- Vivien Keszthelyi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
To a superficial first glance, this looks like an uncontroversial "keep" outcome. But look at the "keep" voters more closely. The accounts that !voted keep were:
- Grin, a good-faith account.
- Xia, an account with many edits; I've been through their last five years' worth and this is their only vote in an AfD during that time.
- Samat, who had never voted in an AfD prior to voting "keep" in that one.
- Minerva97, who had never voted in an AfD prior to voting "keep" in that one.
- Adumbrativus, an account that
was registered has no edits prior to this month.
- The Bushranger, a good-faith account.
- Dodi123, who had never voted in an AfD prior to voting "keep" in that one.
- JSoos, who had never voted in an AfD prior to voting "keep" in that one; he has 1,000 edits, about a third of which were made on 19 October 2018.
- GhostDestroyer100, a good-faith account.
- Spiderone, a good-faith account.
- A7V2, a good-faith account.
- Mjbmr, a good-faith account, despite his curious history of starting AfDs about articles that he created.
- Nyiffi, who had never voted in an AfD prior to voting "keep" in that one.
- Hyperion35, who hadn't edited for 7 years prior to voting "keep" in that AfD.
In my view many, but far from all, of the "keep"-voting accounts are ducks for UPE. Many of them, in their posts to the AfD, significantly misrepresent the value of the sources. I ask DRV to find that this AfD is irretrievably tainted by bad faith accounts, and to overturn and relist with the suspect accounts duly marked. I would also welcome your advice on whether it's appropriate to escalate this to COIN, SPI or both. —S Marshall T/C 20:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- For notification purposes, tagging closer Bungle (talk · contribs) who's asked me not to post about this again on his talk page.—S Marshall T/C 20:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure that this is the right venue? Why would DRV, rather than WP:SPI, be the right first step for this issue? Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I'm tagging it for G5, even though it survived the last AfD, because the verbiage on G5's exemption from AfD makes no sense whatsoever, in that merely by pointing out that an AfD'ed article was created by a sock, a good faith editor would somehow make it *immune* to future G5's by mentioning the author's sock status. That's a nonsensical perverse incentive, so I'm IAR G5'ing it. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been pointed out to me, G5 was inapplicable; I was looking at the AfD modifications to the criteria, I failed to review the basic wording. Jclemens (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist Since this was a controversial close by a non-admin, I think the close can easily be undone. Not sold on the G5 but won't be the user to contest it. I'd recommend relisting for another week for further comment and to weed out any ducks. SportingFlyer T·C 08:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If you consider the "votes" from accounts regarded "good faith" by S Marshall (including an additional not mentioned), then taking all the alleged suspicious accounts out of the equation, the consensus to keep the article would still seem compelling. The suggestion numerous accounts are bad faith is currently an unproven suspicion, but I would wonder if it's worth a checkuser on those to ascertain with more certainty. I don't agree the close was controversial, but understand there has been controversial history with the article itself. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's a fair characterization. I've seen non-controversial things become controversial on the basis of an otherwise reasonable action, based on information not available to the closer/admin/whomever took the action. However, as the closer (at least for now) would you say that the AfD had decided that G5 should/would not apply to the article? I based my tagging in part on the presumption that, while mentioned, the topic was not a major point of discussion in the AfD itself. Jclemens (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think CSD tagging immediately after an AfD discussion was going to de-escalate what is seemingly a controversial topic. What I can't determine fully here is whether the topic/article is itself controversial, or if this seems to be inherited by the fact that it has been controversially recreated. There was an AfD that was closed as delete the week before, with considerably less discussion and the only !voter in that was DGG (who opted to just comment in the AfD now in question). Had this 3rd nomination been an overwhelming delete vote, and then the 4th one (of which we now discuss) had gone the complete opposite way, then there would certainly be a good call to look closely at this, but from what I see of the previous AfDs, there is not (and has not) been anywhere close to an indisputable consensus for this article to be deleted. The two delete !votes in this AfD were essentially based on the fact this was a recreation, rather than offering a compelling policy-based reason. Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's exceptionally rare for a nominator to ask for a page to be deleted and salted, and the history of this article should have been obvious to a closer, so I don't think you can categorise this as "non-controversial." SportingFlyer T·C 18:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse keep closure - while I definitely understand S Marshall's vigilance given the history of this article, I really don't think I could (a) criticise Bungle's decision to close it or (b) contemplate closing it differently. There are a lot of good-faith regular AfD participants supporting keep, and among the rest it wouldn't surprise me if there's one or two suspicious accounts in there, but all of the questionable ones that I've looked at are, in my opinion, defensible. A pretty common theme among the listed 'keep' voters that aren't regularly participating in AfDs is "Hungarian editor", and to me it's perfectly reasonable that we'd have a selection of semi-active editors that would appear and contribute to an AfD on a person primarily of interest in Hungary. If there are any that smell particularly paid-editingy then raising them individually at SPI might be sensible, but I've got to say I haven't seen any on a brief review. I definitely can't conclude this AfD's had enough contamination to warrant invalidating it. ~ mazca talk 15:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- While nationalism is a reasonably obvious possibility, the real question, and why I questioned whether SPI might be appropriate, is whether the participation is best explained by off-Wiki canvassing or meatpuppetry. Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I definitely agree that each of the accounts, when looked at individually, is plausible. It's the aggregation of them all that overwhelms my AGF -- that, and the beautifully-formatted hagiography of a Hungarian teenager that's the subject of the AfD. I put it to you, Mazca, that the article has been bought and paid for and that a substantial proportion of the accounts voting to retain it were either summoned by mailing list or else operated by a PR agency.—S Marshall T/C 10:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @S Marshall: Even if there is any credibility in that, there have been 4 AfDs on this subject and only one ended delete, and that was with a single !vote. The last one (of which we speak), by your own admission, had a considerable number of good-faith editors expressing a preference for retention. I do take your issue and it's plausible (though entirely unproven) that some of the !votes have suspicious origins, yet there was clearly no consensus for deletion (the two deletes did not consider the article content at all, only its recreation). Is this discussion now being held on the basis that it should go through yet another AfD (or relist) because of it's (re)creation history, despite the considerable good-faith editor involvement, or because of a disagreement with those that !voted (the basis for my conclusion)? Controversy and recreation aside, is the article credible? Bungle (talk • contribs) 11:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- At DRV we've usually found that it's not usually possible to subtract the puppetry from a tainted AfD and then evaluate it like an untainted one. This is because puppet votes colour the perceptions and behaviour of those who come after them. It's been our normal practice here to relist the tainted discussion -- sometimes with a semi-protected or EC-protected AfD to mitigate the impact of puppetry, although that wouldn't help in this particular case. You're right to say that I can't prove that any individual vote in that discussion was a puppet. But that so many editors who're brand new to AfD would surface for that one discussion clearly exceeds AGF's breaking strain.—S Marshall T/C 12:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's possible, sure. I could certainly believe this was raised on a Hungarian motorsport forum or something and has gained off-wiki attention. But I'm just not seeing anything remotely unambiguous that would warrant invalidating this. The arguments to keep seem broadly sensible, and honestly outside of the history of inappropriate creation here, what delete voters there are just haven't made a good case. Your nomination is reasonable based on the history and the criteria in the SNG, but the arguments against deletion are primarily based on general notability through breadth of coverage. One voter is repeatedly banging a drum based on insufficient English language sources, which just isn't actually a policy at all, and the only other people arguing for delete didn't really add any points. Tainted AfDs exist, and this could possibly be one, but it just seems to me to be a bad example of one so tainted that DRV should be invalidating it. A history of inappropriate creation doesn't mean we have to hold a later, appropriate article to a way higher standard, and to me that feels like what's happening here. ~ mazca talk 15:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Start a new,AfD on the basis of being an inappropriate non-admin close. No matter how clear the closer thought it, considering that the arguments against it, dealt with the interpretation of contested policy, it was not an appropriate close. Furthermore it should be a new start , not just a reopen of the current one, in orderto diminish the influence of fans. We should discount the influence of fans just as we would discount SPAs or paid editors. Otherwise the guideline for notability wil soon become popularity as the ovcerriding factor. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist While not articulated in policy, I do think that unless new sources have clearly emerged in the interim, any article that has previously been deleted is probably not an appropriate non-admin close. --Enos733 (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I am uncertain if someone else, admin or no admin, could have read the consensus in a way that one of delete, no consensus or relist would have been appropriate (even taking into account the nature of some accounts already discussed). A concern may be whether reopening and relisting would mean any subsequent delete !votes are diluted by the considerably high keep opinion that existed in this afd. I wouldn't be surprised if this went to yet another new AfD as DGG (who previously participated) noted above, which may be more appropriate than a relist, despite the consensus to delete across all 4 AfDs being relatively low. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are correct. I was about to write that I supported DGG's proposal, but I didn't think that was fair for the users who did participate in good faith. An alternative could be to reopen so an administrator could perform the close. --Enos733 (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I would view a new AfD or relist as disdainful to the !voters. The idea it should be reopened and immediately closed by an "administrator" is unnecessary and serves only to pander to the "but this was an inappropriate non-admin closure" rhetoric, especially taking into account the compelling consensus. The analysis by S Marshall was based on enwiki activity, yet Xia makes a fair point that this is a global project. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse keep. I try not to write a long essay here (despite it may be justified), so let me briefly give you a summary. I am familar with the various problems enwp community possess but I still have faith in the original guildelines of Wikipedia, which is to keep articles worthy, reject articles that unworthy, in case of problems discuss them and try to resolve them by consensus or cooperational forms, assume good faith for both new and old editors and do not engage in holding a deliberate stance against anything, be that articles, topics or editors. What I have experienced about this article is really sad: editors ignoring repeated requests of discussion and cooperation, editors ignoring article content for winning over a real or imagined enemy ("the sockpuppets", "the banned users", "the bad article"), editors spending large amount of time fighting for deletion, editors ignoring consensus and start various deletion requests all over again. While in the discussion various points were raised that neither the bans, nor the deletion was justified here we are again: a deletion review against the WP:DRV guidelines of "Deletion review should not be used:". After a speedy which was against both letters and spirit of WP:G5 (which specifically details that only applies to articles created by bad-faith editors and have not touched by others). But let me mention that the original bans may even have been a mistake, since they could have been resolved by communication: originally the user was banned because her identity was not established, so it was not even about bad faith editing, and this was used as the ongoing basis to ban others (who are different persons, based on the OTRS mail exchange), which is in turn was used as a basis for trying to delete the article without even considering its content, which fulfills the requirements of the various relevant guidelines. And now I see here some of those editors refusing to communicate and discuss, trying another round of deletion again, debating a closure of an AfD where the consesus was unequivocal. But let me touch another curious spot here. This request starts with a list of the voters, and shows a well-picked criteria (namely: are they active AfD regulars?). So let me pick a different metric: go and check for how many years are these editors editing Wikipedia. How many articles they wrote. And how many discussions were they involved in their home Wikipedia. Let me help you, here you can do that easily: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/hu.wikipedia.org/grin (replace my name with theirs). Then let me kindly mention that the discussions some of the present people have deliberately were skipping contained detailed reasonings about why there are way more non-English sources, why Hungarian editors can actually certify whether the topic has national level relevance and why this is especially the way the process shall work, since if there is a language you do not understand, or a country you do not know then you need help from that country to verify the claims. So any act of surprise that Hungarian editors came over and voiced their own opinions (and let me just tell you here that neither I nor anyone else actually asked anyone to come to the AfD and vote in any way or without getting informed about the problem!) seems quite dishonest to me. So, summarizing: this review is against the guideline, the article was rightfully voted and kept, and I kindly ask anyone voting here to check the background instead of relying on what have been said above. Thanks. --grin ✎ 18:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Also please realise that none of the criticised editors were pinged in, and I would not be even here if it was not for the kind help of Jclemens. Is it acceptable to discuss fellow editors behind their backs? --grin ✎ 18:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- so not commenting on an afd means I have no right to tell my opinion and vote? I've been a wikimedian for 15 years, i have almost 150,000 edits globally. this is a ridiculous witchhunt, nothing else... I mostly edit on huwiki and make smaller corrections in enwiki but I have also written dozens of articles here, among them GAs. My opinion doesn't matter because I am usually on an other wiki? Isn't this a global project? Xia talk to me 21:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse keep. I think most of the users listed above (as me) came here to vote because we feel that this is a kind of nationality question around the article and not really about notability. Despite the text is created by a blocked user, puppet or anyone, all the references and statements are correct in it, though they are mostly in Hungarian. I added translations to titles to show that the statements are not exaggerated, she is a very young lady, with outstanding scoring at her age, and did first in history of Hungary as a female driver. Also added a reference of FIA official magazine in English. I must think that all the efforts to eliminate her from enwiki is not what is in her article, but because of something else (nationality?) which is not suported here by proper arguments. That is really "controversial", and not the "keep" result. JSoos (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that suggestion is nonsense, and this may be the first time at WP I ever used that word about another contributor's comment. I and others of the people saying delete have in general been trying as hard as possible to justify the inclusion of as many people and other subjects as possible from geographies where information is difficult for us to source, as well as people in careers that are hard to source. I at least am quite willing to adjust the interpretation of the guidelines of the reliability of sourcing to allow for sources that are as reliable as the subject & place & chronological period allows, though not as reliable as in some more fully covered areas. Your arguments: " with outstanding scoring at her age" is exactly what illustrates the problem. Very rightly for an encyclopedia, we decided way back only actual top-level performance counts, and those who are not yet read for the top leagues are not yet notable. I think exactly the same in my principal area, people with English language coverage who win high school science competitions, and similarly in all areas. Are we to go the route of having notability for various age levels of children? It's reasonable for local newspapers to cover them as "human interest". Temporary human interest of that sort is the antithesis of encyclopedic coverage. An unsupported statement of prejudice because of nationality is the same as an unsupported statement of racism. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG: There was no real discussion of notability (it has been long established in my opinion, and see comments from motorsports editors), and there were no real problems recently with the article content at all, if you are interested in actually commenting the content you shall see the talk page, and respond there, preferably after reading through past comments. I am not sure what is the topic here, since this review is against the policy, it is questioning the judgement of decade-long established editors and generally seem to be a way to unaccept the AfD result in a long fight of I-don-even-understand-what and on what basis. Maybe English speaking people vs. the world, as many suggested. Maybe bad fixation on repeated use of specific policies while forgetting their origial purpose. Maybe abuse of seniority and experience, trying to force through one's will through unending opening of new and new processes onto the others. It is a really toxic behaviour to try to win and argument against a lot of people by process instead of discussion. --grin ✎ 07:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The very purpose of the entire Deletion Review procedure is to question the AfD result through a wider consensus. The individual afds is where people primarily interested in deleting or not deleting a particular article or in a particular subject give their opinion. Usually their opinion holds, but it can be challenged in various ways. One is another Afd--a second AfD is likely to get wider participation--another is a deletion review, which almost always does. The consensus that finally applies in wp is the consensus of the community as a whole. and that of editors in a specific subject only if the general consensus agrees. The purpose of the notability guideline is to produce an encyclopedia with the sort of content that people in general would expect to find in a modern internet encyclopedia, which certainly does include sports at a championship level. -- for special fields, there are an abundance of special wikis and similar forums. DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG: Not really. I hate excessively quoting guidelines, but I find it weird that established editors and regular deletionists seem not to be familar with them.
- Deletion review: "Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions."
- Deletion review may be used: ... I do not quote it since none of them applies.
- Deletion review should not be used:
- because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).
- So, none of the "deletion review may be used" applies and multiple ones of "deletion review should not be used" does.
- Deletion process:
- Alternatives to deletion:
- If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.
- Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, […] Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.
- In certain circumstances, poorly-attended deletion discussion may be treated as proposed deletions (PRODs). [This holds for the "delete" AfD as for example.] […] Once there is an objection or a deletion discussion, a page may not be proposed for deletion again.
- And finally let me quote what I keep repeating, now verbatim:
- WP:DR: Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages. (And I save you from quoting all thoughout WP:EQ and WP:WINNING, which almost entirely relevant to my problem with the attitude of many editors here.)
- So, no, the purpose of Deletion review is not to hold content discussion, nor a blank cheque to try to overturn a deletion discussion without any really relevant (and listed) reasons; and accusations aren't fitting either (and really, at that point a mass apology to the editors in the discussion is sorely missed).
- The AfD is not for and about discussion of the problems of any article, nor for discussion of problems with editors: generally an article touched by established editors shall not be AfD's without relevant discussion, and AfD shall be a result of either a consesus or a failed discussion (or, indeed, many). Failing that is against multiple policies and guidelines, not to mention common sense. A second AfD shall only be opened if either there was a relevant change of affairs or if the discussion needs a wider audience; defintely not for doing it in a narrower audience nor doing it through unacceptable ways of canvassing. Opening repetitive AfDs is against the relevant guidelines, too.
- Mentioning WP:NOTABLE is really improper here: notability discussion is a content discussion which indeed shall be done, and when it was (and it has been done on the talk page and elsewhere) it shall be accepted or contested by logical reasoning, and not by opening an AfD. I am the one continuously requested specifics of content problems and our fellow editors voting for delete and relist here were the ones avoiding those discussions. If you worry about notability first read talk page then reply there, using reasoned arguments, and be open for cooperation.
- Please, read the quoted parts carefully. Understand them. Not only the words, please, but the intents, too. --grin ✎ 20:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist at a fresh AFD per DGG. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There are some surprising contentions made above. It's suggested that my wish to delete this one article arises from some kind of anti-Hungarian prejudice. It's suggested that contributions to the Hungarian Wikipedia are equivalent to the English one, even though hu.wiki has an entirely different culture, different procedures, and different standards relating to notability or inclusion. It's implied that a discussion involving more editors who're brand new to AfD on en.wiki than established editors is perfectly normal and unremarkable, and my suspicions about this are unreasonable. I am very much looking forward to reading the closer's evaluation of these contentions at the end of this debate.—S Marshall T/C 10:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @S Marshall: You seem to be rather unfamilar with the core values of Wikipedia. Indeed, that is surprising. You seem to think that some editors are superior to others, you seem to believe that seniority trumps policies and behavioural guidelines and you seem to believe that you can call people (behind their back, too) "sockpuppets", "meatpuppets" and various other names without any consequence. You also have carefully skipped discussions, ignored very specific questions about your problems and repeated requests to explain your moves instead of continuously attacking people by words or through your actions. --grin ✎ 20:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to knowing the rules, I know how we usually interpret them at present. The rules that apply in WP are the rules as they are in practice interpreted now, not when I joined in 2006 (or you in 2003, or S Marshall in 2004-6). The arguments at most del revs other than complaints about an irregular NAC, are indeed whether the article should (or should not) be deleted. This can be justified when necessary because an afd decision that did not truly represent consensus is an error in the closer's judgment. What truly represents consensus is a matter of indefinite argument, especially when the question is whether to go by special or general consensus. Going by the local afd consensus if it is based on arguments that do not represent basic policy is an error.
- If the problems in an article can be fixed by normal editing, they should be, either in mainspace or if necessary in draft. . If the article is such that normal editing cannot fix it, then it should be removed entirely, and if the subject is actually notable ,started over. Thousands of articles are deleted on this basis every year. . I am not now and have never been a deletionist--quite the opposite. I have always tried to rescue whatever is rescuable, but I accept consensus on what the community has decided should not be rescued. The question of what the community accepts in sports remains undecided, or more exactly, switches back and forth from year to year. AfDs and DelRev are how we find out the current view. I agree the results are erratic, but that's probably unavoidable in WP. DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG: (I would appreciate if you pinged me if there's something I should see.) I understand what you write and I completely disagree. What you describe is actually a bad state of affairs, when some groups of editors form a habit to "interpret" the guidelines in a way diverging from both their words and their intents; this is a well-known and very bad problem on enwiki (and in smaller extents on most of the Wikipedias) and repeatedly have been observed (obviously from the outside) on AfDs and "content-related" "discussions" (which are, often, not about content and are not discussions). Do not take me wrong! It is not about you, nor about the fellow editors here: it is a result of a bad turn somewhere in the past in the fashion/habit/customs people approach everyday tasks and problems. Pepole forgot to assume good faith, people forgot to engage in helpful discussions, people forgot that guidelines are to help to resolve problems not to ignore them, and they are not laws: they are, what they really are: guides. I am sorry if you are protecting these bad habits but in no way am I bound to follow them since neither the purpose nor the way of the guidelines and policies have changed in these regards. I may be even doing a service to remid some of the people here to reconsider their fight, since there shall be no fight at all, not in AfDs nor elsewhere, and knowing the usual process (to delete or to assertively debate deletion) is not enough without an active helping intent, and the only way we do have is the discussion. (And its place is not here, therefore I have to ignore all of your content based comments and remarks, which were discussed already on the talk page [and above].) --grin ✎ 14:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me take each of Grin's points in turn. (1) I do not believe that some editors are superior to others. But on en.wiki, some accounts are superior to others, because it's so easy for one editor to operate multiple accounts. (2) Where an account at COIN or SPI or AN or ANI, there's a requirement to notify those accounts. But deletion review is a review of a debate and a decision -- it is not a forum that can take action against bad faith accounts, and therefore there's no requirement to notify. (3) At DRV, it's helpful for a debate to be reviewed by previously uninvolved people, and a DRV that's punctuated by colossal screeds written by involved parties is much less helpful than a DRV of dispassionate analysis. For this reason I have come to think it's appropriate for a DRV nominator to minimize their participation in the debate that follows. (4) I have found it necessary to share my suspicions about a highly unusual pattern of activity, in a topic area with a long history of conflict-of-interest editing. This necessitates an investigation of accounts and their editing history. Such investigations are a normal, and necessary, part of operating an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, and are not normally understood as an attack on an editor unless they're employed in a retaliatory or vindictive fashion. But if you feel that I'm making inappropriate personal attacks on others, then you are welcome to bring my conduct before our administrators at a different forum. I would welcome this, and if it happens, I shall be quite happy to defend every word that I have written about it.—S Marshall T/C 10:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @S Marshall: I don't think I should give a detailed answer since I disagree almost with everything you wrote, for various reasons (one of them, incidentally, you not following your own advices and start a review of your own AfD instead of letting uninvolved people to do it, and if you see carefully you may notice other familiar names around), and I do not see any way our viewpoints have gotten any closer to one another. Indeed I have considered other dispute resolution steps against your behaviour but I don't believe it could positively change your attitude nor do I need to personally push you towards anything. The AfD was closed, this DR is against the relevant guidelines, it shall be closed and I expect you not to get in contact with this or similar articles unless you plan to extend or develop their contents since it would be really the best for everyone, emotionally and otherwise; and I only strongly hope you will not, ever, start to call established editors "vandal", "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet" without strongly considering whether your better judgment is shadowed by some involuntary inner agenda. --grin ✎ 14:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Grin, As for the article, what I hope will happen is that she will become notable. But as for WP, the rule-bound approach is not the way to go. For AfD, the 4 kye words in the GNG, substantial, reliable, secondary, independent are all of them ambiguous, and for most seriously contested AfDs, they can be interpreted in a way to yield any desired result. They're useful word to have nonetheless, because they focus the argument. But I and probably most people decide holistically, and then argue to convince those who have a fixed idea of the meaning of the criteria. . As for DR, a basic principle of fair process is that all decisions are appealable. So the way I interpret the wording of what counts as a error in closing is justified, if we want it to be, and we generally do. What counts is the basic rule of all, IAR, that the purpose here is to build an encyclopedia , and that if rules interfere, ignore them.Another way of stating it is, we make the rules, and we can make the exceptions. Obviously this kind of argument is dependent on consensus, not individual whim, and that's why we have discussions. No one person's view of what constitutes consensus is final. Every thing you or I or any admin can do can be reversed if the community of interested people decide to do it. (I consider the argument that we cannot do so the analog of the originalist view of interpreting the US constitution. Some support this view, some don't, just as here.. Not everybody agrees in either sphere, but here at least there are not really parties with fixed views, just a somewhat anarchic collection of individuals.) DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG: I gladly discuss our opinions and disagreements about either the process, our views of the process and your apparent difference with written guidelines on various topics but I still do not think this is the right place for it. (Also it's kind of repetitive of me to mention content discussion and talk pages.) If you feel like tell me and we can move over to any suitable page, be that anyone's talk page or an open discussion page about the process itself. As a short summary I can only repeat myself: I disagree with your interpretation and opinion and mainly I believe the opposite is true, and I am pretty convinced that my view aligns with the WMF one as well as with Wikipedia base values. --grin ✎ 08:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've no objections to a relist, especially as it is a NAC, but I find that even if I tossed out every single possible bad-faith/possibly canvassed account we *still* don't reach a delete outcome here. Same thing with the sources. I think there are enough 3rd party sources to get over the bar of WP:N. I could be wrong there, but the discussion of sources in the AfD is very limited... My 2 cents. Hobit (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order: I am one of the "suspicious" accounts listed above. I have not edited Wikipedia for many years, due to unpleasant experiences editing in the past. I usually only browse Wikipedia. I recently became interested in motorsports, specifically Formula One and similar single-seat racing formats that are more popular in Europe, and I was browsing the Wiki article on F1 when I saw a mention of a womens competition to be run as support races this year, called W Series. I read through the Wiki page on that series, and read up about its previous season in 2019. I clicked on the pages of several racers to learn more about them, and I was curious as to why Keszethyi's page was nominated for deletion, it made no sense to me. Reading further, it became clear that the nomination was clearly incorrect, and so for the first time in years I logged into my account and edited the AfD page with my Keep comment, which you can read there. The fact that I had not edited for several years should not be a reason to ignore a good-faith comment that I believe added to the discussion. If you disagree with my contention that this racer is notable, the place to do so would be on my talk page or on that AfD page.
For the record, I have no connection to Keszethyi, to Formula One, to W Series, or to any other racing competition. I am an American, I have no connection to Hungary, except I think one of my great-grandparents might have emigrated from there over a century ago, before WWI at least. Nobody on Wikipedia or anywhere else requested my comments, and I have not discussed this topic with anyone on Wikipedia except for the comments that I left publicly on that AfD page. Thank you, kind sir, for reminding me why I stopped editing so many years ago. I believe that my comment on the AfD page speaks for itself, and the fact that another editor chose to do this rather than address the actual arguments made in favor of Keep speaks for itself as well. I have great difficulty assuming good faith here, based on the ridiculous, baseless, false insinuations made here. Hyperion35 (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry this is such a negative experience. Given the history with the article and the fairly unusual crew this AfD pulled in, I think a certain degree of skepticism is reasonable. But I certainly see how that skepticism looks like an attack on the individuals involved. I'm not sure how to avoid such things while keeping Wikipedia as open as it is to anyone who wants to contribute. Sorry you got caught in that. Hobit (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hobit: How to avoid? For example actually checking the editors on, say, Special:CentralAuth before making accusations? You know, what you just said could be said to probably all of the accused. What does this tell you about the problem? --grin ✎ 20:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hobit: Wikipedia's core rules explain how to avoid such things. Two core rules are "Assume Good Faith", and "debate the content not the editors". Mr. Marshall ignored both of those rules with this DRV. He admits that he chose not to assume good faith, but he defends this by citing the "totality" of the circumstances, even though the only thing that his list of "suspicious" editors have in common is that they chose to vote "Keep" on his AfD. Mr. Marshall has also made no effort to address the substance of the Keep arguments that were made, he merely seeks to disregard almost every Keep comment based solly upon some fact or another about each individual editor. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just for my curiousity I started checking the voters accused above, but had to stop at user:Adumbrativus who was, quote: "an account that was registered this month.". I stopped since that "2 months ago" was on 2018-07-16. Most of the other "sockpuppets" are registered 10+ years ago, many of them admins of some projects. Let this sink in. --grin ✎ 20:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, yes. Although that account's first edit was on 3rd February 2021, I see that it was registered in 2018. I'll correct.—S Marshall T/C 20:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe S Marshall is an administrator of this project (that is not in itself relevant though). I am also concerned that the accounts "investigated" by S Marshall have not had the suspicions backed-up by evidence or further material that would incontrovertibly support the accusations, which remain unfounded and contentious. As this review was initiated on the basis of suspicion and opinion, and that no further information has surfaced to substantiate the claims, I would wonder if continuation of this discussion is beneficial. It seems to have turned more towards character assassinations than discussing the credibility of the article. If there cannot be a definitive means of substantiating the claims raised, and if the consensus of the AfD cannot be disputed, I am unsure why this continues to remain an active discussion. Is it maybe time this was concluded by someone that is entirely uninvolved, who can make a fair assessment of how best to draw a line here? Either way, there will not be an outcome that will satisfy all participants. A relist would surely only exacerbate the existing high tensions and certainly shouldn't be considered solely on the basis of my own admin-free status. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A neutral, previously uninvolved closer will be along shortly.—S Marshall T/C 02:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the closure. (Note: I supported Keep at AfD.) After appropriately discounting the parts of the discussion not based on reasoning, sources, or policy - as the closer should do, and, as one must presume, did do - the result of Keep did not "interpret[] the consensus incorrectly". (See some of mazca's comments.) Nor does an otherwise reasonable decision become a "substantial" procedural error solely because it was made by a non-admin. As for the suggestion that I am a "duck for UPE", I scarcely need to offer a rebuttal. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
