This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scott MacDonald (talk | contribs) at 01:32, 1 December 2010 (→Bonnie Bleskachek: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:32, 1 December 2010 by Scott MacDonald (talk | contribs) (→Bonnie Bleskachek: r)(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)
- 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)
- 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)
- (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)
- (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)