User talk:Wifione/Archive 2012 (April)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Horrified by your suggestion[edit]

Your suggestion in a closing statement, "the Foundation immediately taking office action in case they feel that this case needs to be viewed with leniency. I'll personally prefer that as of immediately" absolutely horrifies me. We have too much meddling with established policy by the Foundation already; and I can see no way in which this kind of petty micromanaging can be justified within the governance structure of this great project, least of all to accomodate the whinging of some radio guy who wants to control his public image and is unhappy that we won't let him. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you've offered there is a bizarre summary of the history of this BLP, and of what this is about. Jim Hawkins does not want to be stalked, and defamed at his no. 1 Google link, by anonymous people with colourful names like Orangemike. Personally, I find that rather understandable, don't you? Especially as Wikipedia is completely unable to ensure that its biographies (not to mention biography talk pages) comply with its own policies. --JN466 07:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; that's very helpful. jh — Precedingunsigned comment added by 132.185.144.120 (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Great project'? An encyclopaedia that no-one can rely on? — Precedingunsigned comment added by 109.150.136.82 (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • OrangeMike, thanks for the note. I understand your viewpoint. If the Foundation does or does not do anything, it'll clearly be irrespective of my closing statement.Best. Wifione Message 14:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkins AfD[edit]

Hi Wifione, I rarely question admins' deletion decisions, but I'm hoping it's okay to discuss your interpretation of policy in this case. There were 45 comments in favour of keeping, 34 for delete, and three neutral/comments. See User:SlimVirgin/JH. This meant there was no consensus, and given that the subject had requested deletion, WP:BIODELETE kicks in.

It says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete."

Although it uses the term "non-public figure," it's not referring to the American legal definition of public figure (which has a high threshold), but links to WP:NPF, which is part of BLP and refers to "people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known." That is, people who are what Wikipedia calls "borderline notable".

It seems to me that this very accurately describes Hawkins. He is not someone who is known at all outside one local area, and the article is based almost entirely on primary sources. If BIODELETE doesn't kick in for someone like him, it's hard to see who it might apply to. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that, if the "count" had been 45 for delete and 34 for keep, someone who favored delete would be arguing that there was consensus to delete. 45 of 79 is 57%. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus on WP is usually at least two thirds, so this would be closed no consensus (no matter which direction the 45/34 had swayed toward), which normally defaults to keep at AfD. But with a borderline BLP where the subject has requested deletion, the practice has been to default to delete.
So the issue here is whether Hawkins is borderline notable, which he clearly is in the sense that few people, if any, outside his local area will have heard of him. But by introducing the notion of the "public figure" (an American legal concept), Wifione has introduced yet another factor -- as does the deletion policy, though I doubt it's meant that way -- which is why it would be good to discuss it to see how best to proceed in future. We can't have a situation where a relatively minor academic, say, dare not give a public speech for fear that it makes him a "public figure" in Wikipedia's eyes. SlimVirgin(talk) 21:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have come here to make the same point as SlimVirgin. The subject is not well known (this was mentioned several times during the AfD) so cannot be a public figure. The subject does not truly meet GNG as he has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - the sources listed are either his employer or his own website (which are not independent), or a listing which does not provide significant coverage. Indeed, it is noteworthy that there are several people who are on the Sony Radio Academy Award listings (including the co-winner of the Silver award, Gary Philipson)[1] who do not have a Wikipedia article. A number of the Keep arguments are based on an assumption of notability rather than the evidence. There is no assertion of notability in the article, and the subject does not meet WP:ENT. Some of the Keep arguments are invalid and verge onpointy such as "Keep on principle", "Keep ... You have to questions the subject's motives. Remember he is a BBC shock jock with a phone-in show", "Keep. He has a web presence elsewhere that he is presumably happy with", "Keep We're an encyclopedia , not Who's Wh, and the subjects do not control their articles", "Keep ... That the subject of the article chooses to work himself up into a lather over his presence in an encyclopedia is not grounds for deletion", "Keep If the guy really didn't want to be notable (article created in 2005?!), perhaps he shouldn't have a website devoted to himself and his career, nor should he identify his Tweets with a BBC logo pasted over his face", "Keep, although not necessarily in the article's current form. It is not for the subjects of BLP's to decide whether or not they meet the notability guidelines, and if we are to make exceptions in this case then we should do so across across the board. Re-work the notablity guidelines if you like, but in the meantime don't pander to cyber-bullying aided and abetted by the BBC." Even with including those views as valid, there isn't a clear consensus to keep. This situation meetsWP:BIODELETE and would allow you as the closing admin to delete the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said elsewhere, and I think is worth repeating here, Hawkins has not been written about by a national paper and has an audience share of 12% of 378,000 people, that is around 45,000 people.[2] I think this puts claims of his notability into perspective. People who feel they have heard of him are probably confusing his name with the character in Treasure Island. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have come here to make the same point as SlimVirgin and SilkTork. (Carcharoth in particular provided a useful analysis of the sourcing, in posts such as [3],[4] and others.) TheGeneral Notability Guideline requires that the subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If you remove the BBC sources, which are primary here, what is left? JN466 07:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi SlimVirgin, I have no issues with the questioning of my close. I see your point of the numerical ratio of keep and delete !votes. Like I mentioned in the close, more important than the ratio for me was the backing of arguments with policies. In other words, the strength of policy-based arguments forwarded by commentators led me to place a keep close than a no consensus. Does it mean that I gave lower value to delete !votes that said, for example, "marginally notable BLPs should be deleted when the subject requests deletion"? Or to a delete !vote that said, "His level of notability would allow an article, but wouldn't require one regardless of his wishes."? Or to one that said "There's no real reason to have an article about such a marginal figure." or said "per BLP. A barely notable person who wants their article deleted."? Like I mentioned, I've taken the overall strength of arguments forwarded than just the numerical summary. As a closing administrator, my overall view makes me believe that the keep !voters' arguments have a better policy backing than the delete !voters'. Is a marginally notable person one who is a non-public figure? Consequently, is the BLP subject in question here a non-public figure? Irrespective of my personal opinion, I didn't see consensus in the AfD to that effect. I hope this response answers your queries. Please feel free to write back. Kind regards. Wifione Message 15:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SilkTork, Jayen, I've understood the points you've mentioned. If you wish to know my personal opinion, the individual is a non-public figure; and does not meet GNG. There is no question about it. But as I mentioned earlier, I did not perceive any consensus in the AfD with respect to the non-public figure issue of this individual. I really don't think that invoking the BIODEL is the right option when editors have no agreement on the NPF issue... I hope this provides you my viewpoint clearly. Please do ask me if there is any other clarification required. Best. Wifione Message 15:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the decision as to whether the individual is a public figure or not is yours to make, as the closing administrator, based on policies and guidelines. With almost all sources cited being by his employer, and no evidence of more than local coverage, the matter is clear, and the AfD was within your discretion to close either way. It was also within your discretion to leave it to another admin, who might have felt clearer about it. As it is, you closed it one way, while publicly expressing the feeling it should have been closed the other way, and the fervent hope that the office will overrule you. :/ If that's how you feel about it, why did you not leave it to someone else to close?--JN466 16:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least Wikione (real name?) is discussing it with you. They said they'd email me 'in a few hours' yesterday morning. I've received nothing. Clearly, us mere subjects, whose mental health is undermined and jeopardised by this ridiculous exercise, aren't worth bothering with. jh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.144.124 (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. --JN466 16:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wifione, I don't want to seem to be badgering you. But I do think this was the wrong decision, policy-wise, and in terms of the discussion. The outcome was 45 keep, 34 delete. That isn't "keep"; that is "no consensus." The numbers alone don't determine the outcome, but they do provide its structure (not counting new accounts, etc), and it is within that structure that the closing admin exercises discretion. The deletion policy allowed you to delete it, and you as the closing admin expressed the view that it ought to be deleted. So it's hard to see why it was kept.
This AfD mattered both for this individual and also for similar deletion discussions in future (and for how policy is shaped), so I wonder whether you'd be willing to have one or even two other admins close it with you to see whether they agree that (a) this was a "keep" conclusion, not a "no consensus," and that (b) BIODELETE should not apply. SlimVirgin(talk) 20:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. An admin says he has considered not just the numbers but the quality of the arguments on the different sides -- and he gets badgered for doing it wrong by those who think it was the wrong decision. If there had been a clearer "numerical" consensus for keep, we'd have had badgering on the basis that the closing admin failed to consider the "poor quality" of the keep arguments. In any event: I think the venue some of you are looking for is Deletion Review. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Hi , wifione - I was wondering - would you , considering the comments here and the opines of 45 keep, 34 delete failing to assert a WP:consensus, would you consider re-closing it as no consensus, if not I hope you won't mind if I will request deletion review?- Youreallycan 14:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jayen hi again. In an AfD, my personal opinion doesn't matter. What matters is how I read the opinion of those commentating within the AfD. I do believe that's how it's supposed to be. I don't wish this to sound negative or patronizing but I mean it when I convey my apologies that the close didn't come to what you expected. Wifione Message 15:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi SlimVirgin. No, you're not badgering me. I'm sorry for the delayed reply. With respect to your request, I would not approve of it. I stand by the close. Like I mentioned to Jayen above, I'm sorry that this turned out this way. Do tell if there's anything else that I could do. Wifione Message15:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, fair enough. It's not something I'd want to request without your agreement. Thanks for the replies, and I'm sorry again to have raised it. SlimVirgin (talk)
  • Rob, good to see you here and good to see you around always. I'm sorry but I'll not reconsider the close. At the same time, I shall not mind it at all you going ahead with the deletion review. As a matter of procedural rote I've laid out to myself in the cases of review, I'll not comment within the review unless there's a specific request by any editor who wishes me to present my opinion. This may work to your advantage. Or it may not. Whichever way it is, please do tell me if you may wish material to support you in the DR. My best regards to you always. Wifione Message 15:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I commend your closing decision, your rationale, and your collegiality. Well done. Alanscottwalker(talk) 13:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alan. Much appreciated and noted. Kind regards. Wifione Message 16:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ak Welsapar[edit]

Hi, I've nominated Ak Welsapar for speedy deletion since its violates infringement of[5]. But later the user says that he is the one who holds the copyright. Could you look through the article. Torreslfchero (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfA consideration[edit]

Hello, would you consider nominating me at RfA? I've nominated myself once before, had second thoughts and requested the page be deleted. I may not have as many significant contributions as other users, but I believe I would be helpful as an administrator. If you have concerns or questions, I'll be more than willing to answer them. SwisterTwister talk 19:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow me a week to review your contributions. I have two editors lined up already who have to be nominated and your nom might take at least a fortnight. I hope that's alright with you? Kind regards. WifioneMessage 15:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consideration of do no harm[edit]

RE the Hawkins blp, it should be obvious that WP should give precedence over living people's desires to a bunch of teen age power trippers trying to exercies undue control over their environment. Your keep, however, will help in the long run because it will ultimately show why WP and the WMF need adult supervision, because they obviously can't responsibly govern themselves.Cla68 (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cla, I don't know whether to take this as a backhanded compliment. But in the same tone that I've mentioned to some of my friends and editors above, my apologies that the close did not come out the way my personal opinion would have wished it to be. Wifione Message 15:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You deserve considerable respect for making the decision based on standard procedures and rules, and not special pleadings. (I only wish that I was the teenager Cla68 accuses me of being!) --Orange Mike |Talk 13:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike. Appreciated. Best regards. Wifione Message 16:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Jim Hawkins (radio presenter)[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jim Hawkins (radio presenter). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Standard template message, just so you're aware. No action needed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note SilkTork. Best. Wifione Message 16:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, would you be willing to fully protect the article and talk page for a few days at least? Pigsonthewing has edited the article, despite the subject feeling (rightly or wrongly) that he was being cyberstalked by him, and another editor has tried to start yet another discussion on the talk page about the subject's date of birth, [6] which is one of the sore points. It seems a little provocative. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi SlimVirgin, I'm sorry I just saw your message. I guess Sandstein has already protected the article. Write back if any other action is required. Kind regards. Wifione Message 16:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 April 2012[edit]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, Wifione. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bmusician 09:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

fyi[edit]

Hi , I have asked in the deletion review why you held a strong deletion position and did not vote comment that strongly held position but instead chose to close against your position and use your close to vocalize your delete position? You strongly supported deletion and your vote comment would have made a difference and yet you chose not to vote comment but to vocalize your position in your close of the discussion ? Why did you do that ?Youreallycan 15:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the note. Will reply in a few hours. Rushing through... Best. Wifione Message 09:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE March drive wrap-up[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive
GOCE March 2012 Backlog Elimination progress graph

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! This is the most successful drive we have had for quite a while. Here is your end-of-drive wrap-up newsletter.

Participation

Of the 70 people who signed up for this drive, 40 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Special acknowledgement goes out to Lfstevens, who did over 200 articles, most of them in the last third of the drive, and topped all three leaderboard categories. You're a superstar! Stfg and others have been pre-checking the articles for quality and conformance to Wikipedia guidelines; some have been nominated for deletion or had some preliminary clean-up done to help make the copy-edit process more fun and appealing. Thanks to all who helped get those nasty last few articles out of the target months.

Progress report

During this drive we were successful in eliminating our target months—October, November, and December 2010—from the queue, and have now eliminated all the 2010 articles from our list. We were able to complete 500 articles this month! End-of-drive results and barnstar information can be found here.

When working on the backlog, please keep in mind that there are options other than copy-editing available; some articles may be candidates for deletion, or may not be suitable for copy-editing at this time for other reasons. The {{GOCEreviewed}} tag can be placed on any article you find to be totally uneditable, and you can nominate for deletion any that you discover to be copyright violations or completely unintelligible. If you need help deciding what to do, please contact any of the coordinators.

Thank you for participating in the March 2012 drive! All contributions are appreciated. Our next copy-edit drive will be in May.

Your drive coordinators – Dianna (Talk), Stfg (Talk), and Dank (talk)

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

EdwardsBot (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Wifione. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IIM Lucknow[edit]

I have replied to your concerns on the talk page of IIM Lucknow. I have removed the SPS template from the top of the article and I have mentioned the reason for the same in the talk page. Please read the response to your concerns and let me know if you are convinced. Please add the tag back if you are not convinced. --Anbu121 (talk me) 14:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for your support at my RfA - and for your congratulations. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me.Yngvadottir (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 April 2012[edit]

RfA for Bmusician[edit]

I was thinking to nominate User:Bmusician so I contacted him and he asked me to discuss this with you. I think that he is ready for RfA and experienced with complete knowledge of policies. He is a perfect candidate for mop. He has been around almost everywhere and is very active with good edits. He is uncontroversial and I wanted to nominate him. Is he ready for RfA according to you? If yes, then should I nominate him? Please kindly advise. Regards! Yasht101 10:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, don't mean to sound rude, but isn't this also a form of canvassing? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know, but I saw similar messages on this talk page: User_talk:Wifione#RfA_consideration so asked here. Was my message wrong? Yasht101 10:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess, I'm still unaware of various policies. But asking an admin or another user about going for an RfA sounds like Canvassing? Correct me if I am wrong. I'll let WifiOne reply. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just dropping in here. I have contacted Wifione about adminship because of a message xe left on my talk page two months ago; I believed I have garnered sufficient experience to be granted the tools. Then Yash sent me an email that said that he was eager to nominate me. I told him that I appreciated that, and that I have contacted Wifione earlier about adminship. I have also emailed the answers to the mandatory questions to Wifione.
Regarding canvassing - I respectfully do not agree that Yash's message is a form of canvassing. Yash does not seem to attempt to influence the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate, as per WP:CANVASS. All he did was contact Wifione about nominating me for adminship.
Also, please don't be in a hurry to nominate me - I've been very busy recently and only have access to Wikipedia via my iPhone, LOL. I appreciate Yash's kindness here, obviously ;) Bmusician 12:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have seen an Ipod getting a good number of support so that would be an advantage if you use your iphone for RfA . Anyways, I am in no hurry to nominate you. Whenever you are ready sir, always count on me. I'll be happy to do so. Yasht10112:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) To me it's not canvassing. Yash is a fairly new editor still and very keen to get things right. Here he is, to my mind, contacting a more experienced editor (and admin) about what is a fairly major proposal. And one that is, again to my mind, a good thing. (I am here after visiting Yash's talkpage and reading between the lines...)(being nosy)Peridon (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just off your block[edit]

...and quick to return to the same behavior. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 April 2012[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wifione/Archive_2012_(April)&oldid=1146472517"