Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington 2

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 23:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Initiated by Balancer 13:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Statements and listings of parties copied from RfArb at this time. Balancer 23:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Desired outcome
What I desire from this RfC is simply for Nearly Headless Nick to follow Deletion policy, specifically in closing AFDs to delete when and only when there is either a rough consensus to delete, or when the three non-negotiable conditions are invoked.

Those conditions, which are in practice rarely invoked and highly specific, may be summarized per Wikipedia's policies as follows:
 * It is impossible to write any article on the topic which meets WP:V.
 * It is impossible to write any article on the topic which is WP:NPOV.
 * Content of article violates WP:COPYRIGHT.

If it should be demonstrated that Nearly Headless Nick cannot or will not follow Wikipedia's deletion policy in the future, then I would then ask that Nearly Headless Nick be barred from closing AFDs so long as Wikipedia's deletion policy continues to invoke the principle of consensus. Balancer 02:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Description
''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this administrator's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

This is a dispute about an administrator's actions re:deletion policy and AFD closures. Nearly Headless Nick has been closing AFDs without, and sometimes against, the rough consensus required by Deletion policy, excepting those rare cases in which an article cannot meet WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:COPYRIGHT standards.

A list of some sample recent related DRVs, in which users have asserted that Nearly Headless Nick has acted against or without consensus, may be of some help.
 * Deletion_review/Log/2007 February 15
 * Deletion_review/Log/2007 February 15
 * Deletion_review/Log/2007 February 15
 * Deletion_review/Log/2007 February 16
 * Deletion_review/Log/2007 February 15

It is my considered opinion that not all of Nearly Headless Nick's closures have been inappropriate; however, even when the closures have been justifiable closures, i.e., a correct closure decision per policy, Nearly Headless Nick has offered inappropriate reasoning. He has further attacked AFD editors and critics (e.g., as an "army of numbskulls" ref) and spoken in no uncertain terms against consensus, which remains a cornerstone of Wikipedia policy.

Nearly Headless Nick has refused to examine seriously the possibility that he is acting against policy, or modify his behavior to fit with existing policy, even when asked politely. He has defended his most hotly disputed decisions by stating that he did not find arguments - including, in nearly all cases, arguments based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines - convincing or valid - when there has been any defense at all to offer. (See here to follow Golden Wattle's related dispute with Nearly Headless Nick, which has produced very little explanation from NHN.) In some cases they clearly have been; in other cases they have not. Regardless, it is not the role of the administrator to decide arbitrarily which of multiple reasonable interpretations (thresholds) of stated Wikipedia policy and guidelines are correct in determining consensus.

This rewrite is to say that upon closing an AFD, an administrator will decide to do as they see fit with the article. This is highly dangerous for Wikipedia, because it turns the AFD process into five days of discussion followed by an essentially arbitrary decision by the administrator. Editors may as well not bother contributing to AFDs, because the administrator's decision need not have any relation to their argumentation, evidence, or opinions.

Since the overturn of his closure of the Starslip Crisis AFD, Nearly Headless Nick has been defensive, irritable, and even more unreceptive to critical feedback. (Note for the record: The basis of the overturn of that AFD closure was nomination in bad faith and rampant sockpuppetry accounting for over half of the "delete" votes, as noted in both the DRV submission and closure. NHN vehemently defended his closure. The assertion was also made in the DRV by some users that there was no consensus to delete and that NHN acted inappropriately for this reason.)

In conclusion, I assert that:


 * Nearly Headless Nick is acting against policy.
 * The precedents NHN is setting through his closures represent a serious threat to consensus as an operating principle of Wikipedia.
 * NHN has made statements indicating that his understanding of Wikipedia practice is at odds with consensus, as well as statements indicating that he will not change this practice.
 * NHN has indicated that he is not willing to engage any serious dialogue about this dispute; specifically, he has responded with sarcasm and insults when his actions are questioned, and in some cases either refused to explain his decisions or failed to do so until pressed at great length.


 * Addendum re: Spartaz In case it's not clear from the above, I would like to say for the record that I don't believe this is about webcomics AFDs in particular, and have no problem with disregarding ILIKEITs, IDONTLIKEITs, and puppets in looking for consensus in an AFD. Balancer 14:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum II re: Doc, Timmccloud, and the prior RfC on NHN. Upon reviewing the RfC Timmccloud linked to, it is clearly related - see this section in particular and the others' discussion of a number of disputed AFD closures, although it does not primarily focus on the matter. At the same time, I agree that I should have tried going to RfC first. I somehow missed seeing about it when I reviewed Dispute resolution prior to creating this RfA, and a RfC was the appropriate next step. My apologies. Would it be possible or appropriate to simply move everybody's statements to RfC, e.g., Requests for comment/Nearly Headless Nick (2)? Balancer 00:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum III re: Pan Dan: I feel that this is not a problem of ambiguity of Deletion policy or the related administrator guidelines. Those clearly call for a rough consensus; NHN clearly does not think that a rough consensus is necessary in any part of the AFD. Balancer 23:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Previous RfC on Nearly Headless Nick
Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington

List of cited AFDs
A list of AFDs that have been cited as evidence or useful examples.


 * Deletion_review/Log/2007 February 15
 * Deletion_review/Log/2007 February 15
 * Deletion_review/Log/2007 February 15
 * Deletion_review/Log/2007 February 16
 * Deletion_review/Log/2007 February 15
 * Deletion_review/Log/2007 February 15

Wikipedia policies frequently referred to

 * Consensus
 * Deletion policy

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

 * Balancer has tried and failed to resolve this issue with Nearly Headless Nick on his talk page. Nearly Headless Nick closed discussion with Balancer on his talk page by refusing to discuss the matter further with Balancer. Balancer has also brought this issue up with Nearly Headless Nick in DRV but Nearly Headless Nick tacitly refused to discuss this issue of policy there either, meaning that resolution has clearly failed. Balancer 02:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Golden Wattle asked for further information on the closing of an AfD on the talk page of User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (NHN) - the closing admin concerned..  My request for more information was met with "No comment. See WP:DRV."   I raised the matter about what rough consensus might mean and whether admins should explain their decisions if the numbers did not fully add up to rough consensus as indicated at Consensus as a more general comment at Administrators' noticeboard.  I also discussed the matter at DRV in terms of not providing an explanation for the reasoning behind the deletion when it was not obvious from the debate.  I found at DRV that the NHN did not contribute his arguments for closure there and the debate did not focus on whether or not the admin gave adequate reasons for closure but rather whether or not the article should stay deleted - perfectly proper but not quite the same thing. NHN also declined to comment on his RfA (ie RfA which was withdrawn preceding this RfC) with the observation that "it does not interest me."  He is yet to comment at this RfC .  NHN has not responded adequately in the past when similar requests for more information about AfD closures and other deletions have been raised on his talk page. See for example  where I find no evidence he ever replied to the user on either user's talk page or elsewhere.--Golden Wattle  talk 20:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

 * Principal parties
 * (signs posts as "Nearly Headless Nick")


 * Peripherally involved parties

Nearly Headless Nick Golden Wattle GRBerry Hiding Bwithh Timmccloud zandperl Bridgeplayer Silensor Pan Dan Jerry lavoie Dysepsion Mathmo Husond NetOracle
 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried


 * User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * I support everything that Balancer has said in the statement of the dispute. I do not have a personaly problem with NHN and I beleive that in many cases he is a fine administrator, but in the specific instances cited above there seems to be some other basis for his decision besides Rough_consensus, and I dispute those decisions.. Timmccloud 01:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I certify the basis for this dispute on the bases listed in the statement I wrote in initially bringing this to RfA, and which I have moved here to RfC. Balancer 03:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the general gist of what has been outlined. Mathmo Talk 10:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Golden Wattle talk 20:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that NHN did not act neutrally/unbiased in the case of Starslip Crisis. I am not familiar with the other cases.  --zandperl 03:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As established in my statement below, I endorse this dispute. I have no idea if NHN is a good admin or a decent fellow outside this area: I assume so, but these events, while probably not malicious, are in direct opposition to the pillars of collaborative effort. NHN must stop this kind of activity. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 02:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with all points made by Balancer above. Jerry lavoie 02:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement
(sign with ~ )

Response
...


 * Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Outside views
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}


 * Note: Statements that were only concerned with the validy of the original RfArb have been moved to the talkpage...

Statement by Jerry_lavoie
I do not feel that the main thrust of this discussion is the webcomic delrev's. Although there was concern in those, as expressed by p.i.p.'s.  It is expected and proper to apply far less weight, or no weight at all to !votes which do not assert reasoning per policy or precedent. This is not the problem, IMO. But where clear supermajority is achieved for a certain outcome, partnered with fully-articulated reasoning, the closing editor must not decide in the opposite direction, citing his own opinion as basis, or providing no clear reasoning for basis. This undermines the concensus concept, and generally diminishes the quality and effectiveness of the collaborative process. In particular, I am gravely concerned with NHN's statements when discussing his closing decisions with concerned users: diff "Another time, we will let users like yourself to close AfDs by counting votes and let consensus reign. I am sorry to say, but your actions depict that you are not much knowledgeable with respect to the notability guidelines." diff "Administrators are administrators for a reason. I do not chose to ignore comments by any editor. I have to reject them when they do not conform with policies. That is how we derieve consensus. Wikipedia is not a Democracy."

To me, these statements demonstrate a clearly eletist attitude about being an admin. His reasoning seems to be admins are admins for a reason, and that means our opinions are more important than yours. and if common users were closing AFD's, they would use concensus, which would be wrong because they are an army of numbskulls.

I believe his actions as admin with respect to these AFD's has been disruptive and hurtful to the encyclopedia, and countervening action is prudent to ensure against perpetuation of this disruption.
 * Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Jerry lavoie 15:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Timmccloud 01:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Balancer 02:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Timmccloud
My principle interaction on this issue has been limited to the AFD and DRV for the noob, and I will limit my comments to that. I support everything that Balancer has said in the arbitration request statement of dispute. I did not have any arguments in the WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT catagory, mine were specific and notability related. A few others joined me with notablity arguments in the keep side supporting my position, and I feel that our collective input to the AFD was ignored. I was shocked that Nearly Headless Nick came up with a decision other than no consensus. This is the articles second AFD, and the first one came up no consensus, and the article has been improved since then. I am dumbfounded that improvements to the notablitly of the noob could possibly lead to it being deleted, and the only reason that makes sense in my mind is that Nearly Headless Nick was either allowing personal bias or unjustifyable intrepetations of WP:CON to make the determination he did. I do not believe that the WP:CON policy was being followed, and it sets a bad precident.
 * Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Timmccloud 16:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Balancer 02:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 02:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Jerry lavoie 02:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Pascal.Tesson
I'm not convinced that we really need the arbitration committee's input on this but I have to agree that Nick's attitude in this whole thing is pretty bad. He's clearly unwilling to listen to others and resorts to borderline personal attacks  and certainly shows little or no respect to editors that disagree with his stance. I have said elsewhere and will repeat it here that the systematic practice of closing AfDs as "delete" with too little regard for the actual level of support is bound to create frustration within the community (and I say this as a self-professed deletionist). Although AfD is indeed not a vote, Nick too often discounts the opinion of experienced editors who simply don't interpret policy in quite the same way that he does and seems to have confidence in his superior understanding of it. This is not, as Spartaz seems to believe, about the closure of a bunch of webcomic AfDs but about a regular pattern of questionable closures on various topics  that have led to a large number of deletion reviews and a previous RfC. Pascal.Tesson 16:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (originally posted as a response to JzG's comment below) :I agree that there is no evidence of malice and this is why I'm not so sure that arbitration is really needed. But we clearly have a pattern of poor calls in which Nick not only discounts the opinion of "passionate advocates of the articles" but also that of dispassionate advocates that simply opine that the material is suitable for Wikipedia. True, deletion review can undo those poor calls but that's not a reason to tolerate them.


 * Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Just to clarify things a bit: I fully support moving this from the request for arbitration page to a simple RfC. I also stand by the above comments. Pascal.Tesson 14:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Timmccloud 01:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Balancer 02:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 02:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Jerry lavoie 02:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Αργυριου (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Dysepsion
I participated in the AFD and the DRV for Hillcrest Christian School so I'll limit my commentary to what I saw. According to the opinions of others who partcipated in the AfD I believed that the article would result in a keep because of the vote tally. However, given the nature of the polarized arguments I would not have been surprised if it resulted in a no-consensus. In the DRV, Nick did give a good argument regarding schools, vandalism etc., however his argument was never fully presented in the AfD nor is was it given as the result for having the article deleted. It is in my opinion that he took it upon himself to encorporated his personal philosophy against the process of AfD which is very disconcerting.
 * Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  † Ðy§ep§ion †  Speak your mind 17:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Balancer 02:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 02:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Jerry lavoie 02:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
Tricky. What we have here is a series of borderline calls, disputed by passionate advocates of the articles. If passionate advocacy was in and of itself an indicator that an article should not be deleted, we'd never rid the 'pedia of some of the unverifiable junk which we thankfully delete daily citing AfD is not a vote. On the other hand, Nick's judgement does seem to be slightly more deletionist than community norms. Maybe a bit of mentorship or something, but I don't see this as abuse of tools, not least because a genuinely bad deletion just gets undone by DRV, well before the deadline (since there isn't one). I see no evidence of malice.
 * Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Guy (Help!) 17:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Eluchil404 13:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I have to agree with JzG on this as well.--MONGO 06:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Husond
This request for arbitration is inadequate and unnecessary. Although I think that Nearly Headless Nick should have closed Hillcrest Christian School's AFD as no consensus, his decision is within admin discretion. WP:DRV suffices for overturning AFD admin decisions when these are frowned upon by the community. A sequence of bad decisions would justify a request for comment, but arbitration here seems totally inappropriate. Admins make mistakes just like everybody else.
 * Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  Hús  ö  nd  04:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved-for-this-set badlydrawnjeff
Admins make mistakes. This occurs, and we (allegedly) have failsafes like deletion review to deal with situations such as this. I think Nick gets unfairly hit by a lot of these because he's willing to dive into the more complicated ones, but I haven't noticed his judgment to be any worse than anyone else at AfD at this point, and I'm not one to be afraid to challenge anyone on an improper closure. The problem isn't Nick, but may be the lack of a quality appeals process when the DRV fails to overturn an improper close. I'm not sure if that's within the ArbCom's purview, but I'd hope that Nick's behavior, which has always been in good faith and, at least in my experience, always been open to appeal and dissent, is not in question.
 * Users who endorse this summary:

Statement by mostly-uninvolved Erk
Disclaimer: I haven't been involved in any of these cases specifically, but as it is the webcomic controversy that brought me back to wikipedia and some of these AfD's are tied to that, I should not claim total uninvolvement. I think I am unbiased but I may have some interest I am not consciously aware of. I have focused my study on nick's non-webcomic deletions to help avoid personal bias. That's all I can think of for now. edit: see my addition to the talk page for more. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 10:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * First, I think this does belong on RfC, as balancer has stated himself, and it would be good if we could have it moved(?).
 * Second, I don't think the issue here is related (1) to whether or not Nick's decisions have been correct, nor (2) to how effective DRV is. When passing a "life or death" decision on an article, the closing admin owes at least cursory civility to the posters in the AfD debate. The most graphic example I see here is this one, provided by Pascal, but the same trend is shown in pretty much all these articles. I will use the (nice, short, and illustrative) Ice Age example as a case study: aside from the original AfD poster, there was no discussion of the article being deleted. The original poster provided no rationale but that the article was "non-notable", with no further reference or information to back up the article. This is followed by five keep !votes, two of which provide evidence of notability and one of which worked to improve the article in lines with WP's standards. That most certainly does not reflect the rough consensus of "delete", which Nick chose and did not see fit to elaborate on in the AfD. One cannot read that article without scratching one's head. How could the result be "delete" when there is no argument? Yet Nick did not bother to explain how he saw that, making it look like an utterly arbitrary decision wherein the administrator is the only one whose opinion really matters.
 * This would be dismissable as an issue of "people make mistakes" if this was a one-time event, but we have here a sizable list of cases where Nick has made the same mistake repeatedly, over the course of several months and multiple AfD's. Sure, we have the DRV option, but it should not be standard practice in article deletion, else the AfD is nothing more than a symbolic step along the way to the real talk in DRV. Moreover, Nick has shown unwillingness to back up his decisions many times in his usertalk and in DRV. In order to achieve consensus it is vital that wikipedia editors be willing to explain their decisions to other editors; that is, without a question, a cornerstone of the collaborative process. I see no reason for Nick to be unwilling to explain himself, and this should be done in the AfD, not in the DRV and not when users pester him about it later. Utterly regardless of the correctness of his AfD decisions regarding consensus, this lack of explanation is an enormous problem in a wikipedia administrator. It fosters badwill, and in the case of The Noob it is one of the contributing factors in the perceived "jihad on webcomics" - although clearly this issue is not limited to webcomics.
 * Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 02:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Timmccloud 01:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Balancer 02:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Jerry lavoie 02:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Mathmo
I was one of the editors on several of the AfD and DRV. Hadn't noticed beforehand this pattern of wrongful closures by Nearly Headless Nick but now that it has been pointed out....  it does appear to that there is something wrong here. If it had been merely one (or even two) then that is fine, we can forgive it as human error which happens. And then it gets fixed up through DRV. However... when it is a consistent behavour this can be regarded as abusive of his admin position that is merely creating more work for wikipedia. Plus they way he has responded to this critism is another extra worrying factor.
 * Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Mathmo Talk 06:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Timmccloud 01:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Balancer 02:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 02:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Jerry lavoie 02:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Extra statement by Mathmo
After reading through the previous RfC I'm only further convinced it should be looked into very carefully if this users action require some kind of action. I suggest reading through the earlier RfC very carefully and checking out the diffs and also the arguments against Sir Nicholas. While some of them such as this are not reasons enough to  get desyoped, when combined with the more serious matters and viewed as a whole the evidence is looking very worrying against him. Mathmo Talk 12:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Pan Dan
I appreciate Balancer's concern and viewpoint on AfD closure, even though I don't agree with him/her. However, given that many people endorsed NHN's closures at the DRV's Balancer has listed above, I think Balancer's problem is really not with NHN himself but with Wikipedia's policy on AfD closure. I think it's the vagueness of deletion policy that leads to the differing views we see at DRV on (1) exactly what "consensus" means in the context of AfD closures, and (2) how much discretion admins have in closing AfD's. I suggest that Balancer raise his/her concerns at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy and Wikipedia talk:Deletion guidelines for administrators. This is not a matter for RfC or RfA.
 * Users who endorse this summary:

Statement by Peripherally involved party Golden Wattle
I was concerned at the lack of explanation on an AfD closure by User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (NHN) and raised my concern with him seeking more information about his decision. My request for more information was met with "No comment. See WP:DRV." which I actually find rude but more than that I raised the matter about what rough consensus might mean and whether admins should explain their decisions if the numbers did not fully add up to rough consensus as indicated at Consensus as a more general comment at Administrators' noticeboard. I also discussed the matter at DRV. I found at DRV that the NHN did not contribute his arguments for closure there and the debate did not focus on whether or not the admin gave adequate reasons for closure but rather whether or not the article should stay deleted - perfectly proper but not quite the same thing. However, my comments here are that NHN is quite consistent in his behaviour in closing AfDs where the numbers are not clear one way or the other and in declining to give further information on his reasoning, either at the time of closure or when requested later. It seems my request and refusal was not a one off instance. He has also declined to comment here with the observation that "it does not interest me." Others agree that it is expected that admins should explain their actions and that a conduct issue is involved.  and others think it might at least be a good idea Although there is a general issue about AfD closure guidelines, there is a more specific concern about this admin's conduct.
 * Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Golden Wattle talk 23:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Timmccloud 01:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Balancer 02:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Mathmo Talk 12:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Dysepsion 19:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 02:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Jerry lavoie 02:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Further comment by Golden Wattle on recent AfD closures include explanations
I note on some recent closures that more explanations of the decision are being given :-) Perhaps NHN has paid attention to comments raised.  See  and   This is a desirable outcome.--Golden Wattle  talk 21:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Better explanations is always a good idea; whether opining in a discussion or closing it.  GRBerry 16:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Radiant
This is premature, considering that the DRVs haven't even closed yet. If DRV endorses Nick's decision, that can hardly be considered an improper deletion on his part. Sending it to arbitration was even more premature.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) NetOracle 22:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Exactly.--MONGO 06:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Peripherally involved party NetOracle
I will keep this short, because there is no use in forcing any broad policy issue in an RfC concerning the conduct of a specific user engaging in behaviors which aren't universally received as being consistent with both the letter and spirit of established policy.

I can only comment on the actions of the accused as a peripherally involved party as they relate to a specific AfD concerning a non-notable webcomic known as "The Noob".

This deletion discussion was far from clean, and is currently up for review. I started the discussion, and was a strong participant in it, and I can honestly say that no decision made by Nick would have resulted in a clean close; the current DRV debate would have still happened regardless of what decision was made, and who made it (except perhaps Jimbo himself). The problem with the AfD was that one side felt disenfranchised as a result of the non-majority being the victor (as judged by Nick), and the other side felt disenfranchised as the result of the policy abuse, vote stacking, campaigning, and puppetry committed by some of those favoring inclusion. So, essentially, any administrator who closed that discussion had to face being labeled either a rogue administrator for ignoring consensus, or labeled a rogue administrator for ignoring policy. Nick ruled against those who believed that a majority vote implies consensus and compliance with policy, so therefore he was labeled a rogue administrator who is hell-bent on destroying consensus.

In short, I do not believe that Nick's actions on the AfD for "the noob" were in any way abusive or contrary to policy. Although the majority of votes were for Keep, Wikipedia is not a Democracy, and Nick used his discretion as an administrator to rule in favor of the strong policy-based arguments brought by those favoring a Delete. The AfD process is tricky, and we have to be very careful in allowing sheer numbers of short and policy-weak votes to determine the fate of an article; Wikipedia suffers from systemic bias toward certain subjects (particularly Internet-related ones), and the closing administrator must compensate for this bias and the effects of voting blocs and puppets when counting votes and considering policy as it relates to the fate of the article in question.

When difficult and dirty decisions have to be made, we need to assume good faith toward the person who decides to get his hands dirty and clean up the matter. NetOracle 22:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by peripherally involved party GRBerry
I think I was marked as peripherally involved because I am now the primary closer of deletion reviews. Now that the reviews have closed, I can comment substantively.


 * Deletion_review/Log/2007 February 15 - deletion endorsed, closed by gaillimh
 * Deletion_review/Log/2007 February 15 - Nick assuming good faith, didn't find the sockpuppets, and the AFD was overturned on that basis by NewYorkBrad. I marked the review as closed, implicitly endorsing Brad's action.  Admins, at least as much as ordinary users, are expected to assume good faith.  Nothing to see on Nick's conduct here.
 * Deletion_review/Log/2007 February 15 - undeleted with consent of closing admin (I closed DRV); this would have closed as overturn if Nick hadn't been convinced
 * Deletion_review/Log/2007 February 16 - closure endorsed, I closed the DRV
 * Deletion_review/Log/2007 February 15 - deletion endorsed, closed by gaillimh
 * Deletion_review/Log/2007 February 15 - closed as userfied for experimentation (I closed DRV); would have closed as no consensus to overturn otherwise, which for an AFD amounts to endorsing the close

We see here one overturned because Nick followed policy and assumed good faith, so we can't use it as evidence that he was wrong. We have one that would have overturned even if Nick had objected. We have three closed as straight up deletion endorsed. We have one that would have closed as no consensus defaulting to endorsing deletion if there hadn't been a better idea available than endorse/overturn. Depending on which you choose to count between 1 of 4 and 2 of 6 were overturned, or 25% to 33%. Analysis done previously at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review shows that a 30% to 33% overturn rate is fairly typical for contentious cases at deletion reivew. We thus learn from this sample that the rate of overturning Nick's actions is fairly typical of the administrative corps as a whole.

There is an open, unanswered question of whether Nick's reviews are brought to deletion review more often than the administrative corps as a whole. Two facts are relevant. First, contribution histories (and deletion logs) are viewable, so if somebody becomes suspicious of another they can review their actions to see which need improvement. This is by design, and makes it meaningless to use a short time span when one user is suspicious of another for testing an overall dubiousness rate. So no conclusion is possible without looking at some other period when there were not editors particularly suspicious of Nick's closes. Second, Nick is willing to close tough call AFDs. Those closing tough cases get more reviews of their actions, simply because the cases are tough. So even if we found a period to review, we'd need to consider somehow how tough the cases were to close. The effort isn't worth the return.

Better close explanations will help lower the review rate. The other evidence is that Nick's actions are of similar quality to other administrators, so there is nothing more to do here.


 * 1) GRBerry 16:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) This is similar to the result we saw last time around.  Eluchil404 04:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm not an editor or a common user, so if this is out-of-line or inappropriately formatted please fix/remove at your discretion. However, I do feel obligated to note that, concerning Deletion_review/Log/2007 February 15 good faith may actually come into question. The sockpuppets supporting deletion were indeed created in a deliberate effort to troll the AfD process -- HOWEVER: NHN appeared to decide it was worth his time to check for sockpuppets with regards to those opposing the article's deletion (unless I misunderstood the discourse noted in the deletion review log). I'm not going to argue that the article in question was actually notable. But that's not what's under discussion here, is it? It suggests the admin may have been engaging in personal prejudice in assuming good faith on behalf of those in favor of deletion but not those against it. Again, my apologies if this is out of line/turn. (Edit: I note Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Wizardbrad seems to suggest a reason for checkuser on 'keep' votes - however, if it is becoming practice to checkuser votes on webcomic AfDs, why only keep votes, as sockpuppets can in my mind hardly be attributed solely to a single agenda - again, suggests prejudice...) Argument withdrawn based on evidence delivered below by Dragonfiend. Though I would caution that assuming good faith when sockpuppetry is already in evidence in a 'heated' AfD can be dangerous, NHN clearly should not have been expected to go above and beyond his standard duties in this case.
 * 4) Endorse GRBerry's statement. Also, a few notes about the anon user's comment directly above: Nearly Headless Nick was not the user who requested the Checkuser on Wizardbrad and his sockpuppets (that was NetOracle), nor was Nearly Headless Nick the user who marked Wizardbrad's sockpuppets as such (that was Krator). So, it's difficult to ascribe the discovery or tagging of Wizardbrad's sockpuppets to any "personal prejudice" on Nearly Headless Nick's part since he appears to have been completely uninvolved. -- Dragonfiend 11:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.