You'd be surprised on just how close to an accurate prediction this was. The article about one of the most prominent lawyers in the USA, who led the civil prosecutions of Boesky and Milken, was deleted after next to no discussion, over the objections of my husband (who pointed out hundreds of news citations verifing both the notability of the individual and the accuracy of the article (nearly ne hundred from the New York Times alone).
The administrator who closed the discussion shortly after my husband posted responded by not only dismissing his points (even though no one else actually made a substantive argument), but launched into a gratuitous personal attack on him as deceptive, and falsely characterized the references he provided; then, after my husband gave a restrained (if rather annoyed) response, refused to provide any substantive response, and castigated him for incivility and personal attacks for, among other things. "impugning" the administrator's "reasoning." Then one of the admin's began posting rather rude messages on his talk page.
And that about sums thing up for Wikipedian discussion these days. It's uncivil and insulting to point out that someone has made a flawed argument. It's uncivil and a personal attack to point out that an administrator has made obvious factual errors.
I doubt you'll see my husband editing any more. He'd amused himself by actually cleaning the garbage out of various biographies of living people, bu got little out of it but harassment, three increasingly nasty rounds of it.
But so it goes. I told him when he began devoting time to Wikipedia that he'd soon enough have the experience made unpleasant by a thin-skinned, poorly informed, opinionated soul who viewed expertise and competence with hostility, and he was. So it goes.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
In a recent discussion on the Wiki someone made a proposal which began "In the case of biographies of living people, where a number of editors have expressed the opinion either (...)". One of the outspoken critics of the general class of proposal began his retort "First, what is 'a number'? As a mathematician I'll tell you that 0 is a number."
Now, I didn't particularly support this proposal either, ... but I'm not about to argue that zero users fits the proposed criteria. In the same general set of proposals there were a couple of people earnestly arguging that some change to AfD closure procedure could be expected to result in the deletion of [[George W. Bush]] and [[Bill Clinton]].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lar#Gary_Lynch_deletion
List readers can decide for themselves whether the summary below is accurate. Some people aren't cut out for a collaborative editing project - and I'm not referring to Lar.
Nathan
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 11:12 PM, Enchantress of Florence enchantf@gmail.com wrote:
You'd be surprised on just how close to an accurate prediction this was. The article about one of the most prominent lawyers in the USA, who led the civil prosecutions of Boesky and Milken, was deleted after next to no discussion, over the objections of my husband (who pointed out hundreds of news citations verifing both the notability of the individual and the accuracy of the article (nearly ne hundred from the New York Times alone).
The administrator who closed the discussion shortly after my husband posted responded by not only dismissing his points (even though no one else actually made a substantive argument), but launched into a gratuitous personal attack on him as deceptive, and falsely characterized the references he provided; then, after my husband gave a restrained (if rather annoyed) response, refused to provide any substantive response, and castigated him for incivility and personal attacks for, among other things. "impugning" the administrator's "reasoning." Then one of the admin's began posting rather rude messages on his talk page.
And that about sums thing up for Wikipedian discussion these days. It's uncivil and insulting to point out that someone has made a flawed argument. It's uncivil and a personal attack to point out that an administrator has made obvious factual errors.
I doubt you'll see my husband editing any more. He'd amused himself by actually cleaning the garbage out of various biographies of living people, bu got little out of it but harassment, three increasingly nasty rounds of it.
But so it goes. I told him when he began devoting time to Wikipedia that he'd soon enough have the experience made unpleasant by a thin-skinned, poorly informed, opinionated soul who viewed expertise and competence with hostility, and he was. So it goes.
The problem is Lar is using a novel standard. * "So notability is not conferred by Gary having been the subject of a substantial biography in book form, or multiple substantial biographies in articles." * "The default outcome failing consensus (we had 3 commenters) should be delete."
If you read that talkpage, I tell him in the previous section that closing AfDs like that in direct violation of the stated consensus at WT:BLP is likely to lead to drama.
I note that the first page of the Google News results that are linked at the AfD contains the following NYT article prominently, which practically establishes notability by itself: "Gary Lynch, Defender of Companies, Has His Critics" http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07E6DF1038F930A3575AC0A9609...
Collaborative editing projects mean we accept community standards and don't set our own even if we disagree.
*Shrug*
RR
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lar#Gary_Lynch_deletion
List readers can decide for themselves whether the summary below is accurate. Some people aren't cut out for a collaborative editing project - and I'm not referring to Lar.
Nathan
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 11:12 PM, Enchantress of Florence < enchantf@gmail.com> wrote:
You'd be surprised on just how close to an accurate prediction this was. The article about one of the most prominent lawyers in the USA, who led the civil prosecutions of Boesky and Milken, was deleted after next to no discussion, over the objections of my husband (who pointed out hundreds of news citations verifing both the notability of the individual and the accuracy of the article (nearly ne hundred from the New York Times alone).
The administrator who closed the discussion shortly after my husband posted responded by not only dismissing his points (even though no one else actually made a substantive argument), but launched into a gratuitous personal attack on him as deceptive, and falsely characterized the references he provided; then, after my husband gave a restrained (if rather annoyed) response, refused to provide any substantive response, and castigated him for incivility and personal attacks for, among other things. "impugning" the administrator's "reasoning." Then one of the admin's began posting rather rude messages on his talk page.
And that about sums thing up for Wikipedian discussion these days. It's uncivil and insulting to point out that someone has made a flawed argument. It's uncivil and a personal attack to point out that an administrator has made obvious factual errors.
I doubt you'll see my husband editing any more. He'd amused himself by actually cleaning the garbage out of various biographies of living people, bu got little out of it but harassment, three increasingly nasty rounds of it.
But so it goes. I told him when he began devoting time to Wikipedia that he'd soon enough have the experience made unpleasant by a thin-skinned, poorly informed, opinionated soul who viewed expertise and competence with hostility, and he was. So it goes.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Bottom line:
"Therefore Delete, without prejudice to recreation if a significantly improved source demonstrating clear notability should appear later."
So if someone wants to do the work, it is simply a matter of crafting a decent article.
I don't actually agree with the closing, as Minos P. Dautrieve's comment should have been given stronger weight, but the obvious remedy is to flesh out the article, not just argue.
Fred
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lar#Gary_Lynch_deletion
List readers can decide for themselves whether the summary below is accurate. Some people aren't cut out for a collaborative editing project
and I'm not referring to Lar.
Nathan
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 11:12 PM, Enchantress of Florence enchantf@gmail.com wrote:
You'd be surprised on just how close to an accurate prediction this was. The article about one of the most prominent lawyers in the USA, who led the civil prosecutions of Boesky and Milken, was deleted after next to no discussion, over the objections of my husband (who pointed out hundreds of news citations verifing both the notability of the individual and the accuracy of the article (nearly ne hundred from the New York Times alone).
The administrator who closed the discussion shortly after my husband posted responded by not only dismissing his points (even though no one else actually made a substantive argument), but launched into a gratuitous personal attack on him as deceptive, and falsely characterized the references he provided; then, after my husband gave a restrained (if rather annoyed) response, refused to provide any substantive response, and castigated him for incivility and personal attacks for, among other things. "impugning" the administrator's "reasoning." Then one of the admin's began posting rather rude messages on his talk page.
And that about sums thing up for Wikipedian discussion these days. It's uncivil and insulting to point out that someone has made a flawed argument. It's uncivil and a personal attack to point out that an administrator has made obvious factual errors.
I doubt you'll see my husband editing any more. He'd amused himself by actually cleaning the garbage out of various biographies of living people, bu got little out of it but harassment, three increasingly nasty rounds of it.
But so it goes. I told him when he began devoting time to Wikipedia that he'd soon enough have the experience made unpleasant by a thin-skinned, poorly informed, opinionated soul who viewed expertise and competence with hostility, and he was. So it goes.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Agree with Fred - reposting bounced post that was sent in response to Relata:
I think Lar just restated the current WP:BIO guideline in slightly different wording. The problem as I see it was vast over-reaction by the first poster and the other user involved. He took Lar's describing the Google results as 'deceptive' as directed at him personally - clearly not the case. He demanded that Lar reconsider his close - not exactly politely, and when he was refused (quite politely) he ignored all the options described to him in order to harangue Lar further.
Lar was correct that he could go to DRV; he could also accept Lar's offer of userfying the article and restoring it when it was in better shape, etc. Minos and Enchantress would rather disparage Lar and argue about the closed AfD than take advantage of the next steps available to them. That is their prerogative, but it won't accomplish much on Wikipedia (as they have apparently found to their dismay). Not all intelligent and knowledgeable people in this world will find success editing Wikipedia. It isn't a crime, its just the way it is.
Nathan
(PS: There is now a DRV at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_5#Gary_L... )
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Bottom line:
"Therefore Delete, without prejudice to recreation if a significantly improved source demonstrating clear notability should appear later."
So if someone wants to do the work, it is simply a matter of crafting a decent article.
I don't actually agree with the closing, as Minos P. Dautrieve's comment should have been given stronger weight, but the obvious remedy is to flesh out the article, not just argue.
Fred
Its your prerogative to think that a close made without a proper effort to check the validity of the only substantive argument is likely to be meekly accepted by most people - especially when what looks to me like a more than reasonable set of linked articles are considered "deceptive." If I was told that an argument I had made was deceptive, I'd be pissed too, even if I didn't take it 'personally'.
More to the point, Lar didn't restate the WP:BIO guideline in different wording. He changed the default of consensus=keep. He did so knowingly, and also knowing that consensus doesn't exist for it. That's why the first response is so incensed - he can't understand why a particularly strong standard is being applied to an article that is beyond the normal level of marginal notability of a BLP.
"Not all intelligent and knowledgeable people in this world will find success editing Wikipedia". Yes, but nobody so far has made a case for why this particular person shouldn't, which is why I'm still in this conversation. Unless we, at least mentally, give people who appear to know what they're talking about some leeway, we lose too many. That is the actual mistake made here. Lar is unfailingly polite in my opinion, much more so than I would have been perhaps, but what that chap was looking for wasn't a polite "this is the way forward" but a "this is how you make your valuable but un-WP-like argument clearer so that people don't miss it if they're in a hurry".
RR
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 8:29 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Agree with Fred - reposting bounced post that was sent in response to Relata:
I think Lar just restated the current WP:BIO guideline in slightly different wording. The problem as I see it was vast over-reaction by the first poster and the other user involved. He took Lar's describing the Google results as 'deceptive' as directed at him personally - clearly not the case. He demanded that Lar reconsider his close - not exactly politely, and when he was refused (quite politely) he ignored all the options described to him in order to harangue Lar further.
Lar was correct that he could go to DRV; he could also accept Lar's offer of userfying the article and restoring it when it was in better shape, etc. Minos and Enchantress would rather disparage Lar and argue about the closed AfD than take advantage of the next steps available to them. That is their prerogative, but it won't accomplish much on Wikipedia (as they have apparently found to their dismay). Not all intelligent and knowledgeable people in this world will find success editing Wikipedia. It isn't a crime, its just the way it is.
Nathan
(PS: There is now a DRV at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_5#Gary_L... )
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Bottom line:
"Therefore Delete, without prejudice to recreation if a significantly improved source demonstrating clear notability should appear later."
So if someone wants to do the work, it is simply a matter of crafting a decent article.
I don't actually agree with the closing, as Minos P. Dautrieve's comment should have been given stronger weight, but the obvious remedy is to flesh out the article, not just argue.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think what Minos was looking for was a "You're right, sir, I'll get right on that" response. He had no good reason to expect that, and should have assumed ahead of time that he wasn't speaking to or being read by idiots. The first sentence of his first post-AfD comment is: "I am absolutely appalled by the poor judgment and carelessness shown in your actions with regard to this article." Its perfectly fine to disagree with Lar. I don't think the close was wrong, although it might have benefited from being relisted for more discussion. I do think, based on the article you linked, that Lynch could have an article on Wikipedia. Note that Minos didn't link to any articles - only to search results. The first article actually about Lynch in the Times results is the 13th result, on the second page.
Calling search results on Google deceptive is routine - if your search isn't refined enough, almost any search for a common name returns tens of thousands of results if not more. The search terms ["Gary Lynch" SEC] return that sort of result, and this was his point. Minos wasn't being deceptive, Lar wasn't calling him deceptive - he was merely pointing out that the *results* were deceptive.
We can disagree about the outcome of the default for no consensus discussion on WT:BLP, and disagree therefore on the reasoning Lar used at the end of his rationale on this AfD. What we should be able to agree upon is that a reasonable administrator could have come to Lar's conclusion, and that an increasingly incensed series of posts to and about him are not going to accomplish any particularly useful goal. Since his experience with Lar has caused Minos, apparently, to stop editing and has prompted Enchantress to post it as emblematic of some systemic problem at Wikipedia its useful to note that they themselves caused the only problem here.
Nathan
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Its your prerogative to think that a close made without a proper effort to check the validity of the only substantive argument is likely to be meekly accepted by most people - especially when what looks to me like a more than reasonable set of linked articles are considered "deceptive." If I was told that an argument I had made was deceptive, I'd be pissed too, even if I didn't take it 'personally'.
More to the point, Lar didn't restate the WP:BIO guideline in different wording. He changed the default of consensus=keep. He did so knowingly, and also knowing that consensus doesn't exist for it. That's why the first response is so incensed - he can't understand why a particularly strong standard is being applied to an article that is beyond the normal level of marginal notability of a BLP.
"Not all intelligent and knowledgeable people in this world will find success editing Wikipedia". Yes, but nobody so far has made a case for why this particular person shouldn't, which is why I'm still in this conversation. Unless we, at least mentally, give people who appear to know what they're talking about some leeway, we lose too many. That is the actual mistake made here. Lar is unfailingly polite in my opinion, much more so than I would have been perhaps, but what that chap was looking for wasn't a polite "this is the way forward" but a "this is how you make your valuable but un-WP-like argument clearer so that people don't miss it if they're in a hurry".
RR