folks to stop assuming the closing admin went rogue. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Possibly deleted for the wrong reasons (this doesn't make a good BLP test case), but the right result in this case. Wikipedia doesn't need to be covering itself in excessive detail. There are serious issues of conflict of interest and undue weight, as well as BLP, when it does. It's appropriate to check Wikipedia's tendency toward extreme navel-gazing by holding Wikipedia-related articles to a higher standard.140.247.248.180 (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn – For what it's worth, I did not participate in the AfD or the previous DRV and have no strong feelings about whether this article should exist or not. But if DRV is supposed to be examining the process, this close ought not to stand as it is. This is one of the more problematic closes I have seen. A closing admin needs to be a disinterested party if the goal is to evaluate the consensus of a discussion, rather than substituting one's own opinion. Without wanting to read minds, I suspect that the closing admin thought he was doing the right thing with regard to BLP concerns. At the very least, though, he ought to have taken into account how his series of actions would look to others. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]