User talk:Sjakkalle/2013 (pre-break)

Welcome to my talkpage!

Ordinarily, any comments placed here will stay, and only simple vandalism will be reverted. If you wish to make a personal attack against me it will stay for everyone to see. Someone else will judge whether an attack says more about you or about me however.

Note that I am quite inconsistent with where I make responses.

If it is a response I think several people might be interested in reading, I might respond here. Otherwise, I will probably respond on your talkpage.
I do not respond to every message (most notably RFA thank you notices), although I normally reply to requests and questions. Sometimes I am unable or do not have the time to do so (or I see that the problem has already been fixed). If I don't respond to your posting, please forgive me.

Previous archives of my talkpage can be found at

I am an administrator. If you need something done which needs admin tools, and it's uncontroversial, I'll do my best to be at your service. If it's an action which would be controversial, or which needs some sort of community discussion beforehand, I'll direct you to the appropriate forum.

WP Chess in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Chess for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Vitti

Hi there, I come here to ask you the undeletion of the Vitti's page. Here why I say this :

"the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. " First sentence of the argumentation : "The result was delete. Vote count here is 5 delete to 4 keep". Sorry but you just can't make this point an important one for the decision.
Critieria which has been clearly shown and demonstrated have just been adapted to your view. Like the "against the page" did for a week. And nobody expected me said anything about the point 10. of the page notability (music) : "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., performance in a television show ". Without the song of Vitti and so, without the songs of other 6 artists presents : NO SHOW. So it is important enough...
Everything else in the argumentation was based on a sentence in a local newspaper "100 autoproduced album". Sorry but it is not the point. An autoproduced album yes, as demo at his very begining. Since this, Vitti has been contacted by the production of France 2 which is the first PUBLIC nation french TV.

Thanks for reading this and helping a real community (about 10 000 persons on facebook/twitter/reverbnation etc...) keeping the page of the artist they knew on TV and continue to follow. Frenchytv (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Regarding the points you listed:

It is correct that we do not decide the result purely on vote count, but the level of support that each position receives is a factor in determining where consensus is. In many cases, 5 delete to 4 keep where both sides have reasonable arguments and there is no policy reason mandating deletion would be considered a no consensus since the sides are equally divided. In this case I actually gave even less weight to the "vote count" than usual because people on both sides had contacted others asking them to contribute.
I did address point 10 in the closing rationale, and it does not say that any performance in a television show is sufficient grounds for notability. While I don't edit much in the music front, I have some experience working with AFDs related to it, and even participation in larger contests such as American Idol hasn't been sufficient, see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination).
You point out that he has been contacted by the production of France 2, but there is nothing about him actually having produced something significant. Preparations for producing something notable is not sufficient for notability, since it is guesswork if something actually will come out of it.

Finally, the BLP1E policy is considered a "strong" policy in that it is extremally seldomly ignored (arguments against BLP1E rationales for deletion are usually based on the subject meeting one of the exceptions in the BLP1E policy), this is a factor that remains a problem and that I didn't see anyone addressing. I am sorry, but you will need to go to WP:DRV if you want to seek undeletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Punkcast

Hello. 2 people told me to go to DRV but because you seem to be nice and also may not know that Joly MacFie is Wwwwhatsup which is easy to show by google or other ways, I wanted to ask you to reconsider first. This is the message I would put at DRV

Up to the last minute there were 3 delete !votes and the nomination, total 4. There was only one keep !vote and it was from the creator, only editor, and subject of the article. This user also tried to dismiss the AFD by saying I had a grudge against him for some reason which is not true, and were told they should AGF. At the very last minute someone !voted keep and just said the opposite of the nomination text and also said that none of the other positions in the delete !votes were strong. This keep !vote did not specifically reference any wikipedia policy but all of the 'hdelete !votes did. Based on this it was closed with no consensus. Looking at other AFDs it looks like standard procedure in case like this is to keep it open to gain consensus. I think consensus was reached to delete but even if it wasn't it should not have been closed before no one could respond to the !keep vote. Thank you. MarioNovi (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Punkcast AFD was a difficult one to close, which might explain why it was lingering in the old list as one of the two last ones on the January 4 list. Closing AFDs is a bit of a delicate matter, where we need to balance what policies and guidelines say with what level of support there is for deletion and keeping. 4 deletes to 2 keeps is in the discretion range, and where I try using my best judgement on what policies say.

Looking at specifics, and going through the votes:

Your nomination statement argues that the article looks like an advertisement, and that it was made by a person with a possible conflict of interest. The latter issue is one I should have addressed more in the closing statement since autobiographies are strongly discouraged. However, ultimately we evaluate articles on the merits and not by who created them; thus having an author with a possible conflict of interest is a pertinent point but not a deal-breaker. (An exception is that articles written by banned users in violation of their ban can be speedy deleted.)
The delete vote by Alan Liefting, "Delete, sort of per WP:WEB but especially per WP:CSB. We are trying to create an encyclopedia here people" did not carry much weight. First, he cites WP:WEB but makes no attempt at explaining why the article doesn't meet that guideline (this is known as a WP:JUSTAPOLICY vote), he then cites WP:CSB which has nothing to do with the article at all. ("Countering systemic bias" refers to a project that aims to improve coverage in largely non-Anglophone areas that tend to be neglected by a editing community which is overwhelmingly West European/North American/Australian. It is not about reducing the Anglophone content, but bringing the non-Anglophone content up to the same standards.)
The keep vote by the article creator made unfortunate references questioning your motives; that part didn't carry any weight. However, his vote does make some arguments that are policy based, most importantly that he made use of secondary sources. Such sources are expected to provide the basis of an article per the verifiability policy, and they are also the main criterion for passing the notability guideline.
Since the secondary sourcing plays so heavily into the evaluation of whether notability guidelines are met, Gwickwire's "doesn't look notable to me, regardless of sourcing" is a bit at odds with the notability guideline. There is a certain subjectiveness in determining notability, but simply "doesn't look notable to me" is lacking in reason beyond the assertion. Also, the note that it might be notable if the article is expanded isn't really a valid reason to delete either. A common trope is that "AFD is not cleanup"; that is, an article on a valid subject that can be expanded should be kept, even if the article is poor now and doesn't include much of which it should include.
Jreferee's vote however was a very relevant one because he pointed out that the cited sources were largely about the person behind the website rather than the website itself. However, when I looked at the article, it too was largely about the person behind the website rather than the website itself. Jreferee even suggested making a biography article. That suddenly raised the possibility of turning the current article into a biography, which would only require a minor edit and rename, something that would address the issue Jreferee brought up. I have made a proposal about this at Talk:Punkcast.
Finally, Sandstein's vote was what tipped the balance since he lended support to the creator and acknowledged the relevance of the cited source. This was enough to create enough doubt about the correct outcome to call this a "no consensus" closure.

I know about the "relist" option, but that is usually applied in cases where there is a lack of participation. In this case, we had six votes and reasonably extensive discussion. Per WP:RELIST: "That said, relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable."

I understand that you disagree with the outcome, and I know that reasonable admins can arrive at different results in AFDs where discretion is used. WP:DRV is our appeals process for challenging these closures. (Overturn results seem to happen if a closure is directly at odds with consensus, closures tend to be endorsed if many find the result at least plausible.) The other option is to wait a few months as Gwickwire suggested [1]; in the best case-scenario the article can be improved to a point where the concerns in the AFD have been addressed.

Best wishes, Sjakkalle (Check!) 22:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. The article was not edit for 2 years until I nominated it so I don't think 2 months if going to change anything. Also I don't think you gave anyone a change to respond to Sandstein. So I will go to DRV hope this is ok, MarioNovi (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Punkcast

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Punkcast. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MarioNovi (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelscoil na mBeann

I don't understand why the specific page on the above mentioned school was removed and summary information merged into 'Education', whilst other schools (listed below) were left intact? Brackenagh West Primary School Kilkeel High School Mourne Independent Christian School St. Louis Grammar School Eog1916 (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reason is that there was no proposal to merge any of the four other schools that mention. I merged the Gaelscoil na mBeann school because there was an AFD on this, and where a merge appeared to be the most appropriate outcome. So it is basically the Wikipedia process that caused me to single that one out for merging. I agree that it is consistent to give all the articles on primary schools in the series the same treatment, and to that end, Brackenagh could be merged as well. However, high schools have typically been allowed separate articles. Not everyone on Wikipedia thinks it ought to be that way, but that is the way it has usually gone when high schools have been brought to AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awarding a Barnstar

		Wikipedia Administrator's Award
		I award you this barnstar for the quality and the clarity of the motivation of your decision in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperbolic Fibonacci and Lucas functions D.Lazard (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Blue

Regarding your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Blue in which you determined that a redirect would be inappropriate, do you object to creating one now? The situation has changed since you closed that AFD. See the short discussion on my talk page at User talk:Amatulic#Windows Blue. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have posted a reply on your talkpage. Thanks! Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The discussion involves User:Calton's use of racial epithets; your objections to this behavior in the past were cited. I certainly do not suggest any of your editing was improper, and provide this notice only as a courtesy, to alert you to the possibility that others may contact you about it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ludwig Augustinsson

Hi there. Wanted to let you know in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ludwig Augustinsson which you recently closed, you have mixed the two footballers. You've deleted the one that me and others wanted to keep, while not deleting the one that noone wanted to keep :) Keep up the good work. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ludwig Augustinsson

You might want to review your closure of this afd. I think you mixed up the two articles in question. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... that was a bit embarrassing. I can think of a whole host of excuses:

The academic's excuse: "I was just testing to see if you were awake"
The losing chess player's excuse: "I have been a bit ill lately and am a bit light-headed from it"
Another losing chess player's excuse: "I totally missed that!" (implied: "It wasn't my fault")
The disorganized mind's excuse: "The order of the last keep votes was the reverse of the order in the nomination"

Thanks anyway; I think that I have cleaned up the mess. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, we are all humans, but I had to check three times to see if you got it right or wrong, so you could easily use the disorganized mind's excuse on me :) And btw, my "keep up the good work" comment above was not meant ironic, even though when reading through it I believe it looks like I was ironic. Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouraging words. And I can assure I did not view "keep up the good work" as either sarcastic or ironic; the smiley face took good care of showing what spirit the message was given in. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal for help regarding deleted article

You have closed the deletion discussion for [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/JetBrains]. I seek your help and advise in proper improving the article in question before formal applying for deletion review.

In this case I see the following reasons to undelete the article:

1. I believe you closed the delete discussion interpreting the consensus incorrectly (more specifically, few people had the ability to vote compared to hundreds of thousands of users of JetBrains software). 2. Significant new information has come to light since the deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page (please see below). 3. My friends and I (along with many other potential contributors to the page from different countries) were very surprised to see the deletion. We would like to have the history of the deleted page restored in order to produce a new, improved version of the page. 4. It seems to me that there was also a procedural error in the deletion discussion. WP:ORG says "if an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant." As far as I see, very few people were aware of the deletion, and capable editors were not given enough time to add references. Also, WP:ORG says "Consensus is not determined by counting heads", and in this case three "keep"/”on the edge” votes were superseded by a mere four "delete" votes, which is not a clear consensus.

Notability

According to WP:ORG, notability of a company can be established with sources such as "newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports..." Also, according to WP:GNG, "sources ... are not required to be in English."

There is indeed new evidence of notability, which could not have been taken into account in the deletion discussion, possibly because the sources are Russian (and still eligible as sources): [2] - this is a publication in a business newspaper, maintaining good reputation among business media in Russia, published by the international publisher Business Press. The publication says that JetBrains had the largest deal closed in 2012 on the real estate market in St. Petersburg, Russia, a city with population of 5 million. [3] - based on a survey of Russian IT specialists, this publication reports JetBrains as their number four Dream Employer, behind such giants as Google, Yandex and Microsoft. [4] - the article on PC Week / RE magazine website about the company itself.

JetBrains is at times recognized in international news as well: [5]

There are also a number of books that can be checked directly from the "books" link on the deletion page, referring to JetBrains as a company that produces excellent tools for software developers: [6]

All these books are devoted to various IT topics and mention JetBrains products, not describing the company itself in much detail; however, at least 10% of Java developers worldwide would be surprised if one says JetBrains is not worth a mention in Wikipedia.

While most people are not Java experts, a representational survey from LinkedIn shows that even more people are not only aware of JetBrains, but think JetBrains IntelliJ IDEA is the best Java IDE: [7]

WP:ORG also suggests Hoovers as a reliable source. JetBrains is not a public company, but it is still listed there: [8]. One can buy a full Hoovers report if in doubt.

This short review shows that the JetBrains article complies with basic notability requirements, and the lack of information about the company itself (compared to the entire volume of information about its products) could be offset with the help of primary sources, as WP:ORG states: "Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content."

Deletion Discussion

People who voted "delete" may not be software developer professionals, thus they simply do not use JetBrains tools and do not see any value in describing the company in Wikipedia. Fair enough. But suppose you ask a layperson about three of the top IT companies in the world: Microsoft, Apple and Oracle. Everyone will recognize the former two, but very few will admit to knowing anything about Oracle. Does that mean Oracle does not deserve a Wikipedia article? I think not.

One voter said: “I'm more concerned over the substantial walled garden of non-notable products we have here, especially given that this business makes software for software developers” (emphasis not mine). By this token, the Italian design house Pininfarina should not have a Wikipedia article because they create car design for automobile manufacturers. But they do.

Two others stated: "Could not find any independent sources to demonstrate notability" and "The first 30 sites on Google don't seem to turn up much either". A simple Google Books search seems to refute these statements; dozens can be found here: [9]

Walter Gorlitz, who initially marked the article for deletion, commented that "third place isn't much of a victory" regarding the article in [10]. The comment is actually incomplete, because with slightly closer attention one would note that the article lists JetBrains three times. Another JetBrains product, ReSharper, won first place, and two more took third places in their respective categories.

My goal is to improve the article to make it fully compliant with all rules, as well as make it valuable and useful for people. Thus, I appreciate your help and advise on how to do it.

Best regards, Philip Torchinsky (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Standard practice has been that recreations that address the original reasons for deletion are allowed, but it is usually considered good practice to make a draft in your userspace and check with WP:DRV before posting to namespace.

Concerning the "counting heads", I agree that the result cannot be solely dependendent on head count, but on the other hand a closing administrator shouldn't just close solely based on what agreement he or she agrees with the most either. It is necessary to walk a line between "vote counting" and "supervoting".

In this case, the nominator did address some of the sources that were provided, and while I understand that the sources were better than nothing, the "delete" side still had reasonable concerns regarding the independence and significance of coverage. Since the support for deletion was quite a bit stronger than the support for keeping, I considered that there was a "rough consensus" for deletion, which is the standard we go by.

Regarding some of the sources, I note that this one only mentions Jetbrains as a small pie slice, but it doesn't really say anything about the company. The international news you referred to looks very much like a press release, and I doubt that it would be accepted as being sufficiently independent of the source.

I'm afraid that the comments and sources that you provided are insufficient for me to overturn the decision at this point. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advise. I put the new article draft to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_Torchinsky/sandbox

I have no access to old page content, thus I just rewrote it, using the information from Wikipedia page in Russian and independent sources.

You are quite right about this one: it mentions all companies as pie slices, because the aim of the article is to show IT professionals' favorite companies. However being a number four dream employer in the country after three multinational IT giants is not just "a small slice".

Please consider also a fact the original nominator for deletion is the same as for the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ReSharper page (also deleted at the moment). Microsoft recognizes ReSharper as a most popular plugin to Visual Studio, and few references at this page mention that. I am afraid the nominator may not be familiar with software development enough, otherwise he would nominate the ReSharper article "for improvement", not "for deletion".

If you think the article draft does not have enough references to reliable sources, please make clearer what kind of sources you think are reliable and independent. Microsoft, Oracle, LinkedIn and Dr Dobbs are usually considered authoritative enough in the world of software development. I am absolutely sure the article we discuss is worth to be undeleted and improved.Philip Torchinsky (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of an article on a company, an independent source would is written by someone who is not closely associated with the company (such as an employee, PR-agent, manager). A reliable source is one that has a solid reputation for accuracy and which preferably have been published after some sort of review. There is not an absolutely clear boundary between what is "reliable" and "independent", but in general blogs and online customer reviews are considered unreliable as they are self published without any need for approval, while press releases are not independent. On the other hand, articles from reliable newspapers written by independent journalists are usually considered reliable and independent. Things that can be gray areas are for example interviews with a company manager; what the manager says about the company is not independent, but some of the questions and themes brought up by the interviewer may be. (This could be an issue with the JAX awards link.)

In addition to the issue of sourcing, it is important that the article not look overly promotional (see WP:NPOV), and a line like "JetBrains makes excellent working environment for the software developers, offering them cosy office space in modern office centers" would probably be viewed as a line that would belong an employment advert.

While I am neutral about recreation and I am not all that good at predicting consensus, in its present shape I don't think you would obtain a consensus for restoration based on the draft, the information in the sources that have substantial coverage seem heavily influenced by the company while the others only mention JetBrains without really saying much about it.

One possible tip for notability: Are the local newspapers interested in the financial results of the company? In many cases business newspapers are interested in how the local companies are doing, and will report on profits and losses. If there is anything like this, it shows that the company has been the focus of attention from others than the company managers and employess. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OGBranniff

This may yet become a long page. Glad you filed it; more data is always better for CU. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

Note: This is a posting that was originally put on my userpage here. This is a copy of the original post, and my response, at User talk:95.68.2.199.

Sjakkalle, respones to recommendation from User:Quale, there is an issue: I have changed my name (both: first name and surname), but 91.105.4.23 (Quale) undo my edit posted: "no references for the name change", because of Wikipedia guidelines... So the question is: how can I prove that. Or what kind of reference would work as a proof that it's my real name?!

Hi! You posted your message on my userpage (User:Sjakkalle) instead of the talkpage (User talk:Sjakkalle), but no worries. :-) I think I have been able to piece together the full picture; you have had your name changed, but at present there are not any sources that are reporting this, and so your update to your article wound up being reverted.

The issue of names where the sources are inaccurate or not up to date is a can of worms, because on the one hand we very much care that articles, especially biographies on living people, are accurate; on the other hand the verifiability policy requires that it be possible for other editors to check the facts in the article. Usually what is verifiable is also accurate, but difficulties can arise when a statement that is in another reliable source is simply not true. Often a statement in an article that is arguably inaccurate but supported by sources can be removed since verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion, but when it comes to the name of the subject that isn't really an option, something that creates a nice dilemma.

We had a similar issue with the Will.i.am article where the subject had an issue with the name was being used in the article about him. The current state of the article uses the name that is supported by sources, but which the subject disputes. However, I shall mention that a dissenting voice, who believes that we should use the name Will.i.am says is his, is Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales. Nonetheless, the consensus at the time on how we handle this dilemma is that without any source to confirm a different name, we will need to go with the name that the sources use, even if it leaves the article out of date. Unfortunately, it is not easy for Wikipedia to confirm the identity of someone, and that is one reason we cannot simply change an article based on someone's say-so. Which can sometimes lead to these sticky situations.

Of course, once we have one source that confirms the name change, the article can be updated. The sources need not be free or in English and it may involve for example obtaining a paper newspaper in another language. If there comes a newspaper article using the new name for example, then that would be a cause to update the name.

I am sorry that the article is a bit out-of-date at the moment, but I am afraid I cannot see an entirely satisfactory resolution to this kind of issue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The link that Quale provided, Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects, may also be able to help better than I can. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note on my user talk. I think you explained it well. As you suggest, contacting the volunteers by email may be the best way forward. Quale (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Loates article

I intend to start an article on jockey Sam Loates, a page you previously deleted:

15:03, 21 October 2010 Sjakkalle (talk | contribs) deleted page Sam Loates (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.horseracinghistory.co.uk/hrho/action/viewDocument?id=980)

I will be using that same source but I have also found other sources, like newspaper clippings, obits etc. I expect the article to end up like the stub I have recently created for his brother, Tommy Loates. Are you OK if I proceed? Peaky76 (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead! Speedy deletions for copyright infringement are only about a specific text, not the subject as a whole. They do not prohibit the creation of an article that is compliant with copyright regulation. Thanks for your contributions! Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding JetBrains Deletion

They should be a fairly notable company now that google has chosen to partner with them for their android-studio IDE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.233.93 (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant discussion is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JetBrains. It is well-established that a subject may gain notability after it was originally deleted. It is generally considered preferable to find a few independent sources before attempting a re-creation to avoid running afoul of WP:CSD#G4. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've drafted a new article which hopefully meets all guidelines and overcomes the objections raised previously. Please let me know what you think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eugenia_d/sandbox Eugenia d (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lokring Technology

Hi. I'd like a bit further explanation on the "no consensus" closure for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lokring Technology. I agree that the United States Council of International Business source might be independent and usable for notability, and stated so in the discussion. However, that is the only possible source that could be considered reliable which falls short of the multiple requirement. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "multiple requirement" is from the WP:N page, which is a guideline. (There is a "multiple" requirement in WP:V as well, but only with regards to exceptional claims, something that wasn't relevant here.) Deleting on the basis of a notability guideline requires a consensus, that is, a general agreement among the editors who participated in the debate. In this case there were three who argued for deletion with meritorious arguments, but also two editors who in good faith argued against deletion. When they point out that there is some independent sourcing, their argument has some merit even if it does not conform exactly to WP:N. The situation would have been different if the article was violating a content policy such as WP:V. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the explanation. I still feel that the single possibly reliable source is a thin thread on which to hang notability but given the low participation in the discussion I can see a no consensus with your explanation. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bullycides

Thanks for providing a lengthy close statement for the AFD. Did you register the point that many of the delete votes had been canvassed from the BLP noticeboard? When I checked, I found a high correlation between being an active poster on that board and delete !vote. It would be good to know what you made of this, please. Warden (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the BLPN page, but a notification there is a legitimate way to attract attention (WP:CANVASS lists "A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions" as appropriate places to put AFD notifications). Since it is on-wiki and any user can post and read there, it is not really a form of votestacking. Incidentally, in the closing statement I forgot to credit you for your efforts to tighten the article up. Even though it didn't succeed in saving the article from deletion, you did make a good faith attempt at addressing the BLP concerns, and I appreciate you for doing that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:BLPN also says: "Ideally, such notices should be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion."

...and it says "It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users."

The individual who initiated WP:BLPN#List of bullycides did not inform those in the original discussion that they initiated another discussion. Below is the initiating comment, with some sections highlighted. I suggest it was far from neutral, and that discussion did not comply with WP:CANVASS. Geo Swan (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An entirely unsourced "list of children and young people who have lost their life or been driven to suicide because of bullying at school or bullying during their school years". Can anyone give a legitimate reason why it shouldn't be blanked right now as a gross violation of WP:BLP policy?

Ideally, those drawn to a discussion by someone raising the issue at a central forum should not accept the description offered by the nominatior or initiator at face value. Ideally they should go the article themselves, to reach an independent opinion as to whether the initiators description was factual. In practice, however, one sees instances where a flood of me-too votes were due to flash-crowd mob-rule, when the initiator makes a mistake in their initiating comment, and the flash-crowd mob repeats that error. Would you agree that it would be fair to say you did not recognize and take into account a flash-crowd aspect of the flood of deletes that followed the comment in BLPN that did not comply with WP:CANVASS? Geo Swan (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list was entirely unsourced when AndyTheGrump made the initial BLPN posting, so I can't really blame him for posting in the way that he did. Colonel Warden's efforts did make considerable improvements, but there were still people calling for deletion after that had happened. I cannot say that the voters were me-too or part of a flash-crowd mob, because I have no way of determining the individual voters' state of mind. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, there were some links to sites which cover the topic plus several blue-links with sourcing of their own. I don't think there's any great point of principle here because, as the nomination said, there's a navigational template that lists some of the more notable cases. I have contemplated taking the matter to DRV on the grounds that, as your user page says, you like to count heads. But that may result in more heat than light. How about you userfy it? I have some ideas to transform it but am not likely to work on it for some weeks myself so Geo Swan could take it if he's keen. Warden (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that I close AFDs based on head count. I take into account: 1) Whether there is a policy that mandates deletion or retention, 2) Whether there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the discussion, 3) The level of support behind each viewpoint. I don't close AFDs based on what argument I happen to agree most with, because that would grant me far more power over AFD results than I ought to have. Concerning userfication, I am afraid that it would be very controversial to restore it due to the BLP issues, even if it is kept in userspace. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I misunderstood your position: "I am a firm believer that the decisions should be made by the community, and view the role of the closing administrator as a steward more than as a judge. It happens that a local consensus (aka "vote count") is at direct odds with policy, and those AFDs must be closed accordingly...". Anyway, I still have William Gibbs (schoolboy) to develop and will be looking out for other such cases... Warden (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I understand that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bullycides was a difficult {{afd}} to close. Was Ken Arromdee's the only argument you found convincing? You quoted him:

"It's violates BLP by implying that people who have not been convicted of causing deaths caused deaths".

Wikipedia contributors shouldn't be implying anything. Shouldn't wikipedia contributors be neutrally quoting or summarizing what reliable sources say? My contributions to the wikipedia date back to before we had a BLP policy. One of my frustrations with BLP is the instruction creep other contributors mentioned. BLP calls for us to be extra careful to be sure information about individuals is well referenced. Surely that isn't a high bar to pass?

The parents of Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons both thanked the public, and went on record that they wanted the details known because they wanted lessons to be drawn from their child's death. Geo Swan (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To say that Ken Arromdee made the only convincing argument is bit of a stretch, but I believe he was the one who best phrased how the BLP policy applied and why it called for deletion. The frustration I had with many of the delete votes were that they cited BLP but didn't really explain how or why it applied, but when they are viewed through the lens of Arromdee's comment, they made more sense. I understand very well the concern you have about using the BLP policy to wrongly disallow neutral summaries, but is compiling a list like this necessarily a neutral summary? The concern that strong (and justifiable) suspicions of bullying being the cause of suicide is treated as a definitive fact ("This suicide was caused by bullying"), especially when there was no conviction, and when there may have been multiple causes that contributed, is not trivial either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I acknowledge, again, this would have been a difficult and time-consuming {{afd}} to close. Having said that, Arromdee's comment is the only BLP comment you endorsed -- so I think it is reasonable to assume it is the only BLP-related comment you endorsed.

Some administrators almost never explain their closures, claiming their justification is "obvious". In my opinion those administrators do the project a grave disservice. Our policies change, our consensus can change. Closures should always have an informative closing statement

Good faith discussion should almost always contain an educational component. Our policies are complicated. Good faith contributors can make mistakes. No truly good faith contributor wants to unknowingly repeat the same mistake. So all contributors should try to explain in discussions when they think a good faith mistake is being made.

In my opinion administrators should always be making an extra effort to set an example of collegiality. And, in my opinion, the closing statement on a {{xfd}} should spell out why arguments were discounted.

Frankly, if you thought any of those BLP arguments were bullshit, I am disappointed you didn't explicitly say so. That would be part of the educational component. I don't want to see the same BLPites cite the same bullshit BLP arguments in future {{tl|xfd}.

{{xfd}} are not votes. In my opinion it is best, in a delete closure, if the closing administrator spells out why they discounted keep opinions. When those keep opinion were based on a misreading of policy, or long-standing convention, then the good faith contributors who made them need to know that, so they can evade making the same mistake in future. Geo Swan (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

"but is compiling a list like this necessarily a neutral summary? The concern that strong (and justifiable) suspicions of bullying being the cause of suicide is treated as a definitive fact ("This suicide was caused by bullying"), especially when there was no conviction, and when there may have been multiple causes that contributed, is not trivial either."

Amanda Todd left a really compelling videos where she explicitly said she chose suicide in reaction to the unremittent cyber-bullying. There were some fringe commentators who pointed to illicit drug use as a contributing factor. But I suggest those fringe commentators should be discounted, when the victim explicitly blamed bullying, particularly when the commentators were not RS. People who knew Todd did acknowledge she did use illicit drugs, having been driven to it in attempts to cope with the unremittent bullying.

Sometimes articles on valid notable topics end up being nominated for deletion largely because a bad name was chosen. I suggest the concerns you make above could be trivially addressed by giving the article a different name, like Individuals who explained they committed suicide in reaction to bullying. (Okay, something shorter than that)

I saw that Bullycide was nominated for deletion in 2006. Frankly, I wasn't sure whether List of bullycides shouldn't have been merged back into bullycide. Did you consider leaving the revision history of list of bullycides in place, redirecting it to Bullycide, and protecting it from being edited by anyone other than another administrator? Geo Swan (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My approach for handling difficult AFDs is to identify what I think are the strongest arguments on each side of the debate, and then determine what level of support they have. In most AFDs, many of the votes are poorly reasoned, but if they have been given in good faith, I usually assume that they endorse the best reasons that support their position.

Now, I think I wrote in the closure that I considered some of the arguments to be non-arguments ("There are about 29 things wrong with this"). Most of the delete arguments were related to BLP, but they were close to only citing the policy. I won't go as far as to call that type of argument "bullshit", but I do find that type of argument superficial. If nobody had explained why BLP applied here, closing this as a delete would have been more troublesome. Note that Ken Arromdee was not the only one to argue along the lines that I cited in the closing statement, Marechal Ney's " It is impossible to get a complete list of those who died and even harded to find confirmation on their reason for suicide." is along the same lines.

Determining the reach of the BLP policy is not so easy, Wikipedia's policies simply cannot give bright line rules for every type of situation that may arise. If the article had been completely unsourced, with the alleged bullies named and shamed, the BLP violation would have been utterly obvious, and the article could probably have been speedied as an attack page. In contrast, the Amanda Todd article you cite is, as far as I can see, BLP compliant even though it is on a highly sensitive subject. The situation with this article was more unclear, but the consensus was that entries that state that someone bullied a child into comitting suicide are a BLP problem, and I don't view that as an unreasonable interpretation of that policy. Since that view had very strong support in the AFD, I felt that I had to accept that view as being consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several years ago I participated in an {{afd}} of a grandmother, in Arkansas, where I saw some frankly disingeneous BLP claims from those in the delete camp. The grandmother was then listed on Arkansas's public list of convicted sex offenders. Those in the delete camp were arguing that the article had to be deleted to protect the grandmother claiming she was a non-notable person whose life could potentially be seriously damaged by being known as a sex offender.

The reason why this was a disingeneous claim was that the grandmother wasn't just a "known sex offender", but she was someone who had explicitly chosen to sacrifice her privacy to serve as a public advocate for reforming how Arkansas compiled its public list of sex offenders.

That grandmother had been on a panel on a PBS show, where she described how draconian Arkansas's laws were. She had an article profiling her case in The Economist. She had been a public advocate for reform, and there were lots of RS to confirm she met the criteria for WP:WELLKNOWN.

That grandmother was not really a sex offender at all. Her daughter had sexual relations, even though she was below Arkansas's age of consent. Her daughter appealed to her -- said she loved her boyfriend, and that the two of them planned to get married and raise the child, as soon as they were old enough and could afford to do so. She asked her mother to let the grand-child's sire move in to their household, so they could help save money for that wedding. Grand-ma agreed, and was charged with knowingly allowing her underage daughter to have sexual relations when she was below the age of consent. This was a crime in Arkansas. It was, in particular, a sex crime in Arkansas, and it lead to the grandmother being listed as a "known sex offender". Her children were taken away from her by the child protective services. She was not allowed contact with her grand-daughter, whose mother did marry the grandchild's father. But perhaps the worst consequence was that, in Arkansas known sex offenders were not allowed to live within 1000 feet, or maybe it was 1000 yards, of stop where a school bus picked up a child. In her case she ended up living in a trailer isolated in the middle of farm country, because there was practically no where in Arkansas that was sufficiently distant from where a school bus stopped to pick up children. There was, apparently, in Arkansas one urbanized county that had a kind of hobo jungle that was almost entirely populated by individuals on this list of known sex offenders, because this scrap of unused land was the only place in the county that was distant enough from a school bus stop.

What it looked like was really going on in that discussion was that those claiming we had to delete the article due to BLP, to protect the grandmother, were really people so opposed to sex offenses that they were willing to sacrifice grand-ma as part of a campaign to maintain really draconian measures against everyone on that list.

Similarly, what I am afraid we see here, is a bizarre misuse of BLP to protect the privacy of individuals who sacrificed their lives to sacrifice their privacy. I know WP:NOTMEMORIAL -- but when RS use the act to comment on the broader issues, the coverage is no longer out of compliance with WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Geo Swan (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out in the AFD, Suicide of Amanda Todd has the categories Category:Bullycide, Category:Female suicides, Category:High school students who committed suicide, Category:Victims of cyber-bullying, category:Suicides by hanging in Canada, and Category:Suicides in British Columbia. Why would it be alright to have a category for Bullycide victims but not a list? Why is it alright for all those entries on the list to have their own articles where they mention bullying was the cause of the suicide, but we can't say that on a list article? Dream Focus 20:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- AndyTheGrump felt that the categories ought to be deleted as well, but the AFD was about this one list, and that one list only. Unfortunately, the structure of AFDs makes it so that only the articles explicitly listed in the AFD (usually only one article) are subject to the discussion. I am afraid that considering all the ramifications of an AFD close, such as what effect this will have on similarly named categories, would make closing the discussions far more difficult than it already is. It is one of the reasons an individual AFD result is not considered binding precedent on other pages, even if they have similar concerns. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who are You Sir.....I want to create Prof Dr Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi's page in English Wikipedia

Link :

http://wpedia.goo.ne.jp/enwiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mujeeb_Zafar_Anwar_Hameedi

Please With the help of these Links Create the Page Prof.Dr.Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi. Waiting for your reply Sir !

--111.119.190.131 (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Syed Murtaza Raza and Syed Hussain Riza[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 10, it appears that community consensus is against (re)creation of the article that you propose. I am afraid I cannot help you here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your conduct

I find your recent close at AN to be very questionable. We do not usually decide serious matters by a simple majority. Eric is a content contributor; this may be difficult for you to understand as you acknowledge you are still learning the language this project is written in. People like Eric actually write this encyclopedia, and it is not appropriate for someone like you who does not contribute content and can barely speak the language to push this endorsement of a punitive block through.

The most troubling thing of all is this revert though; how, in your opinion, does this align with WP:WHEELWAR? I want you to consider your reply very carefully indeed, as it is apparent to me how much you enjoy exercising your power here as an admin, and this action, in my initial opinion, seems to indicate that you are unfit for this role. Please explain to me why I am wrong. --John (talk) 09:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sjakkalle, I have reverted your blatant wheel-warring, as it was a clear abuse of power - you do not get to unilaterally decide on the outcome of a decision once it has been reasonably contested by another (and altogether more accomplished) admin. I agree with John that your actions cast serious doubt on your fitness for the admin role, and would urge you to seriously reconsider them. (And for the record, if my revert is considered further wheel-warring, I have resigned my adminship) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I should not have used the rollback tool. It was a mistake, and I apologize for that. I should have used a manual rollback or undo tool that gives an explanation for the revert.

I too am a content contributor. I am not as active as I used to be, but I have experience in creating and editing articles. I believe that my content work to administration work distribution is about 60-40. If you look at the number of adminstrative actions I have taken, I think you will see they are quite few. I do not take on the role as administrator to enjoy exercising power.

I appreciate that Eric Corbett is a content contributor, and that his contributions are valuable. However, "good behavior does not excuse bad behavior" is an old principle established in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed. An editor cannot escape sanction for sanctionable behavior by pointing to all the good work that has been done. There were some people who argued to the contrary in the AN discussion, but they are arguing against policy and ArbCom precedent. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the text you added when attempting to close this debate. Thank you for your honesty in stating that the Arbcom decision had not been referenced in the debate. It was obviously central to your reasoning for closing the discussion in the way you did, so if you want to contribute to the discussion by saying that the Arbcom element makes the block length appropriate, then feel free to make that point in the discussion, but *not* as a supervote close. Thanks, Bencherlite ^Talk 10:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cherrypicking selective misquotation of outdated material to suit your personal views, much? The actual finding in the eight-year-old Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed was "Good work on Wikipedia does not constitute an excuse for bad or abusive behaviour on Wikipedia. (Although many editors feel it has mitigatory value.)". The current Arbcom stance on the matter is "An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed". – iridescent 10:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment on this matter

My attempt at closing the block review has clearly generated more heat than light, and I following this comment shall retire from any further participation there. I find the questioning of my competency as an administrator unreasonable. While I have found closing contentious discussions (such as many of the backlogged AFDs) to be an interesting intellectual exercise, my approach to administrative task has never been in order to exercise power over people. In the majority of cases, the responses to my approach to difficult decisions have been positive. If anyone has a complaint about my performance as an administrator, then they are invited to request comment on that.

As one of the admins who, as far as I can recall, have not been involved in the conflict previously, I thought I would be one of those capable of approaching this case neutrally. I have observed some of the conflict that have concerned Malleus, but I have never been directly involved in it. There have been a lot of editors involved here. Feelings here run high because it involves people who strongly, and rightfully, appreciate Eric Corbett's content contributions versus those who strongly despise the insults and personal attacks. The discussion came to a head last time at the end of last year when a formal ban proposal was proposed in the Arbitration Committee. During it, one arbitrator came off with the infamous "never been a Wikipedian" comment that completely missed the mark and ignored the positive work that Corbett has done.

Closing the discussion solely based on what is explicitly mentioned in this AN thread, without considering the wider picture, such as prior ArbCom cases, would be trying to make a closure while half blind. To determine what is appropriate in this case, I felt that I had to look at prior disputes, and disputes that have risen to the level of an ArbCom finding are an obvious factor, even if no participant in this AN discussion cited the ArbCom case that Eric Corbett had been involved in. The fact that the issue of incivility and personal attacks has been going on for a long time was a major factor in the discussion however.

I read the opposition to the block carefully. There were two types of objection, one regarding the validity of any block in the first place, the second one concerning the length. The comments that any block was ridiculous asserted excuses that are unsupported or even explicitly disallowed by policy. Repeated personal attacks are considered disruptive behavior that provides grounds for a block, and neither baiting nor good content work elsewhere are adequate excuses. The arguments concerning block length were more reasonable, but many of those arguments were treating the issue as a single isolated incident while ignoring the context of what has been a long-lasting behavioral pattern. Most of the participants in the discussion endorsed the block as given, and considered the length to be within what was Fram's reasonable discretion. As such "endorse" was the conclusion that I arrived at. The result came from considering whether the policy allowed such a block, and if the block was supported by the community. The fact that I arrived at a result that some disagree vehemently with does not change the fact that I arrived at the conclusion from an initially neutral viewpoint. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Purple Barnstar
		I see you take a lot of crap from other people, but manage to keep on going. Good work Zonafan39 (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, for it really means something to be appreciated. :-) I am currently on vacation in Wales, so I'm not very active right now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jijidae derby

Jijidae derby is deleted but User Fetx2002 created same article again. Please delete Jijidae derby and Warn User Fetx2002Footwiks (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the deletion log, I see that RHaworth has deleted the recposting (WP:CSD#G4 allows for speedy deletion of such recreated material). I will add a notice to Fetx2002. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]