This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Will Beback (talk | contribs) at 23:17, 13 December 2010 (→Incorrect use of G10: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:17, 13 December 2010 by Will Beback (talk | contribs) (→Incorrect use of G10: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Swami X
You were right to delete Swami X for lack of sources, but seeing you do that made me go look and I found a newspaper profile of him, plus some other sources. I can undelete it myself, and I'll bring it up to standards, if you don't object. Will Beback talk 00:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- If all material is brought immediately up to full BLP standards, you are welcome to undelete it. I think the notability may be questionable, but that's a matter for AFD if anyone want to take it up. Feel free to make your undelete summary as having my full consent.--Scott Mac 00:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- He is probably still alive, though over 80. In 2006 he said at a public meeting, "I'm delighted to be here. At my age, I'm delighted to be anywhere". I'll userfy the undeleted article, fix it up, then move it back into project space. Will Beback talk 12:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. Thanks for communicating.--Scott Mac 12:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- He is probably still alive, though over 80. In 2006 he said at a public meeting, "I'm delighted to be here. At my age, I'm delighted to be anywhere". I'll userfy the undeleted article, fix it up, then move it back into project space. Will Beback talk 12:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Now that I've undeleted it I can't understand why you deleted it. User:Will Beback/Swami X My memory was that it had none, but it has 14 listed sources and three "further readings". I can't see how it'd qualify for a speedy deletion. It may not be in full compliance with every policy, but it is better than many. You deleted it as "G10. Pages that disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose" but I don't see anything libelous, and it certainly serves another purpose. Can you explain more clearly why you deleted it? Will Beback talk 13:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Look again. The sources are terrible - youtube and wikimaps mainly. 14 or 140 doesn't matter - the quality matters. Youtube doesn't count. Normally I'd stub and tag for improvement, but these awful sources were noted in an afd 4 years ago and nothing changed. If I'd left the article, it would have remained shit for more years. When our systems are failing then sometimes drastic action is called for. G10 also says "unsourced or poorly sourced negative bio". This is certainly a bio that had material that (if untrue) could be unwelcome - so it needs good sourcing. Anyway, if you fix it with proper sources then that will be that.--Scott Mac 13:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Now that I've undeleted it I can't understand why you deleted it. User:Will Beback/Swami X My memory was that it had none, but it has 14 listed sources and three "further readings". I can't see how it'd qualify for a speedy deletion. It may not be in full compliance with every policy, but it is better than many. You deleted it as "G10. Pages that disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose" but I don't see anything libelous, and it certainly serves another purpose. Can you explain more clearly why you deleted it? Will Beback talk 13:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Poor sources are not a reason for speedy deletion. There are 17 sources cited one way or another- you're saying that every one of them was inadequate. Including a lengthy "L.A. Times" profile which I'm guessing you've never read. There's nothing libelous in the article. Can you even libel a pseudonym? If you have problems with parts of the article then those should be resolved using conventional means - not deletion of the entire thing. While problems may be traced back to an old AFD, there wasn't a single clean-up tag on the article, just an orphan tag which was actually obsolete. What was libelous - that he said he used drugs and had sex? Lenny Bruce was his role model, not Mother Theresa. No reliable source reports what he did in his private life, but several sources report what he said in public. He is a former comedian who had raunchy material, some of it autobiographical (and possibly fictional). I just don't see it as an attack page. Will Beback talk 13:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- If anything, it's more of a hagiography than an attack page. Will Beback talk 13:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- You keep referring to the number of sources - that's wholly irrelevant. And the notion we only speedy libels is also not so. I'd say four years is long enough to say that this wasn't about to be fixed without intervention and I regularly speedy such things with a note marking that it can be undeleted if someone is willing to remedy - that's easily within admin discretion on poor BLPs. Anyway, the article will now be checked and sorted, so that's a win.--Scott Mac 13:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to restore it to project space. If you think some sources are dubious, use the {dubious} tag. And so on. This is a minor performer, but significant enough (as shown in reliable sources) to merit a short article. We can drag it through DRV if you insist, but that just seems like unnecessary drama. Let's restore it, demote the inadequate sources, delete the unsourced quotations, and polish it off. Or, let's trade that "for an orgasm in 20 minutes". ;) Will Beback talk 13:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not too bothered whether you work on it in userspace or article space, but if its in article space all unreferenced material should be removed until it is fully cited. That's the condition we agreed to my permitting undeletion. I can't see the problem with that. Personally I've no interest in working on the article itself. There was a rough consensus on the BLPNB for deleting pending someone offering to fix it, so I see no need to move away from that. I don't think sticking a pile of {dubious} tags meets that requirement.--Scott Mac 14:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you're going to be making special demands, maybe this should go to DRV. I don't see any consensus that says an article with over a dozen sources should be deleted under G10 with no notice or discussion. Considering how many BLPs we have with no sources at all, it seems perverse to delete this one. Will Beback talk 22:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Go to DRV is you must. But given I've said it can be restored if someone is willing to ensure all material is properly sourced, and you say it can all be properly sourced, that seems somewhat perverse.--Scott Mac 23:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you don't mind the undeletion, then I'll just undelete it. Sine you apparently have an interest in the topic I'll be glad to see you helping out. Please be more careful with speedy deletes in the future. Will Beback talk 00:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- The deletion is quite proper. As I've already said I'm content to see it undeleted if someone is about to ensure it is all sourced. Otherwise not. It sitting about unsourced for another 4 years is unacceptable.--Scott Mac 00:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- It isn't unsourced and it's not an attack page. You seem to think that's it's permissble to delete a source article because it contains links to a video on Youtube uploaded by the copyright holder of the subject speaking at a public event. Would you speedy delete Sarah Palin if it contained a Youtube link? If there's a non-compliant source or link then the answer is to delete it, not to tdelete the entire article. If there are no other sources then that'd be a problem, but the article a fairly long profile of the subject printed in the L.A. Times. If you're saying that it is "unsourced" then perhaps you don't know the meaning of that word. Now that I look I see you've been speedy-deleting other articles that had sources, using the same "G10" criteria, such as Bonnie Bleskachek and Jón Ásgeir Jóhannesson. Please stop deleting sourced articles. Will Beback talk 08:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- The deletion is quite proper. As I've already said I'm content to see it undeleted if someone is about to ensure it is all sourced. Otherwise not. It sitting about unsourced for another 4 years is unacceptable.--Scott Mac 00:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you don't mind the undeletion, then I'll just undelete it. Sine you apparently have an interest in the topic I'll be glad to see you helping out. Please be more careful with speedy deletes in the future. Will Beback talk 00:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Go to DRV is you must. But given I've said it can be restored if someone is willing to ensure all material is properly sourced, and you say it can all be properly sourced, that seems somewhat perverse.--Scott Mac 23:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you're going to be making special demands, maybe this should go to DRV. I don't see any consensus that says an article with over a dozen sources should be deleted under G10 with no notice or discussion. Considering how many BLPs we have with no sources at all, it seems perverse to delete this one. Will Beback talk 22:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not too bothered whether you work on it in userspace or article space, but if its in article space all unreferenced material should be removed until it is fully cited. That's the condition we agreed to my permitting undeletion. I can't see the problem with that. Personally I've no interest in working on the article itself. There was a rough consensus on the BLPNB for deleting pending someone offering to fix it, so I see no need to move away from that. I don't think sticking a pile of {dubious} tags meets that requirement.--Scott Mac 14:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to restore it to project space. If you think some sources are dubious, use the {dubious} tag. And so on. This is a minor performer, but significant enough (as shown in reliable sources) to merit a short article. We can drag it through DRV if you insist, but that just seems like unnecessary drama. Let's restore it, demote the inadequate sources, delete the unsourced quotations, and polish it off. Or, let's trade that "for an orgasm in 20 minutes". ;) Will Beback talk 13:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- You keep referring to the number of sources - that's wholly irrelevant. And the notion we only speedy libels is also not so. I'd say four years is long enough to say that this wasn't about to be fixed without intervention and I regularly speedy such things with a note marking that it can be undeleted if someone is willing to remedy - that's easily within admin discretion on poor BLPs. Anyway, the article will now be checked and sorted, so that's a win.--Scott Mac 13:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be deleting some article with large number so sources because they lack inline citations. For example, Giovanni Riggi. A lack of inline citations is not one of the criteria for speedy deletions. Will Beback talk 08:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Negative statements that are not immediately sourced are unacceptable. Vague lists of "further reading" and "external links" are not sourcing. Negative material does need clear proximate sourcing, otherwise someone can add "and molested children" to an article and we've no way of knowing whether or not that's covered in the three books cited at the bottom of the article or not unless someone reads them all. You don't like that? Take it to arbcom.--Scott Mac 10:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're talking about deleting material, I'm talking about deleting entire articles. You're using SD criteria incorrectly. Will Beback talk
- Swami X is a person of clear minor notability, minor mentions in obscure books isn't going to change that, he would perhaps be better n a list of Venice street performers than his own BLP. The article is accessed by more bots and internal users than anything else. Unofficial youtube uploads are of dubious value also. No one has been prepared to develop or improve a very poorly sourced BLP article and perhaps Scott's actions included a little ignore all rules, the article was discussed at the BLP noticeboard which is a high profile noticeboard and notice was left there that the article would be userfyed on request for anyone willing to bring up to BLP compliance and Will has come along to improve it, its all good, people working together to improve the overall quality of our articles about living people. Off2riorob (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- If Scott intends to invoke IAR then he should do so explicitly and not use inapplicable speedy deletion criteria. Those criteria do not include the inclusion of Youtube links or a lack of page views. (Is there a way of distinguishing bot and internal views from outside readers?) This isn't the only article with sources that he has deleted as an attack article, so it's not all good. Deleting articles is not the same as improving them. Will Beback talk 11:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- No one improved that article for three years and the only reason you are considering it now is because Scott speedied it. Off2riorob (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- So are you proposing using deletion as a way of getting users to improve articles? That seems to be contrary to the policies and practices of this project. Maybe a better way to start improvements would be to use one of the many cleanup templates available? Will Beback talk 11:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am wondering would a please improve template have spurred you into action? Personally I am not proposing that, but in this case as it was done in the wide open I don't see a problem with it. We could have stubbed it back, removed the uncited and nothing much would have been left anyway. He is totally minor notability and local news person. Regarding the views, I just estimated that, about ten views a day, outside trawl bots and internal bots and a few passer by internal user views doesn't leave a lot of people who are actually searching to read his article. Off2riorob (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- This isn't limited to one article. Scott seems to have asserted that he was entirely correct and that he intends to continue to speedy delete sources BLPs if they don't meet his standards for proper citation practice. In the old days, many well-sourced articles were written without inline citations, the sources going into reference, external links, or further reading sections. I don't recall any discussion that said articles without inline citations may be speedy deleted. Would you mind if, the next time I find an article you've edited which doesn't meet my vague standards, I just delete it instead of posting any clean-up tags?
- Off2riorob, you're an ArbCom candidate so presumably you consider yourself conversant with WP policies. Having read the Swami X article, do you think it is a page that disparages or threatens its subject and serves no other purpose? Will Beback talk 12:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- No I don't at all. It was poor and at first glance a few of the questionable comments attributed to him where without inline specific external RS support, but on further searching he does make a lot of such comments. My comments are related to this single BLP brought to the BLPN by UncleG, I have no knowledge of the other two mentioned. I was considering AFD and or trimming back to the clearly cited content as options. Off2riorob (talk) 12:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am wondering would a please improve template have spurred you into action? Personally I am not proposing that, but in this case as it was done in the wide open I don't see a problem with it. We could have stubbed it back, removed the uncited and nothing much would have been left anyway. He is totally minor notability and local news person. Regarding the views, I just estimated that, about ten views a day, outside trawl bots and internal bots and a few passer by internal user views doesn't leave a lot of people who are actually searching to read his article. Off2riorob (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- So are you proposing using deletion as a way of getting users to improve articles? That seems to be contrary to the policies and practices of this project. Maybe a better way to start improvements would be to use one of the many cleanup templates available? Will Beback talk 11:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- No one improved that article for three years and the only reason you are considering it now is because Scott speedied it. Off2riorob (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Which Speedy Deletion criteria applies here, if not G10?
- The bigger issue is that Scott deleted this, and similarly sourced articles, under G10: "pages that disparage or threaten". This is the first I've heard of the BLPN thread. I've got it watchlisted, along with 10,000 other pages, but I've been preoccupied this week. But BLPN is not AFD. If someone thinks an article should be deleted for reasons outside of SD then AFD is the place to do it. BLPN is not an alternate deletion process for sourced, non-derogatory articles about people of some notability. Will Beback talk 12:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Excuse me, I thought you had seen the thread here it is - No, BLPN is not an alt to AFD but occasionally the hawks are there and a poorly sourced semi noteworthy individuals whose articles are poor and have been so for a long time can get over-actioned, as has perhaps happened here. Off2riorob (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Then I think we're in agreement. Will Beback talk 13:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems that way, the only reason to speedy it would have been WP:IAR for some of the reasons I have mentioned. Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- So, I broke a rule by not invoking "ignore all rules"? I'm beginning to think of the "yes minister" comic potentials here. Good job we're not a bureaucracy, or do I have to fill in a form to invoke that too. :) --Scott Mac 13:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- IAR only works if you can justify your action as necessary to protect or improve the encyclopedia. I don't see how this qualifies. Will Beback talk 18:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am involved .. so , as I see it, no one was even attempting to improve the poor BLP, after years of non compliance in regards to policy, there was no interest at all. As far as improve the article goes, as a clear result of Scott's action you now have it in your user space and seem to be willing to spend some time improving it up to policy compliance, so , Scott's action stands a very good chance of being able to claim it was necessary to improve the encyclopedia. Off2riorob (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- IAR only works if you can justify your action as necessary to protect or improve the encyclopedia. I don't see how this qualifies. Will Beback talk 18:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- So, I broke a rule by not invoking "ignore all rules"? I'm beginning to think of the "yes minister" comic potentials here. Good job we're not a bureaucracy, or do I have to fill in a form to invoke that too. :) --Scott Mac 13:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems that way, the only reason to speedy it would have been WP:IAR for some of the reasons I have mentioned. Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Then I think we're in agreement. Will Beback talk 13:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Excuse me, I thought you had seen the thread here it is - No, BLPN is not an alt to AFD but occasionally the hawks are there and a poorly sourced semi noteworthy individuals whose articles are poor and have been so for a long time can get over-actioned, as has perhaps happened here. Off2riorob (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Would taking it to AfD not have accomplished the same result? From my view, G10 most certainly did not apply here, so if the goal was to force movement on the article, it would have been much better to use proper methods. Indeed, policy compliance must apply to editors and admins as well as articles. Resolute 20:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, complete policy compliance is the primary position. Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely, and after 4 years of non-compliance something had to be done. Resolute, it had been to afd, where there poor sourcing was noted - and FOUR YEARS later still nothing had been done.--Scott Mac 21:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Then AfD it again. Consensus can change, of course. Or stub it and remove all content you found contentious and poorly sourced. If it had already been through AFD, then a speedy deletion on incorrect grounds was twice as improper. Resolute 21:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely, and after 4 years of non-compliance something had to be done. Resolute, it had been to afd, where there poor sourcing was noted - and FOUR YEARS later still nothing had been done.--Scott Mac 21:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
discussion taken to ANI by User:Nomoskedasticity
I find this discussion disturbing and have taken it to . Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, I'd say you found it a perfect reason to troll. If you'd had concerns you were welcome to join in the discussion here.--Scott Mac 19:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- You've made it perfectly clear that you don't intend to change course. I see nothing inappropriate in requesting some review of that intention. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is rude in the extreme not to discuss it.--Scott Mac 20:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Is there some prospect that discussion is going to lead you to a change in practice? If so, I'll be happy to make the effort. As things stood, it seemed to me that that would have been a waste of time, but if I'm wrong on that then please let me know. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Since you didn't do the common courtesy of indicating the nature of your concerns it is difficult to respond to your "disturbance" and now a little too late.--Scott Mac 20:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, it's pique? Again, if I'm wrong about your openness to alteration, I'll be happy to discuss, and I'll apologize for having misjudged. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm always open to alteration, as I hope those who stop by to discuss things are too. That's what discussion here are for. Neither assume that I will or won't be convinced, nor assume that I won't convince you and we'll do fine.--Scott Mac 21:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Then I apologize for having misjudged. Since you have noted previous disagreements -- a recognition of limits on that score is requested, particularly insofar as I entirely support your approach to Bus-stop's excessive persistence. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm always open to alteration, as I hope those who stop by to discuss things are too. That's what discussion here are for. Neither assume that I will or won't be convinced, nor assume that I won't convince you and we'll do fine.--Scott Mac 21:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, it's pique? Again, if I'm wrong about your openness to alteration, I'll be happy to discuss, and I'll apologize for having misjudged. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Since you didn't do the common courtesy of indicating the nature of your concerns it is difficult to respond to your "disturbance" and now a little too late.--Scott Mac 20:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Is there some prospect that discussion is going to lead you to a change in practice? If so, I'll be happy to make the effort. As things stood, it seemed to me that that would have been a waste of time, but if I'm wrong on that then please let me know. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is rude in the extreme not to discuss it.--Scott Mac 20:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- You've made it perfectly clear that you don't intend to change course. I see nothing inappropriate in requesting some review of that intention. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Scott, thanks for your note. Let's discuss the article on the talk page. Will Beback talk 23:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
3RR
Just a note to gently point out to you that you've broken WP:3RR at Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton.
I suggest you self-revert at least one of them before someone reports you (not that I will, but others might). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I've not broken the 3RR at all. Your diffs do not relate to the same, or even related, material. Anyway, you already did revert me after the "4th". We are now discussing that material on the talk page, where hopefully, we will generate a consensus.--Scott Mac 16:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- WP:3RR doesn't discern between what the reverts reverted; the rule is no more than three reverts to an article in 24 hours, period. Believe me, I've been caught for that before.
- I'm sure you'll note I reverted my own 3rd of your revert; only because I personally try to stop myself at 2 (though I'm not always successful). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- The talk page should solve it.--Scott Mac 16:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Note
Please don't take this as badgering, because that's not the intent. I merely wanted to note that it seems to me (based upon your comments) that you may not have realised that the page up for DRV is not the original, but merely a copy, and that the original is not currently deleted. (See the discussion at my talk page, for more info.)
I'm trying to figure out a way to clearly express that at the DRV (more than I have already), but I'm not sure how at this point. - jc37 19:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Its beyond me. Why MFD a copy? Why not redirect it to the original?--Scott Mac 19:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't nom it, and just closed the MfD.
- I would have closed the copy as a redirect if the original was "kept". But (taking both discussions in account - since the content was the same, and so all the comments should apply (unless specifically targeted towards the one being a copy, of course)), with the original closed as delete, then the copy should be deleted as well.
- Honestly, I think this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.
- And, incidentally, I am of a firm opinion that the potential for on-wiki drama should not stop us from doing what is right. (That is, following our policies and common practices.)
- Fear tactics of any type (which is how this could be perceived), should be condemned outright, on sight. - jc37 20:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Except there was neither a policy nor a consensus reason to delete. The only reason to delete is that the page is a troll designed to cause drama (which it is), unfortunately deleting it simply causes more.--Scott Mac 21:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I started to respond to this, but it occurs to me that we should probably try to keep the discussion focused in one place.
- Anyway, thanks for clarifying. - jc37 00:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
A friend writes...
- Scott, I'm with you on the BLP deletions but please tread carefully re CSD and use PROD in case of doubt, I think there is a lot of sympathy to the idea of getting rid of badly sourced bios and it's best not to let people derail it by making a sideshow over process. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- The article had already been sent to AFD, which effectively noted the sourcing problems but did nothing. Prodding it would have been useless - someone would have either removed the prod on the technicality of a 4 year old afd or said "this looks notable" and de-proded. My action means that we don't keep a problematic BLP about unless someone fixes it. I'm now a little distressed that people want to argue over this, when there solution is that, if they think the article is needed, they are free to fix it up.--Scott Mac 21:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Occasionally yes we have to cut the Gordian knot in this way. Just counselling you to keep your poweder dry for when it really matters, is all, and letting you know that I understand what you're doing and why, and support you. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- The article had already been sent to AFD, which effectively noted the sourcing problems but did nothing. Prodding it would have been useless - someone would have either removed the prod on the technicality of a 4 year old afd or said "this looks notable" and de-proded. My action means that we don't keep a problematic BLP about unless someone fixes it. I'm now a little distressed that people want to argue over this, when there solution is that, if they think the article is needed, they are free to fix it up.--Scott Mac 21:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Casting actors
If he could act, he'd make good casting for the role of King George V of the UK. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Swami X
Having seen the dispute over this article above, I believe it should be settled at DRV, and have created a section there to discuss it. Your comments are welcome at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 28#Swami X. Robofish (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- There's absolutely no need for that. I'll restore it right now if you want to fix it.--Scott Mac 16:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Scott, I'm going to give you the same advice I gave Colonel Warden: Since you've taken bold action in the past, you're going to be a lightning rod for criticism from those who don't like your views on things. I would urge you to consider undoing this, as your action is the one under discussion. Hatting a discussion opened to review your use of administrative tools can't possibly end well. Allowing people to gripe and just ignoring the thread is probably a much better option. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- If someone wants to revert it, fair enough. But I won't shy away for fear of criticism, never have. I believe DRV is to review deletions, and since there was no deletion there was nothing to review. There are other places to discuss my use of tools - and no doubt people know where to find them.--Scott Mac 18:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Scott, I'm going to give you the same advice I gave Colonel Warden: Since you've taken bold action in the past, you're going to be a lightning rod for criticism from those who don't like your views on things. I would urge you to consider undoing this, as your action is the one under discussion. Hatting a discussion opened to review your use of administrative tools can't possibly end well. Allowing people to gripe and just ignoring the thread is probably a much better option. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Bonnie Bleskachek
Hi Scott, Could you please restore the article to main space? While not everything is in-line sourced as far as I can tell every single item in the article is in the source/external links provided. I'll make it clear what supports what. That said, this too wasn't a G10 and pruning would have been trivial. Hobit (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Negative or controversial statements require direct sourcing - the claim that they might be supported in an external link is entirely insufficient. Since the article violated BLP in every version, the speedy deletion was entirely within policy. It isn't even a grey area here, and I certainly can't simply restore a BLP violating article. That having been said, if you are wanting to work on a BLP compliant version, I'll try to be helpful. I could restore it to your userspace with the content blanked, that would allow you to restore each portion as you are able to directly source the claims. Does that sound OK?--Scott Mac 18:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- And the response to negative or controversial sourcing is to remove the material, not the article. As parts were sourced, that would be trivial. In any case, could you let me know what policy/guideline you are using to justify this deletion? I don't see how this can be considered a G10, so are you saying it's from something in WP:BLP? Hobit (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- In any case, just restore it (and prune all but the lede if you want it compliant with WP:BLP immediately) and I'll add stuff back in over time. I prefer it be in mainspace where others are more likely to pitch in. Hobit (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, no. Other than the first sentence the whole thing breaches WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE (it was also created by a blocked sock fwiw). I'm happy to userfy, but I don't think restoring it to userspace so it can be fixed "over time" is really sufficient. It is best this stays deleted unless someone is immediately willing to fix it.--Scott Mac 18:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you refuse to userfy the article without additional editing conditions (though I'm fine with no index though) and refuse to restore to mainspace a stubbed version (the one sentence is fine if you wish to stub it that far) then we are off to DrV. I don't see how a no-indexed user-space article could be a problem in the worst of cases and since it appears as if every statement in the article is supported by the references, I really don't see how this could be viewed as a problem. In any case, I don't believe this meets the requirements of G10 nor is WP:BLP or WP:UNDUE a reason to speedy an article. That said, I'd rather just get the article and fix it... Hobit (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- It certainly does meet the G10 requirements - and I'm very happy to defend that position all the way to arbcom. However, if you are wanting to fix it, then I suggest we go down that root. If the end result is a bio where any controversial statement is properly and specifically sourced, then I think we'd both be happy. The problem with a vague "oh I think it's covered in the external links" is that it means anyone could add any libel, and short of someone checking all the external links to prove a negative, it could remain without checking. That's why external links and general sources will not do for the type of claim which (if untrue) could be highly damaging. I suggest I put this in your userspace, but I'll blank it, you are free to unblank it whenever you are ready to work on it and confirm any claims your leave in from the sources. If that means you unblank to work on it immediately, fine. But if you get delayed, it means we don't have any dubious material hanging about even in userspace. Is that agreeable? I'm not putting any editing restrictions on you, just blanking it until you are ready to edit.--Scott Mac 22:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you refuse to userfy the article without additional editing conditions (though I'm fine with no index though) and refuse to restore to mainspace a stubbed version (the one sentence is fine if you wish to stub it that far) then we are off to DrV. I don't see how a no-indexed user-space article could be a problem in the worst of cases and since it appears as if every statement in the article is supported by the references, I really don't see how this could be viewed as a problem. In any case, I don't believe this meets the requirements of G10 nor is WP:BLP or WP:UNDUE a reason to speedy an article. That said, I'd rather just get the article and fix it... Hobit (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, no. Other than the first sentence the whole thing breaches WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE (it was also created by a blocked sock fwiw). I'm happy to userfy, but I don't think restoring it to userspace so it can be fixed "over time" is really sufficient. It is best this stays deleted unless someone is immediately willing to fix it.--Scott Mac 18:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Scott, in the future could you please mark articles you think should be deleted under G10, and leave it to another admin to do the deletion? I have to agree that this is a sourced article about a notable person which should not have been deleted under G10. Will Beback talk 23:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, no. I see no reason to bind my action like that. You take a more relaxed (I'd call it irresponsible) approach to BLP, but I believe my response is fully supported by policy and arbcom's rulings on the matter.--Scott Mac 23:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're not following the text of G10. Do you really think that the article was unsourced? Will Beback talk 23:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Also, if you're confident that another admin would agree with you then there's no harm in just adding the tag rather than making the decision unilaterally. Do you think that I am the only admin who would disagree with your tagging the article G10? Will Beback talk 23:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy" If I so believe, I shall delete.--Scott Mac 23:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- That doesn't address my questions. Second, the Arbcom does not make policy. But even taking their out-of-process declaration literally, did you actually check every previous version? For example, this version, with three references, seems acceptable. What is the problem with that version that required deleting the entire article? Will Beback talk 00:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, there's the root of it, you have a different interpretation of policy than arbcom do. Well, I suggest you take it up with them. You've requested I refrain from BLP deletions, I have declined. I think there's little more to say. I think Hobit and I should be able to work something out wrt that particular article.--Scott Mac 00:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- So, again, what is the problem with the version linked to? Are you unable to explain? If you can't justify deleting an article then you should leave it to another admin. Will Beback talk 00:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Look, you are trawling through my actions trying to find fault. Well, no doubt you'll find some. Do you bear scrutiny yourself? But no, that deletion was perfectly proper. I didn't check every version no, but even the one you've linked to is poor. The days when we allowed negative biographies with a few general sources at the bottom are long gone. Now, I will restore the article to Hobit's userspace, he'll fix it and that'll be that. You want to unwind the direction of tightening requirements on BLPs, and reject arbcom findings? I suggest you go try. But not here. You are not going to persuade me of much, because I have nothing but contempt for your attitude to BLP.--Scott Mac 00:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- The deletion policy does not allow articles to be edited just because they are "poor" in your opinion. There are clear criteria,. If you ignore those criteria when you delete articles then you are deleting them out of process and they may be undeleted without further discussion. If I see you deleting articles with sources on the basis of being unsourced then I will undelete them in compliance with policy. Will Beback talk 01:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, arbcom has given wide latitude to admins to delete in cases where in their judgement there are BLP violations. Anyone objecting is free to take the matter to DRV where the article may be undeleted if there's a consensus that it is safe to do so. Arbcom has desysopped people for doing precisely what your are threatening to do. Personally, their interpretation of what is, and is not, in process, is one I give more regard to than your idiosyncratic one, which I do not recognise. Frankly - make my day.--Scott Mac 01:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- The ArbCom does not make policy. That said, the decision you're relying on specifically requires the admin to check every version and to delete only if every single version has BLP problems. I've cited a version which does not seem to have BLP problems, and I'm asking you to say what the specific BLP problem with that version justified deleting the article. Will Beback talk 01:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Arbcom declares policy. You don't. So, I missed a version that wasn't quite as poor as all the rest. Stop wikilawyering.--Scott Mac 01:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- "Arbcom declares policy." - I think that is profoundly wrong. They might interpret policy, but they don't make it. Thanks for agreeing that you failed to meet the ArbCom standard. You therefore deleted the article out-of-process. Will Beback talk 01:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Arbcom declares policy. You don't. So, I missed a version that wasn't quite as poor as all the rest. Stop wikilawyering.--Scott Mac 01:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- The ArbCom does not make policy. That said, the decision you're relying on specifically requires the admin to check every version and to delete only if every single version has BLP problems. I've cited a version which does not seem to have BLP problems, and I'm asking you to say what the specific BLP problem with that version justified deleting the article. Will Beback talk 01:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- (ec)Unilateral restoration of BLPs without addressing the good faith content concerns is a strikingly bad idea, and not at all in compliance with policy. Kevin (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- I had a look at the article - for some reason, soruces that can source the article have been left as links at the bottom rather than being converted into inline references. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- I see that too. But negative claims need proximate sourcing. Anyway, I've always said I'm happy to restore almost any BLP deletion is a responsible person is offering to fix it up without delay.--Scott Mac 01:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- "egative claims need proximate sourcing" - is a lack of primate sourcing now a reason to speedy delete BLPs? Will Beback talk 01:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Kevin, in order to address good faith content concerns those concerns need to be communicated. I've asked Scott repeatedly to say specifically how this article violated the G10 criteria, but then he said he was deleting it under the "BadlydrawnJeff" Arbcom decision. But when I asked him about that he changed the subject again. So yes, if there are good faith content concerns then let's address those. We have many processes for identifying and fixing article. But it's not acceptable to just ignore all of those and perform out-of-process deletions, unless the admin is willing to present a clear justification for that action. Will Beback talk 01:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- I see that too. But negative claims need proximate sourcing. Anyway, I've always said I'm happy to restore almost any BLP deletion is a responsible person is offering to fix it up without delay.--Scott Mac 01:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- I had a look at the article - for some reason, soruces that can source the article have been left as links at the bottom rather than being converted into inline references. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, arbcom has given wide latitude to admins to delete in cases where in their judgement there are BLP violations. Anyone objecting is free to take the matter to DRV where the article may be undeleted if there's a consensus that it is safe to do so. Arbcom has desysopped people for doing precisely what your are threatening to do. Personally, their interpretation of what is, and is not, in process, is one I give more regard to than your idiosyncratic one, which I do not recognise. Frankly - make my day.--Scott Mac 01:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- The deletion policy does not allow articles to be edited just because they are "poor" in your opinion. There are clear criteria,. If you ignore those criteria when you delete articles then you are deleting them out of process and they may be undeleted without further discussion. If I see you deleting articles with sources on the basis of being unsourced then I will undelete them in compliance with policy. Will Beback talk 01:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Look, you are trawling through my actions trying to find fault. Well, no doubt you'll find some. Do you bear scrutiny yourself? But no, that deletion was perfectly proper. I didn't check every version no, but even the one you've linked to is poor. The days when we allowed negative biographies with a few general sources at the bottom are long gone. Now, I will restore the article to Hobit's userspace, he'll fix it and that'll be that. You want to unwind the direction of tightening requirements on BLPs, and reject arbcom findings? I suggest you go try. But not here. You are not going to persuade me of much, because I have nothing but contempt for your attitude to BLP.--Scott Mac 00:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- So, again, what is the problem with the version linked to? Are you unable to explain? If you can't justify deleting an article then you should leave it to another admin. Will Beback talk 00:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, there's the root of it, you have a different interpretation of policy than arbcom do. Well, I suggest you take it up with them. You've requested I refrain from BLP deletions, I have declined. I think there's little more to say. I think Hobit and I should be able to work something out wrt that particular article.--Scott Mac 00:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- That doesn't address my questions. Second, the Arbcom does not make policy. But even taking their out-of-process declaration literally, did you actually check every previous version? For example, this version, with three references, seems acceptable. What is the problem with that version that required deleting the entire article? Will Beback talk 00:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- "Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy" If I so believe, I shall delete.--Scott Mac 23:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, no. I see no reason to bind my action like that. You take a more relaxed (I'd call it irresponsible) approach to BLP, but I believe my response is fully supported by policy and arbcom's rulings on the matter.--Scott Mac 23:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Scott, in the future could you please mark articles you think should be deleted under G10, and leave it to another admin to do the deletion? I have to agree that this is a sourced article about a notable person which should not have been deleted under G10. Will Beback talk 23:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
←In my opinion Scott has been forthcoming with his concerns ("Other than the first sentence the whole thing breaches WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE") etc, and has offered a reasonable method forward (userfying). Is this not a good compromise? Kevin (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- If that were true then the appropriate response would have been to delete all but the first sentence, not the whole article. Will Beback talk 01:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, I refuse to userfy BLPs under any circumstances. BLP vios can go unnoticed for months or years there, and i've seen some pretty bad ones. It also becomes nearly impossible to track ones it enters userspace. The compromise I offer users is that I will email them a copy of the deleted article to work on offline, and then they can upload a non-infringing version when ready. The Wordsmith 03:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm...I can live with that too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- its not like anyone can't just find wiki mirrors of the article easily. or you can just google the name and the articles on the first page are far worse than the wiki article was--which was not great, but actually better than a lot of the stuff out there.--Milowent • 04:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm...I can live with that too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
AfDs
Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
BLPCAT
Hi Scott, what is your view of Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Revised_BLPCAT_proposal? We have 6.5 in support (including Will Beback), and 2.5 against. It's a majority in favour, but not as clear a result as I would have liked, and a small sample size to boot. --JN466 10:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Two prongs of notability
Could use some feedback here. WP:TWOPRONGS. Let me know what you think. Trying to address permanent microstubs in a general way. Gigs (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
News readers known for single events
- Charlotte Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Project:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents#News readers known for single events
You might want to cast your eye over this article. As I said, I haven't looked at the other biographies hyperlinked-to by Template:BBC Radio 4. I hope that this wasn't an example of the rest. Uncle G (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Let's try this for size. Gosh.--Scott Mac 21:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I went through the rest of the BLPs on the template and removed a few things, nothing too horrific, just the usual BLP issues.--Scott Mac 22:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Removing sourced positive material from a BLP page (Jamie Sorrentini)
It is quite disturbing to see you investing so much time and effort across multiple pages to remove sourced positive material from a BLP page. It seems to be a departure from your normal and admirable modus operandi on BLP pages, which is usually to look out for and remove negative material. Perhaps you could explain how you came by this page in particular and why the sudden change in behavior on BLPs to try to make them more negative by removing positive sourced material? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, what an assumption of bad faith. The article is a puff-piece, I de-puffed it. You seem to have some interest and ownership problems here. Let's discuss content on the talk page. I didn't go to multiple pages, when I found us deadlocked on the talk page, rather than edit-war I sought uninvolved input. I posted to one other place, the BLPNB, and told you exactly what I was doing. So, let's getsome folk, work on the talk page and reach a neutral consensus. (If anyone is watching here, please come and join us at Jamie Sorrentini). --Scott Mac 19:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Can you please answer my above question? -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I reject the premise of the question. I have no desire to make any article negative, but material being sourced doesn't mean it is relevant.--Scott Mac 19:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- How did you come by this particular page? -- Cirt (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- What does it matter? I review hundreds of BLPs every month. The only question is whether my edits improve the article. That needs answered through consensus-building discussion. Why do you feel the need to resist my edits by questioning me. Let's stick to content questions.--Scott Mac 19:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- So, you refuse to answer the question? -- Cirt (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- You answer mine first?--Scott Mac 20:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Your answer as to how you came by the article could likely indicate it colored your bias previously before having first encountered the article itself. That is a possible problem. -- Cirt (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- No it isn't. Edits stand for themselves. If my edits are biased, then people will see that. If yours are biased, people will see that. Why did you puff the article? What is your interest in the subject? I could ask all of that, but it is irrelevant. Edits speak for themselves - I think yours are not neutral. You think mine are not neutral. Thus we seek the input of others to reach consensus. However, you seem to object to that process, that is troubling.--Scott Mac 20:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Your answer as to how you came by the article could likely indicate it colored your bias previously before having first encountered the article itself. That is a possible problem. -- Cirt (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- You answer mine first?--Scott Mac 20:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- So, you refuse to answer the question? -- Cirt (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- What does it matter? I review hundreds of BLPs every month. The only question is whether my edits improve the article. That needs answered through consensus-building discussion. Why do you feel the need to resist my edits by questioning me. Let's stick to content questions.--Scott Mac 19:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- How did you come by this particular page? -- Cirt (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I reject the premise of the question. I have no desire to make any article negative, but material being sourced doesn't mean it is relevant.--Scott Mac 19:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Can you please answer my above question? -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Before this becomes an abbott and costello routine, don't we all know where this article was mentioned?--Milowent • 20:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, I do not. I would like to know. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Misusing BLP
There's no BLP issue at Charlotte Green. There's your editorial preference, but that doesn't make BLP magically apply. The content isn't actually negative, and it's not WP:UNDUE as the majority of what has been written about her in reliable sources covers her 'corpsing' incidents. She's written about it herself, so you're not 'protecting' her. The Telegraph noted her as one of "50 reasons to love Britain" and mentioned her giggling and the 2008 incident was mentioned in their critic's 2008 radio review of the year. I can see that we can cut it down slightly, but removing all the details and sources is really over the top. I was not cherry-picking sources when I revamped her bio. Fences&Windows 00:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- we can discuss this on the talk page, but we err on the side of removing BLP material until we've got consensus. And yes, there is an issue here.--Scott Mac 00:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
AfD
Please see this AfD of an article you worked on: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ephraim Shapiro (2nd nomination) Steve Dufour (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Dating websites
Hi Scott, I noticed your post at WP:RSN#www.truthaboutscientology.com usage in BLPs. Rather than clutter up that page, I thought I'd mention here that webpages can sometimes be dated by looking at 'Tools->Page Info' in Firefox, for example. On the webpage under consideration, it doesn't work, but there is "This page was last updated on March 6, 2008" at the bottom of the page! --RexxS (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Apology for toe stepping
Hey, I apologize for editing the block reason without consulting you. I would have blocked him for making a legal threat regardless of your block reason, and I would not want him unblocked after making legal threats if he just verified his identity. If anything, I was notifying a possible unblocking administrator that there were other issues. I was not intending to make the block reason incomprehensible or to overstep your authority.
If you wish for some other action to be done (including undoing my block reason change), I am totally fine with it (it really is not a big deal to me if somebody reverts one of my admin actions if I have made a mistake or an improvement can be made). Also, if you have a problem with an administrative action of mine in the future, can you please take it to my talk page rather than leaving it at the bottom of a thread? It makes things more personal and direct. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Your Wisdom has been Noted
I just wanted to let you know that one of your comments has been included (and attributed to you) as part of my Nuggets of Wiki Wisdom . Thanks, and if you object then let me know :o) Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Your wisdom is pathetic!
Don't you ever attack me again when I am forced to defend myself! "there's nothing more to be said. Arbcom is arbcom, Giano is Giano...the usual.--Scott Mac 19:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)" Giacomo 20:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- If you think that's an attack, then you truly need some perspective.--Scott Mac 20:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- You trying to hide the arbcpom's shortcomings is unacceptable, what's it got to do with you anyway. Wherever I am, there you are like a stumbling up behind like a lame undertaker carrying a cheap coffin to the front. Giacomo 20:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is pretty impossible to edit this wiki without tripping over you. That page is on my watchlist and hundreds of others, and you seem to be filling it with your paranoid nonsense. You poked the arbcom wiki, and suspected JamesF and DavidGerrard still had access. They didn't. Arbcom found some unrelated weaknesses and fixed them. Now you are attacking and abusing people and calling them "pathetic" while shouting about people abusing you. You want the the thread open? Fine. But it's just making you look like an absurd parody of yourself, grasping at straws to feed your ego and the drama you thrive on. You have so much talent, it's always been my great regret you can't channel it into useful things. Anyway, knock yourself out - but know your credibility is decreasing here.--Scott Mac 20:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- You trying to hide the arbcpom's shortcomings is unacceptable, what's it got to do with you anyway. Wherever I am, there you are like a stumbling up behind like a lame undertaker carrying a cheap coffin to the front. Giacomo 20:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Sherman article
Scott: Thank you for the action on protection request. Hartfelt (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect use of G10
You deleted adequate sources from Jerry Mezzatesta, like these: , apparently made no effort to fix dead links (If you had you would have found this whole sereis on the subject), then speedy deleted the article as unsourced. Since appears to have been a mistake, I'm going to undelete it. Please be more careful in the future. Will Beback talk 09:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- You've made a mistake here. Material deleted under BLP is not to be summarily restored. Arbcom has made that very clear, and you are well aware of that. Of course, it is possible I have made a mistake, and you are quite at liberty to bring it to my attention. I'm tied up right now, but I'll review that very carefully later - and I'm not to fixed to back up if you are correct. Sorry, I can't review it right now, but I'm only on-line for a few minutes, and I think your remarks certainly deserve my careful review. I'll respond as soon as I'm able, and if you don't like my response at that point you are welcome to go to DRV (as I say, that may not be necessary). However, material deleted under BLP remains out of encyclopedia until either the deleting admin agrees, or a consensus is formed that it is safe to restore it. For that simple reason, I've restored the deletion. You may well be right, but one admin's opinion is never enough to restore material another admin has seen fit to delete. Admins have been desysopped for doing precisely that. Since I'm not aware of you making this mistake in the past, I'll let it go this time.
- I will respond fairly to your points on the article as soon as I can - and as I say, I'll restore it immediately at that point if I agree with you. There will be no harm in this remaining deleted for a bit until I can review, and any needful discussion can take place. If it turns out I've made a mistake, you have my apology in advance. Thanks.
- In future, if you find errors in my admin actions, feel free to raise them with me. I undertake to review carefully and change as necessary. If we can't agree, then we peacefully go to DRV to get the input of others.--Scott Mac 10:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- What speedy deletion criteria were you using? You also forgot to specify, as required by Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion#Procedure for administrators. Will Beback talk 11:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Mezzatesta was not an attack page, it was fairly well sourced and the google cache version includes material about a judge clearing him of some accuastions. Would be happy to fix in my userspace and return if I had guidance about what was particularly problematic; would probably be better to include some mention of any positive accomplishments before his downfall. But googling him without having a wiki article is going to be more harmful to him if my opinion, because the nasty news is as the top.--Milowent • 13:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
OK. First Will, you've been slightly disingenuous here. I did not "delete adequate sources". I removed material that contained a number of poorly sourced assertions, dead links, and pretentiously libellous claims. Te section I removed did also contain some sources (like the ones you indicate) but they did not adequately support the material. No doubt, those sources could be used to rebuild the section, but simply restoring it because "these two sources are good" is missing the entire point. Can I politely suggest that you determination to find fault with me has made you somewhat reckless here? Looking at what you restored:
- You restored material relying on "The Charleston Gazette. The Associated Press (Charleston, W.V.): p. 1.A. March 31, 2007." I removed this because the link is dead. I assume you have access to an off-line version of this, and verified it is correct? If you do, fine. Otherwise, on what basis did you restore it?
- You restored "a pro-life candidate allegedly with no political experience named Ruth Rowan" - that has no reference, and thus violated BLP. Very careless.
- Charleston Daily Mail. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS: p. 7.A. June 7, 2006. Again, I ask have you access to this off-line and have you checked it? Ot are you just assuming because it's theoretically available it must be an adequate source?
- Staff, wire reports (July 30, 2009). "SETTLEMENT:; Hampshire to pay Mezzatesta $192,000 settlement". The Charleston Gazette: p. A.1. Ditto.
The entire biography is built round a narration of charges that were entirely, and a dismissal for which the subject was compensated. It is, in short, an entirely negative BLP. Such an article, if it is to exist, needs impeccable sourcing - for three years, this one had been tagged as a mess and of questionable neutrality. Simply restoring it without discussion towards remedying those faults is entirely unacceptable.
It is quite possible for us to work out a way of creating an acceptable article here, but your wheel-waring is not that way. Had you created a proper article from sourced you have access to, I would have no objection. Had you asked to userfy this to allow fixing it up, I would have agreed. Simply restoring it breeches both policy and etiquette.
You ask what policy I deleted this under. Well, I think that's quite clear. My deletion summary says it all "negative WP:BLP with poor sources and deadlinks", as per arbcom's ruling Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. This deletion may be contested via the usual means; however, the article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so. The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy.
Where to now? Well, I've no particular objection to a proper article on this individual. I'm content to move it into someone's userspace so they can fix it up properly and verify all the sources used.--Scott Mac 19:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, please restore the article that you deleted out of process. If you're going to lecture other admins on following rules you need to do so as well. Will Beback talk 19:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, you've obviously not read what I've written. I've broken no "rule". If you are content to carefully work this through from sources you actually have access to, I am willing to put this in your userspace.--Scott Mac 19:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, please restore the article that you deleted out of process. If you're going to lecture other admins on following rules you need to do so as well. Will Beback talk 19:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- If you feel the article remained a negative bio, that is a different issue entirely, and I have no opinion on that aspect. But whether you like it or not, a fully fleshed cite to a newspaper article that is not online remains "fully compliant with every aspect of the policy". If you don't like that fact, go build a consensus to change WP:V. As an administrator, your job is to enforce policies as they are, not as you personally wish they were. Resolute 19:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't argue that. I merely asked if Will had actually verified the negative BLP material he so easily restored. And I note he didn't answer that. If he can say he's seen the off-line source, I'll be fine with that.--Scott Mac 19:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Whoever added that source did, and should be treated with equal respect as Will. The only caveat I would make is on the basis of whether the text that those cites supported had been changed in the intervening time. Lacking that, I would consider removing such cites a failure to WP:AGF, not to mention constituting a blatant disregard for WP:V. Resolute 20:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- We need to get the article right. Assuming good faith, and keeping sweet with wiki-ethics, play second fiddle. Will restored questionablenegaive material that had been deleted under BLP. I simply asked how he could be confident that the sources supported the negative content. I think that's a pretty important question.--Scott Mac 20:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence that we didn't already get the article "right"? It seems to me that you are just moving the goalposts on this one. The material you object to was cited with reliable sources. Again, if you don't like how WP:V is applied, seek consensus to change. Otherwise, accept that the statements referenced by those newspaper cites are correct and look toward other areas. Resolute 20:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- No. The BLP was marked as non-neutral for three years. There were a number of dead links, a number of unreferenced claims, and some material that didn't see to reflect the source. It was all questionable. I investigated, but since I could not verify off-line sources, it was safer to remove all questionable material. There is no other responsible way of proceeding here - other than crossing one's fingers and hoping for the best.--Scott Mac 20:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- There was a drive-by NPOV tag with no discussion. The normal thing would just be to remove those as stale. Again, which speedy deletion criteria did you use and why didn't you follow the deletion procedure? And yes, I've verified all the sources. Will Beback talk 21:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've already explained the process and policy I've followed - I've nothing more to add. Thanks for confirming you've verified the sources, without access to them it was not possible for me to check with the thoroughness that you obviously now have. I will restore the article to my own userspace and we can sort out the remaining BLP issues before returningit to article space.--Scott Mac 21:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- There was a drive-by NPOV tag with no discussion. The normal thing would just be to remove those as stale. Again, which speedy deletion criteria did you use and why didn't you follow the deletion procedure? And yes, I've verified all the sources. Will Beback talk 21:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- No. The BLP was marked as non-neutral for three years. There were a number of dead links, a number of unreferenced claims, and some material that didn't see to reflect the source. It was all questionable. I investigated, but since I could not verify off-line sources, it was safer to remove all questionable material. There is no other responsible way of proceeding here - other than crossing one's fingers and hoping for the best.--Scott Mac 20:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence that we didn't already get the article "right"? It seems to me that you are just moving the goalposts on this one. The material you object to was cited with reliable sources. Again, if you don't like how WP:V is applied, seek consensus to change. Otherwise, accept that the statements referenced by those newspaper cites are correct and look toward other areas. Resolute 20:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- We need to get the article right. Assuming good faith, and keeping sweet with wiki-ethics, play second fiddle. Will restored questionablenegaive material that had been deleted under BLP. I simply asked how he could be confident that the sources supported the negative content. I think that's a pretty important question.--Scott Mac 20:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Whoever added that source did, and should be treated with equal respect as Will. The only caveat I would make is on the basis of whether the text that those cites supported had been changed in the intervening time. Lacking that, I would consider removing such cites a failure to WP:AGF, not to mention constituting a blatant disregard for WP:V. Resolute 20:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't argue that. I merely asked if Will had actually verified the negative BLP material he so easily restored. And I note he didn't answer that. If he can say he's seen the off-line source, I'll be fine with that.--Scott Mac 19:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, now restored. It would have been much less hassle, had you asked me what my concerns were, reassured me that you'd been able to check the sources and we'd worked out the remaining issues. I'm not that that unapproachable.--Scott Mac 22:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- There'd be less hassle if you specified the criteria and made sure the article actually meets that criteria. If there's an "ignore all rules" situation then you should probably write an explanation on AN for why the rules needed to be ignored. Admins do have significant discretion, but that shouldn't be abused. Anyway, glad it's resolved now for this article. Will Beback talk 23:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)