User talk:GRBerry/Archive 5

At this point I became an admin. Subsequent archives are by bots, so in the order conversations became stale rather than the order they were created.

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Help over at CAT:CSD

Hi, and congrats on your promotion! Per this discussion, I'm dropping a friendly note to some of the recently-promoted admins requesting help with speedy deletions. I am not an administrator, so if you don't feel comfortable diving into deletions - or if you need more info - please don't come to me, but I'm sure that Cyde Weys would be happy to guide you if you want to help. Any help is great, but I'm sure that Cyde and others would deeply appreciate it if you could put the page on your watchlist and do a bit of work there on a regular basis? Maybe weekly? Thanks in advance! Anchoress 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Commons Voting

I am user GRBerry on Commons. GRBerry 19:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Ridge Christian College

The revisions since you began creating this article afresh have been userfied at User:Absolon/Bay Ridge Christian College. If you can't find independent and reliable published sources in a reasonable amount of time, please tag it for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4 (with {{db-repost}}) or WP:CSD#U1 (with {{db-userreq}}). GRBerry 19:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you. Absolon S. Kent 19:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AKN

i left a comment on for your endorsement here. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_30#Alpha_Kappa_Nu FrozenApe 19:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Aloka

Thanks for the heads up. --BozMo talk 07:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy

Yeah, the present version is more politically correct and less likely to offend anyone. Protect the innocent, protect the guilty. The curious reader can look at the historical pre-sanitized version as I did, or can Google for more info. But the older one was titillating, and if it included the picture and letters it would doubtless have been even more so. Best wishes. Edison 22:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Wesker

Hi there, just dropping a positive word of encouragement. And that I found how you restored and then deleted that page rather funny! But still, was a good way to handle it. Plus I'm impressed with the detail and extent to which you replied to Marion Mayger on their talk page. Am pleased to see you around as an admin! Keep it up. Mathmo ^Talk 13:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Marsden

Hi GRB, I'm concerned about your decision in the Marsden deletion review. Most of the people who commented endorsed the deletion. There was no consensus to relist it, yet that's what you've done. In so doing, you've effectively changed the proportion of users needed to have it kept deleted i.e. you've undermined the deletion review process. My apologies if I have that wrong: I don't get involved in deletion issues much, so maybe this is the normal process, but it seems a little odd. Any clarification would be appreciated.

By the way, I deleted the new title, thinking that one of the sockpuppets had turned up to create it before the deletion review was over. It was only after I'd done it that I saw you'd closed it and redirected the title. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the old problems with DRV was that it was just a vote, from the days when AfD was still VfD. This got changed late last year. So DRV is now a consensus area, not a vote area. If you look at the timestamp on my struck out notes about closing in progress versus the timestamp on the final close, you can see I spent a lot of time determining the consensus here. (Yeah, I did spend some time talking with my wife, but 90% of that interval was spent on this close.)

The standards (documented at Wikipedia:Undeletion policy) are fairly simple. 1) If there is consensus to keep it deleted, it stays deleted. 2) If there is consensus to undelete without listing at XfD, it is just undeleted. 3) If there is no consensus, it goes to XfD. Normally it would go exactly as it was immediately prior to deletion.

About two or three hours into deciding how to close the DRV it was clear that there was no consensus on the main issue of whether or not to endorse the deletion. So the article was going to be undeleted a second time and listed at AFD a second time. But something didn't feel right about that answer, and I found that I couldn't swallow just doing that. So I thought about it some more, and analyzed from a different angle, looking for any consensus on minor issues and any ways off the wheel.

That is when I realized that there was a very weak consensus that the article shouldn't be at the old title. While Thatcher131's proposal to just have the content be in the History of SFU article did not obtain consensus support (5 of 42 is anything but consensus, and that is all I found who clearly would support that outcome), some of those who thought the content should be restored did agree that the old title was not the right place for the content. That enabled me to find consensus for moving it to a better title.

I tried to make clear that my particular choice of new title was editorial, rather than part of the close. It has been moved once since, and I agree that the new title is even better than the one I chose.

The discussion also revealed that the encyclopedic notability of the controversy is not because it is an incident in RM's life, it is because it an incident in SFU's history, and may (this was demonstrably expected, but not demonstrably proven, see the new page's talk) have had a wider influence on other Universities policies and procedures for handling harassment claims. So I also editorially whacked back the article trying to get it refocused on those issues. That hatchet job was and is improvable, as I've already commented in the new AFD. I don't claim that this had demonstrated consensus support, and do say that the hatchet job was an editorial action instead of an administrative job. (Of course the ArbComm remedy encouraging admins to delete says that any editor can stub, and admins are also editors, so whacking biographical detail is supported by the ArbComm remedy.)

I wielded the hatchet in an attempt to prevent this from going around the wheel a third time. (I do mean that in the sense which "wheel" is used in Wikipedia:Wheel war, although as of my close no single admin had acted twice so we didn't yet have a war.) Guy had speedy deleted with an eye on the unclosed ArbComm case, it was brought to deletion review, overturned, sent to AFD (with a pointer at the case), the ArbComm case closed, and the AFD closed as keep. Then at the suggestion of a user (unfortunately later proven to be a sockpuppet of a user banned by the ArbComm case) you looked at the ArbComm case and speedy deleted it, starting the second trip around the wheel. Consensus to keep deleted was not mustered at deletion review, so it has gone back to AFD. Thus far the AFD is a unanimous keep, which if it stays that way through the close will result in two complete spins of the wheel.

I wish the discussion had endorsed DGG's suggestion for an RFC on how to handle this, but nobody seconded it. I believe that the lack of consensus at deletion review exists because there are two groups of editors approaching the question from two independent frames. One group believes this is an incident in RM's life, and thus that having an article on it constitutes undue weight given the low level of biographical sources available about her. One group believes that this incident is clearly notable in its own right without regard to any later notability of RM, and should be covered by us regardless of how the page started. Some went so far as to say that if we only have one article, it should not be the biographical entry on RM. I believe that a RFC, which has no deadline, or ordinary conversation on the article's talk page, is more likely to produce a reconciliation of these views and a true overall consensus, than either DRV or AFD is, because the latter pair are decision processes with deadlines.

Normally, in the case of an article with a prior keep AFD that is later speedily deleted, the discussion at DRV depends on whether or not to relist the article at AFD, with overturning the speedy deletion a foregone conclusion. The normal exception to that standard outcome is when policy has clearly changed subsequently. In my eyes, reading the timestamps on the proposed decision page of the ArbComm case, it was clear during the original AFD that the ArbComm remedy was going to exist as it does now. The case was mentioned in the AFD, and the case closed before the AFD, so we really can't say the remedy from the case is a policy change since the AFD (and ArbComm would probably disagree if we said that they had set "policy" in its usual meaning.) This situation did influence the outcome; since it is mentioned in some of the opinions it presumably influenced them, and it definitely influenced the close.

I think we need to look for creative ways to get off the wheel. I couldn't accept myself the standard no consensus close action of relisting without changing the article because doing that would just be spinning the wheel another third of the cycle, but could close as I did because I think it may be a path off the wheel. An obvious pair of other ways to get off the wheel is if the new AFD finds a consensus to delete or merge the content. Given time and people who are looking for new options, we should eventually find a way off the wheel that we can all live with. GRBerry 16:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your long explanation, GRB. When you say deletion review got changed late last year, was it changed with full consensus? The change looks to me as though it's going to cause things to go bouncing back and forth between review and AfD. The bottom line for me is that there was no consensus to undelete, and yet you did. You then proceeded to edit the article. I completely accept that you acted in good faith, but can you see why it looks problematic? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has consensus primarily by lots of people not disagreeing, rather than by discussion. At the time the change was made, the regular closer of deletion reviews didn't even bother to comment in the discussion. It wasn't a major topic of conversation, so I've reconstructed the history from what I can find in the obvious talk pages. I think Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 8#Fundamental change was the discussion that kicked off changing the documentation, and the immediately followin section is semi-related. The discussion was advertised at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, see this diff for evidence thereof. The instructions for deletion review were changed at that time, and nobody objected. Here is the diff wherein Kim Bruning changed the deletion review mechanics instructions. That change was left untouched, that page wasn't edited at all for more than three weeks thereafter, and using consensus has not been challenged previously to the best of my knowledge. That we were working by consensus was noted (by me) on the talk page in mid October, see Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 8#SMFR. The undeletion policy was updated to state that consensus was used on November 3rd, a month and a half after nobody objected at deletion review; here is the diff. That pending change had been mentioned on the undeletion policy's talk page about a week earlier, see Wikipedia talk:Undeletion policy#Switch to consensus.

We certainly haven't seen a lot of pages bouncing back and forth between AFD and DRV yet. To the extent statistics are available, see Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#December 2006 Deletion Statistics. A finding was that as of mid-late January, well after any immediate AFD would have closed, only about 20% of December's overturns were redlinks or protected deleted pages. (Though I did caveat that I didn't test for redirects, which would show as blue links.) I think a lot of the reason for the lack of bouncing is the bias of the deletion review regulars - most of us have a bias is to endorse the last community decision, so if there has been a prior AFD, the bias is for however that AFD was closed. (Even badlydrawnjeff, whose bias is always to include, is more likely to skip opining when there is a delete AFD close than when something is speedy deleted, so while he can't be said to have a bias to endorse deletion closures, he effectively biases the group towards endorsing them by his choice of when to opine.) This is also evidenced by the fact that only about 1/3 of non-prod cases brought to deletion review get undeleted by deletion review (undeletion by the deleting admin is excluded from that fraction.)

There is a better case could be made that I should have let the discussion run for 10 days, as we haven't yet updated the Undeletion Policy to reflect current deletion review practice. On the other hand, would there have been consensus after five more days, or just more pile on opinions? See Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Removing mainpage clutter, where as part of a format switch I objected to cutting the standard practice down to five days, and was convinced/reminded that we'd actually been closing faster for a good while. Unfortunately, neither I nor anyone else choose to implement my suggestion to update the undeletion policy to reflect current practice. Also see this discussion which happened while I was closing. trialsanderrors is now the standard/default DRV closer, so he knows current practice as well as anyone.

As to not having a consensus to undelete, I quote the undeletion policy "If there is no consensus, it should be relisted on the relevant deletion process." With no consensus either way, undeleting and sending to AFD is the proper action under that policy. The extra steps of renaming and cutting back the content were the unusual steps here. GRBerry 02:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the renaming and cutting back the content were imaginative, and I favor imaginative approaches, so you have my support there; thank you for thinking of it. It's the change to deletion review that I find odd. With AfD, there has to be a consensus to delete, but the whole point of deletion review was that the balance was different and there had to be a consensus to undelete. That two-fold approach kept things in check, so that they didn't go back and forth too much. I'll look more carefully later at the sequence of events you describe above. Thank you for supplying such clear and complete explanations. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GRBerry, I completely agree with SlimVirgin's first sentence. Those were excellent decisions. Your very hard work (I did notice how much time you spent on it, and was wondering if you were regretting signing up for it) and attention to detail have been spectacular. Kla'quot 04:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if DRV changed to consensus it was done without consulting either Xoloz or me, and we've done upwards of 95% of the closures at DRV for the last half year. As far as I'm concerned, deletion review is still the forum to gain cloture, i.e. to establish whether the need to discussion is exhausted. The "passed-down" procedure is that of qualified vote count, which works under the assumption that DRV is mostly a forum where policy is interpreted and not applied as at the XFD forums, and different interpretations are normally considered equally valid unless there is clear counterevidence of misapplication of policy or the comment is a simple AfD redux (or the voter doesn't have suffrage). I usually do it in a two-step procedure, by throwing out clearly unqualified opinions before counting and going through a more detailed analysis only if the result is close to a borderline between different decisions. In general, XFD discussions are chaired by the closer while in DRV discussion the closer acts mostly as a secretary. ~ trialsanderrors 07:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aniger pda.jpg

Nothing important just homework, but in any case I`m using already for that another one from Doctor Fungus so It`s just to see my pic back--ometzit<col> 03:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 2

Hey, I left one for you to close since I was involved in the discussion. Shouldn't be too hard to make the call... Take care, trialsanderrors 06:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I opined also. ~~So, next admin along.~~ Actually, passed the buck to Radiant!. GRBerry ~~13:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)~~ 13:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Didn't see that. Radiant! it is then. ~ trialsanderrors 17:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for pointing that out. I missed the deletion review. I have restored the content! Thanks again. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Good article DRV

I'm not trying to revise policy at all, I merely noticed the template had been deleted and found that the discussion was old and perhaps the issue should be revisited. I was in no way involved in the original debate(s) and had not even heard of the template until today when I visited it out of curiosity. If this template is a violation of self-reference policy what is the rationale for keeping Template:Featured article? Noclip 21:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History

Published since 1983, this 16-page newsletter publishes 1,000+ property caretaking opportunities each year, in all 50 states and foreign countries. The rent-free listings range from simple house sitting assignments to full time property caretaking positions, with salaries and benefits in addition to the free housing provided. The publication is available in print, or Online. Publisher: Gary C. Dunn, Editor: Thea K. Dunn, Ph.D.

Circulation

As of 2007, worldwide readership is more than 30,000.

Dear GRBerry, what do you recommend that I do next? Should I have someone else put up a definition for The Caretaker Gazette? Garycdunn 16:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GRBerry, what do you recommend that I do next? Garycdunn 17:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GRBerry, thank you for your helpful suggestions. Here are just a few of the reviews about The Caretaker Gazette, and if you can tell me what I should do next to improve the definition for The Caretaker Gazette and get its definition back on Wikipedia, I would greatly appreciate your help and advice:

The Caretaker Gazette. - periodical reviews Whole Earth Review, Winter, 1994 by Daniel Meyerowitz http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1510/is_n84/ai_15958214

NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6923808

TIME Magazine http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090926,00.html

The Wall Street Journal http://startup.wsj.com/columnists/casestudy/20041110-casestudy.html

Forbes Magazine http://www.forbes.com/careers/2005/08/22/caretaker-homes-employment-cx_el_0822caretaker.html

AARP Magazine http://www.aarpmagazine.org/travel/freeloaders.html

The Financial Times http://www.ft.com/cms/s/6b037166-8b9c-11db-a61f-0000779e2340.html

Grand Times http://www.grandtimes.com/Living_the_Good_Life.html

GRBerry, thanks in advance for steering me in the right direction for a Wikipedia re-listing. Take care, Gary C. Dunn, Publisher THE CARETAKER GAZETTE PO Box 4005 Bergheim, TX 78004 USA (830) 755-2300 caretaker@caretaker.org www.caretaker.org Celebrating The Gazette's 25th Year of Publication! Garycdunn 16:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

Which one did you have in mind? It seems it's already been done. >Radiant< 08:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review

If you have time, would you critique me. Review is in the sig. Thank you in advance, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 16:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close the DRV

I'll edit the DRV, too, but sure, we can close it. Do I think it should be deleted? Oh, probably, but I'm probably wrong, and all I really wanted was that it get deliberation. The problem is that the article, as it is currently written, is heavy on "it was a joke and now the plot is" and not on what the heck kind of importance it has. I couldn't see any claims for notability in it at all. Then again, I'm more musical than graphical. Utgard Loki 18:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amarkov's RfA

You could enter a co-nom with your own words. —Malber (talk â¢ contribs â¢ game) 20:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV vs. AfD

I left a comment on that. While I wouldn't request a DRV on a declined speedy, and would instead AfD the article (if the declining admin didn't, which seems to be pretty normal practice), this is more to request a review of unilateral "speedy undeletions" of articles for which deletion had already been done. That seems to be a very different scenario to me, and one that probably should be subject to some sort of review in and of itself. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 21:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Hanson-Young DRV

Multiple sources now provided in DRV, please have another look. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 8#Sarah Hanson-Young. All at the bottom, at and underneath my !vote. â coelacan talk â 10:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agent M DRV

I assumed things were pretty quick given the speed of the reversal of the Logan Whitehurst page a few days back. Anyway, thanks for the heads up. âThe preceding unsigned comment was added by Cerise (talk â¢ contribs).

That was with consent of deleting admin, which is a reason to close early. Here they have clearly opposed overturning. GRBerry 19:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate DRV

Thanks I had not picked up, the editor requesting DRV hadn't notified the closing admin so ... I now have :-) --Golden Wattle ^talk 23:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Stamp

Thanks. I am still new at actually modifying information around here. Not really sure how to go about making a case for the undeletion of the Dennis Stamp article, and after I put that info together, wasn't sure how to draw people's attention to it after they had already voted for the deletion to stand. Jamestrepanier 02:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Review of user Sixty Six's blocking

Good to see someone else out there has taken note of how a certain group of admins has really botched this one. Here's hoping that either JS or another admin who knows the difference between right and wrong will fix this problem and restore Sixty Six's access ASAP. 24.242.148.169 17:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice

Now that - is a good point. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

following up

Coming here to follow up your comments in todays poll about admins, I was pleasantly surprised to notice the note on your todo page. So I ask you for help in the areas where you think I have most to learn--or what sort of thing I do ineffectively--or with the wrong style--or should stay clear of. (I have some preliminary ideas where I think I sometimes go wrong: I will sometimes deliberately ask naive questions, or try to find a clever wording, or make a slight outrÃ© comment or a large edit to get the discussion going--perhaps some of this is not always appreciated?). Comment, preferably strong comment, welcome here, or my p, or email. âThe preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk â¢ contribs).

Well, remembering to sign on tlak pages wouldn't hurt! GRBerry 01:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BattleMaster deletion review

Thanks for pointing that out, I hadn't seen the second AfD. Snurks^TC 02:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BattleMaster DRV

Thank you, I changed my vote. Wooyi 02:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

I have initiated a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Nearly Headless Nick disregarding consensus and consensus-related policies, a matter in which I believe you to have been involved in the case history of. Your commentary may be appreciated. Balancer 13:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've C&Ped the statements from the RfA to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (2nd RfC) on the basis that there seems to be agreement that the issue should be taken up in RfC. You may wish to ratify, modify, withdraw, etc your statement if you have made one, or add a statement if you have not. Balancer 23:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Jeffrey O. Gustafson

Hi There, I have opened this RFC about a possible admin-abuse of power or negligence case. I noticed you were marginally invloved in some articles with his and thought I'd inform you. Thanks.Captain Barrett 19:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starslip Crisis AfD/DRV

I am afraid I don't fully understand some of your comments on this DRV close. I think the view of the person requesting the review was that the AfD should have closed as Keep rather than Merge. I'm not quite sure how your close addresses this position. Could you kindly clarify? Newyorkbrad 20:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried here. A merge close is a form of a keep close already. Roughly, merge close = keep close + editorial merge, with additional weight for any later editorial discussion about whether to undo the merge. GRBerry 20:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The additional rationale is appreciated. Of course it raises further issues, because you indicate that this outcome leaves the article open to re-creation, and if and when someone does re-create we are going to hear that they have re-created content in violation of an AfD result.... I'll wait and see. Newyorkbrad 20:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two quick questions re: the noob

What is an appropriate period of time to wait before I can request an admin to remove the creation protection on the noob and re-instate the dramatically improved copy of The noob? Particularly in the light that the major reason to delete it was that the WCCA itself was "not notable" and this has since been overturned with the Web_Cartoonist's_Choice_Awards being relisted.
Might I have you expand on your reasoning for endorsing the deletion, when the discussion in my mind was clearly moving to no consensus? I cannot fathom that a 40kb discussion of keep vs delete means that consensus endorsed the deletion, and I would value your input to understand what happened.

I would appreciate any of your time spent on helping me with these two questions. Timmccloud 23:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tackle the second bullet first. I didn't opine in or close the deletion review, so I can't expand on my reasoning for closing as endorse deletion. But I can look at the review with fresh eyes, and offer a few thoughts:

IP editors are essentially always ignored in the counts (to the extent DRV is a vote count), though if they have novel and relevant arguments we do listen to those arguments. Because DRV is closer to a vote than AFD is, we have to be extra suspicious of IP editors, as there is no way to tell if they are the same editor as signed in editors without going fishing at checkuser, which declines fishing expedition requests. So while in an AFD such users may be ignored, in a DRV they should be ignored. All the IP editors were on the overturn side.
Single purpose accounts are treated like IP users for identical reasons, so users like User:Livinginabox (and possibly others) would be disregarded for the same reason. (When I'm closing a DRV and suspect vote-stacking to be occurring, I'll evaluate every participant that I don't already know on this test - just look at their contribs. I don't know if this was a factor actually applied or to whom, but I think it should have been and at least that one user should have been disqualified.)
I usually will ignore bare votes. In this case there was one endorse I'd have ignored.
I may ignore opinions that are solely AFD round 2 arguments, as opposed to deletion review arguments. In this DRV, only the IP editors (disregarded for other reasons above) offered opinions consisting only of AFD round 2 arguments, so this point wouldn't have mattered.
The final clincher for me - no consensus at deletion review defaults to endorsing an AFD close (or listing at AFD a speedy deletion). I'd have written a different closure summary had I closed this, probably "no consensus to overturn; the AFD close stands" or something like that, but it would depend on exactly who I determined to be a single purpose account. (The prior regular closer prefers a wording that doesn't use "consensus", instead using "majority of qualified opinions" or something similar.

That done, moving on to your first point. Whether the WCCA is notable or not is not particularly relevant - the awards as a group can be notable without any particular award being noted to make the recipient notable, or the award could be non-notable yet a particular award in a particular year was noted for some reason, conferring notability on the recipient of that particular award. An award can be sufficiently well-known to be notable enough to support an article on the award without being well-known enough to create notability for award winners.

Notability comes from independent and reliable published sources with non-trivial content about the article's topic, not from a connection to something else notable. Such sources are the basic building blocks of an article. My advice is to try following the guidance at Wikipedia:Amnesia test, forgetting all the old article text, and writing an article using only facts that you can cite to the independent and reliable sources. (That doesn't look to be the the article in your userspace right now.)

Once you have what you think is a better article that solves the problems leading to deletion (here, sources, sources, sources), talk it over with Nearly Headless Nick - if he blesses it, and notes that on the new articles talk page, you should be safe from WP:CSD#G4. If he isn't interested, talk it over with me and I'll give you my two cents on what I think should be done. After such an article is reviewed, then expand with the content from reliable published sources that are not independent (such as the webcomic's website, author, publishers, etc...). Bringing it back to deletion review right away, without new sources, is going to be fruitless.

Finally, you may have some interest in the draft essay at User:GRBerry/DRVGuide that I've been working up with a little help from others. GRBerry 00:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly want to thank you for the thoroughness of your reply and the effort you put into it. Your observations are very fair. The only one item I take a little issue with, is that discounting the opinion of people who take the time and effort to enter the waters of Wikipedia for the very first time because something compels them to comment, seems to be getting a little close to biting the noobs, but that's entirely my opinion, and I can see the reasoning behind it (and I apologize for the pun, couldn't help myself :). As for getting a fair shake from the deleting administrator, well that's just unfortunate, as I have stretched my assumption of good faith as far as I can with NHN. Because of my opinions on the matter, and the current RfC that NHN has open, I sincerely doubt that I would ever get him to agree to unprotect the article. That makes me pretty sad - this whole issue has really made me question if I can in good faith to continue to give my time and effort here, because I think this AfD / DRV / RfC has left me pretty dissapointed in the neutrality and professionalism of the entire process. This was the second AfD for the noob, both were nominated by NetOracle, an admitted opponent of webcomics, and I thought that first one was rough, little did I know. But I again want to thank you for your time and effort. Timmccloud 01:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take a look at any new version of the article you create. I have concerns about how the notability guidelines are being applied to webcomics and, while I am not under any circumstances going to "wheel war" with my fellow administrators, I'd be glad to look at a new article a few weeks from now with an open mind. Newyorkbrad 01:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Newyorkbrad so much. At this point, I won't be putting User:Timmccloud/The_noob up for inclusion any time soon, until I can provide almost unassailable proof of notability - I don't have it in me for another contested AfD on the same topic, not for a while. Timmccloud 02:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, I'm copying this section to Talk:The_noob, as after reviewing it, it has a lot of good information that I think should be added to that discussion. Thank you GRBerry, and Newyorkbrad!! Timmccloud 02:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brandt AFD

I was thinking the other way - close the DRV with a note that it's been sent to AFD. – Chacor 17:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has done that now. Sigh. That would be a reasonable DRV close if the article existed, but we have a redlink article. The solution to that is straightforward enough - restore only the last revision and protect it. I'll propose this at AN/IGRBerry 17:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your very reasonable demeanor there. It's alwasy refreshing to see cool-headed comments come up in something like that, especially when I'm not feeling so chill myself. William Pietri 20:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that sentiment, especially because I felt like I blew my top in one of my AN/I comments. As I am currently the default closer for deletion review, I'm trying very hard to stay neutral on the deletion. My AN/I comments have shown some frustration with the wheel-war like actions (Delete-Undelete-D-U-... and Close-Open-C-O-...), but hopefully people still perceive me as neutral enough on the merits that I can close the discussion after it has run. If not, let me know and I'll go form an opinion on the merits and issue that. GRBerry 20:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

Looking over the evidence, you acted very admirably, and did exactly what I would have done. Doc has problems with restraining himself under frustration (as he has admitted.) It appears that he now agrees the thing can stay at DRV, which is what should happen. Although I can understand the impulse to speedy close and relist as a clear abuse of IAR, that would be disrespectful to Yanksox, who (we hope) put thought into this. Personally, I see nothing that demands you recuse yourself from closure -- I would sometimes bristle the feathers of "rougists" over precedure only, and still close a DRV, and I did so with a clear conscience. That said, if you would rather express an opinion, I'll be happy to close the thing on Feb. 28.

Trialsanderrors dropped off after only three months, eh? I lasted six before I went nuts! :) Poor GR! I'll pop in tomorrow and try some closings to make sure I know all the new templates, in anticipation of doing back-up duty for you. Feel free to take tomorrow off DRV! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 22:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Nations Deletion Review

The consensus of those who are proponents of deleting it is to rewrite it (In your words, "So there actually is a consensus that it is probably possible to write an article that would pass muster, but the ones visible in the history and userspace are not that article."), but it was protected after it was speedy-deleted. It is thus a catch-22. The article cannot be rewritten without being undeleted and it cannot be undeleted without being rewritten. If it were to go up to DrV again with a rewritten article, the consensus would probably be to delete using this as a precedent. As it does qualify for having an article, it would be easier to organize it being rewritten if it actually had an article to rewrite in the first place.

In the case of Jennifer Government: NationStates, it was allowed to keep its article but it contains no sources off of the official NS wiki, website, and forums. Why was this article in a very similar condition allowed to remain undeleted to be rewritten while CN remains deleted? While WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an argument, this shows a clear double-standard as a CN article rewritten to be in similar format to the NationStates article was speedy-deleted while NS never was deleted. I think pointing out double-standards is a fair argument.

As for being labelled as a single-purpose account there, I do not appreciate that and point out WP:AGF. I recently restarted because my old account was only used once. I had edits on my IP extending back a while, but I knew that IPs would be taken with even less credibility. Just because I decided to take up the cause of CyberNations' article on a new account does not mean that I am a single purpose account. - Pious7 00:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way beyond milk and cookies now

I think we all owe you a nice dinner out for you and your wife. Thanks for being one of the people with their head still screwed on straight. Only four more days of this, I hope. Kla'quot 03:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

MY HUSBAND, THE PIG at DRV

Hi,

I hesitate to crimp your personal style, but when a request is as confused as this one (referring to article not at AfD, inspired by a template used in that article which is at TfD), I would usually just blank it from the record, with a note the newbie explaining things. We don't need to preserve well-intentioned near-nonsense. Ultimately, it only confounds other readers who examine the log later (it did exactly that to me! :)

You were right: the new templates are very easy. I was also impressed by the mathematical algorithm that automatically moves the daily log through its active cycle. That sort of numerical cleverness might have occurred to me about 500 years from now, if I pondered it constantly! Best wishes, Xoloz 19:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV comment

Yeah, you put it in the right place. Thanks. Khoi khoi 05:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandt DRV

A question has come up at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt that it might be worth addressing before the DRV runs its course. If those reviewing the discussion at close judge that there is "no concensus", what would that default to? An endorsement of the deletion or a lack thereof? Struck me as something that might be worth resolving in the abstract first... WjBscribe 06:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some help needed at MfD

There are two somewhat lengthy discussions (User:Walter Humala and User:Jefferson Anderson) ready to close. I've been handling the bulk of the MfD stuff lately, but I've participated in both these discussions, so I wondered if you would mind closing them. (I asked Radiant! a while back, but since they're still open thought I'd shop around for another admin.) Thanks, âDoug Bell ^talk 19:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did one, the right answer was clear enough. Since that is the first MfD I've closed, and I'm anything but a regular at MfD, I'll leave the other for someone with MfD experience to handle. GRBerry 22:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I did have to make a minor fix to the formatting of the closed discussion. :-) I also sent you an email earlier today regarding the DRV. âDoug Bell ^talk 23:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Hi GR, thanks for pointing that out to me. I can't even remember why I created it. I've deleted it now. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Caretaker Gazette

Dear GRBerry, is there another admin who can help with this? Garycdunn 17:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Forgotten

You haven't been forgotten. --> Dear GRBerry, it seems that I've been forgotten since I put my very slight revision on http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Garycdunn a week ago. What do you recommend that I do next? Garycdunn 00:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from my userpage) I had to undo your edit to deletion review. You forgot to say which page you wanted undeleted, and the error was malforming the entire page. I find too many deleted pages related to "Caretaker Gazette" to know which you want undeleted. (Hint, the one with the best article in accordance with the core content policies for a neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability is the one most likely to be restored.) Please try relisting, or drop me a note on my talk page with a link in that format and I'll recreate your nomination. GRBerry 15:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear GRBerry, I am soooooooo frustrated with this whole Wikipedia thing. I don't even know if this is the right place to contact you. I don't understand most of the Wiki terminology or why some of the Wikipedia people want to delete my definition. None of this makes any sense - and I had given up on Wikipedia until I just went in to Wikipedia - for what I thought would be my last visit to Wikipedia - and your posting was like a ray of light to me. I hope you can help.

All I have tried to do is post this on Wikipedia:

Caretaker Gazette

The Caretaker Gazette is a bi-monthly newsletter published in Bergheim, TX and distributed throughout the United States and foreign countries. It is the only publication in the world that covers the property caretaking field.

External links

The Caretaker Gazette website

Category:Newsletters

Dear GRBerry, is there another admin who can help with this? Garycdunn 17:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Forgotten

You haven't been forgotten. --> Dear GRBerry, it seems that I've been forgotten since I put my very slight revision on http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Garycdunn a week ago. What do you recommend that I do next? Garycdunn 00:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GRBerry, what do you recommend that I do next? Garycdunn 03:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GRBerry, what do you recommend that I do next? Garycdunn 16:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try again --> OK GRBerry, I followed your advice, and placed my revisions on the user page at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Garycdunn. Thanks again for your advice. What should I do next? Garycdunn 02:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't been forgotten. --> Thanks GRBerry. I await your advice! Garycdunn 03:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Dear GRBerry, is there anything wrong with this: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Garycdunn/The_Caretaker_Gazette Garycdunn 15:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd try: Dear GRBerry, what do you recommend that I do next? Should I have someone else put up a definition for The Caretaker Gazette? Garycdunn 15:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GRBerry, what do you recommend that I do next? Should I have someone else put up a definition for The Caretaker Gazette? Garycdunn 16:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GRBerry, if you or someone could tell me what is wrong with this, and then if there is something wrong - delete the definitions of TIME, NEWSWEEK, MOTHER EARTH NEWS and all the other publication definitions within Wikipedia, then I might understand. You see, I developed my above definition by studying the Wikipedia definitions for TIME, NEWSWEEK, MOTHER EARTH NEWS and others, and I followed their Wikipedia format. Thanks for any help you might provide. Take care, Gary C. Dunn âThe preceding unsigned comment was added by Garycdunn (talk â¢ contribs).

Dear GRBerry, thank you for your helpful suggestions. Here are just a few of the reviews about The Caretaker Gazette, and if you can tell me what I should do next to improve the definition for The Caretaker Gazette and get its definition back on Wikipedia, I would greatly appreciate your help and advice:

The Caretaker Gazette. - periodical reviews Whole Earth Review, Winter, 1994 by Daniel Meyerowitz http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1510/is_n84/ai_15958214

NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6923808

TIME Magazine http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090926,00.html

The Wall Street Journal http://startup.wsj.com/columnists/casestudy/20041110-casestudy.html

Forbes Magazine http://www.forbes.com/careers/2005/08/22/caretaker-homes-employment-cx_el_0822caretaker.html

AARP Magazine http://www.aarpmagazine.org/travel/freeloaders.html

The Financial Times http://www.ft.com/cms/s/6b037166-8b9c-11db-a61f-0000779e2340.html

Grand Times http://www.grandtimes.com/Living_the_Good_Life.html

GRBerry, thanks in advance for steering me in the right direction for a Wikipedia re-listing. Take care, Gary C. Dunn, Publisher THE CARETAKER GAZETTE PO Box 4005 Bergheim, TX 78004 USA (830) 755-2300 caretaker@caretaker.org www.caretaker.org Celebrating The Gazette's 25th Year of Publication! Garycdunn 16:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caretaker Gazette - for the record.

Dear GRBerry, is there another admin who can help with this? Garycdunn 16:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Forgotten

You haven't been forgotten. --> Dear GRBerry, it seems that I've been forgotten since I put my very slight revision on http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Garycdunn a week ago. What do you recommend that I do next? Garycdunn 00:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GRBerry, what do you recommend that I do next? Garycdunn 03:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GRBerry, what do you recommend that I do next? Garycdunn 16:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try again --> OK GRBerry, I followed your advice, and placed my revisions on the user page at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Garycdunn. Thanks again for your advice. What should I do next? Garycdunn 02:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GRBerry, what do you recommend that I do next? Should I have someone else put up a definition for The Caretaker Gazette? Garycdunn 16:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed speculation about why the Caretaker Gazette was nominated for deletion. I am the person who nominated it. I leave notability judgements to others, I have no interest in that issue.

My overriding concern with this piece is the apparent use of wikipedia for self-promotion. The OR aspect of the article made the decision to put it up for AfD easy. Caretaker Gazette first came to my attention from the Mathematics Education article, where I noticed edit number 104676804.

Since the edit had no content other than to promote Thea Dunn, I reverted the entry, and assuming good faith, left a message explaining that more detail was needed for the entry. To assess the situation, I checked the editors edit history, (it helps to know if this is a first time editor, and other such things), and found that all previous edits had been to the Caretaker Gazette. It was also apparent that Gary Dunn was the same editor as 64.185.177.210, apparently quite properly moving from an ip address to a named account. It also became evident that user Educationalventures has been making exactly the same edits that Gary Dunn had made, across a number of articles, all promoting Thea Dunn. There were no edits for any of the three editors that did not appear to be self-promotion.

I considered that the proper action for me was to put Caretaker Gazette up as an AfD, but just quietly make the appropriate reversions on the other articles. Other editors have made similar reversions.

Seeing that Gary Dunn is now presenting himself as perhaps caught up in rules that he does not fully comprehend, I thought it is appropriate for you to see the results of the background research that I did before the AfD nomination.Trishm 06:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication request

Greetings. It appears that the Sore Thumbs webcomic article's deletion, which you closed, went unnoticed by its author until very recently and Comixpedia has only a fraction of its content. His reaction off-Wiki was, quote, "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH." Can I ask you to briefly recreate this article in my user space so that I can migrate it over to Comixpedia and make the guy feel a bit better? --Kizor 23:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kizor/Sore Thumbs

as requested. GRBerry 00:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert of the license either, but I'm told that a copypaste of the history was perfectly sufficient. The move has been made, feel free to nuke the subpage. Thank you. --Kizor 14:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread

Thanks for letting me know, I just started talking to her a few hours ago by email. I can sure see what's got them so upset! A lot of these need to be stubbed or deleted and just started over. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's as much my fault as anyone's. I usually start out with someone requesting advocacy by asking them for a basic overview of the situation before going and looking at it for myself, and had just taken a look over a couple. I will make sure next time to go through more thoroughly and faster... Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brandt DRV close

Just wanted to let you know that I am willing to close (or help close) the DRV. I feel like I am pretty apolitical on the wiki and I don't really have any strong feelings about Daniel Brandt or the Arbcom case, but I have been following both closely. IronGargoyle 21:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Repost from my talk page to keep this discussion in one place)
As far as I'm concerned, the more help the better. My only concern with adding admins to the closing is the additional logistic issues created. âDoug Bell ^talk 21:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church

Just for the record, I did discuss it in a section for that purpose, further up on the page. Also, I'm male :) Cheers, >Radiant< 09:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doc glasgow

For the record, I am disheartened by Doc's departure. I didn't want to run him off, even though he appears to have wanted to run me off. All I wanted - and all I want - is that WP:BLP be enforced as written, not as he (or any other individual admin) wanted to see it - and if the way it should be enforced is different from what's written, to have the written policy changed to match the practice.

I'm not going to post this to Doc's talk page, since I almost certainly am at least part of the reason he left. He wrote me off as a troll a few days ago. Any suggestions as to where I might say something along these lines? -- Jay Maynard 22:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons? Doc's self opened RFC is another possibility, but I doubt many people are paying attention to it. GRBerry 22:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CFD reopened

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_14#Category:Worldcon_Guests_of_Honor is reopened and a moderately informative note left for whoever comes along next. The category is removed from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working. It would need to be manually repopulated (which I said I'd do). On an unrelated not, the message above this one doesn't fill me with joy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Headers

I for one am finding it difficult to follow the consensus on that particular MfD. Yes there are more keep !votes at present, but that could change. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 20:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, don't break it into sections. That is not helpful to the discussion. GRBerry 20:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol, you did the EXACT same thing I did when i replaced it. Looks like it was replaced twice now. Good job though, -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the disruption. I previously wasn't aware of the standard discussion format. I reverted it once in response to the first two messages on my talk page, which were checking if I'd removed keep votes or simply moved them. I reverted just before receiving your message. My mistake - but thanks for your message. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 20:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay RFC

Say, did I misunderstand your view on the RFC? It wasn't clear to me whose voluntary departure you were calling for. I first thought you meant Jimbo as well, but thinking about your other comments on this and other topics, that's probably not right. Might you want to add "by Essjay" to that last sentence? Thanks, William Pietri 22:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with slightly different wording. Thanks. GRBerry 22:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have cut my Essjay commentary, but too much more, and people will be saying "what's your beef precisely?

He blocked me from Wikipedia. I'm not a vandal. He acted with a hotfinger, with no concensus, with no ArbCom, with no other opinion. And when I tried to appeal I found even Brian Patrick's afraid of him. Now, considering WHO Essay really is (or isn't) this is really pathological. And yeah, I'm pissed because he burned me personally. But I'm sure I'm not the only one. I don't CARE how many IP vandal's he's blocked. This is different. I'm not going to let it drop. If you don't want to read it, page down. S B H arris 23:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos on the RFC

I was hoping that with the move, someone would stop the straw poll and get an actual RFC going :) Ral315 Â» 23:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Can we have a timeline?

There has been a request for a timeline similar to your Brandt wheel-war one to aid discussion at Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Essjay. I'd been thinking that you might be a candidate with the proven ability to put one together. Could you? GRBerry 18:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could, but you should be asking would I. I doubt there will be much necessity for it since Jimbo has asked him to resign his positions of trust and I have little doubt he will comply with the request. I also doubt a timeline would offer any insights over, say, a thematic grouping of data, and indeed the opposite would probably be true. --bainer (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007

Sorry I stepped on you in fixin that error. Gwen Gale 14:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neverball and Notability

Hello GRBerry. You wrote on Deletion Review of yesterday: "Neverball â deletion endorsed among established editors; creation of a encyclopedia worthy article may be possible, old content can be userfied to help with recreation". I take it this means that the deleted page could be copied to someone's (even my) user page in order to work on it. Can than the worked on page be recreated by anybody, or only by you, or does it require a discussion again? Does in your opinion the existing page in the French Wikipedia [1] look better than the one from 2005 now deleted [2], so that a translation might be sufficient? Or is the archived version different to the one which was discussed? Sorry to bother you whith such a relatively unimportant subject. (The fans of Neverball over at Neverforum [3] are naturally not pleased at the outcome of the deletion review but do agree that the original article wasn't very good.)

I also note your interest and expertise in Notability. I notice that in some fields there are a great many articles with I feel are not notable, e.g. it seems that every model of car and gun ever made has an article, yet even mild suggestions for deletion are met with hostility. On the other hand I seem to find that in the fields which interest me, things keep getting deleted, or don't even exist. It seems to me therefore that the notability, creation and deletion criteria aren't really objective but are instead mainly democratic or even populistic. How can we get around this? Any thoughts other than your essay on notability? Thank you for any, even brief, answer. --Theosch 17:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on Jefferson Anderson

Hi, Way back on Feb. 25 you closed an AFD on [User:Jefferson_Anderson] The issue was whether it was an attack page or not. You stated a "no consensus" ruling. However, I would like you to take a look at one of the pages attached to the one everyone was talking about: User:Jefferson Anderson/Evidence ... I think that might be more problematic, as it's sole purpose is to attack three users (I am one of them). Do I need to go through a normal AFD on this, or can you just delete it? Blueboar 19:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin had previously reviewed it. While the user is inactive, courtesy blanking is appropriate. GRBerry 19:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine with me. Thanks. Blueboar 20:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV Relisting

In my entire time closing, I think I did one once. Undeletion policy says (or it used to say, at any rate) that three commenters at a DRV is a quorum. No official word on whether this includes the nominator; sometimes, I allowed it to (if the nom. was hopeless); sometimes, I waited. Remember, DRV's may be closed after 5 days; they only must be closed after 10. If you feel attendence is too low, just let it sit longer. In this respect, the new automated template moving-line for "Recent Discussions" may be doing a little harm. I don't exactly agree with Rossami that you need to be bold -- just employ policy to your advantage. Don't feel bad about closing a DRV with three commenters. That's the rule, and DRV has always been sparsely attended. (Sparse crowds at DRV are probably more a benefit than a harm -- regulars know not to get bogged down in re-arguing the AfD.) Best wishes, Xoloz 16:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your post to DRV talk. I can't find where in undeletion policy it says that that a 2-1 in favor of undeletion results in endorsing deletion. That's nuts. If some wacko has tucked that into our policy page, ignore it or rewrite it. It most certainly did not say that when I was adminned, and I cannot see how consensus for such a stupid change could exist. Xoloz 18:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have returned the policy to sanity. Don't know who muffed it up, but it looks like they -- cleverly -- just moved a comma or two. Xoloz 18:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

DRV stats

Thanks for the note-- I may just compile that DRV info myself. I find more and more that the problems I see here are from heavy-handed admins, and the time seems right to push for reforms. Jokestress 12:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV new page creation

If you're trying to create a new daily log, under the orange "instructions" there are links for today's and tomorrow's logs if they still need to be created. The automatically preload the necessary info into the new page. If you want to add links to your user page, the code is:

 <small><span class="plainlinks">
 {{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/{{#time:Y F j|+1 days}}
   | 
   |[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/{{#time:Y F j|+1 days}}|action=edit&preload=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Next_day}} Click to create a log page for {{#time:j F Y|+1 days}}]}}
 {{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/{{#time:Y F j}}
   |
   |[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/{{#time:Y F j}}|action=edit&preload=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/New_day}} Click to create a log page for {{#time:j F Y}}]}}
 </span></small>

Take care, trialsanderrors 08:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

What it means

Calling a horse's tail a "leg" doesn't make it so, and neither does calling a fork "not a fork" make it so. But yeah, it's pretty much irrelevant. >Radiant< 15:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does calling something that isn't a fork make it a fork. And that page also covers "beating a dead horse", which is much closer to what I felt about that thread. GRBerry 15:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with WP:N does not appear to have been discussed earlier (although merging with WP:ATT has been). At any rate, with two people in favor and one against, that's hardly a dead horse, but something other people should also comment on. >Radiant< 15:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re DRv

Ah, I did not know that. Thanks for the info. Herostratus 14:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Neverball undeleted

This was a bad call on your part. This is among the most notable open source games and has been mentioned in a number of publications. I've undeleted and placed some info on the talk page. I strongly disagree with your DRV closure focusing on "established editors"; arguments should be taken into account regardless of who makes them.--Eloquence * 16:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we were not able to sustain consensus to make deletion review a consensus forum. It is a qualified majority vote forum. Qualified votes are votes that are not 1) bare votes, 2) new users or 3) single purpose accounts. You don't have to like it, but that was the proper close. See Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#What is the role of deletion review (especially User:Xoloz's comments and more importantly Wikipedia talk:Undeletion policy#Switch to consensus. When the undeletion policy originally became policy, the requirement for a vote to count was that the voter have at least 25 non-minor, non-trival edits in article space. (Diff marking as policy.) That specific requirement has vanished, but the spirit remains. GRBerry 19:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I think this is a fairly clear case where reality should trump policy. -Eloquence * 21:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Bloodless Bullfighting

You recently voted to delete my article on Bloodless bullfighting and you also closed the discussion panel without any "reliable" votes.

I am not at all happy with this decision... because honestly, there we no "real" good reasons for the deletion.

I don't understand why I was just not allowed to rewrite it or given the opportunity to finish citing the article. Either way, I a firm believer that "Wiki" admins and "Wiki-Editors" (wannabe admins) take portions of what "wiki-policies" are and then apply only that portion and rule out the rest. They also have the tendency to abuse privileges.

You guys "quote" and "wiki-link" all of your policies and guidelines... especially the "NPA".... but nobody is in compliance with it because editors and admins will take sides.

You have done an "unjust" ruling and does nothing for the Portuguese community. This is undeserved and I request that my article be re-instated.

You know, it's quite interesting that everyone keeps talking about "reliable sources" and the article needs to be written by a 3rd party. What the heck do you think the "real" encyclopedia is??? There were not "thousands" of editors.

Wikipedia lacks the "integrity" that I once considered it to have. It's amazing that "admins" and "so-called" editors don't truly know what valuable information is .... even if it is staring in front of them.

Wikipedians should be busy with the real spammers and ones who cause great havoc on here... they should not be harassing innocent/quiet people such as myself. I am a quiet person, but if I am provoked in any way, I will defend myself and the articles that I have written. Deleting an article that holds great information is a disservice to people.

And the least that you or any admin can do is give me access to my article and discussion page. I have information in there that I need. That's the least any of you can do for the inconvenience and grievance you gave me. --Webmistress Diva 06:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change in Template:DRV top

Just a heads-up that I made a small change in the {{DRV top}} (or {{drt}}) template: the level 4 header, with a (closed) marker, is now part of the template. So any discussion can now be closed by simply replacing the four equal signs on each side of the title into the the template text:

 ====[[Title]]====

is changed to

 {{subst:drt|[[Title]]|Decision}}

which turns into

Title (closed)

Hope that makes closures a bit easier. Comments and questions please here. Take care, trialsanderrors 08:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of mind

Thanks for your help with User:InternetHero on the Philosophy of mind page. He seems to have left things go quiet for a day or two here and there since he has started his edits there, but let's hope that by you and Brian getting involved, this will be fruitfully resolved. Edhubbard 16:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for the heads-up

Thanks for all the heads-ups you gave me when Guantanamo articles were nominated for deletion.

You may remember that User:Crzrussian admonished me for honoring the requests of people who had asked for a heads-up when a Guantanamo article was nominated for deletion. "Vote-soliciting" he called it. But I don't think giving you a heads-up would offend him, as I feel confident you always give all the arguments fair consideration, and I don't think I could ever count on predicting the conclusion you would reach.

Anyhow, there has been another nomination, and, if you have time, I would like your opinion. It is a category this time: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 20#Category: Guantanamo witnesses.

I have had two wikipedians make sarcastic comments about some other categories I created. Part of my replies to them was an open acknowledgement that I was new to starting categories, and that I would appreciate any civil advice they could offer me. However, so far, no meaningful civil advice has been forthcoming. I am not looking forward to another barrage of nomination for deletions â the second guy to say he had concerns called for wiki administrators to step in and clean up what he called a "WTF crazy mess".

I wish those who had criticisms of my efforts tried harder to be civil.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 21:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about the care and feeding of new categories

Every time I come to you, it is because I have a problem. One of those wikipedian, who had expressed concerns about my use of categories, on March 20th, nominated a bunch of categories I had created for deletion on March 27th. They nominated all the categories I started which were subcategories of Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees.

I keep being shocked at the lack of consideration shown by some of the regular patrollers of the deletion fora.

I've told everyone with whom I have discussed the categories I have started that I am new to starting categories, and I welcome helpful, civil input. HanzoHattori wasn't willing, or able, to offer helpful, civil advice. But you offered some helpful comments, Thanks. They say no good deed goes unpunished. Now I'd like to ask you some questions arising from that advice. :-)

The place of categories in the category tree?

If I understand your advice properly, every category should have a place in the category tree. Have I got that right? And the way you place a category in the tree is the way I made categories like Category:Guantanamo detainees alleged to have been abused in custody a subcategory of Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees?

Category:Guantanamo witnesses, if it is determined to be a validly useful category, shouldn't be a subcategory of Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees because only some of the articles are about individuals who were Guantanamo captives.

Some categories, started by others, seem to have multiple places in the category tree, which, I guess makes it not a tree, but multi-dimensional jumble of spaghetti. Are multiple places in the category tree in compliance with policy?

HanzoHattori's nominations for {{cfd}}

I would like to think it is the controversial nature of the topics I am working on that triggers the emotion laden critiques I get. I drafted a summary of my interaction with HanzoHattori. I don't know if you were aware of my efforts in the fall of 2005, when I was being stalked by a very persistent, dedicated, and malevolent wikistalker. I made a terrible mistake with him, in extending far too much benefit of the doubt, and assuming good faith. By the time I wised up to how intellectually dishonest he was I found the history of our interaction dauntingly long to summarize. But I decided I would take the formal steps to call on the wikipedia community for help a lot earlier if I felt it was time to consider my well of good faith exhausted.. I prepared user:geo swan/guantanamo/abusive correspondents/hanzo hattori today. I won't call on you to take more than the briefest glance at it. Is preparing this kind of summary comply with the wiki's rules? If so, would an {{rfc}} the proper step?

I have already advised the administrator who blocked HH a month ago for violating wp:npa.

The "verifiability" concern...

Several of the correspondents participating in the deletion discussion expressed the concern that those categories were "unverifiable". I frankly don't understand this. Most of the categories I created were paraphrases of the official allegations prepared by the Guantanamo intelligence analysts. The articles quote these allegations, verbatim. And the articles provide links right to the location of the transcripts.

It seems to me that making the inclusion of articles in categories in a verifiable way isn't impossible, it merely requires making the effort to undertake hard, methodicial work. And I think you know I undertook that effort, and I was very scrupulous to cite my sources.

I think, in some of the earlier attempts to suppress coverage of the Guantanamo issues, my defense of the value of my work has come across as strident, and turned casual readers off. But, goldarnit, the structure of he deletion fora, can, in my experience, represent one of the weakest aspects of the wikipedia.

The weakness of {{afd}} and {{cfd}} to systemic bias

It strikes me that a minor fraction of those who volunteer to patrol the {{afd}} fora show a surprising lack of curiousity, tolerance, and imagination. If they aren't interested in the topic of an article they can't imagine that anyone else could find it interesting, or useful. One memorable struggle, that occurred when the articles I was starting on the GWOT were first under attack, focussed around a guy who was interested in stars, He created a bunch of stubs about stars he thought were notable. And many of them were being nominated for deletion by rude and narrow-minded bullies. Several critics seriously suggested that if they had never heard of a star then it wasn't notable enough to merit an article on the wikipedia. That is so limiting. By that criteria the wikipedia would only have articles about a couple of dozen stars at most. It is possible the astronomy fan may have gone too far, but I thought every star that had been visible to the naked eye, every star that was the lead star, or a notable example of a class of stars, merits coverage. I'd add every notable supernova, nova, and every star that had a notable mention in a science fiction movie or novel. That would be as many as several thousand stars.

Crzrussian is not a dope. But his nomination for deletion of the Guantanamo articles was chockful of misconceptions, and he was stubborn as a mule, and, perhaps even a little intellectually, um, dishonest is too strong a term, perhaps I should say "blind", to honestly recognize those misconceptions.

The systemic bias, which I see as a really terrible problem, is that so many of these regular patrollers put a misplaced faith in their personal fund of general knowledge. I can't remember whether it was Crzrussian, or one of the other nominators, who suggested that there should be no articles about Guantanamo captives because they were merely POWs. Of course, as I know you know, one of the things that makes them notable is that there is a great controversy over the Bush administrations attempts to strip them of their Geneva Conventions rights without fulfilling the USA's obligations to allow them a competent tribunal where they have a fair chance to hear and challenge the evidence against them.

So many wikipedians seem not only willing to accept the statements from the DoD and Bush administration spokesmen, at face value, but to find it inconceivable, literally inconceivable, that the captives could contain a very sizable fraction for whom the assertions that they are all terrorists, the worst of the worst, captured on the battlefield just are not at all supported by the documents which have been released

I am always shocked, all over again, at how close-minded some of the regular patrollers can be. It seems they been prepared to judge these categories with only the most cursory examination. Something like half those categories meet the criteria you gave above, that they articles, that can stand on their own, built around them. And I believe the rest can support an article that can stand on their own.

Of course, if I have made a mistake, and the 40 or so hours of work I put into populating those categories was in breach of a wikipedia policy or procedure that I am unaware of I wouldn't dream of asking for them to be preserved. I wouldn't think of asking for them to be preserved even if I had put in 400 hours, if they were in breach of policy.

But, I have zero confidence these regular patrollers could judge whether the categories were in compliance with the very limited effort they seem prepared to put into their evaluation.

Update on my progress on preparing a single file that has the links to all the captive's transcripts

You and I discussed creating a single file that lists all the Guantanamo captives, and provides links to all their transcripts.

I don't think I told you, and I should have told you, that I have finished expanding all the articles of all Guantanamo captives, so there are no longer any that User:Cszrussian classified as identical.
When I showed you the candidate for replacing Lists of Guantanamo Bay detainees I had had linkified about 150 captives. I stopped when I had linkified about 600 or 650 of the 773 acknowledged captives. The file had grown to 399 kilobytes â saving became too cumbersome.
I guess we could cut it into pieces, and transclude it into one file.

Sorry to be so long-winded. These struggles really take it out of me. Every one ruins my entire week.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 01:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_26#The

Hi, you closed the above deletion review, for reasons that didn't seem to match with what was going on, so I've reopened it. Perhaps you got this one confused with another? --Xyzzyplugh 07:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I should have said "redirect" instead of "merge". But either way, no deletion happened, and no deletion is requested, so this is not a case for deletion review. So I've closed it again. GRBerry 12:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Bauer I noticed your saving this contested page and replacing it with the warning label only. Others have changed back and threatened me for reverting to your change. The article is the subject of a defamation lawsuit with Wikipedia as a defendant. I should think this would be enough to lock the page away from view? Don't you GR? Give it a revisit. Marky48 20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Originally acting admin and DRV

Hi GRBerry. I posted my thoughts here to your initial post. Mu post is long so I thought I would ping you instead of reposting the conversation on your talk page. -- Jreferee 16:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! I located and read through all but the one that is the most clearest. I just went through all the relevant deletion pages and added the Deletion review guide to the "see also" sections. Hopefully, now anyone can find your deletion review guide. -- Jreferee 18:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. Much of the information for Wikipedia:Did_you_know and Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page were largely in the heads of a few experienced admins. I recently compiled their significant experience into Wikipedia:Did_you_know and Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page to give people a source to answer their own questions. I'm 100% behind turning the 15+ months of DRV precedents located in the heads of Trialsanderrors, Xoloz, and yourself into written process. If this is something that you are working on, I would like to help. If we do not compile these experiences for use by everyone, people will continue to ask questions that have already been answered and/or resolved and someone else will end up having to reinvent the wheel perhaps one, three, or five years from now. -- Jreferee 16:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that T&E has seen my DRVGuide page. I don't know if Xoloz has. Feel free to invite others to correct it. GRBerry 18:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THE CARETAKER GAZETTE Dear GRBerry, is there another admin who can help with this? Garycdunn 17:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Not Forgotten

You haven't been forgotten. --> Dear GRBerry, it seems that I've been forgotten since I put my very slight revision on http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Garycdunn a week ago. What do you recommend that I do next? Garycdunn 00:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from my userpage) I had to undo your edit to deletion review. You forgot to say which page you wanted undeleted, and the error was malforming the entire page. I find too many deleted pages related to "Caretaker Gazette" to know which you want undeleted. (Hint, the one with the best article in accordance with the core content policies for a neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability is the one most likely to be restored.) Please try relisting, or drop me a note on my talk page with a link in that format and I'll recreate your nomination. GRBerry 15:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

   Dear GRBerry, I am soooooooo frustrated with this whole Wikipedia thing. I don't even know if this is the right place to contact you. I don't understand most of the Wiki terminology or why some of the Wikipedia people want to delete my definition. None of this makes any sense - and I had given up on Wikipedia until I just went in to Wikipedia - for what I thought would be my last visit to Wikipedia - and your posting was like a ray of light to me. I hope you can help.

{{cfd}} on Category:Guantanamo witnesses

Sorry I was so long-winded with my earlier note. I just thought I would let you know that:

I thought I had addressed your concern about the accompanying list article...
And I thought I came to understand your point about the need for the category to fit in a place within the superset of categories. I thought that Category:Guantanamo witnesses could be a member of Category:Guantanamo Bay captives legal and administrative procedures, which could be a member of Category:Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.
The closing admin closed it as delete, anyhow. But he gave me a civil reply when I asked him about it.

Just thought I would give you a heads-up.

Thanks for all your help. â Geo Swan 19:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

Mock Tyne and Wear Metro nameboards â keep closure endorsed â GRBerry 00:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what "keep closure endorsed" means. Does that mean my original decision not to delete the images stands? Just want to make sure. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 20:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. GRBerry 01:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring of Internet Troll Squads after AfD was endorsed

Hi GRBerry! It seems that user Biophys has restored recently his Internet Troll Squads article containing his original research again, this time under Internet brigades title.Vlad fedorov 04:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Copy past moves

Thank you for taking the time to explain to me the proper procedure for moving articles! âBMRR 17:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the heads up and help fixing the nomination on deletion review - I had not nominated one before, and had some distractions right after nominating. A Musing 15:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reordering DRV

Just a note that we don't usually reorder DRV pages, as you recently did my moving a closed discussion to the bottom. I'm not convinced it matters either way, but it is unusual. GRBerry 16:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previously I've seen other editors move speedily closed XfD discussions to the bottom of a page for readability reasons. That's all this was. It doesn't affect the ability to link to it, so it shouldn't be an issue, however, if you feel it is, feel free to revert. - jc37 16:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi, question on rollback

Hello .... I'm a complete beginner at this and not sure if starting a discussion here is even correct - sorry :) ... I thought long about the "Restoration Committee" addition to "New Life Church" before I added it. Is this committee "restoring" Ted or restoring the harm they feel he did to their church? I read it as the committee is fixing the mess he created for the church, hence I put it in the section "Departure of Haggard". "Restoring" him involved ex-gay camp and other counseling, right? Second, the names of the people involved in the committee aren't what I'd have expected either (like, a few local church members) - these are big honchos. Third, the whole process they are going through is really interesting ... I grew up Catholic where there wasn't a "Board of Overseers" - problem priests would have been quietly transferred. Here, Ted wasn't doing anything that he would be arrested for, but yet he is in huge trouble with his church. This helps answer 'How is the church handling it?'. I think the process they are using is very relevant to this wikipedia article. [off topic: this is where I'd love to understand your insight -- is this common, to have bylaws that specify rules for "disciplining the Senior Pastor"? Or is merely that there a boilerplate set of bylaws that many churches happen to use?] I am just trying to dispassionately record the facts as they come up in the news. What do you think? Thanks. Wild Pansy 02:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

My RfA

GRBerry, thanks for participating in my successful RfA. You expressed concern about me not answer the questions; I've written some brief reflections, including an answer to Question 3, in case you're still worried: User:Ragesoss/RfA. --ragesoss 07:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

TeckWiz's RFA

Hey GRBerry. Thanks for commenting on my unsuccessful RFA last month under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I've been very busy lately which is why you're getting now. I don't know why you said I have no other need for the tools, as I'm a vandal fighter, and report to AIV and RFCN (now UAA) frequently). That would be a need for the block button. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 16:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks

GRBerry, thank you for your kind and generous words in support of my RfA, which closed successfully yesterday. I greatly appreciate your understanding of how my profession and my faith play into my personal identity. As for the sig, I decided to go ahead and change it back, in the the interest of avoiding all possibility of being disruptive. Please feel free to drop me a note any time if there is anything that I might be able to do for you. Pastordavid 16:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Kashite, etc.

I'm usually at a loss when it comes to judging pages like this when on new page patrol. It's right on the edge of speedy, but not quite, and a PROD would give the article five days it doesn't really deserve. Would I be better off sending these judgment calls to AfD so WP:SNOW can kill it, even if doing so risks the wrath of other editors wondering why I didn't speedy? DarkAudit 20:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd give it a PROD, and only send it to AFD if the PROD is removed. PROD takes less editorial effort, and doesn't clog up the AFD log. GRBerry 20:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A slight factual error in your evidence -- Felonious Monk's second block was 3 hours after Jayjg's posting; you wrote "1 hour". Otherwise, good work finding these old discussions. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, what is the actual time difference there. The AN conversation for that one has Jayjg requesting a block at 21:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC) and FM saying that he has already blocked at 00:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC) - a 1 hour difference. But the block log shows the block as occurring after a 3 hour difference. I can't explain why FM would have claimed to have already issued the block 2 hours before he actually did it. Maybe a glitch in the software or forgettng to save the block, but the decision was clearly reached within an hour. I've corrected the evidence. GRBerry 20:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are suffering a mental hiccup, amigo. 00:59 - 21:56 = 24:59 - 21:56 = 03:03. Still 24 hours in a day, at least on my planet, GRBerry! -- Kendrick7^talk 20:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Yep, that was my mistake. Egg on my face. And I've corrected the evidence again. GRBerry 20:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on AN/I

I understand your concern regarding editwarring, but I would like to make it clear that the reason I first took this issue to AF/I was to stop disruption by [User:Heatedissuepuppet]. Examples include placing notability tags on pages that have already survived AFD, and continuing to do so even after being asked to discuss the issue on a talk page and repeatedly posting poorly-sourced libelous information about a company. The user made no constructive edits, only attacks. Please also note that the user was originally blocked for disruptive edits regarding the closing of a merge discussion, and that more than a few editors thought the user should not be unblocked. I do not think that I should be tarred with the same brush as an editor who uses a SPA to attack and disrupt the activities of another editor, and who has followed due process in trying to deal with this user. I most humbly suggest that before you accuse me of editwarring that you check the facts first. A cursory look at the user's talk page and edit history and you will see clearly. Thank you for listening. Sparkzilla 15:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

VVVBot

Please, unblock it. I've already disbled the script - VasilievVV 11:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unblocked. GRBerry 13:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unacceptable

Undeleting a BLP deletion that the history might be seen is irresponsible. Doing so without any discussion with the deleting admin is very poor form indeed. Adding a personal comment/attack to your edit summary as you did it, is quite astounding. As the deletion was OTRS related - I have asked the OTRS team to review it (I do make mistakes - and I've had taken a second look if anyone had had the common decency to ask me), and I've asked them comment on your actions too.--Doc^g 21:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP does not say that the history can not be visible during a review. It does say that an article with some non-compliant versions can have those versions in the history while the article is live. I thus read BLP as implicitly allowing bad history to be visible.

BLP requires that all versions fail BLP before a deletion. You are known to take the contrary position that even one version failing is enough reason to delete, and I expect to be presenting diffs of that when QZ is accepted by ArbComm after the community jumps through a few more hoops. So I don't consider you to be a judge whose word I can take on faith as to whether an article merits BLP deletion or what should be done with a troubling BLP article. With enough versions, undeleting history and flipping through versions is much more efficient than using the ability to view deleted edits version by version.

I note that nothing in being involved with OTRS gives you, or the other members of the OTRS team, special authority. So I am perfectly willing to disregard consensus formed among that small sub-group, or anywhere else off Wikipedia, as it is impossible for such a consensus to reflect the consensus of all Wikipedians.

I've been through the history, and was waiting for badlydrawnjeff to answer a question requiring history visibility before I deleted. Since he has answered that question, I don't think we currently need it visible. So I've gone ahead and redeleted, but maintain that there was nothing wrong in my actions. (My edit summary might well have been more than required, but I don't think it rises to an actionable problem, given that it is true.)

Further, having the history temporarily visible appears to have convinced jeff that this one was worth deleting, so it actually helped build consensus. GRBerry 22:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does say that an article with some non-compliant versions can have those versions in the history while the article is live.

Perhaps - but you restored them ALL. Regardless of BLP compliant or not.

BLP requires that all versions fail BLP before a deletion. You are known to take the contrary position that even one version failing is enough reason to delete, and I expect to be presenting diffs of that when QZ is accepted by ArbComm after the community jumps through a few more hoops. So I don't consider you to be a qualified judge of whether an article merits BLP deletion or what should be done with a troubling BLP article.

I do not take that position. Your view of me is irrelevant - if you don't think I should be allowed to handle deletions then ask arbcom to desysopp me. The QZ fiasco is beside the point - since I have at no point acted as an administrator in that case. If you disagree with me, then we discuss things - you don't just wheel war with me.

I note that nothing in being involved with OTRS gives you, or the other members of the OTRS team, special authority. ..

I claim no special authority. But if users with more experience than you, who have access to information you don't, suggest that you are no acting correctly, perhaps you should listen.

I've been through the history, and was waiting for badlydrawnjeff to answer a question requiring history visibility before I deleted. Since he has answered that question, I don't think we currently need it visible. So I've gone ahead and redeleted, but maintain that there was nothing wrong in my actions. (My edit summary might well have been more than required, but I don't think it rises to an actionable problem, given that it is true.)

We don't undelete things to suit Jeff. He's just one wikipedian. If he wants special rights to see deleted edits - then he knows when RfA is.

Your actions are unacceptable and response inadequate. You views of me have no place edit summaries - and an apology would have been appropriate from you at this point - but well, nevermind. However, that is less relevant than the fact that you are unwilling to assume good faith will fellow administrators - and feel entitled to make BLP violations visible at your judgement without even bothering to ask whether there might be a reason not to do so. We all make mistakes (I do - and I'm happy to admit them) but administrators who endanger the project need to be willing to learn from them. If you are willing to indicate that you will not make the mistake of undeleting BLP histories again, without, as a minimum, at least some discussion - then we might be able to avoid this having to go further,--Doc^g 22:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I point you to the deletion review for Melissa Scott (pastor) at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 22 where you clearly took the position that any bad versions required article deletions, although you didn't use the wording I did above. I don't think I'm failing to assume good faith, I think I'm reflecting that your actions and statements have shown me that your judgement is suspect in this area. If I'm right about what you believe the policy to require, you can act in good faith and come up with the wrong answer. And I really don't care that much about the intent, I care about coming up with the right answer.

Since BLP only authorizes deletion when all versions are non-compliant, the presence of any valid version invalidates the entire deletion. I ended up undecided as to whether BLP deletion was appropriate; almost every version of the article has been sourced (I'm not going to go back through all 49 again without undeleting again, and you clearly would object to that), but not with inline citations. Since nothing requires inline citation, it is just as reasonable to conclude that almost every version is compliant as the opposite.

I never said I undeleted for jeff. If you look at the timestamps of the undeletion, my opinion in the DRV, jeff's opinion in DRV, and my question to jeff, it is apparent that they occurred in that order, not doing something for jeff. What I was trying to convince you is that undeleting the history can be helpful for forming consensus. Consensus is how Wikipedia is supposed to be run (even if we failed to sustain consensus for closing DRVs on the usual consensus rules). So helping to form consensus is a good thing.

You can rest assured that I won't undelete articles that I believe are BLP violations. However, I also will not treat a claim of "WP:BLP" as an automatic requirement for deletion that ends any further discussion when raised; such claims need to be judged on their merits, not treated as a trumping claim. In this specific case, the merits are at best dubious.

I don't think this is all you wanted for policy statements. As to my undeletion summary, sub-optimum meant "less than perfect" or "could have been better". No more, no less. It would have been better to stop at the comma. I apologize for the offense that I gave you, that was not my intent. GRBerry 01:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea about the Scott case you cite - looks like DRV endorsed me. I've deleted a lot of BLP articles- some have gone to DRV - but I've never been overturned, as far as I recall. So I think, although I'm not infallible, my judgement is generally good and most reasonable wikipedians agree. As I say, I'm not infallible. Although, in this case it looks like I was right - and as even you, who have no confidence in my judgement, are 'undecided' in your opposition - I fail to see what the problem is.

You keep setting up starwmen here. Who said BLP means "automatic requirement for deletion that ends any further discussion" - I certainly don't hold that view. All deletions are open to review. However, when an admin judges an article to be BLP violating and deletes it - we take great care. We review with great care. Real living people, with real lives, are involved here - not just inhouse powergames. There also sometimes possible legal implications. We certainly don't undelete the history on a whim, and without even asking the deleting admin what his reasoning was. My judgement is not infallible (although most people seem to think it is generally good), I am certainly happy for it to be reviewed even overturned - and I'm always happy to discuss it. But your judgement is not infallible either, and the notion that you will feel free to unilaterally undelete BLP deletion histories for all to see if you personally don't believe them to be BLP violations, and do so without any discussion or fact checking, is quite unacceptable. You are setting your own judgement to be always higher than that of the deleting admin. You are showing scant regard for living people, or the legal imoplications, which frankly makes you a liability to this project. When some admin believes that something is potentially libellous and must be removed, you believe that your judgement trumphs that - even without discussion!!! If you personally judge something to be safe, then safe it is? Even I am not making such claims about my judgement. Never, ever, undelete anything deleted per BLP without at least consulting the deleter. At very least say "having looked at the history, I see no problem restoring it for this discussion - what do other admins think?" Hell, just consider, you may sometimes even be wrong.--Doc^g 08:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have to admit, undeleting a BLP article without even discussing with the deleting admin, is absolutely unacceptable. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a courtesy, I'm letting you know. I have added the above incident and your response to the latest arbcom case on Badlydrawnjeff. I am using it as an example of how DRV regulars disrespect BLP.--Doc^g 13:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the courtesy of letting me know. I will, of course, end up disputing your interpretation of "disrespect BLP". The actual situation is different, as many have already pointed out to you. GRBerry 13:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneously. But fortunately that's for arbcom to decide. I think you'd have nothing to fear from this case if you simply indicated an understanding that you would not restore histories of BLP deletions without discussion. You made a misjudgement - we all do that. Providing you've learned from it, the matter would drop.--Doc^g 17:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't disrespect BLP, we interpret it differently than you do. We also think our interpretation is better supported by the actual written policy, which describes specific circumstances in which deletion is authorized, and hence that a deletion outside those circumstances is not a BLP deletion (though it may be a valid G10 or an IAR deletion).

If there is consensus for your interpretation, it should not be hard to gain consensus to change the words of BLP. I note that such a consensus seems to be forming around Uncle G's proposal that when notability is solely from a single negative incident, redirecting/merging to the incident is often appropritate (details of consensus still forming, especially around where the borderline lies).

So long as BLP sets forth criteria for speedy unilateral deletion, DRV and DRV regulars will test whether those criteria are met, whatever the criteria are. If BLP is changed to say "any admin may delete any article containing material on a living person whenever they think it will prevent harm", DRV will test the criteria of "containing material on a living person" (and would usually have to pass on the second criteria due to lack of mindreading skills). Of course, if consensus also forms for the policy to also say "and their actions are not subject to review" then DRV regulars will enforce that. If consensus forms to establish a separate forum for review of deletions claimed to be valid under BLP, DRV regulars will send cases to that forum.

I note that WP:BLPADMIN was rejected by the community. I note that Wikipedia:BLP courtesy deletion was rejected by the community. I note that Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 5#Deleting unsourced BLPs on sight did not create consensus to delete unsourced BLPs on sight. Reversing the AFD presumption to be in favor deletion when no clear consensus exists, even if only when the subject asked, did not obtain consensus, after multiple tries at the talk page of BLP. I thus conclude that massive changes in favor of deletion of entire articles are unlikely to be supported any time soon, but I don't care a great deal if you propose them. GRBerry 18:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well we'll let arbcom sort it out. Funny how you keep raising irrelevant things that I'm not citing here. When an admin has deleted due to a BLP problem, undeleting the history without discussion is quite unacceptable, even if you think the admin is wrong. It's really as simple as that. I strongly suspect arbcom will agree with me. If you can't accept that, I will call for your desysopping - not for what you did, but to prevent you doing it again.--Doc^g 21:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect vs keep

This is a general question, not about any particular article. It's generally considered, and you have generally expressed it best, that merge or redirect are variants of keep, not delete. I'd like to discuss the redirect matter first, because the effect is dramatically--it keeps the heading, but removes the content. I see this as a variety of delete--it destroys the distinctiveness and content of the article is question, leaving a cross reference, and the only practical difference from delete is that delete does not leave a cross reference. DGG 21:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to address the re

PR RfArb

I haven't had a chance to speak to PR this morning (am just catching up on the activity from the last 8 hours), but I see a problem with proposing remedies such as "Felonious Monk admonished". It can very quickly turn the RfArb into an admonishment-fest, and can have negative effects on the images of those involved. The accusations against Jayjg are not that he made an error of judgement - he should've known better than to make an unfounded accusation, and bypass the dispute process. Beyond having a history of blocking PR, I'm not yet aware of any evidence suggesting FM did anything but make an error of judgement. Furthermore, since FM was directly challenged (less than 24 hours ago), he/she has not edited, so it's not likely he/she is avoiding the issue. Mark Chovain 21:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal family of Canada

Cheers for alerting me that the above page had been merged at a previous time - I hadn't seen this (obviously I was tired when I did it). I've restored all the revisions now so hopefully it's all sorted. Thanks again. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

common Mayan knowledge

Hi there. In the past you have warned me about Wikipedia and the need of references, but I'm now asking for your help. I am seriously trying to help improve an article that doesn't allow the footnote concept to be used, nor does the appropiate justice to a civilizations' neccessary portrayal. The case in point is in respect to the Mayan civilization and their writings on the essense of time to which they practically set up specific noble families to carry on the tradition. I have read a book on the Mayans and have posted the appropiate reference as a footnote since the article is designated: 'pre-Columbia'. The book burnings happened in 1562 so I belive their astronomical accuracies in respect to the eclipse and constellations weren't created post-Columbus, but that is what I think they're trying portray - either consciously or sub-consciously. All I know is that I'm being honest in the fact that the Mayans of those times would indeed want such an important part of their heritage to be noted as on of their greatest achievements and not to be simply labeled as: 'writings'. Is it too much to ask to be allowed to specify their actions? I thought I was following the rules, but maybe I'm not. Indeed, I think the writings on the essense of time is the template to their similar qualative achievements in astonomy. Do they actually believe the Mayans are too stupid to have created a doctrine for time? If you look at Machu Pichu or similar cities a Westerner might see technological inferiority, but all I see is harmony and paradise. The only problem was the natives themselves with thier ritual tortures and sacrifices. I hope you don't side with them just because I'm native; the Cree NEVER practiced torture. InternetHero 21:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GRBerry

Hi, I noticed that you listed me on your user page as one of the people that you would like to "get expertise from" with regards to legal subjects. While I certainly have no problems about helping anyone here, please be advised that I just graduated from law school and that I will be studying for the New Jersey state bar exam over the next few months. Therefore, I will much less active on Wikipedia than I normally am. I'm taking the exam on the last week of July, and I am unsure what I will be doing afterwards (mainly because I need to look for a job). If you have anything you wish to ask me, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks, and good luck with the articles you are writing. --Eastlaw 09:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

David Mestel^(Talk) 18:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]