User talk:Fritzpoll/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Re:Want rollback?

Hello, Fritzpoll. You have new messages at Wilhelmina Will's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

close I just noticed

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Bulacan Factory Explosion (Santa Maria, Philippines) 4 keeps, 2 deletes, you closed as delete on Apr 30, without an explanation. I think that in a case like this, when you are going to overrule apparent consensus, it might be a good idea to say why at the close. Could you explain a little further now?DGG (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That does sound a little bizarre - give me 10 minutes and I'll take a look Fritzpoll (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, my apologies for not including more detail in my close - if you examine my history, I'm fond of these even in uncontroversial cases, and can't understand the lapse here. Now to the AfD itself - the apparent consensus was to keep (in terms of counting votes), but I admit to weighting the arguments. Of the four keeps, one was an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, as realised by the editor who made it - that doesn't make it any more valid. Another refers to a supposed weakness of the WP:NOT#NEWS argument, but does so by essentially saying that it is fundamentally invalid because any current event could be deleted in this way. This argument isn't referring to the article per se, but to the policy in general - AfD is not the place to enact changes in policy. Another keep refers to the potential for future notability through criminal investigation - this is also fairly week as it doesn't address the need for the article at this time. On the flipside of the argument, we have a policy of WP:NOT#NEWS and an indication that the news coverage has faded. My judgement was that the balance of argument, when weighed against our policies and guidelines, the result of the discussion favoured deletion.

Stepping back from this and thinking it over, I think it would have closed as keep if you (or another editor) had cited notability, but explained why this article wasn't just a short burst of news events. But that's not a judgement I could make from the discussion in front of me. Happy to answer any and all further questions on this, and am open to cogent arguments to reverse my close. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fritzpoll. You have new messages at Laurent1979's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Laurent (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Transparency Act

I'm glad the closer of this AfD turned out to be you. I would appreciate your considering changing the close from "no consensus" to straight "keep", or permit me to go to DRV, for the following reasons (IMHO):

1. There were zero delete votes after the first half-hour and two comments.
2. All nonaligned parties voted in favor of keep. The final "vote" was 7-2 keep. Most 7-2 discussions are closed "keep", not "no consensus"
3. One of the two "delete" arguments was weakened by having a "merge" component on its face, but the proponent claimed it did not.
4. The argument was further weakened by a lengthy theoretical digression on what constitutes notability for U.S. bills in general, which is thoroughly OR, has no basis in WP practice, and confuses "newsworthiness" with notability as if nonnewsworthiness is a deletion argument, whatever that means.
5. The other "delete" argument claimed that thirty-nine sources, including two Fox News segments devoted to the bill and 25 articles in newspapers, were all nonnotable. I did angle for him to make this argument, just to see if he would, and sure enough he was so committed to his position that he did.
6. Both "delete" arguments were thoroughly addressed by article cleanup and correction of the arguments' errors during the discussion, yet these responses were not reflected in a "no consensus" close.
7. Both "delete" arguments were tainted by poor prior behavior in relation to the Ron Paul topic area, as noted during the AfD, and as I can document further. See top of User:John J. Bulten/Challenges for a taste.

If you ask why I would press for this, "icing on the cake" as it were, when I already succeeded in retaining the article, the reason is that, with some frank emotion, I'm done with this exact same nominator putting up fallacious and puffy arguments time after time and having the articles marked "NCDK" as if his arguments had equal validity with the keep arguments, and this AfD is a particularly telling case of that approach. (His other approach has been to nominate and obtain a deletion when I'm not around.) I had prepared to go to DRV regardless because I suspected that the "NCDK" easy route would be very tempting to the closing admin, but please consider that in this case there really is a clear difference in argumentative weight. If you have any better way to curb the behavior of this nominator, who has been a virtual WP:SPA on this POV-pushing for the past month, or if you feel there really was equal weight from both sides (!), I'm all ears. JJB 02:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The struggle here is the same for a closing admin. The close is based not on the number, but on the strength of argument. The keep side of the argument claims notability without further assertion beyond the sources in the article, and the delete side of the argument breaks the sources listed down with their faults on a point-by-point basis. However, in the cold light of day, and on further review, the consensus appears to be to keep. This is functionally the same as no consensus, but (for the first time since I started closing these) I feel that my close was marginally in error. By the time you finish reading this, you should find that it has changed Fritzpoll (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so kindly! Based on your observation, I guess next time I'll be better off going back to those point-by-point defenses then, with a bit of a sigh. Thanks again for hearing me out. JJB 10:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - it can be a bit of a pest, but you know we can't do a huge amount of our own research when closing, so the rebuttals are needed. :( Fritzpoll (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nom here, I'll probably contest this over at WP:DRV, as JJB played the "Make the AFD as controversial as possible to drive away the neutral AFD participants" card early in this one. Though, as a side note, when it comes to Ron Paul, his supporters have been known to aggressively interpret the truth to meet their goals. If you don't believe me, check JJB's "two Fox News segments devoted to the bill", you'll find that one is a 3rd party account of a newcast and the other is an interview with Ron Paul where the bill is barely mentioned. Burzmali (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure you've got a reason to overturn my close on that basis, which is the purpose of DRV, but please let me know when you have filed. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009. 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. Burzmali (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Frasier

Lookin good. We need to think of a way though to do something about all those unsightly lists in the article though. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - I want to collapse the awards list into prose. I'm going to try and find a comparable FA article on a TV series. So far, I found Cheers, but ended up nomming it for FAR and got it delisted... :-S Any suggestions? Fritzpoll (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Dunno. LOL looks like Derren Brown magically placed himself in an Elizabethan paiting. See File:Cobbe portrait of Shakespeare.jpg Hehe Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Stoddard House deletion

You closed the AfD on Stoddard House in the wrong way, in my opinion, by deleting it. I thot it was going to be kept although material in it would be merged into Oyster Bay History Walk and perhaps it would have been replaced by a redirect eventually. Well, anyhow, now could you please provide a copy of the article and of its Talk page (which I believe should have included an OTRS verification of its content)? Thanks in advance, doncram (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

May I ask for what purpose you intend to use it? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you'd have to know, in order to respond to my request, but I don't mind answering: To use in editing the Oyster Bay History Walk article. In the Stoddard House AfD, it was my position that the material should be used in making a short section in the Walk article. I only captured the picture. A few sentences are needed, for example to state where the house is located. I don't recall fully what was in the deleted article; i do not have access to it. doncram (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've done one better: I've restored the history and redirected the article]. You can now use the info directly from the article - but the catch is you can't edit the page on Stoddard House because I've protected it - you can, however, see the content through the history. I needed to know why you wanted it to see if this was a more appropriate course of action than userfying the content. In my judgement, it is. I hope you agree Fritzpoll (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Footy tipping

I'm a bit confused how you could close the Footy tipping AFD as redirect, when it was only one very persistent nominator and the first respondent saying merge, myself and one other saying keep. Filter out the nominators cross examination of everyone else's opinion and it's not very well discussed - only 3 other opinions. Are you willing or able to relist it or do I need to take it to DRV? The-Pope (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't relist per WP:RELIST, which allows me to relist only if there are only one or two comments, including the nominator. Closing an AfD is, as I'm sure you're aware, not a case of counting up the "sides" of an argument, but examing the relative strength of the arguments within the discussion in relation to policies and guidelines. You and a separate participant argued in favour of retention, but the second editor's argument was not strong in terms of retention, because they believed that sources could probably be found. They did, however, not the possibility of merging the material elsewhere, in line with the nominator and the first participant. As you can see, the redirect has not deleted the history - the material is available to merge from the history of the article, and of course, I am open to suggestions about a more appropriate redirect. Ultimately, however, your argument of demonstrable notability was counted by an unchallenged analysis of their worth in establishing notability per WP:N. From the overview of the discussion, therefore, the weight of argument was not to have the article. My chosen means of doing this was the minimally disruptive one: a redirect/merge of the content to an existing location. If you ahve further questions, please let me know. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Sydney Rae White

I'd like to request the undeletion of the article on Sydney Rae White, which I believe has been prematurely deleted - I do not believe that the case for deletion was proven conclusively, and that notability can still be proven (I was still working on trying to find supporting references to prove notability...). Emma white20 (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are asking me to undo my close of the AfD, I am afraid that on reviewing it, I must decline. The deletion discussion was closed after 7 days and 1 minute exactly, so in time terms was not premature. I am obliged to weight the arguments within a debate, and the inability of participants to find reliable sources to establish notability in some form or another indicates a good reason to delete, rather than unsubstantiated claims of meeting our guidelines. I am happy to reconsider undeletion when you can present me with the supporting references, or alternatively you may advance to have my decision reviewed at WP:DRV, although this will be on the basis of procedure and not necessarily on the validity of your argument from the debate. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollback rights

I'd like to ask you to grant me rollback rights.

The reason I turn to you is because I saw your name in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests and remembered seeing you recently closing some AfD (if I remember correctly).

The reason I'd like to apply for rollback rights is that in the course of my regular wikignoming I revert many edits (generally at least ten a day) that are vandalism or clearly unconstructive, and often these are a series of several edits made by the same user.

I'll be watching this page for your answer. Debresser (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

In view of your silence, I have placed a request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback#User:Debresser. Debresser (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Sydney Rae White

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sydney Rae White. 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.

As the discussion concerning the proposed deletion of this article was still ongoing, I truly believe that your actions were premature (and possibly in violation of policy), and am therefore asking for your decision to be reviewed. Emma white20 (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me which policy you believe I have violated so that I may review your accusation accordingly and see if my actions require altering? I recently spearheaded the change of discussion length to 7 days from 5, so the notion that I am quick off the mark for these things seems a little fanciful. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite simply, I think you ignored the fact that reliable sources had been added to the article, and simply deleted the article based on the arguments on the talk page without checking the article for the presence of accurate sources. And you also ignored the fact that there was a majority in support of keeping the article. Emma white20 (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

As I stated to you in the above section, "majority" means nothing in the absence of reasonable argument, because discussions are closed on the basis of consensus, which relies on the strength of the vote. For further information, I recommend reading the deletion guidelines for administrators, which may explain the way discussions are closed. If I researched the article myself, I'd have an opinion on the article - then I'd be too biased to close the discussion, so I can only rely on things said on the AfD page (with the exception of issues of marginal notability on BLPs). Fritzpoll (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Solstice (film)

I am a fan of the film and Mr. Musatov was a professor at my University. Why is his page suddenly being railroaded and terminated? I am going to rebuild it. He deserves it. Thanks! Solsticefan (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This article still appears to be in existence, and I am uninvolved in its deletion process at this time. Consensus will be judged at the deletion discussion, and appropriate action taken. At present, the discussion seems to be leaning towards keep, although an administrator will make that judgement in a few days. I hope this clarifies things Fritzpoll (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sunday Bloody Sunday

And people say Sundays are supposed to be relaxing. I've had rather a stressful day on here today!! How iz work these days? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP1E in OUTCOMES.

If you don't believe it to be sufficiently common, please stop by Wikipedia_talk:BLP#Premature_BLP1E_AfD.27s and read the discussion and consensus there. Your comments and suggestions there will be welcome, as will any sort of counterevidence you care to present. I'm at a loss to find any recent BLP AfD where this rule of thumb would NOT have held true. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Footy tipping

I would ask you to reconsider your close on this AFD. Two of the three people to argue there argued in favour of keeping a standalone article, and only one asked for it to be redirected. I don't see how this can be considered a "COnsensus ... for the mateiral to be included elsewhere." Even aside from the consensus, redirecting to the Australian Football article is very misleading, because as the article itself said, tipping is conducted on most football codes in Australia, including rugby league, rugby union and A-League football. If it must be a redirect, it shouldn't be a redirect to where you pointed it. I hope you will reconsider your close. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC).

I am in a bit of a rush at the moment, so I hope you won't be offended if I point you a few sections up where DGG asked me to explain the close. As to the target of the redirect, please feel free to suggest alternatives, or just change the redirect yourself. I am happy to respond to any questions you might have once you've read the above, and hopefully we can find some agreement or you can persuade me to change my close. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Weddings

Congratulations mate. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I did start a facebook account under Blofeld so I could see what some of the people who I was in school with are up to these days. I'm not a fan of facebook thats why I never use it! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I rarely use it - I did do an account check a few days ago that trawled through my e-mail inbox and suggested people. Not sure if it did anything without telling me like message you....sorry if it did Fritzpoll (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah me neither. I was wondering if you know how to get an automatic index by default sorting for categories. Is there a way you can get the last name of the page name to automatically feature first in the category sorting? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Your bot request

Hi Fritzpoll I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot 2 is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! --BAGBotTalk 17:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

mediation / third-opinion

I appreciate you trying to help out with this dispute between ikip and AMiB, because it's fundamentally a dispute between inclusionists and deletionists. Both sides have trouble accepting the advice of anyone in the middle, let alone people on either side.

How do you think we should go about getting some independent feedback, and preventing the discussions from spiralling downward into a WP:BATTLEGROUND between inclusionists and deletionists? Randomran (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It is tricky. The only way is to maximise participation - that generally drowns out the extremes. The problem that both inclusionists and deletionists often make is to assume that those are the only two choices. Because the whole thing is shades of grey, more external opinion will give the best outcome for Wikipedia - it can be arranged simply by making a subpage of things to be decided - questions - with pros and cons given equal weight. Then list it at WP:RFC for a couple of weeks and get an admin like User:Sam to close it and see what the outcome is. Need people to agree it's a way forward ideally, otherwise the RfC itself becomes a source of contention Fritzpoll (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I just accepted your RfC request Fritzpoll. Ikip (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That's good news - I have to head off to bed: about 1am where I am! I'll return tomorrow evening and hopefully we can ahck out the questions we need to have answered to let the ARS get on with its work. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope we can collaborate on the RFC and try to frame the issue neutrally, and then let the usual suspects sit out. (Myself included.) I think that will bring a lot of closure to this issue. The AN/Is would be forced to stop after an independent group made some sort of decision. Randomran (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that the question of whether ARS is a WikiProject is still important, but that we also need to single out the issue of notifying ARS members of policy discussions and the like. Maybe you could pull the issues apart? I'm on my way to bed, and your neutrality would only help make sure its done properly. Randomran (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

My BAG membership nomination passed today at 8/0/0 unanimously. I sincerely thank you for participating in my BAG request. I appreciate all the kind words that I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the WP community has placed in me....Have a nice day. :-) -- Tinu Cherian - 09:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

fritzpollbot geographic places

what happened to the original intention to create articles for every place in the world? I thought it was a great idea, and it seems the bot was approved, however no action seems to have been taken? what is the deal? regards Suicup (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belgium–Ukraine relations

Can you make a decision and close this please?Dr. Blofeld (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Bleurgh - actually re-read it, and closed. Nice work Fritzpoll (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's due for DYK in a few days time and it needn't have gone on any longer. just another example of how so many people confuse notability with lack of content. If I hadn't have stepped in it would have been snowball deleted..Dr. Blofeld (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we've reached a point of WP:ABF on this kind of article, where people just assume them to be non-notable and don't do the checks that they might otherwise do. Good work on the article - seems to have been a net benefit, although I may get slated for the close. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't know why you would get slated, the outcome was clear. If you closed the Bulgaria-::Indonesia relations article now then you indeed might. Hey I've been asking for random images from flickr of late asking people to change the license. We now have an image for an article I started yesterday, Moni Gonia Monastery, Haifa Wehbe (which is EXTREMELY difficult to get a non commercial image of) and Charley Boorman, not one but several!Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I even managed to get a guy on flickr to crop off one of his images of Russ Malkin you know the producer of the Boorman/Ewan McGregor series and he repuploaded it under a free license. Good?Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Fritzpoll, you are such a good negotiator, maybe you can intervene in these deletions. Which are now irrelevant because I have started the difficult process of merging these articles.

One editor who put these articles up for deletion gave me a barnstar, and two other editors who tended to delete these articles have been very supportive of this merge, one even assisted yesterday in the merge.

I asked for two things: I need a couple of things from you guys, one, cease the AFDs. Two, I need help doing this. I have gratefully gotten help from one editor who tends to delete thus far, but the AFDs have not stopped to my knowledge... Ikip (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Funnily Ikip I was about to ask Fritz the same thing, See User talk:John Carter#Bilateral relations.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm at work at the moment, so my wiki-time is a little limited, and I have wedding planning things this evening - I will, however, come and look at this stuff tomorrow morning. I hope that will be soon enough? Fritzpoll (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Peace
		The Barnstar of Peace is awarded to users who have helped to resolve, peacefully, conflicts on Wikipedia. This Barnstar is awarded to Fritzpoll for his tireless efforts on negotiating peace on Article Rescue Squadron. On behalf of not only the article rescue squadron, but also the new users who regularly have their contributions deleted, thank you for your dedication. Ikip (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Alexis Grace

Hi, I wanted to ask you if it would be possible to quit the redirection from the article Alexis Grace. I think that it is a very reliable and notable person. Also all the other contestants have an article, why Alexis doesn`t have one? I would be grateful if you do this. Facha93 (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

She doesn't because the article was deleted via an article for deletion. Articles such as that can't be recreated unless the subject shows notability that didn't exist when the article was deleted. I didn't agree with the people who voted for deletion but it's legitimate. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 02:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much per Woohookitty. I closed a deletion discussion, which determined that Alexis shouldn't have an article. This has been raked over several times, and my decision has been reviewed repeatedly. I have no personal thing about Alexis Grace, since I don't even know who she is, but my "job" here is to close discussions and then enforce the result to the best of my ability. The redirect is there to help readers get to useful information on Alexis. Woohookitty - what about a list article? List of American Idol contestants (season 8)? Then we could userfy the data on Alexis and get it included somewhere and you wouldn't have to clutter up the main article. Just a thought. Fritzpoll (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There's been some talk about that on the AI8 page. The consensus seems to be that it just simply wouldn't be necessary because these people simply aren't notable. But I'm sure it'll come up again. We do something similar with AI's "sister show", So You Think You Can Dance. My issue with it is that articles like that tend to be very poorly sourced so they end up being basically lots of fancruft. But the idea itself isn't a bad one at all. This is sort of what I mean. 4 references for that entire list. So the idea is fine but the execution in similar cases hasn't been very good. Things might be better for Idol because Idol is reported on more than Dance but still. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess the hope is that the old content has enough sourcing for a good start. Maybe it's something to do once the contest is over and the news and fandom dies down a little bit? Fritzpoll (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'd agree with that. I think part of the issue users like Facha93 have is that they feel like something should be on the site somewhere and I understand that. It's a bit "all or nothing" otherwise. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well, I'd feel the same in a way. I'm neither deltionist or inclusionist - some things should have articles, some things shouldn't, and some things shouldn't have articles, but should have the material included elsewhere is my view. We'll revisit this at a time of your choosing Fritzpoll (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. Alexis definitly deserves an article for itself, as it says on Wikipedia:WikiProject Idol series all the finalist are notable for having an article. I consider you should read this. Also I think Alexis is more notable than Jorge Nuñez or Jasmine Murray and both of them have an article for themselves.Facha93 (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I do understand how you feel - but I am literally just a bloke with some buttons. The decision was made by discussion, and I'm not going to unilaterally overturn a consensus of a group of people. The guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Idol series are irrelevant for two reasons: one, they are not Wikipedia guidelines - they can't overrule Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, or on our policies concerning living people who may only be marginally notable. Your other argument is best summed up as one of our "arguments to avoid" - other stuff exists. Consistency is not always a strong point around these parts. But in the fullness of time, I'm sure we'll get there - perhaps with a list article, perhaps not. Sorry that I can't be of more help - any more questions, please ask, but I won't re-fight the AfD on behalf of the participants of the original discussion. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

What about if they do another votation now so it is decided if the article should remain or not. I think now Alexis would win an article because she is more notable now than when the show started.Facha93 (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Such a review has already been undertaken, with no consensus to restore the article. Cna you tell me what additional notability she has gained since her expulsion from the competition? Ideally with sources? If you can give them and they are satisfactory, I'll restore the article Fritzpoll (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

She was on Ellen DeGeners Show and appeared on Live With Regis and Kelly singing Never Loved A Man. 190.134.4.194 (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography/Bot

Mind if I undelete this, in the interest of preserving historical discussions? It can be marked with {{historical}} or somesuch, but there's no need to remove the history from public view. Thanks. seresin ( ¡? )  00:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

By all means Fritzpoll (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this

While I cannot speak for all members, I certainly do not view you as "an enemy". That is why in my support in that thread, my appeal is that we not lose focus on our primary objective of rescuing articles, rather than on accusing anyone of anything. I and I hope my colleagues do not and should not regard your good faith comments there as adversarial. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making that clear - as I have articulated to you before, I think article rescue is the main aim of that project, and should continue to be so. I do, however, think that a lot of time can be lost in the long run if disputes are left to fester and resurface. I also think that by avoiding the issue, ARS may invite external comment more wide ranging than that specified in the proposed RfC, and lose a lot more time. Nonetheless, thank you for making your position clear and for the kind comments - you were not one of the editors I was thinking of. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome and I similarly appreciate your clarification above as well. All the best! --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Your bot request

Hi Fritzpoll I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot 2 is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! --BAGBotTalk 04:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Help at an SFD

Hi Fritz - is there any chance I could ask you to close an old SFD? It's festering a little (the creator of the stubs is, a bit fractious, to put it politely), but both Pegship and Grutness have been involved in the debate so neither of them wants to close it and I also am active in the group so it's best somebody outside of the group closes it. It's at Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2009/April/19. Cheers.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fritzpoll. You have new messages at OlYeller21's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OlYeller^Talktome 15:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd

Can you please tell Abd to get off of my talk page and not return? I have given him carte blanche to file whatever motions or whatever he wants without notifing me - in fact, I have done this twice.

[1][2]

Abd must stop using my talk page, and he must stop now. Can you make this happen? Hipocrite (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A bot request

Hi Fritzpoll, I have a bot request that maybe you'd be interested in! (It's at least marginally related to the failed geobot, in that it targets expansion in areas that are systemically undercovered.) I've twice proposed at WP:BOTREQ a bot that would help fix up translation requests. The first time no one answered, and the second time LegoKTM said he'd do it but never did. :( (When I followed up on his talk page he didn't reply.) If you have spare time and an inclination to help, it would be much appreciated. The last bot request is at Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_26#Fixing_broken_translation_requests. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking into it now, but please be prepared for a few days' delay. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. Thanks for your help! I was thinking also I might merge all the templates into one (like {{Transreq}} which is under construction) so it's of the form {{transreq|fr|articletitle}} - hopefully changes like this would be pretty trivial in terms of thinking about the bot. If you think not let me know so I can decide about the template merger first! Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nagatachō Strawberry merge

The content of Nagatachō Strawberry could be merged to Mayu Sakai. Could you restore the old revisions, restore to my user space, email me the content, or just paste it in Mayu Sakai? --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That Userfy to your user space. Don't forget to stockpile in your user space all the references mentioned during the Afd. There is higher probability that it will be published in Europe rather in the US as the author's Rockin' Heaven is being released there. So more potential of RS Third party coverage from there in the future. --KrebMarkt 07:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done - userfied, and replied about this at Apoc's page. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nicely Done

Hi, good day! Just want you to know that I salute you for weighing things without prejudice just like what you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masalipit‎. :) I realized I should not be hasty to vote for a delete or a keep just because it is on AFD. I should have voted for a redirect because this is an option too. You have become my inspiration when I read your verdict to redirect this article to its parent article.

I hope I can be an inspiration to others too, someday! :) Again, thanks for that and kudos to you! ax (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Why was this put up for AFD? Has wikipedia improved since you made the decision to redirect here. What was the point in doing this? Now we have no information and a faulty link in the main article leading nowhere. If nothing existed on it, why was there so mucb information available on it which seemd like government sources? I see there is some sort of agreement than barangays are non notable on wikipedia. I wonder why it is then that we can have long well referenced on other similar sized areas of other countries. Seems odd to me that these should be exempt. Might be time to adress the inherent notability of places again as I don't see why the Philippines is unique. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As his verdict says: "In the interests of WP:PRESERVE, I have chosen to redirect the article, and this should be maintained until such time as notability can be established." I don't see any problem with an article being preserved until notable references are gathered. Wolud you mind to cite those much information government sources you are referring to? ax (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I knew this would inevitably cause problems. I can't judge an AfD on arguments of inherent notability because the consensus process is designed to judge discussions on the weight of arguments pertaining to policy and guideline interpretations. As there is no such thing as inherent notability, then I can't weight that argument too heavily. I think the issue should be reconsidered, certainly, but I am not meant to map my personal opinions when closing a debate like this and AfD isn't the place to decide policy. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The inherent notability of geographical places needs addressing because previously the geo article just needed to be verifiable conform to notability. I'm not saying I agree with either notion as content and sources are the real decider to notability but we seriously need to address this as localities in the Philippines should not be considered any different to anywhere else in the world. When we have full articles on things like old barns in tiny villages in the U.S. it makes one wonder why one is notable yet an area of another country isn't. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there is little or no consistency, partly because in the past people just assumed that locations were inherently notable. Since the original FritzpollBot discussion, it appears that this status quo is challenged more and more, and since it has no grounding in our policies and guidelines (simply in a few essays), AfDs where anyone says "delete" are going to force closing admins to give pause and consider. Problematic, but the proposed guideline on the issue has not gained any traction. The question is, how do we determine notability of settlements? Arbitrary stats, substantial mention in RS? Problematic at best. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree Fritz. But the fact is in general a lot of people consider places "inherently notable" and most geo articles are kept if verifiable, evne if sources are lacking. Personally I don't agree with inherent notability either as I said it is content and coverage in reliable sources which makes an article worthy. The problem of course is that we may have hundreds of sources about an old barn in the states yet may not have a single rleiable online source about a district in the developing world for sinance. Potentially a lot could be written about most places but in light of this particular AFD and the decision to redirect I think this issue really needs to be looked into. All I know is that encyclopedia suitable information exists for this place and whoever wrote it found the information somewhere. Did anybody ask the creator the source the article first? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Where do we start? How about we start on some arguments in a private part of our userspaces, and gradually invite more people along and try to establish some kind of guideline along the lines of N, or determine if we need something distinct from the GNG? Fritzpoll (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, its long been a very obsure part of wikipedia policy. People generally take for granted that all geographical articles are notable, this is why we have articles on tiny fishing hamlets in Nunavut and Nova Scotia etc and in the UK etc. The fact is that it is only "potentially" we could have articles about any villages or hamlet worldwide and some places you could probably indeed summarise in the parent municipal article etc. We have articles on sub districts of most world cities and a lot of towns, 2,235 people apparently live in this district so how do we make a formal decision over notability when we have articles on dwellings with 3 people and articles on barns like Smith Tobacco Barn? If it is based purely on rleiable publications covering the topic then obviously the main issue is uneven access to knowledge with the developing world against "westernized" nations. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is that the western world documents things like this a lot better than poorer nations for obvious reasons. Of course, that's arguably also true for their famous people, singers, etc. who we know nothing about because it isn't written down. The question then becomes one of things like "do atlases count as sources to establish notability?", which has received a resounding no in recent times. I'm sure geographers must have some concept of significant dwellings; I wonder if we can borrow them and manipulate them somehow? Fritzpoll (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the problem is that in the end a tiny barn in the middle of nowhere in the states which has sources and registry as a historic place is kept whilst a district with 2235 people living it is considered not because of the uneven lack of access to knowledge. Is this barn considered more notable than this barangay, a human settlement with over 2000 people? Tough subject to evaluate. The argument against having articles on barangays seems to be largely about they are "too small" to be worthy of note and lack of sources online anyway. The thing is we have pretty decent articles on tiny hamlets far small than these barangays which have an abundance of sources and even tiny buildings like windmills and barns etc but these aren't considered too small to be worthy of note. In the end it does come down to systematic bias as I'd bet my kitty's right knee that in the real world a place with 2235 people could easily be made notable on here if the sources existed. If I managed to visit a library in the Philippines for instance now and found a number of reliable publications to write a full article on it would the article then be considered of note? I remember somebody also brought up the subject of Frazioni in Italy, villages in communes. In a lot of cases it is definately better to fill out the articles on these communes fand municipalities in places like philippines and Italy first before creating articles about villages within them but as wikipedia grows I can see us having articles on them eventually. It would seem to be dependent on web coverage and the amount of users working on developing such topics. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This problem is what indefinitely postponed the original work of FritzpollBot - Sam required us to consider making full articles only on notable areas. Unforutnately, there is no guidance for notability of settlements, so we fall back on the GNG. It is quite unsatisfactory - how do you think the community would handle different definitions for different continents? A little more liberal on those areas with poor access, and less liberal on the Western world? (me ponders) Fritzpoll (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know. It wasn't so much a decision based on notable areas though it was more on starting articles with adequate sources and information which was the problem, particularly for developing countries. If we do propose to revamp the criteria it will have to go on hold as right now I have an FAC on my hands and anticipate quite some work in next few days and am also have ing Internet connection problems darn it! Hope you are well. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 23:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If I may add to the discussion, I think the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of articles on U.S. places is because of Rambot's work back in 2003. As such, this "inherent notability" of populated places is now partly based on fait accompli of this bot work. I seriously think that the presence of such U.S. articles has been strongly used to argue for inherent notability of populated places elsewhere in the world regardless of whether they pass WP:N or not.

Smith Tobacco Barn is a poor example since it is part of the U.S. Registry of Historical Places which provides a good reason as to this building's notability.

As for the concern that there is now an uneven coverage of similarly sized places across the world, the argument that we increase coverage in the developing world can be turned upside down: why don't we instead decrease the coverage in the Western world and only retain the truly notable ones? In addition, the WikiProject Philippines community has an uncodified consensus that only notable barangays should have articles. Filipinos would be one of the best judges at whether barangays, in general, are notable and we have decided that they are not "inherently notable".

--seav (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Rapp

I knew I supported your RfA for a reason... oh wait, I opposed didn't I ;-) Anyway, I wanted to say that I think this was the right call.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, two positive comments about my AfD closes in a single day....this must be some terrible portent! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm starting an ANI report next ;-) ---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's more like it :) Fritzpoll (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Scott Campbell (blogger)

Hi there. I'm not looking to get contentious, but I was hoping I could get some clarity on why you felt the sources provided did not satisfy WP:RS.

Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Casting my mind bakc to yesterday, and in a cursory glance at the AfD, I recall there being concerns over the reliability of blog postings as reliable sources, and that the more reliable sources provided did not meet the criterion of significant mention of the subject required by WP:N. No worries about asking questions, by the way - that's what the talk page is for! :) If I can help in any other way, or if you have something further to add, ping me another - I do occasionally reassess AfD closes in light of subsequent comments (albeit quite rarely) Fritzpoll (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Where are your breaks!

So when is your wikibreak going to be over?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A few days. I consider a wikibreak largely to be when I'm not doing article work, and am just casually nosing about. If I actually leave, I tend to leave a message as to why. Quirky, but true. Apologies for the confusion!! Fritzpoll (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Masalipit

I disagree with your close of that Afd - I think that if a national census agency keeps track of these places, as the US does with census-designated places that were mass created by bot without any sourcing but the census data on the shared notion that these places are notable, per se. If a national government tracks these entities (barangays in this case), they are notable enough. I suggest that you re-evaluate your close to keep. Enjoy your wikibreak. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the reasoning given by Fritzpoll was very well thought out. A comparison with US CDPs is essentially a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which per se is not a valid deletion reason (and I have not seen you give a convincing other reason). In addition, the claim that because articles on US CDPs are notable is simply based on the notion of WP:INHERENT, which is just an essay and not a guideline. Fritzpoll evaluated his closing decision on an actual guideline, WP:N. So I think the closing reason is good. --seav (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Carlos - based on your comments in the AfD, I expected you to be unhappy with this close, and I have some empathy for your position based on the history of such articles at AfD. I refer you to two sections above on this page, where Blofeld and I have a brief discussion about notability, and I explain the problems of the non-codified nature of the concept of inherent notability. I believe we have to try to settle this issue - when I have asked the community from time-to-time if settlements are inherently notable, I have found there to be no consensus that they are. And beyond the essays lying around the place, there is nothing for me, as an AfD closing admin, to point at to re-weight comments in a discussion when "delete" !votes are cast. I invite discussion on this matter here, in the hope that we can eventually form some guideline to the satisfaction of all sides - but this will be a relatively lengthy process and is fraught with problems (as Blofeld and I explain above), especially if parties still cling to the blanket of "inherent notability" for which I doubt we will have any consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is no consensus, the default is to keep the article. Re-close as no consensus or we'll widen the debate at WP:DRV. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

When he meant 'no consensus,' he is referring to the argument 'settlements are inherently notable' and not on the AFD review. ax (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That is indeed what I meant - the consensus at the AfD as I assessed it is stated at the AfD. My reference to "no consensus" above is in reference to the wider meta-debate about inherent notability Fritzpoll (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The odd thing about the barangays though is that most of Wp:Philiippines or whatever project they have running seem to be very against having articles on them. A rough math is that if the municipalitiy covers 231 km2 and there are 49 barangays then on average a barangay will be 4.7 km 2. Pretty small, equivalent to a small district of any town. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to interject here. Barangays are indeed very small and usually consist of only several blocks of streets in urban areas (larger in rural areas) and are more like sub-neighborhoods in a city. Administratively, they function more like electoral districts and are geographically equivalent in the U.S. to census tracts. I don't think we have articles on census tracts in the U.S. unless they're notable in some fashion. --Polaron | Talk 16:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought Polaron. We of course have articles on main districts of major cities and towns but not sure about the status on sub neighbourhoods in relatively unknown municipalities in such countries from a world viewpoint. Perhaps the fact that Filipinos on here or people who live in the Philippines indicate they aren't notable maybe we should trust their judgement, after all a lot of them are on wikipedia to oftne improve our coverage of the country and if they disapprove of having them then maybe there is a clear reason. They are mentioned in government publications which as Carlos says is normally a claim to notability but not easy to judge. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• • • A couple of points: (1) consensus at the AFD is not consensus at Wikipedia - precedent and policy matter too; (2) according to the Encyclopedia Brittanica: Barangays typically developed as separate villages and the Spanish "retained the barangay as their basic unit of local administration in the islands."[3] - the basic unit of local administration in every other country is deemed notable by the community; (3) the result that was obtained has dumbed down WP - it's currently a redirect "until notability has been established" does adding the next source do it? who decides? does it go to DRV to be decided or does the person who reverts to re-implement the close go to ANI? All the close did was to remove verified (and lots of unverified) material from the wikipedia and redirected it to an article without that sourced information. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

      Indeed, I agree - policy and guidelines matter, and an AfD close is to be assessed in reference to them, which is why admins are selected on the basis (supposedly) of their understanding of policies and guidelines. So, Carlos, the deletes say "doesn't meet GNG", which is a guideline to be assessed. You cite an essay or two, but where are the policies and guidelines that say I'm to discard the GNG from consideration in AfDs such as this? As to your third question, you can ask me, or another admin or some other suitable group. I closed, not on my own personal preference, but on the interpretation of policies and guidelines and the according weight of opinion in the discussion. If you can give me a policy or guideline in support of inherent notability, I will happily overturn the close myself. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Masalipit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Masalipit. 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. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Scott Campbell (blogger)

Hi there. I'm not looking to get contentious, but I was hoping I could get some clarity on why you felt the sources provided did not satisfy WP:RS.

Sorry. — Rihanoooo1191 (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the bad comment but I was mad because it took me long hours to gather the information and editing the article, it was very tedious work and I did it in good intentions and to benefit the many people that needed the information on that article, sorry for the vandalism but as I said before I was extremely estressed out and angry because I edited that article, I've been reading alot about the deletion of the artcicle and I understand some things, but I mean it doesn't hurt anybody so why delete it? The website where the information came from doesn't keep the information, it deletes it after some time and I thought Wikipedia was a good source to keep that information and after the years go by people could still read it and research it so that's why I recorded that information here, I hope you can excuse my bad language and vandalism but please understand my point. Thanks and best wishes. AfD closes in light of subsequent comments (albeit quite rarely) Rihanoooo1191 (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

So much of which to keep track....

Yes, per your kind offer at the AfD, please userfy the article to User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Sergio D. Acosta. I expect to be able to find more and get this back to main pages in a month of three. Will I have to go throuh DVR since I will be then recreating a deleted article? I'd hate the drama that could arise. Or will it serve to have you recheck it at that time? Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me recheck it - if it's substantially different, then WP:CSD#G4 doesn't apply, so you could theoretically go for it without me. On the other hand, it might be worth getting a neutral set of eyes on it to make sure it doesn't fall foul of the AfD arguments, which would inevitably cause drama! I'll bluelink your requested userfication target in due course. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Just got home and found the bluelink. Thank you. I will keep you apprised, as I appreciate the faith you have in my abilities. Good editing, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fritzpoll. You have new messages at Eugene Krabs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Eugene Krabs (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD closing

I highly disagree with your decision to close List of Latin American Jews as "keep" instead of "no consensus," and disagree even more vehemently with the closing comment "No deletion argument referring to our policies or guidelines, and arguments that only seem to be extensions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT."

I would wish you to review the closure more closely and mark it as either a "no consensus" or re-open it for an extended period of time with more neutral participants - or at least participants who do not WP:WIKISTALK me to AfDs simply to !vote opposite: (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani). Please see the long history of problems WP:V and WP:RS with both User:Hmains and User:Badagnani on List of X-American articles.

What guidelines/policies are discussed in my deletion argument:

• WP:V - I stated that the lists are "unsourcable," with links that have absolutely no references in Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources or no references at all.
• WP:NOT - The lists have existed for years, unverified, with nobody willing to step up because there are no reliable sources. The lists are used as repositories for unverifiable additions. Advertisements. Family members. Etc.
• WP:BLP - Many of the accessable names are alive and do not fit the categories that are claimed of them. (i.e. Joaquin Phoenix, David Blaine)
• WP:RS - Almost all of the sources that do exist are either broken links (like [4]) or blog-like websites like [5]

Now what guidelines/policies were discussed by the "keep" arguments? None, they boil down to...

• Lists are acceptable mediums on wikipedia

I don't see how this is an argument for keeping "this" particular group of lists.

• Stop being disruptive

Why is it disruptive to put up an Afd on such a cumbersome article?

Please consider re-opening this Afd or at least reviewing it in more detail. There were very few participants to begin with, typically an Afd is given an extension period when that situation comes about. Bulldog123 21:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, no one ever adressed the issue I raised, which is, what exactly is the point of such lists? If I have to quote a WP policy, how about WP:NOTDIRECTORY? Specifically "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", and "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations"? Just because I expressed that I don't like it, does not mean I do not have a legitimate argument on other grounds. --Susan118 ^talk 22:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

{{doing}} - reviewing this, and will make a statement shortly Fritzpoll (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You have both come to my page to argue for deletion using arguments not expressed or articulated during the debate itself. Unfortunately, my powers of internet telepathy fail me when closing AfDs, and I am unable to assess consensus based on anything than what is written in the debate :) The problem is, that your arguments at the AfD were not policy-based: one of you argued that the lists were not being cleaned up. That's not a deletion reason per WP:DEADLINE. Material that's unsourced and requires a source can be removed. WP:BLP is not applicable, per se, because this is not an article about living people, and noone has asserted that there are unsourced negative statements placed in these lists - and if there were, it could be removed. Finally, deadlinks are a pain on Wikipedia, I'll admit, but then replacements should be searched for.

Basically, the problem is that you didn't highlight any argument of substance within the debate, so the keeps didn't have to say a lot - there wasn't much to argue against: it is up to the nominator to justify deletion, not for others to justify inclusion in the absence of deletion arguments of merit. Consequently, your arguments carried little weight, and following the deletion guidelines for administrators, I closed as keep. Relisting the AfD would be unacceptable per the restrictive conditions of WP:RELIST. Suggest that if you find all those things wrong with the article, you clean it up. Happy to answer further civil enquiries to my page, or if you believe I have made a process error (not to reargue the AfD comments) you may wish to consider WP:DRV - please notify me if you do, per the listing instructions there. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

David Stack AFD

In reading the AFD, did you notice that many of the participants failed to understand the use British academic titles? British understatement results in titles like Senior Lecturer, Tutor, etc. being quite prestigious. Also he authored three notable books not one (all published in 3rd party sources and found in libraries around the world). Publishing this many books is in fact somewhat rare among academics and qualifies per WP:CREATIVE. Would you consider closing it as no consensus? --Firefly322 (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Being both British and an academic, I am aware of our diminuitive titles :) I will review this in due course and get back to you. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed this. I discounted comments relating to misunderstandings about the fact that what we in Britain call a "lecturer" would be called "Professor" in many parts of the United States in the original close, but I still see consensus that deletion is the correct course of action. WP:CREATIVE does not seem to have been raised previously so I can't really suddenly unilaterally apply it, and I am skeptical that he would qualify if they are "factual" texts. Persuade me? Fritzpoll (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

MARC MYSTERIO

HI,

THIS KWW EDITOR APPEARS TO BE ATTACKING MARC MYSTERIO, HIS ARTICLES, AND SONGS FOR NO REASON...

THE CHARTS NOTED ARE NOTABLE AND INCLUDED ACROSS WIKI...

THE LET LOOSE SONG ARTICLE WAS JUST DELETED, AND WITHOUT JUST CAUSE...

IT LEGITAMATELY CHARTED IN UKRAINE... HOWEVER, THESE BOZOS THAT KNOW NOTHING OF MUSIC BUSINESS WANT TO STIR SHIT...

FDR CHART, THAT IT... THE ONLY CHART IN UKRAINE..

NOW, THEY WISH TO ATTACK HIS OTHER SONG, ROLL WIT IT...

THAT SONG CHARTED ON THE CANADIAN CLUB AND DANCE NATIONAL CHART, WHICH IS COMPILED BY ZIP DJ...

I DONT HAVE TIME OR CARE AT THIS POINT... ILL LEAVE IT WITH YOU...

IM IN THE MUSIC BIZ FOR 20 YEARS, AND NEVER DEAL WITH SUCH A BULLSHIT SITE AS THIS ONE THAT PEOPLE LEND CREDIBILITY TO THAT DELETE A JUSTFULLY NOTABLE SONG AS LET LOOSE...

Pretty straightforward problem, and not much for you to do. Marc Mysterio is a performer of marginal notability whose accomplishments can easily be covered in one article. Instead, there were articles created for singles of dubious notability. These songs have only charted in obscure charts that no one can verify, and the anon that is screaming above has been unable to provide any reliable sourcing to document the nature and reliability of those charts. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roll Wit It‎ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let Loose (Marc Mysterio song) document the discussion.—Kww(talk) 10:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 Tamil diaspora protests, 2009 Tamil protests in Canada AfD closing

Hi there, I just wanted to bring up an issue with your decision to Close the Tamil Protest AfD by merging all the articles into the main. While I would mostly agree with your opinion that there is a consensus to merge the articles for the protests in each country, there seems to have also been a strong thread of opinion that the 2009 Tamil protests in Canada and possibly the British article were large enough to stand on their own and should not be merged into the main page. So, I'd just like to ask that you take a second look at the discussion in the AfD and reconsider blanking and redirecting the Canadian article. Thank you Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is problematic, and is the problem when there are multiple articles in a single AfD. Really, this should have been an AfD on the main article, and then a merge discussion, but we are where we are! I didn't find a sufficiently strong thread of argument to pick those articles out - there were suggestions of variously retaining Norway, UK and Canadian protests, but not enough in depth commentary on these courses of action. However, there is consolation: a merge/redirect decision is really only advisory at AfD unless explicitly stated to be otherwise. That is, you can override the AfD with another local consensus - I'd suggest going to the main article, linking to the last full revision of the Canadian article and discussing it being retained as a spinout with a {{mainarticle}} link in the central article. If there is silence or agreement after a week or so, feel free to revert the redirection, and link to a diff of this statement of mine as justification. I know this means a few more days in limbo, but is much less dramatic than the alternatives, though you are free to pursue a review of the close if you wish, but I'm unwilling to change it at this time. Hope that helps, and I'm happy to discuss further Fritzpoll (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That works for me. I'll give it a shot. Thanks for the quick response. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, and I hate being critical, but I don't think you made the right call. There were clearly more editors speaking in favour of a general keep (which, absent any indication to the contrary, meant keep all the articles listed), or in favour of a limited merge, than those who spoke in favour of a merge of all the articles. I count 11 editors to 7 (recognizing while I write this that an AfD discussion is not a vote). Moreover, three editors (including myself) spoke in favour of retaining the Cdn article in the event of a keep and merge, and no one directly rebutted the points made in favour of that position (one editor suggested keeping Norway, but others did suggest the less developed articles, including Norway, be merged). More people spoke in favour of a position that would have kept the Canadian article separate, so I find it confusing that you would suggest that there was no enough in depth commentary on that course of action. I know it's a judgment call that you made, that a closing admin is often in an unenviable position (you can rarely please everyone) and it's easy for people like me to criticize after the fact. Sadly, however, I think we now face the possibility of another lengthy and contentious discussion, this time over demerging (I hope I am wrong). Given the length of the Canadian section in the now-merged article, it's a no-brainer candidate for an article split, but this could me messy and demerging may not be as easy as you suggest above. Just my two cents. Best regards, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware then content merge has not taken place. Sorry you feel that way, but it is a pain when multiple articles are nominated simultaneously - what is obvious to you is not obvious to someone else within the debate, etc. I doubt demerging will prove too difficult - let me know if there are any problems, and I will help out. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Re the Discrimination against ethnic minorities in Estonia

Hello, I've been contributing to the article much during the last several days, and I can say there's definitely much more data from reliable sources on the subject that that can be presented in one paragraph of the current redirect. The problem with WP:FORK argument is that the article Discrimination against ethnic minorities in Estonia gave more sourced data and analysis than the current section. Maybe we could instead rename the article as it is into something like "Rights of ethnic minorities in Estonia" and then continue the work? For the AFD discussion started the same day the article was created, and there was just absolutely not enough time for the completion of the article. How can we just through out a dozen of sources saying the minorities rights in a country are limited? FeelSunny (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by what you're saying - why not just merge the information from the article history (I didn't delete the above article) into the section at the human rights article? When the material there is excessive, and there is consensus to do so, this section may eventually be spun out into its own article. You're right that the current article has little information - so merge the material from the original! If I can help in any other way, please let me know Fritzpoll (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I really do not think that incorporating the article content into one paragraph will be feasible. Moreover, the same users that have voted for deletion would surely resist every info add, and there are much more policy guidelines thay'd use beyound just absense of RS for every sentence (actually, every sentence in the article had them). I am sure the users will try to delete every single fact I'd add for the sake of "POV balance" - for if you, say, write of blacks segregation in US in the 50ies, you disregard a balance, they think. After using this pretext, they will turn to "article readability concerns", I am sure. They will delete sourced data claiming it is unnecessary and makes the article bulky. I can try this with any of the tables ready for the article, e.g. comparing wages, education level, work positions of minorities and Estonians, etc. Than, I would try to respond that they themselves made the proper article be deleted, but there would be no reaction from them. And behind all this fuzz, the only reason is they desperately fight for their own POV - without presenting any RS's for it. This is just the way the things go with matters like this.

But anyway I will try to add the data into that article. If it fails, I'd have to create some other article with corresponding name, not implying anything particular about Estonia. Anyway, thanks for your decision, and I do understand it's not easy to moderate so many discussions and get involved in so many arguments that you did not start.FeelSunny (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No need to incorporate it into a single paragraph - the section will do, and that can be fairly extensive. In flight, so I will look at the rest in due course Fritzpoll (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination in Estonia

Thanks for finally closing the debate. It was getting a bit out of hand. (Igny (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

You wrote on my page ...

... that I have not notified you of three deletion reviews. All three are on your page. I am not sure why you don't see them displayed. I can see them, the last one is just two messages up, can't you see it?. Notifications:

1. 09:07, June 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Fritzpoll ‎ (==Deletion review for Azerbaijan–Spain relations==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Azerbaijan–Spain relations. 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. )

1. 17:57, June 6, 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Fritzpoll ‎ (==Deletion review for New Zealand – Pakistan relations==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of New Zealand – Pakistan relations. 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. )

1. You misunderstand - I know I was notified of the DRVs, but that is not meant to be the first I hear of an issue with my close, per the instruction I copied onto your page from WP:DRV Fritzpoll (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Do I have this right?

As you can see, I disagree with you, but this whole process seems byzantine even by wikipedia standards. If i've interpreted the situation correctly, my proposal seems the best outcome for now. [6]Bali ultimate (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, the best course now might be to let the DRV run and come to a conclusion. NC was the button I aimed at, but the problem at these articles is that we have thousands of them, and no guidelines for them specifically so we fall onto N. If we have to AfD them, and DRV them, this is going to take months and months and months. There is an ongoing effort to merge them all up into bigger articles, but the AfD tagging continues. (sigh) Fritzpoll (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated many and will probably do so in future. The meta problem is, in fact, the culture that allows for unsourced and unverified stubs to be created in the first place. If a minimum of two reliable sources were required for new article creation, we wouldn't be here. 80% of these stubs (most created by a serial stub creators apparently using bots who were later indef banned) would have been nuked, with no prejudice against recreation by editors interested in trying to write actual encyclopedia articles. I understand such a proposal would never pass. So what is an editor who believes wikipedia should have some inclusion standards to do? Nominate the ones he thinks are most hopeless and write/improve the ones that actually seem to be noteworthy (i've written two x-y relations articles myself.)Bali ultimate (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I don't deny it's a pickle, and that a significant percentage of them probably shouldn't be included on Wikipedia - I have no -ism beyond encyclopedism. I just think we could do better to let them get merged up, redirect the current titles, and everyone wins - perhaps more productive than incessantly producing 14 days of debate for each article. On te other hand, if you really want it, I'll continue to wield my mop at such discussions. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Potentially controversial AFD closure

I think this was a very thoughtful closure. I appreciate that you clearly and fully expressed your reasoning, which I believe will prevent unnecessary drama over what could have been a controversial close. لennavecia 12:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - time will tell whether or not it sticks Fritzpoll (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A big honking OOPS

Looks like we both had the same idea. (I fixed it) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha - hilarious when it happens. Maybe I should help Mr. Z-Man rewrite his script.... Cheers. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comment at Abd's talk

The need to express oneself clearly and concisely is an age-old principle and is not some newfangled idea of the internet age. William Strunk said it best, almost a century ago:

Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.

Refusing to make even a minimal effort to express oneself clearly and concisely is a mark of arrogance toward the reader. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know - I'm just saying it is even more relevant now that it ever was, for a variety of reasons. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly agree with that. Or as Strunk would have preferred, "I agree." cheers - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This claim about "arrogance" is common, particularly from a few editors who are, in fact, objecting to the substance, they object just as vigorously to brief posts as to lengthy discussion. They aren't obligated to read the lengthy discussion, ever, unless they want to make a complaint about it, it's for those who want to discuss. On AN/I, I put up a response to the recent complaint about me that was one paragraph, it was short and to the point. But because other issues were related, but not necessary, I put an extended comment in a collapse box. SBHB removed the collapse box because, he claims, it makes it impossible to search within the box. But wait, why is it necessary to search? Isn't the complaint that I write too much? By removing the collapse box, then, he and others could -- and did -- complain about the "wall of text" that thus appeared. It was rather neat, I thought, a very nice demonstration of what a certain faction of editors are up to. Really, SBHB should have been dinged for altering my edit in a crucial and damaging way.

They tried to suggest a topic ban with RfC/JzG 3, and the ensuing RfAr/Abd and JzG. It fell flat, ArbComm bought none of it. They tried to get me sanctioned for lengthy comment: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abd_and_JzG/Workshop#Proposals_by_User:Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris. I'd recommend reading that and the discussion, it shows the divide quite clearly, and I just deleted what I'd written above which duplicates what was there. Let me point something out. I went to ArbComm and was given everything important that I asked for. I must have been, somehow, effective. I managed to get every requested link to lenr-canr.org whitelisted, so far, except for one that I withdrew because of a copyright problem that appeared in more depth than prior arguments, in spite of many editors arguing tenaciously against it. Is SBHB really arguing that my writing is ineffective? Or is it effective only through overwhelming other editors so that they go away? I don't think so. That is not going to convince any closing admin. My process usually ends up with something summary that is clear and brief and easy to see. It's either neutral solicitation, as with Talk:Cold_fusion#Poll.2C_reserved_section, summary of consensus, as with Talk:Martin_Fleischmann#Should_readers_be_given_a_link_to_the_paper_where_they_can_read_it?, or it's an edit summary, which is necessarily concise, or it's brief polemic, or, sometimes a mixture of polemic and discussion, where I try to set off the polemic, as I did on AN/I. If I'm trying to convince people, if I'm sure what is best, I can and will take the very substantial time it takes to write effective polemic. Otherwise, people who aren't interested in putting in the effort to read my longer posts, a small fraction of what it takes to write them, are unlikely to agree with them if I boil them down, more often that not, it's wasted effort at that stage, because the ground hasn't been prepared, including my own certainty about the desired result. --Abd (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"Really, SBHB should have been dinged for altering my edit in a crucial and damaging way." - This is actually an interesting point. The ANI thread in question was started to complain about the manipulation of other user's comments. So in an apparent attempt to either pile onto Abd with anything that might stick or to shift the discussion to his own agenda item SBHB commits the very same type of act that started the whole thread in the first place AND IN ADDITION creates the same type of problem he, himself, was complaining about. In retrospect it seems quite ironic, no? --GoRight (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really want to get into accusations here - it defies the warmth of my talkpage :) I agreed with SBHB that extended and unnecessary commentary can give the impression of arrogance. I'm sure that this is not really the case with Abd. Generally I've found that when he's asked to summarise, he does so quite effectively, and it is haste which causes so many mistakes and misunderstandings both here and in the real world. I remember feeling that I had to read all of Abd's text when I first encountered him, and the feeling was overwhelming - on later reflection and in incidents since, I've found that the larger quantity of text may add background, depth or meta-discussion, but rarely (I hope Abd doesn't take this the wrong way) adds anything essential/immediate to the discussion beyond the first one or two sentences.

In fact, if anything, the rage against his verbosity hits peaks when his thoughts are summarised - the RfC being a case in point; very tight, compact evidence and analysis in the initial submission, and yet he is attacked for being long-winded. Wasn't sure what to make of that then, not sure what to make of it now. And in terms of controlling his verbosity - well, that's even harder. As soon as you talk about a limit, the argument becomes where that limit lies, and suddenly editing Wikipedia is like a legal submission or an end-of-term school report. Not a desirable state of affairs.

Finally, you are all welcome to my talk page and we can chat about this here if you like - it is a relatively neutral place as far as I can see. I will caveat that I can't act in a mediating capacity of any kind - Abd and I have a clear history lending the appearance of involvement, although as one might gather, my opinions of Abd are a lot more positive that our little incident may suggest. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"I don't really want to get into accusations here - it defies the warmth of my talkpage :)" - Heh, fair enough. I'm not really suggesting any action be taken, just noting what I thought was an irony.

"... on later reflection and in incidents since, I've found that the larger quantity of text may add background, depth or meta-discussion, but rarely (I hope Abd doesn't take this the wrong way) adds anything essential/immediate to the discussion beyond the first one or two sentences." - This has been exactly my observation as well. Abd likes to think through all of the angles before making a comment and, having spent the time thinking them through he endeavors to record them rather than just provide the bottom line of it all. This leads to lengthy texts, but with clear communications if you can make it through all that text. He is not only telling you what he thinks, but why he thinks it so that the reader has the context required to understand his perspective.

Most people do not process information this way because of the volume of information that needs to be processed. So a lot of people just stick to articulating the bottom-line results of their thinking. This is fine when dealing with people of similar backgrounds and who will make similar assumptions. It falls completely apart when people with differing backgrounds naturally come to differing conclusions about the assumptions being made behind a given bottom-line statement. This is the essence of miscommunication in most instances. --GoRight (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Fritzpoll. Warning: below I ramble quite a bit, and some of the ramblings may be important, but none of necessarily require your immediate attention! In your own Talk space, you get to mediate as much as you care, and if someone complains about your bias, well, they could pick some other "court." Our original encounter was indeed unpleasant, and I truly regret whatever I did to add to that. However, much good came out of it. An earnest young woman who had been rather brutally slapped down at AN/I ended up being unbanned; my complaint about you at the time was that you hadn't sufficiently investigated the case but relied on an apparent consensus there, which, I was contending, was dangerous, and you ran straight into a point that I've been emphasizing for some time, an understanding of administrative responsibility, that, while administrators are indeed responsible to community consensus, they are also individually responsible and should, except in certain narrow situations, never make a decision and implement it that they can't take personal responsibility for. I.e., if the community says A, and I disagree with A, I probably shouldn't close that process. Instead, I should participate in it and, maybe, if it's important, escalate it. In other words, you said that you couldn't change the decision, it had been made by the community. But, outside of, say, RfAs and ArbComm or WMF elections, the community doesn't make decisions; rather it advises, sometimes the advice is incoherent or shallow, and individual admins weigh that and actually make the decisions and implement them, or ordinary editors do this with actions that don't require tools. And a decision that they can make, they can undo, presumably based on new evidence or arguments that, had they been present initially, would have changed the outcome. The position you were taking is pretty common, and when consensus is truly clear, discussion has been broad enough, it makes some sense. But in the case cited, as ultimately came out, evidence had been requested by some in the discussion, editors who had not !voted, and the evidence provided was utterly inadequate to support the decision, and there had been no close, until you stepped in as if a close were a mere formality. There was, instead, an assumption of a decision, based on comments which continued and piled in assuming that the evidence presented was supported by reality, since nobody had impeached it. A few single errors by the editor, such as putting up an article she found in the sandbox, which turned out to be (short) copyvio, were exaggerated into "She violates copyright." Implying multiple violations. In that original copyright incident, she had asked an admin, and both of them failed to search for the text to check for direct copying. Later, a search turned up no more "violations." The same was true of other allegations; an original incident, expanded by the accuser -- who was highly disruptive, had been blocked for it before, and, really, editors should have been more suspicious -- into a pattern. And nobody checked. Happens all the time at AN/I, which is one reason I don't go to AN/I unless it's truly urgent. I've *usually* been confirmed at AN/I, when I've gone there, but it's a roll of the dice, sometimes.

I questioned your implementation of that alleged decision, and, yes, was excessively verbose, though the verbosity was, I recall, in my own Talk space. You actually were not obligated to read it. But, yes, you thought you were. I appreciate the thinking behind that, an intention to be fair, and, had you not been operating under diminished capacity due to external stress, you might have said, with perfect courtesy, "I'm sorry, this is too long, could you summarize it and I'll read the full comment if I have time and am attracted by the summary?" I mixed up discussion, where I become quite verbose, with polemic, where I've come to a conclusion. I was still, at that point, thinking that maybe the decision, even though process-incorrect, might have been correct in substance, it takes time to investigate. If the same thing came up now, you'd see a tight presentation. I wouldn't need to convince you of the principles behind what I'm saying, because it's become thoroughly settled in my mind, and your Talk page wouldn't be the place to hold that discussion, unless you clearly consent, as I expect you are now. This isn't a complaint about you!

Perhaps this points to something I can do which will help, which is to separate the two, being more explicit about which is which. Discussion is never obligatory to read. Even polemic can be disregarded, though, there, disregard could lead to an RfC, if it's in one's own Talk space! Polemic, as I've agreed, is better tight and focused. And, yes, in the RfC mentioned, I put many hours into honing that spear, so to speak, it was designed to penetrate the fog and get attention, and it did. Not broad enough attention to create an appearance of community consensus, to be sure. I'd have to have canvassed to get that, and I avoid that. JzG helped a bit by filing an MfD on the RfC, a singularly ... strange action, guaranteeing more attention, but .... the whole point was that he'd burned out and was becoming erratic and dangerous to community process. I find it sad that such a long-term and valuable contributor ran into such a difficulty, but I also know quite a few editors who had been burned, and they were getting short shrift. One of my long-term ideas is how to convert experience like that of JzG's into valuable and acknowledged benefit, so that, long-term, we build depth into the community, instead of bleeding experienced editors continually. As part of investigating that case, I read back and found some very clear, very good understanding, and clear commitment to the project. It shifted sometime around the end of 2007, when he became highly abusive, with obscene dismissals in edit summaries, all of which was extensively documented in his RfC 2. And when he was told by ArbComm to tone it down, he did, and, instead began acting when involved. A version of "Don't get mad, get even." Which, of course, was no improvement, it was worse.

For months, I tried to find some party whom JzG would trust to advise him. Nobody did, apparently (except that if it did happen, it would probably have happened by email or in person or phone). Instead, the community aligned by tribal affiliation, with a very active tribe descending on the RfC to support JzG and attack this interloper who was obviously (fill in the blank.) Beginning, during the RfAr, around the beginning of May, efforts to retaliate against me began, and an editor began to try to provoke me into actions that would get me blocked or at least banned. Those efforts failed (though I did run into the 3RR edge or over it; Fritzpoll, you might have noticed that I don't ordinarily use edit warring as a tool to improve articles, instead I discuss, maybe too much. May 21, I tried a little action in place of discussion that was going nowhere. I did make one or two bald reverts, and the other edits, which were not reverts in intention but only in appearance under some interpretations of the definition, added up to 4RR. But I wasn't blocked, and I'm sure that this frustrated the tribe. Next incident, I didn't do any reverts, unless my first edit June 1 is considered a revert -- I still argue that edits like that shouldn't count toward 3RR, but I'll argue that on the guideline page -- but this led to article protection and then William M. Connolley's ban on my editing of Cold fusion and Talk:Cold fusion. While the "action while involved" isn't quite as obvious there as it was with JzG and the blacklistings in December, it will still be shown by clear evidence if needed. I'm hoping it's not needed, which will probably, at this point, take someone advising him to do the right thing, someone whom he will listen to, because he's sure not going to listen to me.

I aim for minimal disruption; that's why I was approaching you last August, not going to a noticeboard, and that's why I haven't gone to a noticeboard now. Disruption arose when you went to AN for confirmation of a decision, where I believed that unnecessary. (I wasn't challenging your right to decide; apparently you thought I was.) My decision about what to do now, with the present situation, will be based on what I judge will minimize overall disruption. I might go directly to ArbComm, based on a sense that local discussion is likely to be ineffective and it would have to end up at ArbComm anyway, and I'm currently being advised by various editors, off-line, on this. Better to resolve an issue with one discussion rather than many. That's the advice ArbComm gave me, though it's possible to interpret that, at this point, they'd be recommending an RfC. Given the history, mediation is unlikely to work, though I'd certainly respond to mediation efforts; indeed, this post could be seen as a very informal request for someone to "mediate."

I suspect that some editors see the "walls of text," and assume this is associated with an inability to focus when necessary. The fact is that people with ADHD have trouble focusing in certain contexts; in others we become "hyperfocused." ADHD is a "disorder," as the name implies, but, like Sickle cell anemia, it also confers benefits, some think it's a genetic variation that benefits the species as a whole. To make a long story short, if everyone were like me, the place would fall apart. If nobody were like me, it would become frozen and unable to adapt.

Now, if you have read to this point, and would agree that mediation would be useful, good chance you aren't a trusted friend of WMC. (But maybe!) But you might know one. My "walls of text" work when the few who read them carefully enough to understand them pick up on an idea and spread it. Usually they will be much more succinct, and whatever was actually irrelevant, they simply don't respond to. That's what I do with walls of text presented to me!

To complete an earlier thought, much other good came from last August. I ended up with rollback privilege, thoughtfully suggested and provided by you when I took community suggestions that I do wider editing. I am far more responsive than some imagine. I listen to and weigh suggestions even from people I know are motivated by enmity. Advice from opponents can sometimes be the most valuable kind, telling you things your friends won't mention. I ended up with a positive relationship with you, as a result of subsequent offline discussions. It brought out a problem with Jehochman, that had been festering for the better part of a year, and that, too, was resolved very satisfactorily by following WP:DR, with great care and attention to the first stages, which are often neglected. (The subsequent JzG flap cemented that relationship even further, as it motivated Jehochman, apparently, to suggest that we meet face-to-face; but it was already quite good before that.) The importance of early recusal was emphasized to me by the fact that the blocking admin immediately recused, which totally took the block -- which didn't disappear because she recused, recusal has to do with further action -- out of the realm of conflict with her and into a direct negotiation with the community. When I was blocked, I wrote "you don't known how happy you have made me," which, I'm sure, confused some. I must admit I do enjoy a certain level of confusion, that kind, the kind that is really closer to humor, it's doing the opposite of what is expected. I had been writing that "if you haven't been blocked, you aren't trying hard enough to improve the project." Which, of course, isn't necessarily a literal truth, but serious work on the project will almost always run into opposition, and we have to learn how to negotiate with opposition. Learning to run an obstacle course requires learning to walk first, and learning to walk always involves falling down! We will make mistakes, and the beauty of a wiki and the Wikipedia traditions is that all mistakes can be fixed. Well, almost all. I suspect that there have been a few suicides resulting from administrative actions with an editor on the edge. (I know directly of one case that could still result in suicide; it's hard to tell, though, how much the abuse which this editor encountered here made the situation worse, but I'm sure it didn't make it better.) It's hard to fix that. If we fully realize the policies and the very deep thinking behind them, this wouldn't be likely to happen, admins blocking a user would do it in a way that helps integrate an editor into the community, if the editor actually has an intention to help. (The damage is done when an editor trying to help is shut out, and abusively.) And we should assume that good faith, and assume that what is needed is guidance. I'm a parent, seven times over, and that assumption of good faith doesn't negate being firm. No, you can't edit Wikipedia until this is worked out. Indeed, "No, you can't edit Cold fusion and Cold fusion Talk until this is worked out." Our structure gives WMC the right to take that action, but he's responsible for how he does it, and he blew it. He hasn't give a reason for the ban except for WP:NPOV and WP:IAR, and the IAR part of it would have worked if he'd been responsive and had focused on the problem situation and how to fix it without going beyond limits, such a path was made abundantly clear to him. Instead, he's acting to exclude discussion based on his POV. That's not going to stand, but I'm still banned, and no admin should wheel-war with him without a community discussion, and I've avoided that for the time being, because, guaranteed, with the aligned forces, it would be much heat and little light, unless very widely escalated, and, please, if you are my friend, don't do that. I'm banned from the article I've been preparing to work on for five months, just when I start being effective with edits, and am reducing Talk. But Wikipedia -- and the article -- will survive, damage is short-term. This is not an emergency, except that if someone doesn't advise WMC soon, effectively, I doubt that it will be a week before it's too late. --Abd (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think there were severe misunderstandings on all sides last August, and the discussions were quite confusing. My then minmal experience of conflict had all been resolved in a series of short paragraphs, and the...larger quantities that you wrote were somewhat daunting and bizarrely we were both suggesting the same thing (getting a third eye on it) but somehow both kind of misinterpreted each other to respectively be suggesting inaction or leaps to arbitration! In the cold light of day, the whole thing was a little strange, but it good that so much good has come out of it.

I would like to think that I've matured a little bit into my functionary role here (although my lack of block log entries suggests I'm not trying hard enough!) and that I understand the concept of involvement - all through the JzG saga I understood, but I wanted the nuances accentuated to prevent abuse of a less focussed ruling. I think that, in the main, our articlespace is what we should mean by defending Wikipedia - to be banned from other namespaces (including article talk) should result only from a level of disruption that is affecting the workings of our (hopefully minimal) bureaucracy and thus indirectly affecting our articles. I am not sure this happened on the Cold Fusion talk page, and am a little concerned that input is being surpressed by anybody, regardless of involvement or not. Regardless, I have no more power than anyone to mount an effective challenge to the statement at this time, but I await the outcome with interest and will meantime be conducting my own review of the talkpage history to examine the run up to the topic ban. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me be very clear about one thing: WMC has declared a ban, and no administrator can undo that without a community discussion or WMC's consent. (My opinion is that if he recuses at this point, though, the effect would be that the ban is lifted, it's not quite like a block. If the ban is logged, that might be different, some process or notice might be required. Better if he actually lifts the ban, and I've suggested to another editor who might possibly intervene how it might be done that involves no loss of face on WMC's part, that would leave him looking good, and that would foreclose no possibilities if disruption actually appears at Talk:Cold fusion.) I am opposed to a community discussion now, short of RfC or RfAr, and am inclined to think, at the moment, that RfC would be a waste of community time, for the most part. That doesn't mean that I'm "accepting" the ban, but merely that I'm choosing to minimize disruption, sticking to stage two of WP:DR for a little longer, until and unless it becomes clear that it isn't going to work. I actually support the right of an admin to ban instead of block, if WMC believes that I should be banned, he should ban me! However, he should take care that his judgment isn't warped by prior conflict -- or present content conflict -- and he should, just as I should -- act to minimize disruption while protecting the project. He's invoking WP:IAR, and, in fact, I support that. However, IAR applies to all sides, as does NPOV and "Don't be a dick," the other policies or essay that he's cited in support of his decision, giving no specific details. His latest actions with respect to Cold fusion will not stand if challenged. So what's the least disruptive way to resolve this? A word to the wise. --Abd (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If I can be permitted to comment, you should be aware that WMC is very much his own man and is totally unconcerned with "looking good" or "loss of face." I gather that you're unaccustomed to dealing with people like that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Abd has dealt with enough of us to become accustomed to that. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the outcome is. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. However, note that people who are unconcerned with how they look to others may not make good members of a functioning and cooperative community. It depends. Personally, I DGAF about how I look, most of the time, and, indeed, this can cause problems; the saving grace -- I hope -- is that I do have a firm belief in the power of consensus. What would make you think, SBHB, that I'm not accustomed to such people? What makes you even dream that you have some grasp of my experience with people? Perhaps I should put some history on my User page, there is practically nothing there now, compared to what could be there. --Abd (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

issue

Why did you get rid of this content = http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geography_of_the_Former_Republic_of_Serbian_Krajina&oldid=293520537 Geography is not just physical landforms. This entity had unique population, political and economic characteristics that have nothing to do with modern day croatia. Population Geography does change. Geography is not just landforms like the person was suggesting in the talk page. (LAz17 (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)).

Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Geography_of_the_Former_Republic_of_Serbian_Krajina - the consensus was to redirect, and I was enacting that consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus. What makes you think there was a consensus or even a debate? There were only three people, one me who opposed any action, and two who supported your decision. That is not a vote, and there was no consensus. Change it back until there is a consensus and more input. (LAz17 (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)).

Indeed, AfD is not a vote. And you failed to bring up any policy or guideline in support of your argument, so you didn't add much weight to the discussion. There were also too many participants to relist, per guidelines and the consensus seemed to have formed. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus-Malta relations

Since you got so much flack over some of your other closures of these AfDs, I want you to know that as nominator I think you made the correct decision in that there was no consensus. Thanks for being willing to close these and for doing a good job of it. Drawn Some (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

heh - always nice to hear, thanks. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Natalya Rudakova

I think your close was quite appropriate, but how long do you think it will last before it's overturned? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The internet and its consequent disconnect from the reality of life allows me to be sufficiently delusional that everyone will love my close and there will be no complaints. The real answer to your question is the sum of the time for a DRV to run and the time for someone to complain. But thank you for your note of support - I shall cling to it like a security blanket in the days ahead! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize my opinion was so treasured.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What's your opinion?

If you have some time at some point (there is no hurry) I would be interested in getting another opinion on a couple of things that have been bothering me. I'm just trying to devine the societal perspectives on a couple of things.

You are familiar enough with the wikipedia user WMC topic banning Abd and Hipocrite. I am not sure if you followed the actions related to JzG banning Jed Rothwell. These are all Cold Fusion related dramas.

I had asked wikipedia user WMC some clarifying questions here. He responded but not necessarily in a complete way (i.e. some points he didn't address). Given our mutual history I don't really want to belabor my points there so I am looking for other points of view.

One of the things that concerns me in both the Jed Rothwell case and now the Abd and Hipocrite case is that in both cases the bans were imposed with little or no community discussion or formal assessment of consensus to justify the bans. I have contended that if these bans are truly bans in the WP:BAN sense of a ban that they should be duly recorded at WP:RESTRICT as such. This seems the normal and sensible thing to do and yet both JzG and now wikipedia user WMC have declined to take that step.

Do you believe that these Administrative actions (and I mean this generally, these two cases are simply examples that I know of) truly do constitute a ban in the WP:BAN sense of such a thing? And if they are why are the Administrators shying away from recording them? Any thoughts?

As I said, no need to hurry with a response, or even to reply at all if you are too busy. I am just reviewing various opinions as a means discerning the proper way to view these issues within the context of Administrator norms and policies. Your input would be welcome.

Thanks,

--GoRight (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope you will not object if I do not comment on the specifics of this case for now, and revert this into a more hypothetical debate. In a sense, what you're asking is what I believe has been raised over the issues of per-article blocking, which would be a technical means of implementing an article ban of this kind. Does an administrator have the authority to ban a user from an article unilaterally? I believe that administrators have three possible roles on Wikipedia: the first is janitorial - performance of maintenance tasks that they can be trusted with, which require a special toolbox. The second is that of a bouncer - controlling access to the inner workings of the encyclopedia, controlled by a guest list and a set of keys. The third is more akin to an "elder" of some kind - not because admins ar special people (we're not), but because we are ostensibly selected for our understanding of policy and so can act in an advisory capacity, a capacity that precludes an active authority over non-administrators. This third role is most often observed at discussion closures such as AfD, but is also useable in mediativ capacities.

What you notice about these three roles is the appearance of power - editors often find admins to be too remote and powerful, but when you scratch the surface, these roles are not powerful at all. In your question, you are asking me about the role of an admin as a bouncer - someone who prevents access. To the unthinking, the bouncer seems very powerful as he stops them getting into the club, but actually they are only able to act mechanically according to the instructions from their bosses. To drag this back to Wikipedia, an admin's "boss" is the community at large, and the policies and guidelines that have consensus. If the community at large decides that policies and guidelines no longer represent common practice, they can change them, and with them the manner in which admins are meant to perform their tasks, although the interpretation may vary from admin to admin.

All I can say is that in my interpretation of WP:BAN which, per the above, administrator's are afforded the power of unilateral compulsory topic bans only in the areas sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee. The community has delegated no other local banning powers. At best, we might ban and then take the decision to the community for immediate review, although how that could be enforced is unclear.

I'm sorry for the rambling response, but I'm keen to work towards dispelling this notion of "us" and "them" between admins and non-admins. We are all editors - admins are just the designated drivers. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to share your perspective, and I was asking a general question so this response is completely in line with that. I agree that Administrators have been granted privileges and not powers, as your analogies seem to suggest. And those privileges are granted by the community at large for the most part, so anything a Administrator does is always subject to community review and, if consensus to do so exists, their actions can be overruled, or upheld, as the case may be. I think that this is consistent with what I saw happen with the Arbcom request for clarification JzG put forth regarding the Jed Rothwell "ban" which has now been implemented as an indefinite block by MastCell. The Arbcom basically refused to get involved citing their preference to allow the community to handle the situation using the standard tools at their disposal, which comes back to your view that the community is where the power actually resides. Cheers. --GoRight (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the skinny on the Rothwell ban/block. JzG declared a ban at Talk:Cold fusion, but he'd already blocked Rothwell IP, and another IP he imagined was Rothwell. The account User:JedRothwell, however, had never been warned, and hadn't been used for a long time. When it was pointed out at the RfAr clarification JzG filed to try to get approval for the ban, that the account wasn't blocked, MastCell blocked it. In other words, he blocked an account that wasn't being used for disruption. I would argue that the Rothwell IP wasn't sufficiently disruptive to block, either, but that's complicated; the real situation is that Rothwell was often uncivil in a way that experts often are. However, what he was facing was worse. Eventually, I'd hope to facilitate Rothwell's return here, as a COI editor advising us in Talk. Obviously, we could expect that his advice might be biased, tbut that's generally true of experts. Whether or not this would work would depend on whether or not he could refrain from provocative dismissal of editors he sees as ignorant. Rothwell has never requested unblock, he has major contempt for Wikipedia. He doesn't need Wikipedia. He believes that it is controlled by narrow-minded ... I'd rather not imagine the word he'd use or go back and check the email. He believes that I'm totally wasting my time here and tries to talk me out of participating every chance he gets. On the other hand, he's been very open and cooperative in terms of providing me with sources and information about, for example, copyright status of work he hosts. He knows the field intimately, he's been covering it for almost twenty years. I have not requested that he be unblocked (I consider the ban null and void), because he hasn't requested it. If I decided this was appropriate, I'd ask MastCell to unblock. I don't know what MastCell would do, and, hopefully, he doesn't know either, because the evidence hasn't been presented. --Abd (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your analysis, Fritzpoll. I originally believed that I should honor the ban even while I disagreed with it, and I dislike taking a wikilawyer approach (in spite of what some think). However, I came, by last night, to agree with your position. There is no local banning power, unless a ban is voluntarily accepted in lieu of a block. For various reasons, that ban should probably be proposed by the editor. If an admin considers the editor disruptive, the remedy that exists is a block. The unblock template then efficiently finds a neutral administrator to review the situation. A declared ban leaves the decision with the original administrator; that's fine when the block is voluntarily accepted. However, where an admin with a prior known bias against the work of an editor declares a ban, the editor can appeal and obtain a community decision, but there is no "unban" process for a ban decision corresponding to the simple unblock process.

I attempted to negotiate a compromise with WMC; he was utterly intransigent, as he had been before the ban declaration, when I had questioned his decision to edit Cold fusion while it was under protection. I'm not going to provide diffs here, this isn't a court, it is a discussion of the principles, and I merely raise an immediate example as just that: a proposed example. I dislike extended discussion of abstractions like "policy" without having examples, real or proposed.

Other editors questioned the ban, requesting information about its rationale. Nothing was provided except for a pointer to WP:TRIFECTA. The only behavioral description there is "Don't be a dick." And that essay, on meta, specifically says that being a "dick" isn't sanctioned. The ban was not logged, and probably couldn't have been logged; there is no provision on that page for bans unilaterally declared by an admin; WMC would have been blazing a new trail. That's fine, except the probable basis of his ban, if I speculate from his prior comments about me, would be (1) verbosity, allegedly driving away other editors through "walls of text," and that argument was rejected by ArbComm just the other day, (2) POV-pushing, i.e., attempting to create NPOV violations. That's a general content decision, which can be complex, and is dangerous if place in the hands of a single administrator, especially one who has a strong POV and historically considers editors with a differing POV to be "POV-pushing." In a heavily watched article, on a controversial topic, with COI editors, editors following a general opinion about, say, "fringe science," but without specific knowledge of the subject, sanctioning POV-pushing is putting the cart before the horse, unless the POV-pushing is accomplished through edit warring, incivility, edit warring in Talk, repetitive assertions of POV text without adequate sourcing, etc.

Opinion has been expressed that the ban should be reviewed by another administrator. That's true. However, my position is a more efficient one. If I "violate" a single-admin ban that the admin had no conferred right to declare, the admin must decide whether or not a block is justified. If the admin decides against blocking, for whatever reason, the matter is over, done, without disruption. If I am blocked, an unblock template will solicit a neutral administrator. Then, if an admin unblocks, again, done, very quickly and simply. If an admin declines to unblock, there is then a new admin with whom I could, or others could, negotiate. Again, this might complete very efficiently. My last block generated some heat and little light at AN, but it was quickly resolved, as soon as I requested review, even though the unblock request was denied, and, to mention it again, that incident led to no further disruption because the blocking admin had immediately recused, allowing any other admin to unblock. I had not requested recusal of her, but it converted what could have been a quite contentious debate into something much simpler.

I see no way for the project not to benefit from the position I'm taking, it benefits in any way, proceeding. If I edit Cold fusion or the Talk page -- given the contention there, at this point, I wouldn't make any controversial edits to the article without having found consensus first in Talk; I was actually implementing consensus when the last edit war started, and, fortunately, I didn't do any reverting in that -- and I'm not blocked, I've shown that an editor can defy WMC and survive, I've shown that WMC has no special right to follow and interpret WP:IAR that is not enjoyed by every editor. If he blocks me, this will become a test of a number of important principles: the right to ban editors without their consent, as distinct from blocking them, the familiar theme of administrative recusal and action while involved, and in particular the prohibition against an admin using tools -- or, originally here, threatening to use tools -- when involved in a content dispute, as he was (over which version to revert to; there was one version that had complete consensus from involved editors. He picked on with much lower expressed consent; actually none, but a suggestion by a new editor to the article, proposed not based on content, an eagerly approved by the editor who had brought down protection in the first place, which should have been a clue. That version ratified the goal of that edit warring, to fully exclude content, reliably sourced -- I assert -- from sources that are allegedly "fringe," though independently published by an academic publisher, or peer-reviewed.)

There are other aspects which would come out if I'm blocked. I'm not trolling to be blocked, though, I'm asserting my rights as an editor, rights every editor should enjoy. You could call it civil disobedience, except that WMC isn't constituted authority. He has the privilege of using buttons to protect the community from prohibited behavior, and even to newly interpret the situation or policy for the overall benefit of the project -- i.e., there is some substance to his IAR argument -- but IAR, when there is dispute with the administrator, only justifies emergency action, pending review, and I've argued, in discussion on recusal, that any administrator so acting should immediately seek review, recusing from further action except, again, in an emergency. I'm prepared to defend all this before ArbComm, if needed, but my hope is that sanity will prevail and there will be no disruption around this.

Had I gone to a noticeboard on this, given, say, the debate at MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist, when I made a simple request for whitelisting and the debate became a free-for-all, with a set of editors who clearly have an agenda with respect to all this showing up to argue tenaciously against what was eventually decided (which is distinct from pointing out a problem with one of the suggested links), I know what would have happened. At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3, roughly two thirds of editors expressing positions supported a general position that JzG had done nothing wrong, and many of these believed that I should be banned. There is a faction that generally supports a certain general view on "fringe science," and I discovered this faction by analyzing WP:TAGTEAM operation, and it shows up. I could expect the majority view at a noticeboard could very well be that I should be banned, on principle. However, ArbComm rejected arguments that I was disruptive and that I should be banned, there ended up being no support for that. I was encouraged to hone my process, and to not engage in fruitless disputes, but escalate as needed. I'm discussing this at length here, where no decision will be made, this is for exploration and analysis; but if this is escalated, at this point, it won't be about the ban, it will probably be over the entire problem of the faction I mentioned, which could be quite a messy case, not resolved nearly as easily as the "Abd and JzG" arbitration, where I'd attempted to keep the focus very narrow, and where the only other issue that was really addressed was the use of the blacklist, where ArbComm fully supported my position.

Some are claiming that ArbComm rejected my goal there. That's based on a misunderstanding of my goal. My goal from the beginning was to confirm recusal policy and apply it. That succeeded completely with the ruling. I did suggest that ArbComm should, in the absence of assurances from JzG that he would respect the policy, desysop, pending such assurances; JzG had gone incommunicado; I believe that, in any case of recusal failure, this option should be on the table. ArbComm declined to accept that proposal, and, overall, given conditions which aren't all public, that decision was reasonable. The purpose had been accomplished. JzG was never my target or desysopping him my goal, my goal was to confirm recusal policy. Maybe I'll get to do that again, but I doubt it. --Abd (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of P.R.Harikumar at AfD

Hi, you have recently deleted an article P.R.Harikumar based on the consensus at AfD. I think the article you have deleted was a redirect to the article P. R. Harikumar which was the target article intended to get deleted at AfD. The mistake would have happened because while the AfD was in progress I have moved the article P.R.Harikumar to P. R. Harikumar per naming convention. I am sorry that I failed to notify this in the AfD. Salih (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me - I have now deleted the article. If you would like a userfied copy to work on in your userspace, please let me know Fritzpoll (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't need any copy of the deleted article. Thanks. Salih (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Closure of the Poppler AfD

I disagree with your closure of the Poppler (software) AFD. There seems to be no consensus to redirect to xpdf. Only a single editor called for that. Further, User:Gnepets began to clean the article up today. He added at least one third-party source re. poppler. The closure seems premature to me. Can you please revert this redirect and relist discussion so that we can discuss Gnepets's constructive changes? --Karnesky (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Please revert that decision.--Oneiros (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote - you two argued for outright retention, on the basis that it's just notable software without saying why, or providing sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. Your arguments consequently carried little weight. One of the others indicated that redirection was acceptable, another argued persuasively outright for a redirec, and there was an argument for deletion. In all three cases, persuasive arguments were made that this should not be a standalone article on Wikipedia, and the need to preserve information sometimes affords me the leeway to use a deletion argument to favour redirection instead. If you wish to work on the article in userspace, you can get a copy from the article's history, edit it, and I will review it before merging the histories. Incidentally, our guideline for relisting does not afford me the leeway that you request. Sorry to disappoint you - if I can answer any more queries, please let me know. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said that AfD was a vote or that closure should have been a keep due to the mere number of comments supporting that resolution. AfD is about consensus building & there is not consensus for that article to be redirected.

By "one of the others indicated that redirection was acceptable," you are probably referring to my initial comment (in which I call it non-ideal): that is the only other mention of a redirect in a (slightly) positive light in that conversation. I am troubled for two reasons:

1. If you didn't realize that I made the comment (as suggested because you claim I argued for "outright retention" & that some "other" person said that redirection was acceptable), it may indicate the lack of a careful understanding of the discussion on that page.
2. The single line comment encouraging a redirect does not seem anymore compelling than other arguments (let alone a sign that a consensus had been established). It claimed that the content was not able to be sourced. As above, this is obviously false: sources were added to the article. These sources make arguments to keep the article credible; nobody on that page questioned that the new sources meet WP:N and WP:V.

Please alleviate these two concerns.

I see nothing in WP:RELIST that would bar you from relisting this. Please let me know what I am missing. If you can't relist, I think there are indications that a "no consensus" closure would be preferable (as there was nobody who concurred with redirection).

The deletion review policy implies that you have leeway in overturning your decision (and there is precedence to do this). Between the lack of consensus in the AfD & the substantive changes made to the article the day you redirected it, I believe that it is called for. --Karnesky (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I admit that I muddled your name with that of the chap at the bottom - that's my imperfect memory for you! WP:RELIST says I'm only to relist if there are only one or two commentators or if there are no arguments grounded in policy - neither of those applied here. The keep arguments in the discussion are not compelling. Allow me to summarise:

1. "used by a lot of software; poppler is increasingly used instead" - to which policy or guideline does this refer? The issue was the notability of the software. That means independent coverage of the software in reliable sources that give it more than a passing reference. This argument does not address this issue.
2. Yours: "This is a backend to multiple notable products & is a fork of another notable product that has become more popular and better supported." - great, but whilst notability is not inherited from a parent, it isn't inherited from the notable spinoffs either. "Stifle's claim that this lacks sources is legitimate" - at least at this stage, you agree with the deletion side of the discussion. The rest of your argument essentially informs the discussion that the available research indicates only passing coverage. I ignored the bold !vote, and read the substance of what you wrote.
3. Bazzargh tells us that mentions in the sources are "incidental" - i.e. doesn't meet WP:N
4. You comment "This is really the opposite of WP:INHERIT." - no it isn't, read the third paragraph of the section you linked to
5. "I don't think we need exclusive coverage of a subject in order to keep any article" - then you need to establish a consensus for that, because those aren't our existing policies and guidelines. "But they seem reasonable enough in the context of other software libraries we have chosen to accept in WP" - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

What this boild down to is that, in accordance with the deletion guidelines for administrators, I evaluated the discussion on the strength of the arguments, and the deletion/redirection contention that the software lacked individual notability was not adequately contested. Accordingly, I closed the discussion to redirect per my additional imperative from policy to preserve content where possible. If you have further questions or points to make, please feel free. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond. If I might reply to each of your points:

1. I mostly agree with you on this. As I pointed out, WP:N allows "published peer recognition" & one could charitably consider that use and documentation of the library by a half dozen notable pdf viewers to be "peer recognition." But this is weak in comparison to the sources added to the article.

2-3. At the time of my initial comment and Bazzargh's comment, there were multiple sources suggested in searches that had less-than-exclusive coverage. I'd say some were at least borderline (and that some foreign language ones were unarguably "significant"), but I agree with Bazzargh that many were trivial. After Bazzargh and I made these comments, Oneiros added a citation that was independent and covered poppler exclusively. Neither Bazzargh nor I had a chance to respond to this source prior to closure.

4. I should have said that it was the opposite of Korath's analogy. Again, since we have a source & WP:INHERIT does nothing to encourage a redirect or deletion, it isn't worth quibbling about this.

5. Here you are wrong, and I think that it is critically important that you realize this. I am correct when I say we don't need exclusive coverage, and I chose my words based on WP:N: "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." At the time, I was arguing that some of the sources in the search results could be considered significant. This comment was also made before I saw an article with exclusive coverage.

In short: the AfD failed to have anything but a cursory mention of the source that Oneiros added or the cleanup work that Gnepets began (presumably because both occurred late in the AfD process). Your comments to date have focused only on the comments in AfD and have not addressed these changes either.

These changes (particularly Oneiros's source) would have been the most relevant points for deletion discussion (as I think you'd agree, given your repeated mention of a "failure" to provide sources).

Because I believe you must have honestly overlooked the constructive changes made to the article, I hope that you can take these changes into consideration now. If you are unable to do this, a deletion review will be warranted to at least acknowledge the merit (or lack there of) of the changes and to clarify consensus. --Karnesky (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm only meant to look at the discussion - looking at the article might bias my close. Given that no substantial mention was made of additions in the AfD, can you tell me what they were? Fritzpoll (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Natalya Rudakova(second)

I wanted to throw a couple lines in the Transporter 3 article that Natalya Rudakova was redirected to (more than likely under the Cast section). Is there an archive or history available to pull from? I don't know where to look and was hoping to pull a little bit of info and sources from any preserved text.Cptnono (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. In general, for a redirected article, underneath the name of the page it redirects to you'll see a link that says "Redirected from some page" - clicking on that link takes you to the page you were redirected from and lets you access the usual tabs, including the "history" tab, where you can reach all the revisions. For your convenience, click here to get to Natasha's page history. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for pointing me in the right direction!Cptnono (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Soft delete of CSD

I'm actually neutral on your proposal. You asked for feedback, you are getting it. Gigs (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I know - it just seemed that you hadn't read it through, or had missed the crucial part of it. All feedback is good, and I'm sorry if I am appearing to be thinking otherwise :) Fritzpoll (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Scott Campbell (blogger)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Scott Campbell (blogger). 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. Scott (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Natalya Rudakova(third)

You should not have redirected that article. You may not agree with the outcome, and it may not be a "vote", but the overwhelming consensus from four attempts to delete the article have been to keep it. Only one or two people recommended a redirect, including the person who tried to delete it every time. You may not agree with the consensus, but Wikipedia works by consensus. Please do not redirect the article against consensus. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As a note, the above user has now been blocked indefinitely for this gross personal attack.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update Daedulus - looked pretty severe. I have explained the determination of consensus many times, and I wish people would check to see if issues had been raised before! Fritzpoll (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia referee appointment

Congrats, you've been approved by the arbitration committee as one of the uninvolved admins to help settle Macedonia naming issues. The centralized discussion is at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia. The arbitration case final decision is at WP:ARBMAC2. See especially this remedy. Admins User:Shell Kinney and User:J.delanoy form the triumvirate with you. Thank you for your assistance. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damon Vickers

Hi. You recently deleted the article Damon Vickers. Although the article was in the words of one person at AfD "vanispamisement," I think that the subject was unquestionably notable. Thus, I was wondering if you would be so kind as to userify the article for me so that I might source it properly and do my best on the NPOV problems. Thanks! Cool3 (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It may well not have come out in the discussion - I have userfied to User:Cool3/Damon Vickers. You'll notice a {{NOINDEX}} tag at the top - that's to keep this deleted BLP out of Google. Please don't remove this until the article is returned to article space - give me a shout when it's updated, and I'll lend a hand moving it back. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've done my best at pruning back the NPOV and spamminess of the article to what I can clearly verify against reliable sources. Would you please be so kind as to take a look? Cool3 (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What is consensus on Wikipedia?

You wrote: The result was no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC) [edit] Justus Weiner

The result was six votes to delete and three to keep plus one weak keep. That is nearly two thirds in favor of deletion. What is consensus on Wikipedia?

Thanks.

Skywriter (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote, and nor is consensus. Consensus on Wikipedia is about examining the arguments made in a discussion - in the case of a local discussion (like AfD where only a few people comment) the arguments can't override our guidelines and policies which represent a consensus established by a larger section of the community. For example, it would not be sufficient for someone to answer a claim that something is not notable by saying "Keep - you don't need sources to prove notability" - because this argument is in contention with our guidelines.

In the case of Justus Weiner, the people suggesting deletion just said "no notability" or similar, whilst those suggesting keeping the article pointed to the fact that he was notable beyond a single event. This latter argument was not debated, so the discussion was split between people saying "not notable" without a reason, and those demonstrating the potential for notability. Consequently there was no consensus. I hope this helps! Fritzpoll (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Thanks.Skywriter (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy Fritzpoll/Archive 5's Day!

User:Fritzpoll/Archive 5 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Fritzpoll/Archive 5's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Fritzpoll/Archive 5! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Support. Everyday is Fritzpoll day in my world. Hope you are doing well Mr. Fritz, maintaining at least some semblence of sanity I presume...Keeper | 76 01:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

How delightful and unexpected - thank you Rlevse! (and Keeper for his usual high level of support :) Hope you'll be back amongst us more regularly soon ) Fritzpoll (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Al Hilali? Thanks Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Re self-reverted ban violations.

[7]

Fritzpoll, I don't know if you are familiar with the history of ScienceApologists's spelling corrections to articles covered by his topic ban. The community, in that case, quite clearly considered that harmless edits, non-controversial, did not violate his ban, and multiple attempts were made at Arbitration Enforcement, by an editor probably cooperating with ScienceApologist, trying to make a point, to complain about spelling corrections. Nobody wanted to hear it. I later raised the issue of such edits complicating ban enforcement, and that's where self-reversion was suggested and discussed. I cleared it with an arbitrator before suggesting it to ScienceApologist, self-reverted edits that would violate many different policies are considered to not actually do so.

Thus "no edit" overstates the actual situation. As is typical on Wikipedia, there are exceptions to every rule. I have seen and tested -- inadvertently -- a situation where promptly reverting the edit of a banned user violated policy, for example.

Your closing implies there is a policy on this. I don't see it, nothing explicit. I'm going to try to make it explicit, so that there is no confusion over this: the reality is that policy doesn't cover the situation, as far as I can see, and, while it seemed that the community was united on this in actual practice, in the ScienceApologist case, it may depend on whose ox is being gored. I was blocked for doing much less than what he did with impunity. (His spelling corrections were harmless, but he was clearly, by a pattern of such edits, and by other disruption as well as declared intention, seeking to complicate ban enforcement, that's why self-reversion was suggested then, because it bypasses the enforcement problem as any kind of emergency. I've pointed out in one discussion that if a banned editor actually does this -- even a site-banned editor -- it can turn enforcement into productive edits, as someone reviewing the edits of a banned user sees these self-reverted edits, decides to look at them (not obligatory!) and sees a spelling correction to put in with a single undo.

I.e., site banned and blocked editor comes in as IP and makes a spelling correction, and states, with the edit, "will revert per site ban." Then, reverts with edit summary, "Reverting per ban of IveBeenNaughty."

Is this a ban violation that would lead to a lengthening of the ban? Is this block evasion? I would claim, no, not unless the edit itself was disruptive beyond being a technical evasion. In substance, it cooperates with the ban, and seeks to help with the project even while banned.

Most blocked and banned editors won't do this, to be sure, but this would allow that subclass of editors who really do want to help the project do so, and show cooperation.

We should nail this down to avoid contentious discussions in the future. Isolated harmless edits, not controversial in themselves, don't violate policy no matter how stringently we have banned the editor. And a self-reverted edit is doubly safe, and establishes a possibility of cooperation. That's what happened with editor User:PJHaseldine, who was banned from an article. He made quite a substantial edit, which he then self-reverted per my suggestion. A discussion ensued where most of his edit, I believe, was accepted. It was quite efficient, and has, I'm sure, improved communication there. I think he's continued to use this technique without a problem. --Abd (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's quite curious somebody "inadvertantly" tested this "loophole", yet seems to know the comparable SA situation inside out. The incredibly uncontentious answer would be that, given it's a topic ban not a full ban, show love for improving the wiki by editting elsewhere. As for PJH, if Abd is intimating he's advised PJH to use this loophole technique, I'd be concerned it's become yet another crusade. Minkythecat (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Minky, I know the SA situation inside out, because I was inside. This technique to allow banned editors to suggest edits -- that's what it amounts to -- was cleared with an arbitrator before being suggested to SA, originally. I suggested the technique to PJH, as a way to help him accept the ban, and it worked, and there has been no disruption, and there has been cooperation between him and other editors. It's not a "loophole," for it respects fully the purposes of a ban. I wasn't "testing" the loophole, because I believed there would be no objection. I'd discussed this extensively, and had encountered, until this "test," no opposition, except from one or two SA supporters who thought that the self-reversion was preposterous, that harmless edits should simply be allowed without the self-reversion, and that the self-reversion suggestion was "insulting."

The only argument presented against unreverted "spelling corrections" was that it can complicate ban enforcement, as an admin must review edit content to determine it isn't a problem. With a self-reverted edit noting the ban, compliance with the ban is obvious, no problem is left behind, and an attempt to game this would properly lead to an immediate block, but no offending text has been created by a self-reverted edit, so it's not an emergency, and we can simply rely upon complaint to any admin. Self-reverted edits can generally be ignored. Complaints will not ordinarily arise for spelling corrections, unless the complainant has an axe to grind, which should probably receive attention all on its own. We should not harass editors for making uncontroversial improvements to articles, no matter what their history; we only ban for disruptive behavior, and the purpose of the ban isn't to prevent editing, per se, but to prevent disruption from contentious or otherwise offensive editing. --Abd (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, the purpose of the ban is to prevent editting of a specific area where an editor has caused problems. Any attempt to say, "well, but it really wasn't an edit" is garbage. You could easily have commented on someone's talk page raising the issue - which in itself is interesting given the problem in particular had been raised prior to your "helpful" edits. Which means there was zero requirement for your involvement, especially when under a ban. The handy fact you fail to grasp is that the community has determined you have been part of problems on a specific page and should not edit there. Rather than take that salient fact on board and help this site by improving some of the many articles that need help, you instead waste people's time wiki lawyering on the minutest of minute details. Sadly, it will only ever end up with one outcome, and then you can play the martyr on your latest crusade. Minkythecat (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I posted here about the principles of self-reverted edits. I made one, I was blocked, and that's over and moot. I would not have made that edit if I'd anticipated the response, no matter what I think about self-reverted edits. I raised the use of self-reversion when it could have made a difference to an editor whose POV I very much came to oppose (but we had never really tangled before then). In other words, this discussion here isn't about whether I was right or wrong, but about self-reversion in general, and for Minky to try to make it into a person issue is just plain offensive. As I've noted, the process was cleared with an arbitrator and it was extensively discussed openly, with no objection appearing until just recently, where, it's quite possible, the problem isn't the edits but the editor. Which is a problem in itself. Not to be resolved here. --Abd (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above) Some other misconceptions of Minky's. It's not a topic ban, it's a page ban, and I've been actively encouraged to participate in a mediation over specific issues at the article, so I have occasion to review the article frequently. Since I came across the situation with Cold fusion five months ago, where my concern was originally administrative recusal failure, a concern which was validated by other editors, and which was ultimately upheld by ArbComm, I realized I was in a position, because of my background in nuclear physics and chemistry as an undergraduate, to understand the issues at the article. It's an enormously complex subject, where appearances can be deceiving, Cold fusion has been called the biggest scientific controversy of the twentieth century, and it's not over. I spent five months reading the sources, bought books on it, spending way too much for my financial situation. I discussed it extensively on the Talk page, but made only brief forays into actual article editing until a few weeks ago. By then, though, I'd probably become the most informed Wikipedia editor that wasn't -- until now -- banned from the article. My opinions on Cold fusion reversed as I did the research, it's a case where common perceptions, even among "scientists," are generally incorrect and are not supported by the peer-reviewed literature. By about five years ago, there was sufficient evidence that the "fringe science" status of cold fusion was no longer applicable, it was clearly being treated with respect -- among those who became informed, such as the experts convened by the U.S. Department of Energy in 2004 -- as an emerging field, with still great controversy remaining. That process has only continued since then, there has been no reversal toward rejection, until, since the 2004 review and increasing, there have been major journal publications that treat cold fusion as real, that present very strong evidence for nuclear reactions at low temperatures or, in a publication this month in Naturwissenschaften, a theory to account for it. By the way, it's not "fusion" as was traditionally understood, apparently. That was a red herring that led the whole scientific community astray for years, and our article still represents that misunderstanding, though there is now plenty of reliable source to the contrary. When I actually started editing the article, providing reliable sources, I ran straight into edit warring and determined opposition, amplified by long-standing opposition to my general work. That's why I was banned, as I plan to show, and that's why I was blocked for an offense that for other editors would have been passed over as inconsequential. Fritzpoll, this is your Talk page and I've seen that you encouraged discussion here, but I apologize if this is disruptive. I didn't want Minky's accusations to pass unanswered. There is already way too much misinformation about this incident floating around. --Abd (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely too much misinformation. You were banned from the Cold Fusion page and associated talk page. Nowhere did I say "topic ban", so why you claim that... Yet again you totally fail to grasp that when people advise you to disengage, launching yet another campaign doesn't exactly give people confidence in you. Minkythecat (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's up to Fritzpoll, as to "too much." As to "topic ban," Minky wrote, given it's a topic ban not a full ban.[8] I must say I'm not surprised. There is no personal campaign here, but an attempt to restore to dignity a process that had been shown to work before, and that has potential for defusing a lot of disputes. I don't need that process for myself. Most of this will take place on talk for WP:BAN, as it should. --Abd (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm in haste, and I have some e-mails to read as well, but I think it is fair that I respond to your concern about the policy application. Bans by their nature are restrictive, so when someone is banned from a page, topic, the site, etc. we expect them to cease editing in that area. In order for any edits to take place, something would have to be explicitly stated somewhere to allow it. The local consensus in that discussion is that policy does not provide exemptions for self-reverted edits on pages from which editors are banned and that in the two cases mentioned, no other exemptions existed - since that consensus is consistent with policy, I'm comfortable with the close. In your particular case, you may wish to look at the validity of the ban as a whole: can an administrator unilaterally ban someone from a page under Arbcom sanction? Is AN/I ever a good place to reaffirm things like that? They are procedural points, but interesting ones to consider. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Your involvement on Justus Weiner page

Hi, you made a decision concerning the Justus Weiner page, one I did not necessarily agree with but accepted. I spent the last couple of days working hard on that article to improve it and all of my work has been disregarded with a revert back to an old version that has errors, is biased and has a litany of violations such as attacking another individual in a headline.

I have gone to the person in question who has continuously reverted my work for several weeks and have asked for discussion. There has been nothing but reverts.

My question to you is this. What's next? Should people who do not agree with the person who is reverting the article back to what he likes leave it alone, including the errors of fact, attacks on another individual and gross prejudice, or is there another way to approach this? Thanks.Skywriter (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend discussion on the talk page. If there are particularly egregious violations of WP:BLP then you may wish to post to the BLP noticeboard, but my cursory glance at the history doesn't suggest anything in particular. There are a variety of ways of dealing with disputes of this kind, but the best opener, barring an emergency is discussion and consensus-building - you may even want to consider a request for comment if it is just a few of you and you need outside input. If you can give me any more details on the problem, please do so that I cna help out in any way possible. If possible, can you also notify the other editor concerned? Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

David Stack AFD

In reading the AFD, did you notice that many of the participants failed to understand the use British academic titles? British understatement results in titles like Senior Lecturer, Tutor, etc. being quite prestigious. Also he authored three notable books not one (all published in 3rd party sources and found in libraries around the world). Publishing this many books is in fact somewhat rare among academics and qualifies per WP:CREATIVE. Would you consider closing it as no consensus? --Firefly322 (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Being both British and an academic, I am aware of our diminuitive titles :) I will review this in due course and get back to you. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed this. I discounted comments relating to misunderstandings about the fact that what we in Britain call a "lecturer" would be called "Professor" in many parts of the United States in the original close, but I still see consensus that deletion is the correct course of action. WP:CREATIVE does not seem to have been raised previously so I can't really suddenly unilaterally apply it, and I am skeptical that he would qualify if they are "factual" texts. Persuade me? Fritzpoll (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

His inclusion in the encyclopedia can stand on more than just one reason, policy, or guidline. His credited appearance in and contribution to The Trouble With Atheism was what in fact brought him to more popular attention. This reason was brought up at the AFD and it gives partial weight as to why he should be included in wikipedia—whether a reason is translated into guidlines (e.g. WP:CREATIVE) during a discussion doesn't need to bear on the dicussion's outcome. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

My own feeling is that I can resolve this by offering the following: I will userfy the article for you - we'll edit it up with more sources to establish a firm notability and provide a version that is not substantially identical to the deleted version. Meanwhile, I'll check the process, but I think if we can allay all the AfD concerns, we can move the whole thing back to the article space and everyone will be happy* *actual happiness may vary - terms and conditions apply How would that be? Fritzpoll (talk) 08:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Al Hilali

Did you read my message? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it still has another day to run. By the way, haven't gotten around to it yet, but welcome back. Glad I didn't acquiesce to your e-mail requests! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's hope you also have some peace from the various things that come your way. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Emailed. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

re: Kings and roads (Air Gear)

You deleted the air gear kings and roads page. I was going to put the sources on it just have been really busy. All that information was about an anime and that took a very long time to create. Bring it back and I will fix it so it is to your "standards". Please bring it back. This Is Wikipedia as long as the information is correct there should be no porblem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.0.7 (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Was deleted following consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kings_and_Roads_(Air_Gear)_(2nd_nomination) to delete. The information simply being correct is not enough - we actually have many inclusion criteria, and this article was deemed not to have met them. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Account deletion request

Thank you for carefully explaining the issues to me Fritzpoll. I appreciate your efforts. Now Gwen Gale is vanishing my account, I am very happy and I will have no further cause to make requests. I thank you so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.167.101 (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia centralized discussion talk page

In Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/main articles, could you please delete this [9] edit?

I base my request at Wikipedia:Talk#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable which states that users should not misrepresent other people. I have nothing against Taivo and I don't want a block on him or anything. But that post with a plethora of incorrect summaries that also attempts to falsely attest the driving force behind my contributions, does not give even the slightest amount of credit to the meaning of long conversations that I have engaged regarding to the quoted samples.

Thank you.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 13:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia centralized discussion

Please have a look at this and this. I believe that Future Perfect and I should be able to resolve this like gentlemen, but if things get out of hand I would expect you to intervene to prevent incivility. --Radjenef (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to add this and Future Perfect's refusal to discuss (despite my request on his talk page, which he proceeded to remove). He has now reverted my edits twice within a few minutes, attacked me personally and refuses to discuss the issue with me. I will notify him of this message in your talk page as it is not fair to talk about him without him knowing. In light of these, I would like to remind you that the aforementioned user is currently under editing restrictions by ArbCom for lapses of conduct and incivility. --Radjenef (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Attention needed at Macedonia discussion

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia#Page_protected ASAP. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirection of: Designated

19-June-09: I see that you deleted the disambiguation page "Designated", so I have assigned that title as a redirection page, instead. I did not continue discussion, once I realized that the AfD-page (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Designated) was violating WP policies, especially by using WP:Wikilawyering to deny the use of the word "designated" with multiple meanings. I really just wanted to see if anyone else could detect the tactics of "gaming the system" (WP:GAMING) and the use of WP:Sockpuppets in the "votes" to delete that page. I know you must be busy, but I'm afraid you've been played for a fool, and conned into believing that, somehow, several independent people, quickly, wanted that page gone. In fact, several hundred people a day (hence, hundreds of independent users) had been requesting the page "Designated" for the content it provided. Again, I'm sorry those guys fooled you. Perhaps, always check the edit-history of the last few people to vote for delete: did they edit any other articles during the past 6 months? -Wikid77 (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have specific accusations to make, make them and back them up with diffs per WP:CIVIL - I am not going to go on a fishing expedition for you. I close AfDs based on arguments since it isn't a vote - your arguments for retention did not answer the reasonable concerns of those proposing deletion, so the number and nature of the comments is not as relevant as you may think. In fact several of your arguments, including the one here about page views, are among our arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. So, to repeat: if you have a specific accusation to make, make it, but I will not spend my free time investigating without a good reason. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• More below: #Unusual comments should delay AfD consensus. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of SWARL page at June 6

Hi, Is there anything can be done to restore the SWARL (Short Wave Amateur Radio Listening) article? It's not quite cleat to me why that was speedy deleted? Of course I read the discussion about it but the final decision looks to me too quick. I would rather give some notices on the content and let the author fix it. I feel like I have to explain the situation around SWARL: There was a SWARL Yahoo group and the informational website that comes up at first if you make search for SWARL in google. Both of those have been created by Steve Carter who passed it on to the crew with Marshall Cubitt (I'm member of this crew - Yury Bondarenko, you can see the full list of the crew at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SWARL/ and the URL of our site there too, which is http://swarl.org) SWARL Yahoo group is one of the largest groups on this topic, and the site swarl.org contains supporting information (read: club information) According to Steve Carter, he does not have access to the old site of SWARL and he tried to convince hoster of it to remove content of it, but with no success. So, SWARL has desided to start a new site http://swarl.org , it is very new site and there are not many links to it yet, but we are working on links corrections. The article about SWARL on Wikipedia was containing the most important info about our club and we would really like to restore it. If we need to correct our article in any way, please inform me. I could see there is an article about ARRL and our club is no lesser importance to SWLs in the world as ARRL to American HAMs. There are only three organizations left in the world that issue international SWL call signs and keep track of them. We have got 794 SWL call signs issued and this number increases every day. There is a big interest in SWLing among people who has receiver. Well I hope I didnt take too much of your time by this explanation and really hope to get our article on Wikipedia back. Brack11 (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to have a look - I can't remember deleting this article. I'll get back to you shortly Fritzpoll (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Are there any news on my issue? Brack11 (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia citations

I will not repeat the alterations to the citations and I respect it when I am reverted. However I thought I did the right thing. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 20:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and actions in this regard. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, however I would like to point you to this [10]. Just so that we don't have double standards. We can't remove sentences that are adequately backed up. If a Google News query is good backing up, a UN document deserves more, right? Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 21:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Not when the assertion it supports is flat-out wrong. We have to have some standards of factual accuracy around here, after all. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

SQRT5P1D2's topic ban

Please see WP:AE#SQRT5P1D2 and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: SQRT5P1D2. You may have a view on this situation. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Unusual comments should delay AfD consensus

In detemining an actual consensus, consider if the comments are neutral, or somehow, unbalanced to try to mislead other people's opinions. If comments are not genuine, then the whole process is likely highly distorted. Why? ...because where there's smoke there's fire: even one misleading comment opens the door to a possible firestorm of confusion and incorrect opinions. For that reason, if an AfD discussion involves suspicious opinions, then perhaps, the entire discussion has been slanted (in other ways not easily seen). I did not identify problems earlier, just to see if anyone else noticed, and to see if Wikipedia would delete an article that was attacked by suspicious opinions. I did not mean to be intentionally vague, nor suggest an unending fishing expedition.

Specifically, there are unlikely "random" opinions: consider the 13-days of contributions of a new user, now inactive for 10 days: Special:Contributions/Martin_Raybourne.
See his opinion at end of: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Designated. This issue is not a priority; I work on thousands of articles, and I don't wish anyone to get upset about one page. I merely note:

• a page can be deleted when a new user recommends "delete" and does nothing else for the next 10 days.
• there is not a "14-day waiting period" after opinions are stated, to see what people do next.

I would recommend checking for hints (smoke) of unbalanced activity, and then consider the possibility that the consensus is being slanted in a unseen fire of inaccurate opinions. I am not blaming anyone for this situation, I merely note that there are such problems with Wikipedia's current policies about consensus.
Starting a "witchhunt" now could cause many problems: long-term users are involved. Instead, just realize that unbalanced opinions were listed, and try to be more aware when checking the next AfD. I suggest putting an AfD on hold, when new users start adding "random" opinions, without starting a witchhunt, and just declare that the matter requires "more time" to be re-opened for other users' opinions. There would be no automatic witchhunt for puppets or canvassing, but also no instant deletes, using the easy-excuse that more opinions were needed. Hence, just delay a suspicious AfD. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Martin Raybourne's comments were discounted in evaluating consensus because they added nothing to the discussion, so I wouldn't worry too much about that. I think it is assuming too much bad faith in our other contributors who make reasoned and independent arguments that "one bad apple spoils a bunch". We will discard opinions as necessary, and do - in this AfD, your views were out of synch with the community so you "lost" the argument. Our procedures here handle these scenarios fine as it is, one way or the other, and there is a very limited notion of suffrage. Consequently I see no need to adopt your suggestion except in the most extreme of cases where this is the default action anyway. This AfD was not one of these cases Fritzpoll (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Don't weigh various opinions: It's not a good idea to weigh one person's views against a "community" of puppets and canvassing. In the 1930s, there was the infamous document "One Hundred Scientists Against Einstein" (I'll write it from better sources: [11]), and he responded, "If I were wrong, one would have been enough". Wikipedia's policies have been a mish-mash of confusion, leading to the notion of consensus as being the majority view, rather than a mutual agreement that all could abide: "How can we edit the page to avoid deletion?". Why do sockpuppets chime-in on the AfD pages? ...because they work to cause deletes. You are not the only one who is struggling with the untenable notion of consensus as going "against the majority" - because AfDs should be decided on the validity of the issues: "Does the page disambiguate 2 titles, such as song "Designated" from the page "Designated (landmarks)"? If so, then it is valid, regardless of how many vote to delete. Also, consider if it is likely to support more disambiguations, such as book title "Designated" and film title "Designated" in the future. In short, Wikipedia's policies are convoluted, giving the appearance of a majority consensus (but not voting, you see), while obscuring the simple validity of the issues. The result: a consensus could go "against the majority" and really give full meaning to the term wiki-spastic. Wikipedia's policies are warping people's minds, but few realize what is happening. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to consider these issues. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that I'm not getting through to you, so let me spell it out:
    • AfD is not a vote - you can drop all notion of majorities. I don't even bother counting up the bolded !votes.
    • I did not close this as a vote
    • I weighed the arguments in accordance with policy and guidelines as I am meant to
    • People voting delete without cause, or with spurious/weak reasoning are and were discounted
    • The same applies to those who have weak arguments for retention
    • Your arguments fell into the latter category relative to those few individuals with a good, policy-based reason to delete
    • Thus the article is deleted, irrespective of the pointless and irrelevant comments by those you are accusing of sockpuppetry - they may have been there, but they may as well not have commented. One good argument can eliminate ten bad ones in opposition - that is the very definition of consensus on Wikipedia.
  • If you have specific accusations to make, make them with actual evidence, ideally at WP:SPI - making repeated unjustified accusations is a violation of our civility policy, and I will have no hesitation in enforcing it. I might also add on a personal note, that you are adopting an exceedingly patronising tone towards me, which is neither necessary nor appreciated. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nagatachō Strawberry -> Mayu Sakai merged

Re. this, I have merged the material to Mayu Sakai. You said you wanted to do something to preserve attribution. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - you'll notice that your user sub-page has gone. I merged it back underneath the redirect on the mainspace page, albeit clumsily! Fritzpoll (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have undone this merge. A biography is NOT the place for that material, and per consensus and previous discussion the only thing that needed "merging" was the series name and release dates which was done long ago. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave this content decision to you two. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a content decision. The AfD closed as delete, not merge. There was nothing to merge and the merge shouldn't have been redone yet again, in blatant violation of the AfD consensus to delete. The deletion was not overturned in a DRV or through any other valid means. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD is about the article, not the content. Anyway, we are discussing it at Talk:Mayu_Sakai#Merged. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That is total bull. By that reasoning, ever article deleted in AfD can just be copy/pasted somewhere else because the "article" was what was deleted, not the content. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Just recreating under a new name is not ok of curse. It is perfectly normal for an article about a notable topic to include information about sub-topics that are not notable enough for their own articles on Wikipedia. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I remember how it closed :) I responded to a request to allow some of the material to be merged - I userfied the article for a reference for the editor wanting to add content on this topic. You are correct that the AfD closed to delete, but that, as always, only refers to the consensus not to have a standalone article on a topic. Unfortunately, the community won't approve turning AfD into a non-uniquely deletion discussion, so the merging issue is a bit vague - in this case I thought I would leave the content decision over to other editors, and assist only in providing the deleted material for reference. Beyond that, I cannor help. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Fritzpoll. While I don't agree with Collectonian's reasoning, it looks like most on the talk page do not want the material merged, so I am leaving it for now. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

New proposal to structure community discussion

I've suggested a way to reduce the amount of clutter that we're likely to have in the envisaged public RfC. Please see Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Macedonia#Winnowing proposals - grateful for comments. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Fritzpoll is a bureacratic/law magnet

I diz Fritzmagnet. I draws in politicians like Maggie Thatcher would in underpants in the Houses of Commons eh?

LOL why is it Fritz that you seem to attract people in droves who are more interested in policies and proposals rather than on specific article content? Hehe. Why is it nobody visits your talk page for a "normal" not arb like conversation!! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess I've been spending too long over in those realms. Did I tell you about my plan for my first new article? Fritzpoll (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope. What is it? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It may sound dull, but our local political machinations have inspired me to write the article Electoral reform in the United Kingdom - I already have loads of sources for our attempts at voting reform, but just need some info on the wider reforms that we have already made. Whaddya think?

Surprised we don't have an article on it. I guess its one of the general topics which are of high encyclopedic value that are missing from the project. If we think generally rather than specificially we could be providing an overview on a huge number of topics. I studied a bit of electoral reform for A level particularly the period 1829-1848. I'm sure a mass could be written about it so go for it! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia proposal votes

Hi Fritzpoll. I think that some of the users who showed interest in the discussion here should be notified of the winnowing proposals section, in case they have not noticed it. Cheers, BalkanFever 12:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

By all means post a neutral notification on all of their talkpages Fritzpoll (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. I basically copied the text from your notification :) BalkanFever 13:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Then I can hardly fault it! :) Thanks Fritzpoll (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Your assistance please...

The record shows you closed the {{afd}} for Gregory McMillion.

The nominator failed to comply with the recommendations in the deletion policies that nominators show good faith by informing the individual who uploaded or created the article.

Since I didn't have a chance to defend the article at its {{afd}}, or to make changes to address the concerns raised there, I would appreciate it if you could userify it to User:Geo Swan/review/Gregory McMillion. I'd like to request its full revision history and its talk page too please.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This is actually one where I'm going to sleep on it and get back to you - this is a one-time BLP, and I'm a little concerned about it existing in userspace for scraping and indexing by external users of our content. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

For all I know, this may be an instance where those voicing an opinion in the {{afd}} were correct, and there is a lesson for me.

But if there was a potentional lesson for me, it was not available for me during the {{afd}} because the nominator didn't see fit to comply with the recommenations of the deletion policy, and leave me that crucial heads-up. Good faith contributors should be open to learning from their mistakes, and saving everyone's time, by not making them additional times.

I think this is a strong argument for asking for userification.

Can you let me know when you have finished considering this matter? Geo Swan (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines on undeletion recommend that the person interested in userification or full restoration should first approach the closing administrator with some civil questions. I hope you will agree that I have fulfilled my obligations.

You said you would have to sleep on this question. It has been a couple of days now. Should I assume, if I don't hear back from you by this time tomorrow, that you have slept on it, and made up your mind, and that I will have to make a formal request for userification at DRV? Geo Swan (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

How many attacks can one account sustain?

I am talking about myself in the Macedonia discussion. I try to keep a low tone and when one issue is rest (like the one about a few edits I made about citation styles that were reverted and I never edit warred about them), another one is raised against me. The latest one was that I am "Swamping the case pages with nonsensical proposals". I don't focus at the incivil implications of the word "nonsensical", someone may judge them to be nonsense, or "bulshit" (a word used about another user's arguments). However sustained attacks on my good faith without a reason (I thought having many proposals were the objective, not something to be avoided) is not something I can accept. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 14:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How many attacks can one account sustain?

I'd say roughly 763? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hehe :) make that 764 with this[12] semi-accusation of canvassing. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 17:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Odin5000

Fritzpoll, what do you think? [13] Should Odin5000's rant be allowed to stand? His contributions are very suspicious - this looks like a sleeper sockpuppet account, probably of one of the numerous editors who have been blocked for disruption in this topic area (possibly one of those banned by the ArbCom?). -- ChrisO (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If I may offer my 2 cents here, I too think that Odin5000's edits and creation of new proposals is out of line. I agree with your reversions. The only thing that should be allowed to stay is his endorsement of an existing proposal under international organizations. It probably won't count much since he doesn't cite wikipedia policy, but we can't keep him from having it there. --Radjenef (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't mind too much having it there either, if it's decided that he's acting in good faith rather than as someone's sockpuppet. His rant is quite a good disincentive to anyone inclined to support his favourite options. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather rants were removed from endorsement sections if they aren't making endorsements - perhaps the talkpage would be best? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess the issue's moot now that J.delanoy has topic-banned Odin5000 as a disruptive SPA. The rants were mostly endorsements, actually, but given their disruptive nature and Odin5000's contributions history he clearly wasn't acting in the spirit that this discussion is supposed to be adopting. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I spoke too soon. See WP:AN/I#Ban J.delanoy for Vote Rigging. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

Since you are involved in the discussion concerning the removal of Proposal G, I am informing you of the request for clarification I have put forth [14]. I am only doing this because I believe that the greater community should have a chance of seeing and evaluating the proposal by itself. I highly regard all of the effort that you have put in this discussion, so far, and wish to thank you for it. --Radjenef (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleting SWARL

You said you'll get back to me shortly but I still waiting for an answer

Brack11 (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Everso sorry - I've been busy on here and in the real world and have missed some messages in the rush. The article was not speedy deleted - it was deleted following a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swarl, the consensus of which was that the subject was not the subject of multiple, non-trivial, independent reliable sources, and so did not meet any of our guidelines for inclusion. If I can help in any way by reviewing sources that you feel meet the definitions in the linked guidelines, please let me know Fritzpoll (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If you take a look at the front page of SWARL yahoo group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/swarl/ which is our main representation on the web, you can see that it says "web site swarl.org" and the SWARL is the same club as e.g. ARRL, with over 800 members, very rapidly growing. What kind of independent reliable sources can I provide? we are the main source of information about ourselves. Can I please restore the article? The website of SWARL contains essential information about purposes of the club, as well as participation information. Brack11 (talk) 09:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I would upreciate your help with polishing our sources here. I read all linked here information about sources and I still dont know what more reliable then our own website, linked by the front page of our main web-meeting place - yahoo group. I can suggest as sources, links to our old site (referred by google on search "swarl"), as well as link to our yahoo group, and our informational website htp://swarl.org would those be sufficient?

Brack11 (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you've quite read our notability guidelines - you need reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Your own website is not an independent source. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

here are some links to us from independed sites:

• http://www.angelfire.com/mb/amandx/index.html
• http://radioscanner.ru/links/amateur/clubs/
• http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hfnewsletter/message/114

But the site is very new, so, it is in promotional status and I dont know how reliable you may see the sources above. Can you give an example of reliable source that we could provide? Brack11 (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If the site is that new then I doubt there are enough reliable sources discussing you (not just linking to you) exist to establish enough notability for a Wikipedia article, I'm afraid Fritzpoll (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Unilateral editing of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/main articles

User:Radjenef is making unilateral edits to proposal text without discussing them first ([15] [16] [17]), even though we already entered the RfC phase. I reverted them with explanatory comments ([18] [19] [20]). Could you please take a look at this and clarify whether such unilateral edits are allowed at this point?

It was not clear to me what is the status of proposals at this point. If reverting was the wrong thing to do, I apologize and I will accept any sanctions you deem appropriate. --Grnch (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, please check here and in the talk page for my version of what's happening. --Radjenef (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fritzpoll, I wonder if we could get some referee input about procedure at the central talkpage, thread "Did we forget something?". Cheers, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Gananoque Police

No problem with the Merge - I've had very little time to work on that article (had another article on DYK on Wednesday that took more time). Thanks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Exploding chicken

Hi Fritz. I wonder if you'd be so kind as to move the deleted article into my userspace? It seems like the kind of hard hitting and important encyclopedia article subject I may want to work on in the near future. Have a great weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Common End, Colkirk

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Common End, Colkirk. 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. (Not the nominator; just notifying you [although I would note that you might at least want to tweak your closing statement, which to the extent that it means to state a categorical rule overreaches; there is, of course, a longstanding consensus that certain geographic features—of which this, it should be said, is probably not one—that are necessarily notable, irrespective of their having received the treatment contemplated by GNG, such that the general absolute proposition that "we have no policies or guidelines to support an exemption [from the idea that existence is not sufficient for an article] in the case of geographical entities" cannot be said to command the support of the community].) Cheers, Joe (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As the nominator of both the AfD for Common End, Colkirk and the AfD for Common End, Fulmodeston, I was (unsurprisingly) happy that you implemented what I thought was the common sense result given a) the reliance on WP:ITEXISTS for the keep arguments and b) the lack of anything substantive to merge into the parent article. I do, however, agree with Joe's comment above that your closing comment for the Colkirk discussion should probably be revisited, possibly to use the same wording as you did for Fulmodeston. ClickRick (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

A minor suggestion: I think that a direct link in the closing statement would be helpful, e.g. "other AfD beneath this in the log". Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Your actions, even if unintentional, are not constructive

I saw your delete and redirect for Maria Belen Shapur. This is extremely destructive. Please restore the article then change to a redirect.

There is text that people wrote and references that people got. You can easily change the article from the text to a direct WITHOUT deleting the text permanently. Then if there are troublemakers who re-create the article, they can be punished. However, do not censure and book burn.

By delete it, you have also destroyed all of the talk pages that accompanied the article. By keeping a paper trail, this helps any kind of future archeological research that one might do in wikipedia.

If you do what I suggested (blank the article then make it a redirect) then knowledge is not lost but the article is cleaned up. This is one of the least controversial actions rather than deleting the article and changing it to a redirect. Note that for the AFD, I made analytical comments and did not advocate keep or delete. Because of this, I am even more neutral and objective than you.

Thank you. User F203 (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The AfD had a consensus to delete the article and the act of redirecting was simply to aid navigation, per the comments within the debate. The article history is unnecessary, and AfDs are deletion discussions, whilst redirects are editorial decisions. The consensus was for deletion, so the article was deleted per the WP:ONEEVENT concerns. Given my lack of opinion on the article, my not being even remotely related to the subject and not even resident in the same country as the event is taking place, I am uncertain as to the basis of your tacit suggestion of impartiality, but I will consider any evidence to that end that you may wish to proffer. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There was not a consensus to delete but rather some favoring delete and some keep. I did not offer an opinion in the AFD except for analytical comments.

Please make the article available to me so that I can review the text of the article and the references. After this review, the article can be deleted. Thank you. User F203 (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote, nor is it unanimity. I explained why the arguments for keep were not persuasive and why deletion was the consensus position. On review, I see no reason to restore the article at this time, based on your intended purpose. I'm certain a Google cache of the article is still available if you need it. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Maria Belen Shapur

I'm sorry, I was actually in the process of typing messages to both you and F203 when I noticed your comment. I am normally happy to provide access to material, and thought this the best route as it preserved the edit history (in case a partial merge was performed). If you feel that it is best that the content is deleted, you are welcome to overturn my actions, as you are more familiar with the subject matter than myself. What were your reasons for refusal? J Milburn (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Note to casual visitors: we discussed this, and came to a happy compromise - seems that there was som confusion on my part as to what the requesting editor actually wanted. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that you are mad, Fritzpoll. Because of fading memory, I did not know if there were any references that could improve the related article. If I knew, then I would have clearly stated it. Since I just had a suspicion that there were some references worth saving, I asked to review it and did mention that the deleted material included some references.

I think this has been discussed enough. Good luck in WP. User F203 (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh - no problem. I'm not angry in any way, and am sorry that our wires got crossed in regards to what you wanted. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Expert advice requested

I saw this article on the main page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Pakistan_Army_Mil_Mi-17_crash

I immediately thought whether or not this article should be deleted. Obscure articles hidden in Wikipedia is a different matter. Having an improper article on the main page is egg on our face.

What do you think?

WP:AIRCRASH does or does not meet this? User F203 (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

AIRCRASH wouldn't generally apply because it doesn't apply to military crashes. It certainly isn't deletable at present, although arguably there are some notability concerns. If you're concerned, you can list the article at AfD, although you want to have a good argument to present. I'm happy to help you if you need the help. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not on a delete mission. The article is more of a news event than an encyclopedic article. However, it's not so trivial that deletion is urgent. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be a guideline for military crashes except that perhaps 1 man training accidents don't usually qualify. Thanks for your assessment. User F203 (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh - didn't think you were on any mission but improvement of Wikipedia. Have a look at WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:SBST if you're interested in the relevant policies. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is funny

I've been thinking. Wikipedia is a funny place. There the age old arguments. Delete/keep. Israel/Gaza. Macedonia and FYRM and Macedonia sockpuppets. Also some very sloppy articles. Lots of news. Yet, the scholarly writing of an encyclopedic article is only a small portion of edits. You don't have to comment...it's just like talking about the weather. User F203 (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't have to, but will. :) I think it is probably true that a huge proportion of edits go into discussion, but that's symptomatic of a collaborative environment, I suppose. The articles themselves vary wildly in quality - the best way to fix that is to edit the articles up to a higher standard, but there is also a good argument for trying to faciliate a good editing environment, where people can discuss and settle disputes. The difficulty for folks like me who try to do both is finding the balance in the limited time we have to participate here. Fritzpoll (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

On consensus

Per the DRV.  :) Let me begin by asking you a question.

Is a sysop like a clerk to a working group, tasked with recording and implementing their decisions? Or is the sysop more like an executive listening to a board of advisers, and deciding which to listen to and which to disregard?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, I'm going to take my life into my own hands :) The choice is secret option number 3: of your two choices, both are inadequate. In the second role, the admin has authority, and can arbitrarily disregard opinion. In the former, the admin is dumb and could be replaced by a computer program that runs a checkuser to eliminate socks, and counts the bold votes. I offer to you an imperfect analogy of a solicitor in a group consultation. The solicitor explicitly follows the advice of their client, but interprets their local decision within the larger framework of law - arguments with a dodgy legal foundation are not as strong as those that are solid in law. Trying to extrapolate that imperfect description to AfD: an admin is selected by the community ostensibly for a sound foundation and understanding of our policies and guidelines. The policies and guidelines ostensibly represent a global consensus of the community, in that they have had wide input from many parties. Consensus at an AfD is local - arguments within it cannot override the global consensus. So if arguments contradict policy or guidelines, my contention (and I'm not alone) is that those arguments be weighted less significantly than others that have a firmer grounding in policy. Where a problem with this principle would occur is if both sides of a debate present valid interpretations (or at least not obviously incorrect ones) of policies/guidelines and an admin were to discount one of these because they thought it wasn't as strong. That would be the admin substituting their judgement for the consensus and wouldn't be acceptable.

So I'm not sure if I've expressed that clearly, but I'm sure you won't be afraid to pick up on anything and ask me more about it. I can certainly see problems with the system I've described (assuming it is an accurate description), especially because I perceive a growing disconnect between our policies/guidelines and the community at large, which undermines many assumptions on which a variety of actions take place. Do you think consensus is simply a vote? If so, why? Fritzpoll (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think consensus is a "vote", and nor can it be, for the excellent reason that this is an environment where socking is rife (and I'm cynical enough to think undetected socking is also rife), so treating it as a vote would empower the cheaters. But equally, I don't think sysops are empowered to disregard the good faith opinion of an established editor in good standing unless their opinion is shown to be fallacious by a subsequent argument—and I use a strong, and quite formal, definition of "fallacious" for this purpose.

Compare RFA with AfD. Both have a similar structure, with a nomination and arguments. But with an RFA, I think you'll agree with me that it doesn't matter which crat makes the close.

At AfD, I think the situation is quite the reverse. I think how it's closed is a lottery that depends on the closer.

Gonna pause in this line of argument at this point, so as to give you a chance to poke holes in my mistakes.  :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have previously argued that RfA is simply a vote with a supermajority requirement to pass, although that argument falls down within the discretionary range, where we have seen disagreement between crats as to what constitutes the consensus opinion based on the arguments presented by both sides. In the discretionary range, therefore, it does matter who closes it.

Certainly, I do not like the lack of consistency that exists in the closure of AfDs - take the recent bilateral relations articles for example, where the same participants were in the discussion, but the results could differ from admin-to-admin, largely I think because of the lack of community guidance.

I still think that we have to be careful not to overturn what I referred to as the global consensus on inclusion with a local consensus at AfD. That said, our policies/guidelines are descriptive not prescriptive (for the most part) so AfD should work by interpreting them and an administrator should not ignore a good faith interpretation simply because they don't agree with it - hopefully we can agree on that point? I think where our disagreement lies is in handling the so-called arguments to avoid, which may make no effort to interpret policy or guidelines (such as ITEXISTS) and just state personal preference.

My contention is that community guidance to administrators is to ignore such arguments in deletion debates, as summarised at the deletion guidelines page and in the definition of consensus. This method of closing debate has been sanctioned up to Arbcom, who recently made explicit the instruction to consider policy and guidelines in closing the Macedonia dispute that I am currently refereeing.

I shall, however, make one step closer to your position (I think) and say that an admin should not necessarily discount such an argument unless it has been explicitly noted as such by another participant in the debate. But I'm not yet convinced that I'm empowered to overturn the community's policies and guidelines in favour of a tiny selection of participants at an AfD discussion - admins are subservient to the wishes of the community, and we must enact their consensus. The community is not, however, the same as the participants at AfD. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

←I think a large part of where we're disconnecting is about whether the sysop is obliged to close against local consensus. My position is that a sysop is never obliged to do that.

The question we're considering is the case where the local consensus and the global consensus are at odds with one another, and I think the solution is not for the admin to disregard the local consensus in closing. I think admins are supposed to guide the local consensus in these cases (and not, in the vast majority of cases, to overrule it).

I think that where the local consensus and the global consensus are at odds with one another, the sysop needs to refrain from closing and !vote instead. You see, another admin will be along to close shortly, and this new admin will then have a better consensus to deal with.

The point of this is to avoid not just abuse, but the appearance of abuse.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

But doesn't that have its own problems? AfDs have to come to an end at some point - what this would seem to do is cause a last minute flurry of admins stacking up votes at AfD, making them another self-selecting voting bloc (as self-selecting as current AfD participants are) and twisting consensus to an admin-heavy position. We could look at liberalising the relisting guidelines to counter this, but I doubt such a proposal would get anywhere. And again, I think we're at odds over the definition of consensus. To summarise several editors on this topic: one good argument can outweigh 10 poor ones. Where this can fall down is the definition of "poor" and "good", and the propensity of administrators to not explain their closes. How to tackle this is a tricky but worthwhile question, but I don't think you're going to be able to garner support for changing the deletion policy in the way you describe. I have, however, been known to be wrong! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now that's not quite the point I mentioned. I was talking about cases where a !vote or two would be sufficient to swing the outcome.

If we're dealing with cases where a "flurry" of admins would be necessary to create a swing, then we're actually dealing with a matter well-covered by policy, because what we have is a local consensus to suspend the global consensus in this one particular case — in which case there's already a clear rule.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The application of IAR would require there to be demonstrable benefit to the encyclopedia in doing so, which surely requires a judgement call? Fritzpoll (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, there's a judgment call (and regardless of how other people might have misrepresented my position, I've never suggested admins should be robots). But the devil's in the detail. For example, imagine an editor who says "Keep: A cost/benefit analysis shows that this article does no harm and might possibly help someone, and yes, I'm aware of WP:ATA but I'm ignoring that essay with all due forethought", followed by a succession of "Keep per previous editor" !votes.

Is this "demonstrable benefit to the encyclopaedia"? Where do you set the bar?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, a string of keep votes with no reasons to delete given by anyone would close with the article kept regardless. You can't just let a nomination sway the discussion on its own, otherwise it's like an advanced and pointless PROD. In that example, the local consensus isn't overriding a global consensus because there is no consensus established that it violates the guidelines, nor necessarily any consensus that it matches them, so keep is the default. I apologise if I characterise your position as requiring robotic admins, but I keep coming back to the idea that you want us to use headcount a lot more than the arguments presented. Here's a common example to consider for this point in general: what position in an AfD does the following comment support in terms of the article: "Keep: the subject of the article is not currently notable, but may be someday" Fritzpoll (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

←It says "keep", so I'd assume that it means "keep" — though in that case, I'd be looking quite hard for a subsequent refutation in the discussion empowering me to disregard it.

My position is that "consensus" is, by its very nature, a group decision-making process, and that the admin's role is to implement the group's view—and that per well-established policy, a local consensus can suspend a global one in particular cases.

A !vote count may not represent the group's view, but in the absence of bad faith or sockpuppetry, it's strongly indicative of it.

This isn't to say that there are no circumstances in which the closer should disregard the consensus. A BLP concern, a copyvio, an attack page or other genuine issue involving direct harm to someone would earn an "endorse" from me at DRV.

On the other hand, in places like dispute resolution, admins are charged not to overrule the consensus, but to guide it and influence it so it reaches an appropriate conclusion. My position is that this applies to AfD as well, insofar as editors are engaged in collegial, good-faith discussion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So if a single editor within the discussion makes the point directly that this clearly contradicts the notability guidelines, an admin can disregard it, but otherwise we're to count it? Can any comment prior to it cause a reevaluation of the position, or must it be challenged on each occurrence? I'm trying to get a better handle on what you're thinking. :) Fritzpoll (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not encouraging you to listen to a point that's already been refuted; I should think one refutation is enough.

The key point there is that I feel, in such cases, the closer should look for a refutation in the actual discussion. Where it is in the discussion doesn't seem so relevant to me.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm beginning to follow where you're coming from. I'm still not certain I entirely agree because of the self-selecting nature of AfD participation, but I shall at the very least give this further thought before responding further. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[21] This is A, not B. Dc76\^talk 18:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) This is why there are more pairs of eyes. Dc76\^talk 18:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Substituting surname

Hi. Any idea how you can {{subst: a surname in the page title to DEFAULTSORT sort the categories? Its just I have a large batch of German politicians to transwiki and I want to do it more quickly. So basically when you create the page it automatically places e.g Fritz Baier as Baier, Fritz in the categories. If not I gather there is a bot that can default sort the categories by surname and fix it afterwards? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

An award

The Townhall of Münster Award goes to Fritzpoll for helping to end the Thirty Months Macedonian naming wars. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

And now for the party …
Greek and Macedonian Wikipedians celebrating the conclusion of WP:MOSMAC2, in the presence of several Arbcom members and Arbcom clerks. Referees (top right) are looking on.

Superb dispute resolution

		The Golden Wiki Award
		For your exceptional contributions in dispute resolution, specifically, handling the centralized discussion that was a result of the arbitration case ARBMAC2, I award you this Golden Wiki Award. Outstanding job! Rlevse 22:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:N/CA

Do you have any thoughts about differentiating the notability (criminal acts), specifically murder with the not news guideline?

Often, there's a sensationalist murder that gets a lot of news attention. Sometimes, it's just for a week or so. Some very significant murders are covered by print encyclopedias but many murders of questionable notability do not.

I have no preconceived idea to expand or limit the number of murder articles. I just think that there is a lack of guidance to what is notable.

Is there a role for a separate WP:N/M, M for murder?

What do you think about changing the criteria a bit? Should the criteria for old murders be the same as current murders (probably yes)? Would there ever be support for the idea that only the exceptional murder is notable within 3 months to avoid the "murder of the month".

There is a murder of the month. The current murder of the month is the Nashville former football player.

I'm writing to you because you seem to be interested in the WP:N/CA topic. After becoming better acquainted with the subject, I might bring it up there. User F203 (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, WP:N/CA was first drafted by me to explicitly prevent massive sensational, but short-lived crime like murders get articles by specifying the criteria under which such crimes become notable. The problem is patchiness of application because the guideline isn't as well known. I think your question about old vs. new murders is a problem symptomatic of recentism in Wikipedia in general, and I think a general rather than specific alteration to our concept of ntoability is going to be required. The problem is that the sources are there to establish notability of "old" things, but as they aren't always web-based, they aren't as easy for people to write about as newer stuff based on news articles. Short of the Wikimedia foundation paying for us to access journal and library repositories, I don't know what could be done practically to rectify this problem... Fritzpoll (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You drafted N/CA? You are notable yourself, then. Prepare the Fritzpoll article! I will give it some thought. I think the inclusion of some murders is uneven to the point of making WP less respected. WP as a depository of murders, video games, and porn stars is not the encyclopedia that I want to write for. Since those 3 have not yet overrun or defined WP yet is good. User F203 (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Revert

Any reason? Tan | 39 14:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Accident is my guess? Anyway, I reverted the rollback here as the edit is clearly not vandlaism. Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk)

How the hell did that happen?? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha, that's what I figured. No worries, carry on. :-) Tan | 39 14:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Bastille Day!

Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not!  :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Substituting surname

Hi, why didn't you answer me?. Any idea how you can {{subst: a surname in the page title to DEFAULTSORT sort the categories? Its just I have a large batch of German politicians to transwiki and I want to do it more quickly. So basically when you create the page it automatically places e.g Fritz Baier as Baier, Fritz in the categories. If not I gather there is a bot that can default sort the categories by surname and fix it afterwards? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I must have missed your message in the flurry of messages on my talkpage and my e-mail inbox to do with some of my on-wiki activities over the past week or so. The answer, I'm afraid, is that I have no idea. Not sure who to suggest.... :-S Fritzpoll (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed, more fun and games I see. Always trouble in the Balkans!. Mmm I was hoping ther ewould be something quite simple available, as automatic DEFAULT sorting would seem like a basic operational tool. Trust all is well. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if my work in these areas helps more editors get out of disputes and back to content editing, I'm hopeful that it is a net positive, even if my own content contributions have been stymied as a result. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry

As can be seen in this history you reverted my bad revert, thanks. I accidently hit rollback. I did try to fix my error but you were fast and beat me to it. Thanks for that though, I appreciate not being beat up over my stupidity today. :) Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh - no problem - if you look up a couple of sections, you'll see I had a similar problem earlier on! Fritzpoll (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Article userfication

I think I'm ready to start building the first of the glossary articles now. The first article I'd like userfied is List of Internet Relay Chat clients (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). As best I can tell from mirrored copies I uncovered with Google, this should be good base to build the client glossary outline on top of. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done at User:Tothwolf/List of Internet Relay Chat clientsuser per our discussions and this request Fritzpoll (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks! Looks like this will certainly work to help outline and build the glossary. Btw, was there any discussion on the talk page that went with this article? It might be worth userfying if so since it might also help while build the outline. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You will find that the userpage above now has a talkpage.... :) Fritzpoll (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks again! --Tothwolf (talk) 08:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleting the top #497 article of readers

This is a fuller explanation of my viewpoint. You thought that the "AfD result has upset" me, but no, instead, I'm quite happy: the AfD-delete has provided evidence I need to analyze policy implications. Please don't think my criticisms of Wikipedia policies are an attack on the people: these problems should not be "blamed" on individuals who think they are just following the policies. And I like your suggestion about creating a guideline for subarticles.
I use terms like "Weakipedia" to emphasize that the system has serious hollow-article problems. Of 10 million registered users, 98% quit within 1 month: that also seems like a problem to solve. So, I don't blame any one person for deleting the top article #497 (of current reader's interest); that deletion is the result of current policies that advise people to ignore Google hits & reader interest.
Meanwhile, as I calculated, that CoMJ article answered the pageviews of 215,000 people, very likely influencing 1.5 million, and provided quick facts to 96% of people who were interested. What a great win for Wikipedia! That's fantastic, and you also helped by suggesting areas for improvement/concern, changed during those 215,000 pageviews, so thank you as well. Plus, as you had noted about libel/WP:BLP issues, after those 215,000 people got their answers, now the article is gone, and hence we don't have to worry that someone would vandalize the article to be embarrassingly read by 8,000 people per day, in the future. The AfD-delete has provided a resting-period, where people have time to re-consider policies, as to how they would rewrite/protect such popular information in the future, while AfD-deletion had been delayed until 96% of people read their factual answers (because the article remained coherent most of the time, due to your rescues!). Plus, this situation happened, at a time in history, when millions were mourning and concerned about those children's outlook. Hence, I think we should all be relieved and calm at this point. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - I just don't want ill-feelings to pervade after what transpired to be a more adversarial AfD than I had anticipated. I do hope we can move forward, and I am genuinely interested in thrashing out some change to our structures that might improve the encyclopedia in the future. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA reminder

Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 22:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

• T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
• WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
• WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
• WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
• WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That tan looks familiar

What do you get when you cross Julian McMahon with Tom Jones eh? A German politician? LOL!! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject TRANSWIKI

Hi. In light of recent events and community concerns about the way in which content is transferred I have proposed a new wikiproject which would attempt to address any of the concerns and done in an environment where a major group of editors work together to transfer articles from other wikipedias in the most effective way possible without BLP or referencing problems. Please offer your thoughts at the proposal and whether or not you support or oppose the idea of a wikiproject dedicated to organizing a more efficient process of getting articles in different languages translated into English. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Record keeping

Re [22] - you might want to clarify what you mean by "notified". If you mean "put on their talk page" you should say so; otherwise it can be interpreted as "put on a page you know they will read". As for the "recorded centrally": if you have a page in mind, you should specify it. If you haven't, then there is a problem William M. Connolley (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh - if I could remember which page I meant, I would put it in. I know there's one around here somewhere.... Can you remember which one I sent the e-mail to you about? I'll clarify the other point on my next edit. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Workshop of Abd-WMC ArbCom case

Hi. As I pointed out there, I think you missed this diff [23]. Hipocrite read about the page-bans on talk:cold fusion, accepted them and did not request separate notification. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but wasn't that after Abd had posted to Talk:Cold fusion? What you're linking to is a warning, strictly speaking, about violating the ban that was already in place. So Abd made this initial violation of the ban without being notified of it on his talkpage - my opinion isn't that WMC did something wrong in all of this, but that there is a procedurally tidier way of doing these things that we should re-adopt. Remedy 1 is the only remedy I will be proposing based on this FoF. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd made this initial violation of the ban without being notified of it on his talkpage - this is a red herring. Abd made his initial violation in response to the ban notice, so he was fully aware of it. There is no question of a failure of notification in this particular case William M. Connolley (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I agree with this. Unlike arbitration enforcement, these page-bans do not seem to have a definite procedure attached to them. Abd's violation of the ban showed that he was well aware that a ban had been enacted, since he immediately contested it. WMC could theoretically have blocked him for the violation, but wisely chose not to. As you say the procedure could be much, much cleaner, since in this case, theoretically Abd could have edited cold fusion itself, once it had been unprotected, without any awareness of the page-ban or that he was violating it: this is extremely unlikely though, considering the large amount of activity going on the talk page, Abd's favourite page. Mathsci (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) As I say, I don't think you did anything wrong - I just think its best to emphasise that notifications ought to be made in the place where they can be best evaluated by their target audience (in this case the talkpage) and you didn't make the notification there until somehow prompted to. It is a procedural nicety that I think should be maintained for a variety of reasons, and isn't intended as a reflection on you at all. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fritzpoll. Even if we take this case off the plate, should we not have better !procedures for some of these things. What Fritzpoll is suggesting seems obvious as a !process (i.e. read as norms of community practice) improvement. I also agree strongly with the need to establish a community norm around using WP:RESTRICT to better purpose here. --GoRight (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)