Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:02, 22 May 2007

Comments moved from main page:

though it should be clear that the Admin's decision can be disputed in DRV if appropriate. If said DRV does occur, it should operate under the same criteria. Mister.Manticore

Groan. No more process wonkery. By "same criteria" I assume you mean yet another fresh admin gets to close it? Maybe. But only if Jeff agrees not to be the one to start the DRV, no matter how much he disagrees with the AfD. -N 00:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, if Jeff objects to the outcome, he gets to make an objection on DRV, the same as anybody else, including those opposed to him. Otherwise to be fair, we'd have to exclude other people, and frankly, I don't want to do that. And I strongly oppose your characterization of this as process wonkery, that's the sort of thing that isn't helpful. To be honest, I'm not even sure this discussion should occur here. If you'd care to move your comment to the talk page, I'd not object to your moving my response here. Mister.Manticore 01:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not against Jeff, or anybody, making a DRV request. I just don't want him to flame it up anymore if this does go back to AfD and gets deleted again. I suppose he'd be sensible about it though. You're right, it's a non-issue. -N 02:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If an actual result ends up reflecting consensus, I can't complain. In my entire history, have i ever played that game? Only once, with Darvon cocktail (I think), and that was more a trial balloon for reviewing a DRV. I'm "flamed up" right now due to multiple involved administrators deciding that consensus doesn't matter here, and not giving the community a proper voice. If the second AfD completed, I'd likely be done with this, deleted or undeleted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the comment, and I don't want things to become inflamed either. Since this situation has had problems in DRV before, I figure it's best just to be clear that that's a valid option, but should be done under the same reasonable terms you posited if it does happen. Mister.Manticore 02:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The BLP issue

Re: the comment by User:gaillimh. How can anyone who looks at the version of the article as returned to AFD by Xoloz claim that this met WP:BLP's unsourced test? It was far better sourced than the average BLP. Per WP:BLP, "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion." If the article is sourced (and this one has been since the very first edit), then it is not unsourced, and that sentence does not apply. I keep feeling like people are not actually looking at the evidence before they opine, because the BLP delete position is plainly wrong. GRBerry 02:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And it's arguable that an article about a subject that willingly participates in the issue that causes the BLP questions is even "controversial." --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the main concern is this is the only thing the guy's famous for. Sure we have info on Michael Jackson allegedly molesting kids or the Mel Gibson DUI incident, in fact they have their own separate articles distinct from the celebrity page. But this guy isn't a celebrity for anything else. I still don't think BLP applies, as this guy is cashing in. Notability might apply though. -N 02:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Berry, simply because you disagree with my position does not mean that I didn't do my due diligence in analysing the situation, and to state otherwise is a bit silly and also getting a bit personal, no? This is clearly a boderline case of notability given that the fellow has achieved fame via what is colloquially known on the internet as a "meme". In these cases, our rule of thumb is to do no harm (the preceding was a direct quote from BLP). Keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia that endeavours to allow eeach and every person to freely access the sum of the world's knowledge; this article surely has no bearing here, and as mentioned, we should always strive to act with basic social graces and not use Misplaced Pages to further perpetuate this meme, which has brought the fellow some grief. So, of course BLP applies, both in spirit and to the letter gaillimh 02:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

How is eleven independent sources borderline? We have featured articles with fewer sources with the subject as the main topic than this has. How is an article on a self-promoting famous person doing harm? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, multiple times) How can we be doing harm, when he is trying to cash in on the meme? This was cited in the article, to this article in The Independent, which says "Qian has decided to try to turn his web notoriety into hard cash." (and goes on to say that he hasn't succeeded yet). It is also a reasonable interpretation of the last pargraph in this article from the UK's Times Online (website for The Times). GRBerry 03:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Gary Brolsma, anyone? How about Alex Cora, he's only got a page for being a baseball player, he's not a celebrity for anything else, either. Or maybe Paul Anka, who's only a celebrity 'cause he sings good. How far can we take the illogical conclusion on this one? Why are people bothered by this? Because kind people generally don't make fun of overweight people. This isn't random fat dude down the street, though, this is a highly famous individual who, while famous because of his appearance, self-promotes it. It's not even in the same league, and if BLP was created with situations like this in mind, it's an even worse failure than I already thought. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Or Richard Simmons. I mean, seriously. -N 03:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to say "This person isn't important for anything meaningful" well, that's an issue of notability, not BLP. BLP is for cases where there aren't reliable sources for the material. There were sources. So, that's not a valid argument. Besides, the real problem here isn't whether this is or is not BLP or anything else, it's the actions taken. Mister.Manticore 03:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

On JzG's commentary

As a note about JzG's position on the matter - the who in deleting the page is irrelevant. Whether you work with OTRS or are an administrator or the King of France, your opinion is no more important than anyone else's. If anything, the amount of OTRS people may suggest an improper weight given to BLPs in general given the sensitivity of other cases that don't unquestionably meet the criteria. The OTRS issue is a red herring.

I'll also note that JzG says that this has no comparison with Daniel Brandt, as Brandt is a willing participant - also false. An assessment of the sources reveals that this person is also a willing participant, perhaps even moreso than Brandt.

I keep finding more flaws in this - "haste, aggression, hysteria?" Do you know when those things occurred? Around the time the second AfD, created because of a consensus overturn of the first one, was deleted. In haste. Aggressively and arguably hysterically. If this article really should be gone, it would be by now if it wasn't for the hasty, aggressive reactions of administrators who apparently don't give a shit about other people's opinions, since, after all, they're OTRS volunteers and know better than the rest of us. Sorry, that doesn't fly.

And fine, I'll address my "bad faith" as well: I don't see worth in RfC, and this is a charade. We all know it. It's here because ArbCom won't accept a case before an RfC, so we're doing the RfC. If the RfC fails to resolve the issue, we move to the next step. Don't preach to me about going through each step of dispute resolution, and then accuse me of bad faith when I do so. All that does is prove my point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop throwing around the "consensus" buzzword. You know as well as I do that there was no consensus in this entire affair, even from the very first AFD. If there are still dissenting arguments, then consensus has not been reached. When consensus is not reached, you do not get permission to ram it through DRV as many times as you can to overturn the ruling. Instead, you bring up your concerns on the closing admin's talk page.

OTRS volunteers are some of the most patient people in all of Misplaced Pages. They do "know better" than the rest of us. They've seen the "dark side" of Misplaced Pages. They've dealt with the most serious BLP violations. Perhaps they know a thing or two about BLP. It would be ignorant to deny that fact.

Earlier, you were unwilling to go through the proper means of dispute resolution. You showed distaste in putting this dispute through RfC. Instead, you opted to go straight to ArbCom and get your enemies sanctioned. That's a profound display of bad faith, if I've ever seen one. Sean William 13:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus" isn't a buzzword, it's policy. It's one of the most important principles on the project. We had a consensus closure on the first AfD, we had a consensus overturn on the following DRV. Rgiht now, the state of things does not reflect reality, and no one's looking to "ram it through DRV as many time as can." No one's suggesting that. Secondly, good for OTRS people - they're "some of the most patient people in all of Misplaced Pages." That simply does not give them undue weight in a discussion. Thirdly, there is no "proper means" of dispute resolution. There are suggested means, and there are different places you can go. I went to ArbCom to appeal the deletion, which is what i've been told to do numerous times in other contentious cases. ArbCom rejected as premature, so I came here, even though I don't believe in the RfC process. That's not bad faith, that's doing what people ask of you when reasonable. Nothing wrong with that, and I soundly reject the false accusations about my motives. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If there was "a consensus closure on the first AfD", I don't even understand how it managed to get to DRV, never mind get an overturn result (and you know as well as anybody that DRV doesn't even run on consensus, another little oddity which ought to be considered at some point). —Phil | Talk 14:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to fix up DRV, but any deletion result can be challenged at DRV, as you well know. If fault is found, it gets relisted. That's what happened here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If there was "consensus" the first time, then why are we still here? Sean William 14:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Because there was consensus the second time that has been soundly ignored by disruptive administrators. Again, we don't have to be here. The AfD could be running right now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the second time. I'm talking about the first. Was consensus ignored when it was first sent to DRV? Sean William 14:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I know you're not talking about the second time, you're willfully ignoring it. Consensus was not ignored - DRV is the place to appeal deletion decisions and it was overturnd by consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, the only person who has special privileges on Misplaced Pages is Jimbo, and even he is not infallible or omnipotent. The mere idea that some users are "better" than others is quite disturbing to me, as I'm concerned that's the sort of thing that leads to cabals and cliques, that encourages divisiveness and leads to more conflict, because it sets some editors up in a role where they're set up against other editors. That's not a good idea. Besides, if anything, those editors having more experience should have told them that their methods were flawed in attaining the outcome they desired. Mister.Manticore 14:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Query for Jeff

If your point is that RFC rarely if ever resolves anything (except letting off steam, which can be useful in and of itself), then I tend to agree with that. However, in a not-so-hypothetical question, what would you do if the ArbCom either rejects your new case, or opens it and draws a conclusion that disagrees with you? Radiant! 13:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If Arbcom rejects the new case, then there's no further reason or way to pursue the wheel-warring and inappropriate closures. I would likely try another DRV, and, assuming it is allowed to go to its proper conclusion and is closed via consensus, go with whatever that ruling ends up with. I'll re-iterate, as I've said many times already - if the second AfD had been allowed to complete, or any of the following DRVs, or that third AfD, we wouldn't be here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Will you accept the result of this RFC if as seems likely there is not consensus to rerun the deletion review? If not, what will be your next step? --Tony Sidaway 14:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The RfC really can't result in anything like that. The deletion review (or AfD, really, since that's the state we're supposed to be in at this point) needs to be run to come to a consensus on the article. Arbcom is almost certainly the next step unless some things occur. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. So if you don't get consensus for a fourth deletion review or a fourth rerun of the deletion discussion from this RFC, you'll proceed to apply for arbitration. Is that right? If so, what will you do if the arbitration committee either rejects your application on the stated grounds of a request for a mandated rerun of the deletion discussion or deletion review, or rejects it outright? --Tony Sidaway 14:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No consensus is going to come of anything from this RfC, that's not what it's designed for and it doesn't result in anything. barring the run of AfD or a DRV that was supposed to occur following Xoloz's close, this will end up at Arbcom by my hand. I can't speak for anyone else pursuing arbitration for the wheel warring. Now, if Arbcom still rejects it, I'll request a DRV. If it gets speedy closed, we'll cross that bridge when it comes, but I will no longer have a problem once either a) a consensus result is reached regarding the article, or b) an arbitration result is reach regarding the article and behavior of the participants. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying here and now, that if the arbitration committee rejects your application next time, you will open a fourth deletion review? --Tony Sidaway 14:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review is where to appeal poor deletions. One would think that, given the extent this has gone, the disruptive elements would allow consensus to be formed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that a "yes"? If there isn't consensus here for rerun (which doesn't look likely at present), and the arbitration committee won't grant you a rerun (which could happen, but may not), then you'll try to initiate a retun anyway? Is that what you're saying? --Tony Sidaway 15:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I will attempt to run a DRV if nothing forces one - this format is incapable of actually gaining consensus for one due to a variety of factors. If the DRV is allowed to run fully, there's no further problems. If not, we'll cross that bridge when it comes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for sticking my nose in here, but why does it matter where consensus is formed? If a consensus forms here that the article should remain deleted, what purpose is served by "validating" that consensus at Deletion Review? I guess I don't understand why the forum matters, as long as reasonable notice has been given. Badlydrawnjeff, can you explain why it is so important to you that this discussion be had at Deletion Review or Articles for Deletion instead of as a part of this Request for Comments? Do you believe that the community has inadequate notice of this Request for Comments for a consensus to develop here? Do you simply feel that this Request for Comments has not resulted in a consensus? (Apologies if some of the above is asked and answered.) Chromaticity 14:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This isnt the proper forum for it. If it results in a conseneus, great, but that's not what it's here for. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that that is all the answer you're willing to offer. I thought the purpose of the Request for Comments process was to allow for community comment on any particular situation with the hopes of generating a community consensus on how to deal with the situation. Am I mistaken? If I am not mistaken, how is this not a suitable place to have this discussion? Given that the discussion is here already, how does moving it elsewhere help? Chromaticity 15:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think, because at best, I suppose the hope is that folks will consent to an AFD/DRV, but not to a decision on this article. Mister.Manticore 15:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that made my brain hurt. Are you suggesting that there are people who will consent to having a discussion about this article, but will not consent to actually making a decision as a result of that discussion? What, then, is the point of having the discussion? Chromaticity 15:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• That's an interesting question, what can a person do when the avenues to resolve an existing problem aren't open? Or when the avenues taken don't result in a solution? But the answers to that are almost so open-ended that it's probably unfair to ask anybody to say what they'll do before the events that decide their actions happen. However if you're asking "Will this thing quietly go away?" if there isn't a solution that addresses the problems that came up in this affair, I hope that doesn't happen, and I don't think it will. Now there are disruptive and non-disruptive ways to protest any non-solution, and I hope Jeff and others choose the non-disruptive ones, but even there, it's such a wide number of choices, that I can only speak for myself in saying "I'll protest any non-solution in as non-disruptive manner as I can" . Mister.Manticore 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "You can't always get what you want..." (M. Jagger, 1969) Raymond Arritt 15:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just." Abraham Lincoln. Want me to throw a few dozen more quotes around? Quotes are a nice way to encourage yourself, possibly others, they're a poor way to have a discussion. Mister.Manticore 15:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

FloNight's outside view...

What? Difficult cases need less discussion? I'm sure someone understands why not allowing review of controversial closures encourages trust, but I don't... -Amarkov moo! 14:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between reviewing a closure and vilifying an admin who closes a discussion the way you didn't want. If you don't understand the difference and why we should treat them differently, then you need to step back and reconsider whether you should be taking part in discussions on such important subjects. —Phil | Talk 15:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If the later closures were by consensus rather than by strongarming, there'd be no issue here. The closure of the second AfD and the denial of any appeals processes stemming from that are the problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if the first AfD outcome had been respected there'd be no issue here. WjBscribe 15:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It was respected, and overturned. Happens all the time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Was there something wrong with the conduct of the editor who asked Daniel to change his mind, and who convinced him of it? Was Daniel not supposed to be open to a well-reasoned argument? I suppose you can say if nobody had said anything, none of this would have happened, but unless you think there was something wrong with asking an admin to change their mind, I don't see a problem with that aspect of this chain of events. Mister.Manticore 15:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with asking an admin to reopen an AfD and Daniel did so. But at that point the AfD could be closed by any other admin evaluating the consensus (something Daniel has agreed is correct). Drini did so - that was a valid close. DRV should not have overturned that close. WjBscribe 15:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You should really re-read the first DRV. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree, I see no evidence that Drini's close was valid, and DRV was right to overturn it. Sorry, but all I saw was an admin making the decision "This has had long enough" when a previous admin had just said "Well, I closed this, but then I was told this new thing, so I think this should be re-evaluated". Compounded with Drini's further actions here and elsewhere, I'm disinclined to accept that Drini did indeed make a valid decision at the time. Perhaps that's unfair, but when your response to criticism of your decision is under such terms, I'm inclined to doubt the initial decision. Mister.Manticore 15:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the idea that strong criticism of admins weakens them. This is not so. Criticism of people with greater responsibilities is highly desirable. If they're weakened by it, it's because they're doing wrong. While certainly unfounded criticism can hurt, and can even be harassment and bullying, that doesn't mean all criticism is wrong. There is a reason why Lèse majesté is widely rejected as a legal principle. Sorry, but just because you're an admin doesn't mean you're sacrosanct. You can be criticized for doing the wrong thing, and that has no more protection than any other editor's actions. To respond to the above comment, nobody should be vilified. This only means any criticism should be made in reasonable terms not that it should be prohibited. Mister.Manticore 15:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)