The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Response to your ignoring consensus on my talk page.
I responded to you on my talk page. [1] Please reconsider your use of a supervote or we'll just go through this discussion against at deletion review. DreamFocus 05:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gargoyle Router Firmware. 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. DreamFocus 05:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Aaron. On 1 July you made an edit to Engineering psychology - see diff. Your edit summary said only that you removed an external link. In fact you did quite a bit more than just remove an external link. The article had an Article nominated for deletion banner at the top, and it included the instruction that it should not be removed until the deletion debate was finalised. You removed it. The article had been tagged for rescue and you removed that banner as well. I can't work out what you intended but I suggest you return to the article and make sure you have removed nothing more than that which you intended to remove. Happy editing. Dolphin(t) 07:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, I have no idea what happened there? I've reverted that edit. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The more I look the more odd it seems. I've never even seen {{dead end}} before, so I certainly did not put it there on purpose... -Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for all of that. Dolphin(t) 12:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I appreciated your comments on the AfD, but could you please userfy the deleted article for me? Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article now at User:Hm2k/Phrozen Crew. Good luck on finding some sources, and if you'd like to pass any that you find by me I'm happy to look. My first suggestion would be getting a full copy of the Alt article. The partial link I provided in the AfD is available by "free trial" if you're willing to put your details in. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request to close multiple Request for Comment(es)[edit]
Hi Aaron. I am impressed by your in-depth analysis of the AfDs you have closed. Would you take a look at some current RfCs and perhaps summarize and assess the consensus in them? I have requested that RfCs be closed at this link and this link. If you could close one or a few of them, I'd be grateful. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but it would not be appropriate for me to do so. I've been doing other stuff for a while, and may be out of touch with current methods. Please note that 50% of my recent closes (i.e. one!) is at deletion review. In the event I'm wrong about an article deletion, the damage is limited and easily reversed. Neither of those apply to closing am RfC incorrectly. Thank you again, and sorry to disappoint. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other option that would help oil the wheels of the mighty 'pedia is a spot of arb enforcement on trouble pages....I limit myself to mundane niceness at WP:RFPP, from your friendly neighbourhood arb.....Casliber (talk·contribs) 08:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Maybe after a few months, you'll get back in the swing of things and be able to close RfCs. Although I don't believe your close was wrong, I believe your closing statement of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle Router Firmware would have been best cast as a vote. This would be least controversial method of getting the article deleted and the AfD endorsed at DRV. However, this would be contingent on the closing admins' assessing the consensus based on the quality of arguments and according less weight to the vote count.
When DRV may believe that your close is a supervote, perhaps you can cast a vote like Balloonman (talk·contribs) did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debrahlee Lorenzana: I considered closing this as a delete, despite a few more !votes in favor of keeping, but think it would be better to cast an !vote and let somebody else act upon the rationale.
I am thankful that you have begun actively participating at Wikipedia after a long hiatus. Please don't let the possibility of this closure being overturned at DRV chase you away. Your quality participation and closures at AfD are valued. Cunard (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I really appreciate those words. I must admit I was taken aback by the responses to this close, which had seemed to me to be a totally straightforward one. But I'm always one to try and learn from every experience, and if community standards have actually shifted as much as some claiments are, uh, claiming, then I do need to know that. I have been over-involved in the DRV, where normally I think it's best to step back and let it run its course, but discouraged I am not.
I'm glad that you're not injured by how the DRV is trending, especially with inflammatory comments like this one, which was wholly unnecessary. Best, Cunard (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To Brenneman, for coming back and getting stuck into some admin-ney stuff. Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually meant this to go up under Cunard's comment above, but the new love-heart thingumyjig doesn't have that subtlety. See these new wikilove templates are pretty nifty atren't they? Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-A pool, about number of supporters for these clubs, having more than 1.4 million participants in place of pool that has just 3600 participants
-All competition cups in which these teams have been a part of these competitions.
However this guy: User talk:Sisman Yanko is always changing my changes and use 3600-participant-pool in which Galatasaray has more supporters than others. This pool has less participants than added-pool.
He also changes cup table as Galatasaray is the most winner cup team in Turkey. But, the most important point is I sent messages him/her and say him/her to discuss the topic Talk:Kıtalar Arası Derbi and he removed my messages written on his/her user-talk page.
As per the disclaimer at the top, if you're in any sort of hurry it might be better to ask someone else. Looking into this now, but my time is limited today, so a response may take an even longer time than usual. (Although this response is already delayed. Aplogies.) - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kızıl Şaman ruined the pages that mentioned above. He is a Fenerbahce fan and he wants to add something that is unacceptable. I added things to article with true solid references. I warned them twice but he did not listen. He firstly wanted to change the pages with his IP. However, I requested page protection and this was accepted by the admins. And then he changed the article again but with his nickname. He even did not care the page creator. Could you please warn him not to do it again? Thanks. Sisman Yanko (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been slightly distracted, but this isn't forgotten or ignored. Thanks for the patience. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 07:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no experience in this area. I just am not interested enough in sports to do anything about it, and it looks like Fast is watching the obvious. *shrug* So, I was no use, but at least I didn't break anything. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aaron, there is a arbitration happening and going by some of the admins comments it was clear some of them where not reading the all the different pages to did with this arbitration. Which is why I posted on the listed admins' talk pages to try and clear up this issue. Could you please un-rollback my edits? Blackashhave a chat 06:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to you both for jumping in here. Blackash, I've commented on your talk page. I disagree that rollback was needed here, but Aaron Brenneman does have a point that this is not the best way to communicate. It would have been better to start a centralised discussion at the talk page of the arbitration case's proposed decision, and then leave a very short note for each arb asking them to comment there. After that, you can assume that their attention will be on that page and you shouldn't need to leave any further notes. By repeating the text across multiple pages, you risk any discussion occurring in multiple places. Oh, and admins and arbitrators are different roles on Wikipedia - it helps to distinguish the two. Carcharoth (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're correct Carcharoth, there was no need for me to use the rollback button. This was neither hugely disruptive nor requiring serious speed, and I could have first taken the issue to Blackash's talk. Even "undo" would have been just fine. At the time my thinking was to stop the discussion metastasising, but I was rash and rude. Really a low point, there. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I fine with you rolling back I just didn't know the best way to go about this. Thanks I comment as you suggest. Blackashhave a chat 07:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. I've replied by email. Will Bebacktalk 23:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now I don't see any email link at all. Maybe you should double check the preferences entry. Will Bebacktalk 08:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Aaron Brenneman. Check your email – you've got mail! You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
Please do not move discussions to a subpage, when I specifically didnt post it there. ΔT The only constant 03:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm noting that things you don't like get subpages, while you edit war to get things you like to stay on ANI. Please do not do that. Note that I objected to the subpaging to begin with, but was told "everything should stay together." - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is NOT ANI, and the AN request is separate. I will revert it because it shouldnt be moved. ΔT The only constant 03:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, this is why you get in strife: You're totally inflexible, and appear to believe that reverts are your right. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is well beyond an RfC at this point. Some non-binding process that drags on for a month or two isn't the solution. Having already been to arbcom, and a community ban enacted, an RfC is just spinning wheels.--Crossmr (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(This is meant to be a limerick placed in good fun and is made with good-natured teasing; if ANYONE is offended in the slightest, feel free to remove and template my talk page)
Just thought you could use some levity to the whole situation. :-) Buffs (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend no further noticeboard stuff. I believe an arbcom case to enact the topic ban is the only viable alternative. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement. Shocked and appalled, having never been in the middle of it and only having watched from the sidelines, but in agreement. I was really looking forward over the last few days to actually editting articles. Thanks for the note. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. The "NoVio" close at AN3 is completely perplexing since there is a clear consensus that a violation occurred. I am at a loss for words. Let me know when it starts and I'll throw in my 2 cents. Until then, I'm going to leave the situation alone in the great hope that the situation will get better (Hey, it's hard for the situation to get worse!...then again, "hope" isn't a plan, it's a wish...). Buffs (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aaron, I'm playing around with the insulting rhyming couplets but meanwhile I'll just ask why no warning? I admit my ignorance and am glad a) to have a reader, and b) to realize that what I wrote is still retrievable. I'm in awe of Wikipedia and the intense work being done.
----:One of the reasons many new editors find the first days/weeks here can be tough because it's mostly ad hoc pseudo-managment, and the levels of discourse vary wildly from person to person. I'm the "talk first(and second, and third) shoot later" type. Others not so much. This is coupled with a hair-trigger response to perceived conflict of interest. (Wiki pages are heavily interlinked and thus can easily have a massive impact on Google search results. We do get genuinely abused for advertising sometimes.) I'm not actually well versed in that area of wikipedia, to be frank, and I'm reading the multiple guidelines as we speak...Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Aaron, I need to read further without a doubt.
Mairead clare byrne (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-related retort, couplet style (closed, has insult)[edit]
Cantankerous and unruly, the general behaviour,
Remorseless reverting - it works in our favour.
Little is lost, and so much is gained,
Or at least, it would be, if common sense reigned!
Talentless and raw, these couplets may be,
But so is your face, un-fort-un-ate-ly...
The above in no represents the views or opinions of myself or anyone in particular; it is intended only to install a modicum of mirth in whoever deigns to read it
^_^ Nikthestoned 15:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron - I was surprised you are an administrator - I was looking at your contributions - have you discovered the main issue - Wikipedia articles - ? What do you want with me , please feel free to spit it straight out? Off2riorob (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for being thick as two planks here, but I have no idea what this comment means. Can you say that again a different way, please? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aaron Brenneman - what are you wanting to discuss? - your article contribution is so minimal I don't think we have any meeting place - you do realize article improvement is what this project is about? Am I missing your contributions to content improvement ? Please point me to them, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, aren't you the rude one? Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
I observed you giving a user a bit of a hard time about an article and you were doing so on their user talk page. I asked why, since after all that is what the article talk page is for. (I'll spare you the link I give brand new users when they make that mistake.) You've instead come and given me a serve of piping hot self-importance. I thought you name was only faintly familiar, but then I remembered where I'd seen you before.
Feeling a bit childish while doing so, I went and looked at your contributions... You're hardly Geogre or Gianno yourself, looking over the last few hundred. But it's beside the point, and "I know you are but what am I?" is hardly the level of discourse I aspire to, so that's all I'll say on your article edits.
You deserve very little from me at this point, having been a total bastard in every interaction we've ever had, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and talk about my contributions.
I spend most of my time with new users. Thus I have a large number of deleted edits (they try hard, but the articles usually get deleted anyway), and a very large number of user talk page edits. If you can take your foot out of your mouth long enough to look a little bit further up the page, you'll see me assisting a new user who is a respected irish poet. Wikipedia desperately needs more editors like that one, and the grumpy bastards they meet in the first moments frequently scare them off. Are you suggesting that that's not something that needs to be done?
I also spend quite a bit of time at articles for deletion, another venue that is rough for new users. It's also a critical maintenace task, because bad information pushes out the good. You may note (again, looking further up this page) some nice things being said about my closes. Are you suggesting that that's not something that needs to be done?
Penultimately, I also spend quite a bit of time in policy developement. Both the existing web content guidelines and the existing article restoration process are things that I'm proud to have had part in. While it is still not working perfectly, community removal of adminship was also something I helped initiate. Are you suggesting that that's not something that needs to be done?
Finally, I do do article work. Not a lot recently, but when I do it's often in problematic areas, such as paraphilia or wikileaks related articles. These are frequently high-traffic, high-drama areas, and thus there are ten article talk page contributions of mine for every actual article edit, since building consensus takes time and patience. Are you suggesting that that's not something that needs to be done?
You've got a serious bug up your arse. You need to remind yourself that unless we're polite (or "civil") to each other, articles can't get built well. Thanks for linking to my old adminship request. (Good times eh?) The newer one is ->here<-, if you care. If you think that I should not continue to be an admin, simply ask me to step down. Get five other editors in good standing (which I interpret very very broadly) to also say I should step down and it's done.
Regardless, my talk page will continue to be open to you (since it's not "mine," after all) and I'll keep responding, even if you continue to be a monumental jerk.
Do what you think is best, but I must admit I am laughing my arse off at your blatant hypocrisy. I don't mean that in the metaphorical sense. I mean I laughed to hard at what a ridiculous, small-mined, petty, puffed-up comment you've dropped on my talk page that my arse actually fell off. It's stuck down one leg of my pants. There are fluids of various colours pooling up around me, but I cannot stop laughing at this comment. Please, do another one, go on. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe that I'm seeing such uncivil comments from an Admin, who is meant to show the community to follow the policies and guidelines. Bidgee (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just take yourself down to WP:Stewards and ask for your permissions removed - you have never even used them. My mother is none of your business. Off2riorob (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rob, you took this to ANI. It would be best if you commented there rather than continue to escalate here Please. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The claim I "never used the tools" is a bit weird? Blocks I've made, deletions, and protections. Or am I misunderstanding this? I am, by the way, taking the request for recall seriously, as I strongly believe that adminship is a privledge bestowed by the community, so please do review my admin actions via those links I jut provided. Cheers! ^_^ Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
((anchor|Request}}
In the future when you find fault with my edits and report a complaint against my edits somewhere, I would be appreciative if you would notify me of the report. I'm referring to the WP:AE filing you made yesterday. This is just a polite request, and there's no requirement on your part to do so of course.
I wanted to also take a moment to respond to some of what you claim about me. You made a claim that I upped my NFCC removal rate to make a point. This is false. I've performed more than 3,000 of these removals over time, and at times have done similar rates of removals. Over the last month, Δ developed a report showing images missing a rationale for a specified use. This at first was of not much use to me; lots of jumbled text. But, I came up with a way to process the information, and have started working in reverse on this list, since Δ is working from the top. I wasn't trying to make any point in conducting this work. I have stated before that stopping Δ from doing this work won't stop the work being done, as myself and others continue to do it. But, the frequency with which I do it has nothing to do with ongoing debates about Δ's behavior.
I'm not part of Δ's "posse". Our work has considerable overlap, and I've contradicted much of his opposition because of that. I've frequently stated and continue to maintain that I have no friends here, and have no wish to have any here. I've taken Δ to task on issues before, and will be quite happy to do so again as I see them arise. I have his talk page on my watchlist, and continue to monitor it for NFCC issues that arise. He does considerable work in this arena, and it's right up my alley to watch the traffic there. If disagreeing with people who argue against NFCC enforcement makes me part of some "posse", then I'm happy for the label and will wear the badge with honor. But, there's no motivation on my part to defend Δ as an editor, just heavy motivation to defend WP:NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing this concern to my attention. Thank you as well for the tone in which you've done so.
With respect to the notification, it did not occur to me to notify you. In my mind, this was not an administrator's notice board, where the discussion runs like a dog chasing a chicken and an editor can get blocked if they are not there to personally stamp out whatever the bloodsport of the day is. This was an enforcement request relating to a third editor, it was highly visible, there was (metaphorically) zero chance that you'd neither see nor hear of it. It's not that I actually thought that at the time, so almost certainly I'm simply justifying after the fact. And all I asked for was a finger wagging, I justify to myself a bit more. So I'll try to remember to do that next time, and thanks for asking so nicely.
With respect to your edit rate, I think I said "appeared." Which, even if I did, was stupid. It is always risky to comment on the motivations of others, and nothing was gained by my doing so. You need only to say "not so" and I must accept it. I do accept it.
On your third point: I'm sure that I can persuade Crossmr to drop the issue entirely for two months. Make no mention of Delta, nor comment in any thread he's commented on, nor comment in any threads that do mention him, etc, for two months. I mean old skool "pretend they don't exist while simultaneously avoiding them." Like from back when Snowspinner and that guy they whacked. Not even the smallest of reasonable "Agree," nothing. I'll do it, Buffs I can hook in probably as well.
Just you and Dirk Beetstra do the same. Don't comment on, or comment in, any threads that deal with or have been initiated by or commented on by Delta. (So if an NFCC thread comes up independent, for example, you could of course comment on it.) Don't support or oppose any Delta-related motions (noting that the three of us won't be proposing any!) Not asking anyone to stop removing any images, no other changes to your current practice.
Simply that the six of us remain silent on the issue, and in any thread in which Delta has commented, in any venue barring of course our own talk pages. A gentleman's agreement betwixt a half dozen, and one in which I'm sure the community as a whole will rejoice.
Thanks for listening, no rush to reply. It's incredibly late, and if this is as bad an idea as some of the bad idea I've had, please believe me when I say that I blissfully malice-free right now. Full up to here with stupid, though. Thanks again for coming to my talk page and being decent.
Post Script, jumpin' cats I actually got out of bed to write this: Give me a list NFC-GNOME of things to do. I'm always rabbiting on about helping out new users, so point me at some. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My head is spinning on a variety of other points right now, and I haven't had time to read your modified response above. It might be a few days (what with the weekend and all). --Hammersoft (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposal is interesting, but now is moot. ArbCom's chosen the nuclear option. Masem's right; they're not addressing the real problem. Their decision to topic ban Δ is ludicrously inept. It's as if a bunch of people set fire to a house where John Doe lives, and ArbCom arrests John Doe. Not to say that Δ has been perfect. But, the abject failure to address the real issue is appalling. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A victim of ongoing policital outburst, and being terribly vandalized. Could you please get it protected as soon as you could. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the time I've looked at this, it was no longer happening. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was it intentional that you didn't specifically mark your comment here as a WP:!VOTE as a Keep or Delete? (To me it seems obvious what you intend but I try not to guess what other people will think.) Msnicki (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On an unrelated note, I'm getting cognitive clanging from your username, as it bounced from "MsNicki" to the less-sensible-but-still-true "MSN icki" every time I look at it. (^_^) Thank you for asking, it was intentional. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think you meant to stress that you weren't voting at all, you were offering an analysis that tried to follow the guidelines and which happened to lead to a clear outcome. You didn't start with an opinion and then look around for support. You did a nice job. Msnicki (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion|Nomination for deletion]] of [[Template:Flipbook]] (closed)[edit]
Thank you for the note, but next time try talking to me first. I'd have tagged it for speedy d, as no one but me had ever edited it. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Help needed for page “Neeraj Grover Murder Case” (closed)[edit]
Hi, I created a page Neeraj Grover which is a very infamous murder case in India. One of the prime accused had her own page and the main accused did not have. I put some redirects on Neeraj Grover viz "Neeraj Grover Murder" & "Neeraj Grover Murder Case". After this I moved the page to Neeraj Grover Murder. Finally I redirected Jerome Mathew & Maria Susairaj to Neeraj Grover.
Issue is now when I search for "Neeraj Grover Murder Case" or "Jerome Mathew" it takes me to page Neeraj Grover that has been moved. Following is what I would like to do.
[2] Best humor of the day. (We should have a running series.) As for the Freudian implications, well... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*snorts, drops monocle* Implications? Young man, I know not of what you speak. My sausage is world famous! I'd post a longer reply, but as this is being posted from a wireless device and the train I'm on is about to enter a tunnel, I'll have to finish prematurely. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Karrine Steffans; Xenophrenic; Fae; various entourage (closed)[edit]
Greetings. I noticed that Xenophrenic complained about Fae's conduct in the Karrine Steffans discussion. I also read the exchange between you and Xenophrenic on his Talk Page. I'm far from a neutral third-party, in this: As you can see, I'm involved in the relevant discussion and there have been many "heated" exchanges between me and Xenophrenic. And I readily concede that he is a diligent contributor (hence, his detailed and referenced complaint). Nonetheless, I must bring forward for your attention Xenophrenic's own conduct throughout the relevant discussion. Please take a closer look! Most, if not all, of his complaints against Fae have been the result of Xenophrenic's own conduct. This is an editor who takes pride in being "often snarky" and dismisses the basic Wikipedia guideline to assume good faith! Without knowing anything else about such an editor, I would examine very carefully his conduct, since, on the basis of such admissions, there is a significant probability he'll be coming on agumentative, ironic and/or provocative. So, when Xenophrenic accuses veteran admin & UK Wiki director Fae of being out of line, I look through the dialogue and all I see is Xenophrenic getting the Fae's goat, as you put it. Example: When someone clearly engages in filibustering and diversion, responding to him by "[did you] forget how to use Google?" might not be polite but it is understandable. And it is in this context that Fae's conduct (atypical, as you wrote) should be examined.
This is a case whereby an editor has the determination and the resources (writing skill; computer savvy; knows Wiki-policy) that could be used for constructive contributions to Wikipedia, yet wastes them in pettiness. (Though, this possibly characterises a small portion of his overall contributions. I'm not familiar with the totality of what Xenophrenic has contributed.)
I sincerely hope to help the whole thing going forward, irrespective of how the original discussion ends up. This is just an FYI item. Best regards, The Gnome (talk) 06:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I always appreciate an FYMI. With respect to X, I think I used the phrase "polite but implacable." I'm sticking to that characterisation, which differs very little from your own, I think. I'm still agape at the whole schmozzle, reading down that article's talk page makes me think of time lapse film of a chicken fillet or something: Slowly slowly the surface breaks down and pretty soon there's crawly things coming out everywhere.
I actually only logged on today to review this, as it has indeed left a bad taste in my mouth. My first post to F, I still think it was reasonable: I'm clearly not supporting the "other guy," I'm just letting F know how it looks. To me, at least. And *bam* right off the bat there are at least three things she's gotten wrong in her response: I had told X that ANI wasn't a good venue, I did not say she wanted to win, and the "I didn't use the tools" line doesn't go over well at either RfCs or with ArbCom.
I don't know. I realise I'm talking about F and you're talking about X, but it's my interaction with F that's bothering me. At several junctures F appears to willfully misread things, and seems (to me) to be increasingly unreasonable. In her last post to the talk page she's still insisting that "What admininistrative action are you looking for? If "a good talking to" is it, then this board might be a good place for it. Beyond that, it's the other dispute channels, I think." means I've pre-judged the issue.
I just don't know. After the last stouche I looked further back into F's history and it's not just out of character it's wildly out of character. And the edits to the talk page where she questions if the subject was actually raped? She writes "...her claim of rape at 13 repeatedly in her works (for which there is no related evidence or prosecution to support these claims)..." then in her next edit. "I am making no implications or hints, these are in your head not in my comments."
I'm genuinely sad about this. Particularly as it may all have spun out from me saying "pompous arse."
But in the end what am I left with here? One editor who, implacable or not, works mostly in areas where this is a lot of oversight. There's not much actual damage he can do. Then I balance that out against a fresh admin who's strongly implying that the article's subject was never raped, who's not only using weak sources to push in material the subject clearly object to but links to a you-tube clip where she's (apparently) harassed about the name until she terminates the interview. (I still haven't listened to the clip, and I won't. The "top comments" on the youtube page made me feel physically ill.)
This is as close as you see to me being speechless.
Salutations, Aaron (and a shout-out to my gnomeboy, too!),
Thanks for going over and above the call — It is apparent you actually read some diffs; followed up on your comments, instead of post & run; you even reviewed the content dispute at the article and gave some informed opinions. That's a welcome change from the more typical, drive-by ANI comment: "You all need to behave, trout-slaps all around, now move along. Signed, GenericAdmin." I also find your self-deprecating humor and your own brand of nuanced "snarkiness" refreshing. But enough with the compliments; I came here to respond to your offer to "broker a detente", and I see The Gnome has preceded me to your doorstep. Now I fear my response will, by necessity, be significantly longer.
I'll address The Gnome's comments first. As The Gnome mentioned, he and I have indeed had exchanges about that article in the past, but I think it is fair to say Fæ's most recent foray into the conflict was prompted by this message on Fæ's talk page here:
Didn't you get the memo? Any and all mention of Ms Steffans' past endeavors in porn are instantly removed from the Wikipedia article about her by the vigilant duo of Malik Shabazz and Xenophrenic. Any new text about Ms Steffans' (established & notable) dalliances with the "dark side" of showbiz is instantly undone, the action justified by vague referrals to "WP:BLP" or "WP:RS". They seem determined to protect a helpless damsel in distress. Another Wikipedia mini drama-series. -The Gnome (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to have set the tenor and agenda for Fæ's involvement: Myself and Malik were mischaracterized as POV pushers, and our edits were mischaracterized as tag-team edit warring not (or only vaguely) supported by policy. So Fæ came in with battle lines already drawn and guns-a-blazing, and has been operating under that misconception ever since. This despite the fact that Malik's very first response upon Fae's arrival was "I don't feel strongly about including it one way or the other, but it's got to have solid sources," a sentiment with which I agreed, and still agree, and has been echoed by other editors that have since chimed in. Fæ and The Gnome, however, refuse to hear that and instead insist that any challenge of sources or content must be secretly motivated by a POV desire to "promote ... advertise ... whitewash ... defend a damsel ... snow-white the subject ... nitpick ... wikilawyer ...", you get the idea. They simply won't accept that WP:BLP frowns upon their edits. I mean, seriously, who inserts content into a BLP and then links to a streamable adult film as if it were a reference citation?
"Please take a closer look!", at Xeno's conduct, The Gnome suggests -- echoing my very own request in my ANI posting where I actually welcomed such a review. Please do. My conduct is never perfect, and never without room for improvement, but I will always defend myself against mischaracterizations like the ones by The Gnome, above: "This is an editor who takes pride in being "often snarky" and dismisses the basic Wikipedia guideline to assume good faith!" That seems quite damning, until you actually follow the link he gave to my page and read it. The Gnome also conveniently fails to mention to you that he has been corrected and further informed as to that particular misrepresentation. This is just one illustration, but there are many similar examples of false portrayal of situations, and deliberate misinterpretation and/or misrepresentation I've had to endure over the past three weeks -- from both The Gnome and Fæ.
Your own characterization of me as "polite but implacable" is actually quite generous. The reality is that I am 100% uncompromising when it comes to upholding the letter and spirit of our BLP policy (and it says so on my user page), regardless if the living person is dispicable or a saint. Two editors express frustration that I "challenge every possible mention of the nickname 'Superhead' or the porn video", apparently without realizing that Wikipedia editors simply don't insert "mentions" of contentious material into BLPs just because we read about it somewhere. We don't do "mentions" in BLPs just because we personally feel a living person needs to have more negative material about them in their biography. If there is encyclopedic content that should be added to our article, and if that content has been covered, not just mentioned, in high quality reliable sources, and if that content can be conveyed conservatively and accurately in our article, then you will see no objections from me. In fact, I will defend such content additions. This uncompromising stance of mine has been mischaracterized as "argumentative", "filibustering", "ownership" and "pettiness" by people with an apparently different understanding of the goals of Wikipedia, and more specifically, its BLP policies.
Back to Fæ, specifically. One of Fæ's numerous personal attacks is that I "own" the article. My 76 edits (mostly reverts of vandalism) over 30 months, compared to Fæ's 53 edits over just a short 6 months contradicts that. Data indicates Fæ "owns" the article recently, not me. But we all know it is not possible to own a Wikipedia article. I believe Fæ was just expressing frustration at not being allowed to construct the BLP article to Fæ's specifications without adhering to Wikipedia's editing policies. Any attempts at mediation are likely to be unproductive if we can't at least find starting common ground in Wikipedia's editing policy. For example, Fæ sees content deleted because BLP demands it be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion", and Fæ then claims it was "repeated blanking without reason". Fæ sees the introduction of non-negative content, and claims it therefore must be promotional material, or an attempt to advertise. There appears to be a serious disconnect here. Anyway, I appreciate your offer as a 'broker', but it appears Fæ is not too fond of that idea now. Thank you again for the time you've spent on this matter. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will be brief. And I'm still addressing Aaron Brenneman. I did warn Fae when he first got involved - and subsequent events proved the warning was correct! Fae got immediately attacked personally by Malik Shabazz who disputed Fae's good faith and his knowledge of Wikipedia's rules. (Malik Shabazz had to apologize about that.) As to Xenophrenic, his whole conduct in the subsequent RfC was consistently provocative, combative, ironic, sarcastic, and full of diversions and digressions. (Perhaps this is how Xenophrenic understands the term "uncompromising".) Then, Xenophrenic boorishly told me off as having "reading problems". (He even offered a link to a literacy website!) Then, when I made remarks on his behavior and on his whole stance regarding the proposed edits, he demanded that I stop making comments about other editors! It's little wonder that Fae quickly got upset with such a conduct. I'm certain that this is what forced a heated tenor into Fae's own responses (and his terse exchanges with you). That Xenophrenic reported Fae for his conduct on the Admin Board, with extensive (yet, of course, selective) quotes from their "dialogue", did not surprise me one bit. (I happen to have significant scientific knowledge of OCD-related conduct.)
Any sensible and honest reader who goes through the reams of text in that discussion should perceive what is going on. In the same context, any interested third party can look up, directly, for him/herself, what Xenophrenic writes (boasts, really), in his User Page, about his contempt for Wikipedia's admonition to "assume good faith from other editors" or his inclination for (his term) snarky conduct.
This post was meant as an FYI item, Aaron. This means that I trust that further understanding is up to the receiver of the message. It is about Xenophrenic's conduct and should compliment your view of the exchanges you had with Fae. Best regards, The Gnome (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for taking to time to discuss this. I think everyone has made themselves clear, and I'd prefer that we don't flog this any further on my talk page. If there are unresolved issues that continue to be a problem, there are various dispute resolution paths available. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I was wondering what this is about? You are an admin, aren't you? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cancel the champagne cocktails, still an admin. That was my thought the last time it happened, that I'd been (accidentally!) dead-minned. But it's just that something's wrong with my skin, and I occasionally lose the administrator functions from the top. I've found that if I change my preferences it comes back, but in this case I've got a big nap planned in a few minutes and couldn't summon the energy. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How odd, I was just thinking of you! I just use the default, Vector. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buran Origin of Death]] (closed)[edit]
Thank you for closing that discussion - it was going on too long. As I understand your close, you were expecting more expansion during the AFD. I did add a good encyclopedia source and turned up lots of other sources which promised much potential for further expansion. I was waiting on the close before doing more. Please could you userfy the article so that I can continue this work now. Warden (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per comments that Bulwersator & myself made on the AfD, I thought an article written from scratch would be appropriate on the more general topic -- so have gone ahead and written one at Origin of death myth. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was expecting that - tsk. The original article has more than enough content now for mainspace and so I am moving it back there now. Warden (talk) 05:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Four stories and a century-old taxonomy? Tsk tsk. That's hardly an encyclopaedic treatment. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron -- Your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Reed did not include any explanation of your rationale. The AfD was open for 15 days. After 14 days, the consensus (by 3 to 1) was "Keep". On the 15th day, three entries were made within the space of two hours. Two "delete" votes were added (making the tally 3 to 3) and then your closure without comment. Could you share your rationale for the "Delete" ruling? Cbl62 (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking, and apologies for not leaving any explanation. Not my usual style.
Firstly I tend not to count noses, so "3:3" didn't enter into it at all.
There was initial good debate, with sources provided and policy based discussions that called upon precendent with evidence. Had I come upon this I would have closed it as keep instead of relisting.
However, following the extension there was consistancy in the responses, and Bagumba in particular provided a coherent rebuttal to the arguments presented.
Following that response, there were no further opinions for keeping the article.
I'm making a big arm-wavy generalisation here, but the later in the debate the opinions come the more that they are presumed to be based upon the earlier debate. K-K-K-D-D-D tells a different story than K-D-K-D-K-D, if you see what I mean. The final opinons all directly referenced not meeting the sport guideline, as well as stating that it didn't meet the general notability guidelines.
Given all that, this seemed a clear rough consensus to delete.
Firstly, you're arguing with the wrong person on that point.
Secondly, Bagumba, Bridgeplayer, and BusterD all had access to the debate and to the sources that you provided. They supplied clear, policy-and-guideline based arguments as to why they considered those sources to be other than signifigant. There were several days between Bagumba's statement rebutting the claim that the general notability guideline was met, and in that time not only was there no counter-argument but every person who commented after that agreed.
If you think the close was in error, please feel free to take this to deletion review, as I'm not seeing any reason supplied at this time that would make me reverse my close. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, there were no responses to Bagumba at all until the 15th day, and no need to stir the pot since the vote count was 3-1 until then. The AfD was then closed within within a short time after two delete votes were cast (2 delete votes and the closure all within 2 hours on day 15). We disagree on how this should have been closed, but I don't question your good faith. I've never taken anything to deletion review before, always been content to let the chips fall where they may. This is the first time I've really taken issue with the process. I'll consider deletion review, but given the time pressures of the work week ahead, I'll probably just drop it. Thanks for explaining your reasoning, though. Cheers. Cbl62 (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've got a tenable position on the timing of the last few contributions. I'm happy to take it to DRV myself, I don't view the venue as punitive at all. I too am pretty flat out, but I'd rather do that that get it wrong. Watch this space, Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the benefit of seeing DRV as a non-punitive venue. Perfectly good call, all the way around. The best result of this additional discussion is that more eyes are drawn to the issues. BusterD (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you've re-opened the AfD, you need to restore the article. Otherwise, people won't know what they're commenting on. I also plan to do some work on improving the article. Cbl62 (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article remains deleted. For the AfD to be effectively re-opened, the article needs to be restored so that it can be viewed and improved. Cbl62 (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, sorry. I did restore it, but was a bit sloppy and left the final meesage on the page. Just needed to be rolled back one. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Piling on. I read the discussion and was left with pretty much the same impression, and considered closing it the same way, but didn't have the time or energy to write out the rationale as cleanly as you did. Thanks. causa sui (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your closing decision and think you made some good points, but when you say that later "keep" arguments did not respond to points made in earlier "delete" arguments, I'm surprised you didn't note the same in reverse - most of the delete votes, even after the discussion had been going on for a while, called on NOTINHERITED (and BLP1E, the 1E being his marriage) and failed to address the argument made several times above (which was that while not every shady therapist gets coverage, and his was because his wife is notable, it's still coverage of him, and it's not our place to second-guess news sources that decide he is notable). There are more "keep" votes than "delete," "merge," and "redirect" votes combined, which I think should also have been noted. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You said "that significant coverage on the article's subject independent of her husband did not appear to exist." There were new articles about this man which weren't just connected to his wife being a politician. [3] Both of them are notable for the coverage of the clinic they both owned. He is the one questioned and quoted about it. DreamFocus 06:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the deletion discussion. You are mistaken in my role in that debate if you think that you need to convince me. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you expand your closing statement? It does not mention the various proposals to redirect/merge the content in the discussion at all; the deletion policy explicitly says that merging/redirecting should be used if at all possible, so I think your closing statement should include why those alternatives are not feasible. Personally, I think at least redirecting would have been possible. Regards SoWhy 13:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Aaron, DreamFocus (and others) are correct in coming here to discuss your deletion decision. Per WP:DRV:
Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look. (emphasis not added)
So, you really should be responding to their comments with something other than "You are mistaken...if you think that you need to convince me.". I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 22:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I have to say I'm flabbergasted how anybody could read a consensus to delete out of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Bachmann. I see there has a lot of thought into the closing rationale, but I don't see a neutral weighting of opinions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron is right about this. The comment he declined to answer was not about the success of his closing rationale at capturing the discussion: the comment was about whether the outcome was correct or not. It is not the role of the closing administrator to substitute his or her own personal opinion in closing. He should (and I expect that he will) answer objections about his closing rationale. causa sui (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy that the article was deleted, even though I was in the merge/redirect camp. At the same time I would echo SoWhy's comment above. I'm not necessarily saying that the close was invalid, but the option to merge/redirect was a significant part of the discussion. This fact was not mentioned in the close, which was framed solely in terms of delete versus keep. I'm not pointing this out because I'm miffed that the "mergists" didn't get more recognition--I couldn't care less and as I said am perfectly pleased the article was deleted--but I think it's valid to suggest a possible problem with the reading of consensus given that no mention was made in your close of the possibility of merging, or even just redirecting.
I'm not sure I really have a suggestion as to what to do now, but I did want to point out my agreement with SoWhy, which comes from someone who was basically on the "winning"--loathe as I am to use that term in reference to an AfD--side of the debate. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Roscelese - There were more keep votes but shallower keep arguments.
@I, Jethrobot - While you may not have intended it in such a manner, I take slight umbrage at your linking and blockquote-ing at me. Firstly as someone who had a large part in the creation of DRV as we now know, and secondly as someone who, as evidenced in the section right above this one is not only familiar with the venue but welcomes it. It's a bit don't-template-the-regulars, and actually detracts from the message you're trying to convey.
@Stephan Schulz - Thanks for that, I appreciate you coming. (I tried to re-phrase that so that it could not be read as sarcastic, but that was hard. So just trust me, I mean it.) A flat statement doesn't lend itself to further discussion, so if you could better highlight for me were you think I went wrong, I'd appreciate it.
See this comment at DRV for more details. ...and feel free to move this comment elsewhere - the discussion is so uncoordinated that it's hard to find a good place for replies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@SoWhy/Bigtimepeace - Apologies for that deficiency in my closing argument, and you're quite correct that at least some mention should have been made.
There was no consensus to merge, clearly. It's true that this is generally a "soft" option, and that it is often a more beneficial result for the encyclopaedia than deletion. (I'm pro-merge by default, myself.) But there were very few substantiative merge opinions on show, and those that were were countered by arguments that there was already an existing section in the "parent" article.
What were more prevalent in this group were straight redirect suggestions. In the absence of language otherwise, this is interpreted as "delete and redirect." With respect to attribution in a case like this, naked facts and sources don't require attribution, so there's no GFDL conflict if we "smerge."
I don't normally close as redirect or merge unless there is an overwhelmingly clear consensus to do. I'm from the slightly older-skool admin vintage, before things like "closing" RfCs and "admin only" comment sections were common practice. Thus I tend to keep to an absolute minimum use of not just the tools but the implicit authority* that goes with. Merging and redirecting are editorial actions, and no one needs an admin for that. A redirect is already in place, for example.
Keep it coming, Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] *Whatever my beliefs about its appropiateness, it's there.
And the majority of my comment, where I noted that most of the delete arguments were pretty shallow as well? (I'm particularly fond of the one that argued that any news story that mentions Michele is not coverage of Marcus.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious why you didn't consider closing it as "no consensus" - which would have been the most accurate summary of the discussion IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Roscelese - This is a pretty nuanced answer, so please forgive a certain inexact-ity in the actual words. Try a bit more to get a Dennis Denuto "vibe" on what I'm saying. There are two prongs to this as well, but bear with me and it will come together, I promise.
Speaking generally, the burden to provide sources rests with whomever adds information. This is deeply embedded in the DNA of wikipedia, and any attempt to worm it out has been roundly rejected by the community. In any argument (classical sense) about content, there is thus always a slight inequity is positions: The "sourced" side starts with the rebuttable presumption, the other side must effectively rebut. If someone, for example, says "there are not sources for this," it's not enough to just say "yes there are," you must actually provide those sources.
Moving to the purpose of an article for deletion debate. They are badly named. It's actually (according to black-letter) a topic for deletion debate. That's also why the debate isn't on what the article is, but on what it could become.
Combining those two, we see that the "this [topic] is not notable" comments are following strictly to both the spirit and the letter of our social covenants when they follow up with "does not appear in sources on its own." There's an article on deletion review right now that comes down to the same thing, List of Deal-or-no-deal models. There's no debate that there are sources for the individual models that say that they did in fact appear on the show, but there are no sources about the topic of Deal-or-no-deal models treated as a whole. This idea is also wrapped up in the "one event" sub-section of biographies of living persons.
Thus the analysis of the sources that discounted "joint" mentions is almost chapter-and-verse from our long-standing conventions with respect to AfD (even when it was VfD) as well as the relatively-new biographies of living persons. If all available significant coverage from independent sources with a reputation for fact-checking discuss these two in the same breath we are not allowed to pick out the bits we'd like to include. We'd be distorting the coverage if we do that. Context is important. You say "it's not our place to second-guess news sources" and I'd agree with that: If they only report him in context of her, we need to align our coverage to theirs.
But it's also important to add: This is not about my feelings on it, but about the way that the debate was aligned to our policies. The above points were all raised by the discussion participants, I'm just providing background.
@ MelanieN – If you can be more specific, I'm happy to discuss it.
"Thus the analysis of the sources that discounted "joint" mentions is almost chapter-and-verse from our long-standing conventions" - That's incorrect. A news story that is entirely about Marcus, as these have been, is unlikely to ignore the fact that he's married to a candidate, but the claim that the passing mention of her name makes the article about her is a claim that wouldn't pass muster on a basic middle-school reading comprehension test. Same as with Elizabeth Kucinich - no news story will suppress her marriage to Dennis Kucinich, and indeed her claim to independent notability is probably even more tenuous than Marcus's, but her article has been kept three times, all three nearly being a SNOW.
This is probably going to end up at DRV, so I won't go on for much longer here lest I repeat myself. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when your edit summary is "that's a silly and superficial reading at best," I agree that you and I have probably reached the end of polite discourse. And "wouldn't pass muster on a basic middle-school reading comprehension test." isn't terribly kind, either. Please don't repeat yourself, particularly when you're not being very nice. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to dispute your choice to delete the Marcus Bachmann article. One of Wikipedia's key principles is, and always has been, consensus building, and yet in the case it seems that clear consensus was ignored in favor of a minority view. By my tally, 37 people voted keep as their primary choice in the discussion on AfD, 17 had delete as their primary choice, and 3 merge, and despite Tarc's frequent and uncivil accusations that those voting keep were acting in bad faith and were politically motivated, I see many clear, concise, and logically sound arguments on that discussion for the fact that Marcus Bachmann fits the guidelines for general notability, etc, etc. So, I have to ask, why was the article deleted against a vote of nearly 2-to-1 in favor of its being kept? TDiNardo (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion: Wikipedia has established processes to deal with certain procedures. These include deletion discussions and featured content. Because these processes are somewhat institutionalized, they are sometimes wrongly assumed to be majority votes. In reality, Wikipedia's policy is that each of these processes is not decided based on a head count, but on the strength of the arguments presented and on the formation of consensus. As such, it doesn't matter if the vote count is 2 vs. 98, the 2 can still carry the day if the closing administrator judges their argument to be substantially stronger. No opinion on this particular AFD though. NW(Talk) 03:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that, but while I can certainly see the rationality in Aaron's rationale for the delete, I'm not entirely sure I agree with the contention that the arguments to keep were not as strong as the arguments to delete, or that they did not address the issues raised in the arguments for deletion. That's just my opinion, though, and this seems to be a fairly contentious issue. Honestly, I feel a little sorry for poor Aaron; he's very obviously done his best to settle this particular battle as impartially as possible, and I don't think people would have been happy anything he had decided. I have the distinct feeling this is one of those deleted articles that will be sent to DRV, fought over some more, forgotten, rediscovered, forgotten again, sent to ArbCom, recreated, re-deleted, edit-warred over for 7 months, 7 days, and 7 hours, published in print form by a determined supporter, buried in peat for three months, burned for kindling, re-written, and then finally scrapped when everyone realizes that Marcus Bachmann stopped being relevant like 30 years earlier. Aaah, politics.TDiNardo (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like the cut of your jib. And I don't even know what a jib is. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just because I can't really pass up the chance to argue in rhyme form:
You deleted the page on Herr Bachmann,That took me as rather a shock, man.The people had voted,The man was well noted,So why was he thrown in the wastepan?
Sorry Aaron if I caused offense. But in my defense, there are ~14,983,305 Wikipedians and I don't keep track of all their contributions, read all of their talk pages, or know their reputations. Doubtful that anyone does. I'm thankful you have contributed to the DRV process so that it works as it does, but it is equally rude of you to expect that "I should have known better." I'll also argue that I didn't "template you" as much as cite policy with actual text and talk about why it's relevant here. If I just cut-and-paste DRV policy here, that would templating. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, I didn't mean to imply that you should know as much as that's how I felt, so blame me for that misunderstanding. But as to the other bit, it was totally unnecesary to quote chapter-and-verse at me. Just talking like a normal person works. Again, if you'd looked just one section above you'd have seen that I regularly explain my rationals. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No probs, and you are probably right that I should have done something other than copy-paste info from WP:DRV, as you are an admin, and generally, they (should) be familiar with those guidelines. I guess my question deals with the sources brought up during the AfD:
Your closing stated that people supporting to keep the article did not show coverage of Marcus independent of his wife. Although Michele is mentioned in these, I feel confident in saying that Marcus is the main subject, and receives in-depth coverage. Given that all of these were in the AfD, I'm not sure how these articles failed to address that issue. I'm unconcerned with the number of votes, but I am concerned that these articles and their potential to answer the concerns of those supporting to delete the article were not given enough weight. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, I think this may seem like a small point at first, but it's actually part of the crux of this whole discussion: It's not my opinion of the sources that carries the most weight. (Thus I'm not going to look at those links just yet.) In my closing, the words I used were "the delete arguments focused much more specifically on the sources provided". Given the level of debate that has ensued, I could have made this more clear, but what's important is the discussion by the participants. This is why my frist response to DreamFocus was that he was trying to "convince the wrong person."
I spent considerable time looking at where points were raised in the discussion, who responded to them, and if contributions that came later referred back to those points. In doing so it becomes clear that there is a lack of deep engagement on the part of the "keepers" with the point of individual coverage. If we look at the last two (nicely symmetric) comments prior to the close, this is a bit more obvious:
MelanieN, "The guy has been all over the news lately. [...] WHY he became so notable is irrelevant."
And Adoil Descended, "his "fame" for running some fringe/freakish therapy center would never be notable on its own terms if he was not married to a leading American politician."
MelanieN not only fails to rebutt the "delete/merge/redirect" camp's position on the coverage, she is making a statement that is 100% in opposition to our "one event" policy for living persons: It certainly does matter why they are in the media. (In the spirit of full disclosure, this is one of the comments that I put into the "not supported by policy" basket, along with DGG's nearly identical language above it.)
I am pretty sure that this isn't what you wanted at all, or you wouldn't have brought those sources here. But if you go back and look over the XfD and attempt to see if the people there were convinced by the sources, you'll see that the "d/m/r" group were consistant, and that they continued to echo the language of "no independant coverage" in a variety of forms. The keeps were inconsistant at best, and did themselves no favours by explicitly rejecting the BLP1E concept.
Now it's utterly posible that they didn't mean to do so when they said "any notability is notability." But as the person who's charged himself with reading the consensus I can only go with what's there. Did that help at all, or was it just me polishing my own knob?
I'm not especially convinced that many editors, either on the keep, delete, or redirect side actually read over those proposed articles, since very few commented on them directly. So whether they were convinced by them or not seems like a moot point of debate, because few discussion points focused on the proposed articles. One debate on this source, with what I consider to be a fair justification from Silverseren: "We have a significant amount of information about him outside of his wife's campaign. The fact that the campaign instigated this information being published is irrelevant, all that matters is the information itself and the fact that he is covered in detail by highly reliable sources." I mostly read non-keep arguments as overextensions of WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E, rather than being unconvinced by the proposed articles. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that determining the rough consensus in a debate is not exact, and that another admin could reasonably have closed a different way that I did. It's an incomplete system sort of thing. If I were responding to that last New York Times source you indicated, personally I'd say that the argument "wasn't about him" about him would probably not be my first response, but instead I'd ask "Is this significant coverage from a reliable source?" Leaving aside all other trappings, and pretending I'm trying to write an article and want to determine notability, I'd be leery of this source.
These are bare facts, read out like a list, with sprinkled with quotes. It reads like a press release.
It's in a the thecaucus, a blog. What are the standards? How many staff do they have, how much content do they produce?
Are the facts correct? Probably mostly. Almost no one outright lies in their pre-release copy, but they can polish like mad. Personally I don't think that that item goes to notability, as much as it does to how cheaply an item like that can be produced. Totally irrelevant to this larger discussion, but I don't mind a digression. Note that, is a bit of serendipity, I introduced a line on press releases before I looked at your source, discussion is here.
Repeat query: I asked "I'm curious why you didn't consider closing it as 'no consensus' - which would have been the most accurate summary of the discussion IMO." You replied "If you can be more specific, I'm happy to discuss it." More specific? It's a simple question. The basic ways to close a deletion discussion are "keep," "delete," "merge," or "no consensus." Did you consider the possibility of a "no consensus" close for this discussion? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response to query: Well, yeah, thank you for giving your opinion again. I'd have hoped was that when I asked you to be more specific you'd note that yours was by far the shortest question to date, and perhaps further note that most of the commentators had taken the time to explain their position so that actual conversations could occur. Leaving that aside: What factors and decisions led to you coming to the opinion that there was no consensus? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I was taught that brevity is a virtue. My "opinion" was actually a question to you: did you consider the No Consensus option? You have avoided answering that question twice; if you avoid it again I will assume you are not going to answer, and I will drop it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's just me, and I'd hope it's not intentional, but your comments here feel more like a grilling than a conversation.
Your initial comment was vague, in my opinion. Your follow up was brusque and confontational, in my opinion. Your follow up follow up compounded that by refusing to expand, accusing me of not dealing in good faith, and generally not working towards some common ground for discussion.
Do you note at all that the interactions I'm having with you differ somewhat from the others in this thread?
You've come here, to this page. This isn't a public forum, or a deletion discussion page. It's got my user name at the top, it's for talking to me. If you're interested in doing that, than please continue to use this page. My closing the Bachmann discussion doesn't give you some sort of prosecutorial power to demand yes/no answers from me. You want something from me, you give something in return. Take the time to actually write down, carefully and clearly, why you think that there was no consensus in this debate. Then I'll know better where you're coming from, what areas we differ in, and I will without hesitation trot off several hundred words. Barring you making that investment of your time, please stop wasting mine.
To think that a leading presidential candidate's husband shouldn't be the subject of a stand-alone article puts one in the minority for good and obvious reasons, it would have seemed. More foibles of Wikipedia & as usual, of no significance whatever.
Calamitybrook (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Calamitybrook - Was there a question in there? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here in Germany, I have with the grammar trouble, and so sympathize I can with your confusion.
But no, that would be considered not a question but rather a statement; and a bleeding obvious one at that.
WP:POLITICIAN does not presume notability for any "leading presidential candidate's [spouse]". Of course, if you feel this is a problem, you can open a discussion on presumed notability of candidate's spouses.Rlendog (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
R.dog: Probably there is much in WP Politician that goes unmentioned or is ill-considered or not considered at all. Perhaps I'd read it some time, but is more enriching, informative and interesting to read about Bachmann's husband.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Marcus Bachmann. 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. Unsigned comment of 16:31, 26 July 2011 by User:Roscelese.
Non notable, likely fictional musician (closed)[edit]
Is this individual remotely notable? Google only show up a few hundred hits most of which relate to wikipedia article itself. There's hardly even proof that she existed, let alone being the "Queen" of Kanto. Kanto related articles have been spammed promoting this likely fictitious peson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.81.170 (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Close of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture (2nd nomination)]] (closed)[edit]
I'd like to ask you to reconsider your close as delete on this AfD. You wrote that "several contributors noted that this was not covered in the sources provided as a unified concept"; while this was asserted, these assertions were clearly inaccurate in light of the reliable source citations provided by Colonel Warden and Jclemens that conclusively demonstrate that the list topic is treated as a notable one in multiple independent reliable sources. The "arguments regarding original research ans [sic] synthesis" hinge on that point and are equally invalid. The final assertion about the material in the article not being covered by the sources raised is flatly wrong; I now possess a physical copy of Don G. Smith's H.P. Lovecraft in Popular Culture and have verified that it covers quite a bit of material from the article. Taking these things into account, I believe the article should be undeleted. Thanks for your time! —chaos5023 (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you start sourcing it soon, or else it will remain a prime candidate for a future AfD. This article needs drastic trimming/editing before it is appropriate for an encyclopedia. For starters, the final product should not aim to be a list of every time a character from the Cthulhu Mythos has been name-dropped or hinted at in another work of fiction. It should be a prose summary of the key appearances, well-documented by reliable sources. ThemFromSpace 12:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that a re-write from scratch would be the best option. Move the existing page to Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture/Sources, write a tight article from nothing, then get consensus on the talk page before moving each item in. This is actually quite an interesting topic, and deserves much better treatment than it is receiving now. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brenneman you old softy, I'm proud of ya :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Will try to hunt down some sources as well....Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aw shucks. *blush* There goes my reputation. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, notify user Curb Chain and Good Ol’factory to hault commenting or arguing my main "keep" vote on the Category: Categories for deletion site on the Category:Dangerous Professions page. I have warned them and they have kept the argument in contact, I propose to let is cease.--Corusant (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I respectfully request that you reopen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CTERA Networks (2nd nomination). I feel that you should keep the AfD longer to allow convincing consensus to appear. Furthermore I feel that you have misread the consensus that began to appear. The delete arguments have been rebutted, and in fact the keep arguments were not. The nominator used a laundry list of policies with no details. A comprehensive list of reliable sources has then been presented by me, to show that the company passes the threshold of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, including large industry magazines, books with significant mention of the company, analyst groups etc. User Grlx has attempted to rebut 3 of the 20+ reliable sources given, and I rebutted one and accepted one. The rest of the sources were unchallenged. A user has claimed that the Washington Post article criticized the company as having poor products. I replied that the exact opposite was the case and quoted the Post article to prove this. A user has claimed that the company has less than 700 users and I quoted another article that proves this wrong. A whole bunch of users have read the sources and agreed that the company meets the required importance threshold for WP:N. Furthermore even the nominator himself was apparently partially convinced and said "The subject may well be notable". Frankly, I am a bit shocked by the speedy closure of the AfD even though it was very much an active one. The last comment was only hours ago.
Again, I respectfully request that you reopen the discussion and let it complete with a more convincing consensus. It is not done yet. Marokwitz (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking so nicely, I'll have another look. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sorry but after going through it again I'm still satisfied that I closed that correctly. The most important part of an AfD page is the discussion, and the day was clearly won by those who favoured deletion. It's important for editors to take the time to read the comments before theirs and try to respond to them. Comments that ignore any previous debate are given less weight, on total common sense grounds. There was a consensus here among those users who engaged in the substantive debate, and it was to delete.
I'm always unfussed by going to deletion review, and if you decide to do that I'm happy to assist with the paperwork, or I'm happy to discuss it further here.
It's also obvious to me that part of the issue here was just people being unaware of what was important in a debate like this, and chasing side-issues. Rattner2, for instance, would probably be surprised to hear that I felt that he didn't respond well enough, but equally samj didn't ask the question clearly enough. The debate could have been more productively focused. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to work on this and explaining your thought process. The thing is that you are appear to be forgetting that actual work done by me and other members of the community was lost due to "people being unaware of what was important in a debate like this". It seems that you have not only ignored the opinion of some people in the community because they lack experience, but in fact counter-reacted to them as if having a "weak" argument can actually detract the strong points given in favor of notability. As I mentioned above, I have shown clearly that some of the points given during the discussion were false, and my opponent did not reply. Even the nominator seemed to admit that the company may be a notable one. Me and other members still believe that the sources do indicate notability, and are willing to prove this, including improving the article if needed. But you have abruptly closed the discussion without letting the discussion run its course - people were still actively debating. Instead of terminating the discussion, why not post an explanation to the less experienced participants what is important in a debate like this, and then let the discussion continue ? I, for one, want to save an article on which I invested a lot of effort and have more to say in this debate. This is not the best article on Wikipedia but surely not the worst. Again, all I am asking that you allow the community to discuss until the discussion is finished. If after that you judge that the consensus is still against the article, then I would accept that. 06:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
That's not an unreasonable request. Hold on. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 07:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since there was so much interest recently on the exact thought process behind a decision, rather than use a pencil I'm going to make notes here, saving incrementally. I'd ask that this area be just for my use, if no one minds. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just the outline
samj inout 20:14, 24 July 2011 - nom, wp:notable
Marokwitz (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2011 - sources
- Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:44, 25 July 2011 - "Routine" but not linked to WP:ROUTINE
Glrx (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2011
"As discussed on the article's talk page" problem is, the debate on the article talk page was weak.
The articles do not qualify as "significant coverage".
Shuki (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2011 that's after the above, but ignores it utterly
W Nowicki (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2011 - "There indeed is quite a bit of coverage, and some might be as close to "reliable" as it gets in this industry."
Hmbr (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2011 - ignores points raised on coverage, just says it is per M
E.Rattner2 (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2011 - says he's read through the thread, but still convinced. this counts to me as responding to the points raised, just not agreeing with them
samj inout 14:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC) pushes a bit - highights again the problems with the sources
E.Rattner2 doesn't engage on that point
Someone35 (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC) votes
AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2011 states it satisfies, doesn't say why
--DeVerm (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2011 "The unwillingness to verify/judge the list of sources provided in the article, article talk and above, is an additional sign that it includes enough WP:RS to satisfy requirements."
What unwillingness? I looked again at the talk page (both then and now!) and don't see it
It also make no sense
Glrx (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2011 - "WP:N is not just a list of sources, but some sources that actually evaluate the impact that a company has had on the market or the technology"
DeVerm (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2011 "Lastly you ask for sources but just before that you explain you don't have time to check the sources listed... which should have been done by anybody declaring violation of WP:N or WP:V"
Again, this fits poorly with what actually happened. Glrx : "I have gone through most of the sources in the above list, and I do not see redeeming value in them." [emphasis mine]
Being combative never helps
Mahmoodinsky (talk • contribs) 12:47, 31 July 2011 does not respond to the points raised
Relisted, better discussion on validity of sources. Closed (by Sptz.) as no consensus to delete. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Legend! I knew there was something like that, but couldn't recall where. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, WT:SIG is semiprotected, so I can't start a discussion there. I do regard this as a real but also as a minor and by no means pressing issue, so if you guys don't want to pursue this by yourselves, I can understand. I could instead e.g. write up my reasoning, post it here, and then one of you could post it at WT:SIG. --213.196.218.167 (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Get to think of it OTOH, that does make only limited sense since I couldn't participate in the discussion there unless the page is unprotected which might not be a good idea (it was semiprotected due to excessive and relentless vandalism). --213.196.218.167 (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thaty was quick, I was actually looking over the history to see if protection was required. Good move, both on Flo's part and yours. Thanks for being so patient with this slightly labourious process. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and no prob. I know that patience is required in all things P&G. --213.196.218.167 (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engineering psychology]] (closed)[edit]
Hi, sorry for not responding sooner to you but I have not been regularly participating in Wikipedia activities for the past several weeks. Shame on me though for not explaining my close as it was a fairly contested discussion. Looking over the discussion, the opposition to keeping the article mainly suggested redirecting. An AfD discussion is not needed for a redirect or merge, that discussion can take place on the article's talk page. J04n(talk page) 00:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, thank for taking the time to follow up - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture]] (closed)[edit]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
inre [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Naked Monster]] (closed)[edit]
The initial search results were offered only to counter a claim of "no reviews, no discussion of it at all other than it exists. This article has no sources for a reason, apparently none exist". Yes, not all the sources I offered at the AFD were the absolute best, but even the lessor RS might have been used to verify some portion of the article. It is just that a claim that "apparently none exist" needed to be countered. After expansion, only those generally accepted as expert in the field of independent horror film, those with established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy in that field, were used. The poorer ones were not. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 05:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This would have been better placed on the discussion itself. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I had clarified earlier there, perhaps, but as I am seen as "unpleasant to communicate with" by the nominator, if I were to share this explanation there now, the nominator might see it as an attack. Better for me to not, then do something that might bother him further. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 22:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*laughing* Ah, I do see. I've also been found at times to be "unpleasant," sometimes even when I wasn't trying to be! I am actually satisfied that this film meets our general notability criteria, I should make that clear if the debate is still open. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you will note here that you placed a (partial) notice of an ANI complaint regarding my signature. The complaint seems to have been made by a blocked troll who attempts to use German IP addresses to stir up technical discussions of no end other than to cause other GF editors to do purposeless work. I wish to document that IP user's complaint, but, given that you provided no link or diff to the ANI complaint on my talk page (something I understand is required for all ANI compliants), I cannot find the user's IP address in the page's history circa 2 AUG 2011. Can you please provide an actual diff for the user's complaint? The IP's first two digits (from my memory) were 84 and the address traced to the area of Cologne. It should be documented here. I will watch your talk page, please answer me with the user's diff or IP address here. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the manner in which you responded to my questions on your talk page, does it seem at all likely that I'd be willing to assist you on this? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You tell me. I answered your questions on my talk page fully. All I am asking for is that you act like an admin and provide the standard diff or link in an ANI notification in a matter regarding obvious trolling. μηδείς (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mate, when I tried to talk to you like a person, you're whole response was two words. When I responded that that was a bit brief and asked if you'd expand, your whole response was "No." You're just as able to look at the timestamp on my comments to your page, look at my contributions around that time, and find the material. That's exactly what I'd be doing. As nicely as possible, I'm not going to go and look it up for you. As a general rule, people to whom you've been rude don't typically respond by doing you favours. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that you might have found my answers brusque. But besides the empty semantic parroting back of "no ... I will not consider changing my signature" and "no ... I don't feel like discussing it" I am not sure what else could have been said. Besides its impertinence, the underlying request was absurd. I think the tip off was the arachnophobia issue. The IP user had obviously read both pages in great detail--the spider images do not pop out at you nor appear at the top or bottom of the threads. Going to an ANI to say "I would like an editor to change his signature so I can spy on him more easily but don't want to use this sockpuppet IP to do so directly because he has a spider image on his user pages" has got to be one of the stranger things I have seen around here. Such nonsense didn't warrant my time or yours. That being said, I felt the matter was best ignored since feeding the trolls encourages them. Then I became aware of the troll report here which seems to be the same German user with the same modus operandi of getting other editors into needless disputes and discussions. (To that end he seems to have succeeded.) I do think it is worth documenting this and getting the IP blocked as a minimum. I did try to find the diff in the ANI page, but after it was archived I found that I could not discover it near the dates of your contributions. I figure a second eye more familiar with the discussion history their might be more successful than I have been in tracking it down.
Here's my last edit to the noticeboard on this matter, all the information you asked for should be there. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. μηδείς (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree with your move to delete that page this quickly... That page has lain dormant for a long time... I began to add substance and references to it and wham within two weeks its on the deletion list... Your move was premature in my opinion... within a short period of time I had begun to flush out that article. David Sproule is a significant figure, both as an Ambassador and things like the Afghan Detainee issue which is a major event in Canada with him at the center of it. It just takes time to bring stuff in and flush it out with references. I would ask that you reinstate the page on the condition you review it again in three months time and see if the level of detail is still lacking. There is plenty of information on David Sproule on the web it just takes the time and effort to search it out. Please reinstate for 3 months and revisit the content. If you disagree with my opinion then I would ask that you bump it up one notch to whoever would normally provide a second opinion on your decisions. I think you jumped the gun on this one based on the level of recent effort to add substance to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurt Dundy (talk • contribs) 15:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note.
With respect to the timing, this deletion discussion was open actually a bit longer than usual. (I typically only close items from the "AFD/Old" list, of discussions that have gone on beyond seven days.)
With respect to the request for a three month hiatus, while that seems sensible enough on the face of it, there are pragmatic reasons why it doesn't happen that way. There are lots of articles, lots and lots. For many of them, the only impetus to improvement is the deletion discussions, and it's not possible to make the afd "reappear" after three months automatically. The process that does exist puts the onus on the article creator: The article has to be re-written and then ask for permission to put it back into the encyclopedia.
With respect to the "next level", that's deletion review. That's where the re-written article would need to present itself, but it's also where you go if you just disagree with the deletion. That was a bit jumbled, so I'll try to say it again another way. The process is:
Talk to the deleting administrator to try to work it out.
If you're still not satisfied by the outcome of that discussion, you can go straight to deletion review.
If either this discussion or that review fail to overturn the results of the AfD, then you can re-write the article in userspace and try again.
I'm tempted to close this as Keep since after a once-over I'm left with the strong impression that consensus already formed to do that. However, you recently relisted it, so I don't want to step on your toes. What do you think? causa sui (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Aaron Brenneman. A user has opened a deletion review concerning a discussion you closed, and I see that you don't appear to have been notified yet. All the best—S MarshallT/C 20:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review# Friendlyresearcher (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)List_of_Native_American_women|deletion review]] of [[]]. 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.[reply]
please delete this article it has overdue the time of nomination of deletion Eshan Sharma— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raul341 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the RFC/U as having been improperly certified, since it was premised on the unproven assertion that Ash and Fae are the same person. You are welcome to create a fresh RFC/U on Fae alone, but it should not include unproven allegations of other identities. Will Bebacktalk 07:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reasonable enough thing to have done, I think. I was ignoring that part of the kerfuffle. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron, you are certifying this RFCU. Its here because you made it happen. I am surprised that you believe that you have tried and failed to resolve the problem with Fae, as I was under the impression that you thought the last BLP mess had been adequately addressed with this warning. John Vandenberg(chat) 01:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, because I actually agree that the issue is, well, a non-issue. I typically view RfC as something other than the trial-by-fire it's often perceived as, and was trying to say exactly what you've said: That this does not appear to be an actual issue, the behavior does not appear to have been repeated. I was ignoring the "identity" part and focusing on the part I had had experience with, the BLP problem. I'm going to go to the RfC again and see if I need to make myself more clear. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).
If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That actually took longer than I thought it would. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
avoid closing discussions you've given an opinion in[edit]
Even if someone asks for a discussion to be closed, please avoid closing discussions that you've given an opinion in like Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#ARS_Canvassing_at_AfD. You give your opinion and then an hour and half later close it in a manner consistent with your opinion. Some people might find that a little untoward.--Crossmr (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ehh, not sure I agree. If instead of saying "this should be closed" I'd simply have closed it no one would have blinked. If this were a more contentious issue, or if there was anything less than clear consensus, yeah, but this time? Still, on the principle of least discussion, I'll go forth and sin no more. Thanks for that, always appreciate your input. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A clear consensus? Did you look at who was insisting this was not an issue worthy of discussion? All but one of them were members of the Article Rescue Squadron or were explicitly named in the opening comment with several of them making blatantly uncivil remarks towards me for filing the report. ARS members cannot reach a legitimate consensus on whether ARS members do bad things, certainly not when something they really want kept is being implicated on top of it. I count maybe four editors, including yourself, who do not fall under those criteria. One plainly said it was a legitimate matter for intervention and another clearly suggested that North's conduct is a serious problem. Please re-open the discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting that you comment here on a deletion review regarding the rescue list.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Aaron. Thank you for participating in the debate titled German cruiser Emden at WP:WQA. Your contributions are much appreciated. In your latest edit you added I'm quite concerned that we've yet to see any acknowledgement from that there was a problem? You appear to have omitted the all-important name. If you feel that you are yet to see any acknowledgement from Dolphin that there is a problem that is a concern to me and one that I will address promptly. You might like to return to your edit and add any word(s) omitted. Happy editing! Dolphin(t) 07:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite correct, my attempt to be circumspect was, as they normal are, flawed. I'll rewrite. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that! Dolphin(t) 11:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Aaron. This is just a short note to express my thanks for your time and your wisdom on WP:WQA recently. I’m particularly grateful for the soundness of your contributions at diff1, diff2 and diff3. Many thanks.
I have made my closing remarks on the thread and I publicly acknowledged your contribution – see my diffDolphin(t) 02:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I tried to respond to your post on AN (Pumpkinsky thread), but kept getting edit conflicts. Anyway. Pumpkinsky posted a statement on his talk page about wanting to return (be unblocked). Several users felt it should be at AN (I'd imagine to get a wider community view). The whole thing got copied over to AN. Someone unblocked so that Pumpkinsky could respond to items being posted. I believe Balloonman made it clear to him (PS) that it was only so that he could respond in that particular discussion. At least that's the way I saw it. Hope that helps. — Ched : ? 00:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aaron, I'm sorry that you received the newsletter in error and I'll be sure to take you off of the list. You received the newsletter because you are a member of WPBible. (You joined 6 years 7 mos ago.) Anyway the thread for the discussion of the newsletter is here: [6]. – Lionel(talk) 00:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, our messages crossed in space. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to you at the thread you started. Please don't make a mess and then simply wander off. Go clean it up. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I've received quite a bit of mail from companies or organizations to which I signed up years ago. I've yet to shoot the fucking mailman for delivering it. Just unsubscribe yourself. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The bot was using a list that was poorly-formatted, wildly-out-of-date, not matching the linked-from-template list. It was doing so in a way that was not clear, even when looking at the edit histories of the various parties involved. Please review both how you're vetting/running that bot, as well as how you're responding to issues. No need to be snarky with me, really. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I regret all the turmoil the delivery has caused. Most of the 30 plus Christianity projects have become moribund. We're just trying things to get people involved again--not just with WP:X but all the denominations. We're going to make mistakes. And we appreciate your inderstanding. – Lionel(talk) 04:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, no problem at all with the inital mistake with the mailing list. Thanks for being polite. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to write an insulting rhyming couplet or two about how you blocked a preacher bot that was delivering a Christian newsletter, but it just isn't coming to me right now. You'd think it would write itself. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to see this:
“
although in truth I suspect that asking MZMcBride to be a bit less snarky may be something like asking the Atlantic Ocean to be a bit less wet
Heh, as true then as it is now. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron: I wrote User:EdwardsBot/FAQ just now and it's transcluded at User:EdwardsBot. The organic nature of this tool's development meant that some of the end-user documentation was inadequate. Hopefully this FAQ addresses a large portion of that inadequacy. :-)
Apologies that things got overly heated and harsh yesterday. Today is looking better. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Aaron Brenneman, it may be out of order to come talk on your talk page. I am reaching my wits end. There has been no cluefull response in the matter of this escapade of fishing for "enemies". I have been extensively insulted. I have no interest whatsoever in the result of any "edit-warring"at WP:V. I have withdrawn from the page. If you have examined the matters raised at WP:ANI, at the IP's talk page, at the supposed "sockpuppet investigation", at User talk:Elen of the roads and at user talk:Newbyguesses and any other places this unfortunateness has spread, (you may wish to aquaint user:Sarek of Vulcan of any "disruption"on my part - dash-
In short, having found no clue on any quarter, if you find yourself informed and desirous of assisting the resolution(s) : what are my options here, could you care to outline for me, I would be grateful. Apologise for the lack of links, I am being whipped here.
I have absolutely nothing, not a thing to hide. Thank you NewbyG ( talk) 14:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aaron, just a note to say it's nice to see your name cropping up more on my watchlist. Hope all is well with you. SlimVirginTALK|CONTRIBS 21:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Slim. Always nice to see you around, too. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns re:Dreadstar, collections, hog oilers, et alia[edit]
No more discussion here, please. Split discussions are considered harmful. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Some comments moved to User_talk:Alan_Liefting
I still call bullshit on that entire 'event.' Please feel free to go through all of my puportedly "blind reverts" and see which articles aren't associated with collectables. here. Dreadstar☥ 23:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found these two: [7][8] blind reverts and have warned Dreadstar that if I see more like that I'll block. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 00:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is REAL annoying. This editor is an admin? And here is another one [9]. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removing an active AfD notice from a page should be a reason to sanction or even sack an administrator. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, let this drop now. Please see my note on your talk page. Aaron, if you want to delete this thread or move it (including my comments) to Alan's talk page please feel free. We don't need this brushfire burning in several places all at once. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 00:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thank you for not joining the witch hunt in the ANI thread. Your kindness was a light brightly shining in the darkness. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see from recent events following your request for review, there are a whole lot of bear traps that you can fall into in this area. Even though I'm fairly outspoken on the stupidity that is the "dirty -istas", I've never revoked anyone's editing privileges for calling other editors names with them. I was going to recommend that you not proceed where you were aiming to proceed. I hope that you can see where you'd be now if you had. If we administrators blocked everyone who went around saying that we deleted stuff out of some supposed personal malice, there'd be an awful lot of blocked people out there. That is, after all, the very first thing that a lot of people say. Uncle G (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time. Indeed, I'm only just now absorbing the train-wreck at ANI. I take your point, but *heavy sigh* it's just so unhelpful. And (having had Betacommand's talk page on my watch list) you're of course correct about it being the first thing many people say... but most of them eventually learn to stop saying it.
Warden not so much. I didn't even bother telling him that my deletion was not only not "vengeance" but that I hadn't even noticed it was the same article he was talking about. I'd just gone to WP:AFDOld. He'd never believe it.
Recently, on the Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City page, a user known as "Kgbeast1" removed content from the page. His edit was reverted by another user, but he added it back. He is continuously doing this, and I come to you to ask for help. Thank you.--24.58.228.236 (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@24.58.228.236: I have started a User talk page for User:Kgbeast1 and given him the standard warning about deleting text without leaving an edit summary - see HERE. If this User continues to vandalise with unexplained deletions he should be given a higher level warning. Anyone can give such a warning - see WP:MLT#Blanking/Removal of content. Dolphin(t) 03:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you bowed out of the discussion? If so, I will reinstate the gallery. I'll give you another day to respond. --Jonathan108 (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really bad with page moves and naming conventions, just not an area I've worked in. Perhaps try "request for page moves" (WP:RFM maybe? will that be red?) or he administrator's notice board. Sorry to be no help. - 23:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I see you did some editing here a while back. I'm tempted just to smack a {Cleanup-spam} on the whole thing - every citation is to their splash page, every photo taken by their marketing and every edit of substance from an anonymous user. It's virtually an orphan too. I've not edited here in a long time, so take a look and see what it really needs. BesigedB(talk) 18:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I too feel that that page needs an enema. I'll put it on my "should do" list, but please be aware that I'm not very active right now. Thanks for the note, Aaron Brenneman (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am seeing a disturbing series of edits by an admin called Boing! said Zebedee, and rd232, who seem to have stopped all discourse on Hugo Chavez wiki page, as well as the child page of some strange proxy propaganda site written in English. WP:UNDO — Preceding unsigned comment added by StanfordHistory08 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Off2riorob. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ΔT The only constant 04:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Template:Flipbook has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
