User talk:Jake Wartenberg: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:22, 27 October 2009 editNathan (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,146 edits →Clarify?: comment← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 17:54, 23 January 2025 edit undoAwesome Aasim (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers21,585 edits →RFC for a research: ReplyTag: Reply
(895 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{talk page\|noarchive=yes\|search=no}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config
			<br />
	\|maxarchivesize = 125K
			{{archive box}}
	\|counter = 3
	\|minthreadsleft = 15
	\|algo = old(5d)
	\|archive = User talk:Jake Wartenberg/Archive %(counter)d
	}}
	{{User:Jake Wartenberg/header}}
	<!--
	{\| class="{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}\|{{TALKSPACE}}\|{{#ifeq:{{{small\|}}}\|yes\|small\|standard}}-talk}} messagebox"
	\| {{#if:{{{header\|}}}\|rowspan="2"}} align="center" style="width:53px;"\|]
	\|align="left"\|<big>'''If you are unable to edit this page, please leave your message(s) ].</big>'''
	\|}
	-->
	{{usertalkheader}}
	<div style="{{divstylegreen}}; margin:.3em">
	* I will probably reply here.
	</div>
	<div class="plainlinks" style="font-size: 120%; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 5px; border: 1px solid #6688AA; background: #E9ECFF; text-align: center">
	''''''
	</div>{{-}}{{archives}}
	{{Signpost-subscription\|right}}
	{{WPLP/A}}
	__TOC__

	== ~~Happy~~ ~~{{BASEPAGENAME}}'s~~ ~~Day!~~ ==		== I Hate Sex ==

			Dear Jake — I recently submitted a draft article on the band ] for review. I didn't realize at the time that there was a previous version of the article that was deleted several months ago. Since you were the administrator who carried out the deletion, I wanted to invite you to take a look and provide feedback. Thanks! ''<span style="color:#0000f1">]</span><span style="color:#0f0"><sub>]]]</sub></span>'' 14:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
	{\| style="border: 2px ridge #4682B4; -moz-border-radius: 10px; background-color: #EAF5FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 8px; text-align: center;"
	\|]
	\|style="padding-left: 20px; padding-right: 10px; font-family: Comic Sans MS, sans-serif; font-size: 9pt; text-align: center;"\|
	''']''' has been identified as an '''''Awesome Wikipedian''''',<br />
	and therefore, I've officially declared today as ]!<br />
	For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,<br />
	enjoy being the Star of the day, dear {{BASEPAGENAME}}!

			:As you mentioned on the draft talk page, your draft has non-primary sources. I'm very optimistic that it will be accepted. Thanks for your work on this! ⇌ ] 15:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
	Peace,<br />]<br />00:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

			== LTA ==
	<small>A record of your Day will always be kept ].</small>
	\|}

	~~For~~ ~~a userbox~~ you ~~can~~ ~~add~~ ~~to your userbox page,~~ ~~see~~ ] ~~and my~~ ~~own userpage for a sample of how to use it.~~<span style="~~font-family~~:~~Verdana,sans-serif~~"> — ] • ] • </~~span~~> 00:46, 22 ~~October~~ ~~2009~~ (UTC)		] is back as ]. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 06:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
			:Blocked. ⇌ ] 13:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
			::Thanks. For future reference, specifically ] was this one? I've seen them around, but I've never known which one it was. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 18:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
			:::I'm not sure, though I've also seen it before. ] was the one to report it to AIV the first time around, I wonder if they can tell us? ⇌ ] 19:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
			:I feel kind of awkward starting a game of telephone, but I think {{u\|BilCat}} is more familiar with their MO than I am. But from what I do know, it's an Australian LTA who edits military aircraft articles, adding 'that was' into the opening sentence, and whose edit summaries usually involve insults directed specifically towards the education/intelligence of Americans. ] (]) 19:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
			::Yes, among other things, they tend to follow tedious prescriptivist grammar rules that either are no longer followed, or aren't applicable in American English. They're either very old or very young, or possibly both! Sometimes they engage in insults, and sometimes they don't. It's possible they're actually meatpuppets, but I really don't know. the location of the IPs in Australia can be from widely spaced cities, so it's hard to know. ] (]) 22:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

	== ~~Re.~~ ~~166.109.0.203~~ ==		== ] ==

	~~Another~~ IP ~~from~~ ~~the~~ ~~same~~ ~~group~~ ~~(BOCES)~~ ~~was~~ ~~give~~ a 1 ~~year~~ ~~block~~ ~~today~~ (~~166.109.0.249~~). ~~Please~~ ~~consider~~ a ~~span~~ ~~block~~ ~~for~~ ~~all~~ ~~BOCES~~ ~~addresses,~~ as ~~they~~ ~~seem~~ to be ~~churning~~ ~~out~~ an ~~alarming~~ ~~rate~~ of ~~vandalism.~~ <span style="~~background-~~color:~~Green;~~">~~  ] ]~~  </span></span>~~ 19:56, 22 ~~October~~ ~~2009~~ (UTC)~~		I wanted to move this article to mainspace and found out that it was (correctly) protected by you. Can you kindly unprotect it? I’m keep tab on the article to keep away promo-socks. Best, ] 08:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
			:Done! ⇌ ] 13:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
	== DYK Copyright Violation ==
			::Many thanks, Jake. Best, ] 14:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

			== Block of ] ==
	Hi, the current DYK image of the ] sculpture is a copyright violation. I probably shouldn't handle things directly, since I know the artist personally. Could you please check into getting it removed? The article itself is fine, it's just the image that should be taken down. --]]] 01:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
	:Hey there Elonka. I removed the image from the DYK template. The file is located if you wish to nominate it for deletion. Regards, <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 01:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
	:: Thanks. :) I'm in touch with the file uploader now (who has also posted other images by the same artist). Their intentions were good, I think they were just unaware of the copyright issues, and they seem amenable to simply going through and deleting the images themselves. --]]] 01:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

			I'm not sure I understand why you blocked this user. To be sure, there was some edit warring at ], but you blocked them for spam, and I don't see what is promotional about their edits. Can you please explain? ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 19:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
	== Completing DYK prep areas ==
			: is the AIV report that I was responding to. The report states "all refs have this link." This is not the case, so I can certainly see why you reached out. That said, the user subsequently created a new sock account and resumed edit warring. ⇌ ] 20:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
			:: Thanks for the clarification. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 21:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

			== Thanks for the help ==
	Do you know how to add a hook that has an image included to the DYK prep areas? I can't figure out how to do it and I can't find instructions anywhere. Thanks for your help. ] (]) 14:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
	:The example image is right above the hooks. You just replace it. — ] ] 05:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

			I'll wait a while on resubmitting the Buck Arnold page, since I'm not sure how or why some of those decisions were made. You got me back the text and other information I'd researched and published, and as you can see, there were five references.
	== strider11 problems ==

			But again, I'll just wait a bit to do a resubmit. Thanks ] (]) 16:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
	I unclosed ] to add more IPs. I see that you denied the speedy deletion of several categories because they were populated, but they had been populated almost all in the same day by one IP, which had also been doing edits similar to Yousaf.san, one of the socks in that case (aka, the banned user created the cats and then populated them by adding other users to them, with no evidence that he asked for permission or that there was any real need to have that cat in the first place). I am undoing those edits so the categories will now be empty. --] (]) 15:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
	:I didn't realize that he had added the users himself. I will delete the cats. — ] ] 23:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

			:I'm very happy to help. To understand why the article was speedily deleted, you can refer to ]. Based on ], it's not enough to say that he was the head coach at a Division II school. If there isn't another way to make an assertion of notability, the other option is to find sources that discuss him in a substantial way. You can see ] for more information about that. Please fell free to let me know if you have more questions. Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines and deletion processes are really complicated. Another great resource is to submit your draft for review, rather than moving it to article space. That way, if it still needs work, it will merely be declined, rather than deleted. ⇌ ] 19:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
	== ] ==

			== I did not try to delete Wiki pages ==
	In the past, this individual has abused talk page editing privileges during the block. Also we don't need him figuring out what text string the abuse filter is preventing him from putting onto Misplaced Pages.—] (]) 05:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
	:Changed the block settings. Thanks! — ] ] 05:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

			Sorry about this, but I wasn't trying to vandalize Wiki pages. All I did was a minor edit on a page involving programs on The WB 100+. It was just a mistake that it was vandalism. ] (]) 22:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
	== Thank you for rollback ==

			:Your edit was reverted by a ], which is why I deleted your talk page. Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages, and please let me know if you have any further questions. ⇌ ] 22:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
	I would just like to thank you for granting me rollback rights. I have found it immensely useful to revert vandalism using ] Thanks again!--] (]) 22:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
			::Yeah, I don't like it when the edits were reverted by random people even though I was being honest about the edits, and especially bad users who likes to purge Wiki pages. ] (]) 23:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
	:No problem! — ] ] 22:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
			== "]" listed at ] ==
	== "In cases of BLPs of marginal notability we default to delete when consensus is unclear" ==
			]
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#Misplaced Pages:JDELANOY}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 02:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

	~~Mind~~ ~~pointing~~ ~~out~~ ~~that~~ ~~policy~~ to ~~me?~~ ] 00:43, 26 October ~~2009~~ (UTC)		:Hi, I've gone ahead and deleted this. 2009 was a very different time... ⇌ ] 00:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
			::Thank you, and sorry for the trouble :) <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 01:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
	:See ]. Best, — ] ] 00:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
			::You should not have deleted this and you need to restore it. It was not eligible for G7 speedy deletion because there were good-faith recommendations for actions other than deletion in the ongoing discussion, the discussion was also no eligible for snow closure. ] (]) 23:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
	*"especially if the '''subject has requested deletion''', where there is no rough consensus '''may''' be closed as delete."<br>
			:::I don't believe that the discussion precluded me deleting the page, so long as the page met the criteria for speedy deletion. ] says, "Pages currently on proposed deletion or deletion discussion may be deleted through speedy deletion." ⇌ ] 18:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
	Doesn't exactly meet the above does it. ] 00:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
			::::Deletion discussions do not preclude speedy deletion - but only if the page actually meets a speedy deletion criterion, which this did not. Speedy deletion is explicitly only for pages that are uncontroversial, the existence of good-faith recommendations for something other than delete means deletion is controversial. ] (]) 18:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
	::(ec) Just to be clear, that policy says "''may'' be closed as delete." So the close was allowable, but not required under policy, and the statement "in cases of BLPs of marginal notability we default to delete when consensus is unclear" is not technically correct since defaulting to "keep" in those situations is not verboten. You might want to consider rephrasing your closing statement, unless I'm off the mark here. --] <small>\| ] \| ]</small> 00:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
			:::::I'm afraid I don't share that interpretation. Your recourse at this point would be to unilaterally reverse the deletion yourself or to open a DRV discussion. That said, I really think it would be unfortunate to waste more of the community's time discussing an ancient joke redirect. ⇌ ] 19:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::, thanks. — ] ] 00:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
			::::::Now at ] because this is not a matter of "disagreeing with that interpretation" it is contrary to the explicit wording of the CSD policy. ] (]) 19:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

	== ~~Admin closure~~ ==		== User:JLCSan ==

			Hi Jake! ] got blocked but I think that the things they were saying on their talkpage about ], specifically {{tq\|the name is not "Tabacalera, S.A." anymore, the type is not "Sociedad Anonima", the predecessor is also wrong, the date it was founded is wrong, it is not Defunct, Products are not those anymore, and the article is almost empty from what the company is and does..}} is mostly, but not entirely, correct. Maybe you wanna take a look as a sanity-check? The block was completely unrelated to factual accuracy. I made some edits. Nothing makes sense on that article. ] (]) 15:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
	I disagree that David Shankbone is of "marginal notability" so this loophole you appear to have found does not apply. It is unreasonable to claim someone is of "marginal notability" when there were clearly hundreds of people involved in that last AFD. How often does that occur? DGG clearly stated that Shankbone was not even a borderline notability case. You labeling him "marginal notability" is your own opinion, and clearly you are allowing your position as Misplaced Pages administrator to override the wishes of the community. Please undo your error. Thanking you in advance, ] (]) 00:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

			:Thanks for looking into this. I blocked them for their conduct on the article, including edit warring and inserting promotional language. Unfortunately, they were not receptive to being asked to make requests on the article talk page, instead of editing the article directly, and seemed to be unwilling to work with us. They eventually resorted to making a legal threat, and I revoked their talk page access. All that said, I'm not surprised at all that there are some inaccuracies. Given the research you've done, do you think the article meets our notability guidelines? They did request that it be deleted at one point. ⇌ ] 18:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
	:Politely disagree. Numerous people (not including me -- as I have not contributed to the discussion) have explained the issue on the page. I agree with Jake's closure. Cheers, ] ]
			::Well, I did some digging, and they are not going to like what I found. Not a 400 year history; they started in 1945 in a ]. Somehow they forgot to mention that on the timeline on their website. ] (]) 21:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::Yikes. Thanks for your work on this article. Please let me know if you need help with anything, such as the page move. ⇌ ] 23:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

			== Gladiators S2 vandal ==
	::This AFD was closed several hours ago as Keep. Now it has been closed as No Consensus with a loophole thrown in that makes it a Delete. The Keep closure was undone, and the Delete closure will also be undone. There is clearly No Consensus to delete. In other words, do not delete the article because the community is undecided and the status quo will have to remain. We have not agreed to move forward in a new direction, so the status quo shall remain. ] (]) 00:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
	*In view of the huge disparity between two decisions, two hours apart, I predict this will end up at ], although I've no desire to take it there myself; both decisions were arguably correct, and both arguably incorrect. However, interfering with an admin's decision, entrusted by the community, when it is within the limits of discretion, is unhelpful and unless bad faith can be shown, unconstructive. I have no view on the article itself, since I've only browsed it. It's perhaps better to take a step back right now, let the dust settle, and only then consider responses. ]] 01:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
	**I agree. I'm taking a 24 hour break from this issue. ] (]) 01:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
	Wow. I'm sorry but that was a bad close. There were good reasons in that debate to delete (BLP1E being the best), but Risker's arguments have nothing to do with ] as far as I can tell. Plus you claim that we often delete BLPs that meet WP:N. Again, there is no such policy, guideline or closure history. I'll let someone who writes better than I file the DrV, but I'd ask that you seriously reconsider that close as the only real possibility: no consensus. There clearly wasn't one. ] (]) 01:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

			The IP you blocked from adding unaired info to the Gladiators 2024 article has been doing it again! block them again immediately! ] (]) 20:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
	***I do not feel strongly over whether DS should or should not have an article here. I do feel strongly that the CJR article was essentially sufficient proof of notability to dispel all arguments about borderline notability and admin discretion. . As is, the close seems to offer good reason to revisit the rule that a non-consensus BLP can be closed as delete. I can see closingas you did in the hope of getting the matter behind us, and I might well support you if it would do that, but it won't: there will surely be another 7 d at deletion review. ''']''' (]) 02:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
	****''the rule that a non-consensus BLP can be closed as delete.'' What rule? Where is it? ] (]) 02:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
	** At some point, travesty AfD closes will need to be dealt with by something more severe than simple overturns at Deletion Review. You made a mockery of the process. But I'll take that back if there's a rule somewhere (somewhere official) that non-consensus BLPs can be closed as delete. ] (]) 02:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)<s> BigtimePeace cited it here so I do take it back. I'd looked before but hadn't seen it. My apologies. Now I'm going to look over the vote explanations on the AfD page to see if you can plausibly claim a lack of rough consensus, taking into account votes that were contrary to policy or that ignored policy, because if your determination of that is bad enough, it'll make for a good DRV overturn argument. In a deletion like this, where the raw count is relatively close and with so much participation, you should always provide a more detailed explanation of how you arrived at the idea there was no consensus. ] (]) 03:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)</s>
	:*The problem is, ''it wasn't even a no consensus''. It was a keep. The previous admin clearly and thoroughly showed with great detail and fairness that a substantial majority of <u>well-argumented</u> AfD !votes were keep ones. One thing is to say that AfD is not a simple vote, another is completely disregarding the feeling of the community. --]] 02:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

			== Invitation to participate in a research ==
	*Rather than hounding the closing admin, why not simply initiate a discussion at ]? If the closure was incorrect, it'll be overturned accordingly. –''']''' \| ] 02:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
	**Unless policy changed since the last time I looked at it, you're supposed to consult the closing admin before initiating a DRV. It's also a good practice to "hound" any admiistrator who takes a controversial action with such little explanation, ''pour encourager les autres.'' ] (]) 03:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
	:*To John, the "rule" in question can be found ] (I also mentioned this to you during the AfD) though the language is currently being edit warred over. See the page history of our deletion policy and the discussion on the talk page of the AfD and you'll see what's going on. Cyclopia in my view the AfD could legitimately have been closed either as keep, delete, or no consensus—simply because you think the previous admin's close was better (and I'll grant you it was more thorough and carefully done) does not mean it was the only possible outcome. Difficult AfDs like this can be read different ways by different admins, and that is legitimate and merely par for the course around here. --] <small>\| ] \| ]</small> 02:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
	::*<s>(ec, 2X with below) Bigtimepeace, yes, you're right to cite that section of DEL. I just noticed you'd cited it on the AfD page as well. I looked at DEL and must have misread that part, perhaps because I expected, when I read the flawed, equivalent passage in ] (a guideline) that it would've been updated to reflect DEL, the policy. Silly me. (DGFA is different in that it only provides for deletion in these kinds of circumstances if the subject asks for it.)</s> ] (]) 03:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::*I think you caught a version that was BOLDly changed and then reverted. ] (]) 03:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::*Oh wow. So I did. See my comment below. ] (]) 04:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
	**I think that any AfD that can be read as both keep and delete by different reasonable admins should be no consensus, pretty much by definition. ] (]) 02:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
	***In general I would agree, but this AfD was rather exceptional for several reasons. My argument is that it should have been closed as "no consensus," but that the question of whether to "default" to keep or delete was very much an open one. Thus in point of fact both a keep or delete end result were possible. Technically speaking I think the type of close Jake did should have been worded '''no consensus, default to delete''', but the end result is the same and there's no need to be overly wonkish after the fact. --] <small>\| ] \| ]</small> 03:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
	****There was a discussion on this earlier this year . Consensous at the time was fairly opposed to no consensus defaulting to delete. I don't object to a wider discussion, but I do object to an admin acting as if a policy proposal that was soundly rejected is policy. ] (]) 03:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

			Hello,
	Jake, would you please undo your closure (and your undoing of the previous closure)? You are clearly involved. You voted at the DRV to overturn at 18:10 Oct 25. At 18:44, you tried to change the relevant part of the deletion policy. At 00:40 Oct 26, you overturned the admin's decision to keep. That's clearly not acceptable. The policy and best practice is default to keep on borderline notables, unless the subject has requested deletion. And, regardless of that, involved admins, or admins with strong feelings in either direction, shouldn't be closing these debates. <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 03:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

			The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
	:I totally agree with Slim Virgin and echo her request. You are an involved admin. I'm going to wait on the DRV for a while and see what happens. — ] (]) 03:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

			You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
	::I agree with SlimVirgin too. That is, I agree with her where she strongly argues that default to delete is the right thing to do. She was right then, you are right now. ++]: ]/] 01:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

			The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
	:::I put that forward as a proposal 18 months ago to help borderline notables who didn't want bios, and it failed as a proposal. The issue here is that Jake unilaterally decided to change the policy anyway, regarding a DRV that he had commented on and was therefore involved in, then proceeded to overturn an AfD, citing a policy that he himself had just changed, and then deleted the article. That's a misuse of the tools by any standard. No matter how any of us feel about the particular issue, what Jake did should be strongly discouraged. <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 02:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

			Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
	*Jake, I'm finding that I have to cross out more and more of my comments on this page as I learn more about your ... adventuresome behavior. I assumed I'd misread deletion policy, but it turns out you changed it by fiat, then used that change (silently -- that is, without properly explaining that you were relying on it when you posted your very inadequate closing statement). This isn't just wrong, it's disruptive. It really is the kind of thing that should get you blocked. It's incredibly insulting to all the people who participated in that AfD in good faith, and it's impossible to ascribe good faith to you. Your behavior really is just stunning. I hope anyone reading this will go participate in the discussion at ]. It might actually be a good thing to change that policy, but not right now. You've really tainted everything you touched. ] (]) 04:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

			Kind Regards,
	::I agree with ] above, and regrettably have to agree with several points raised by ]. The lack of transparency on your part is quite disconcerting. You made a significant and relevant change to the policy in question here with an inaccurate (at best) edit summary, while this discussion was ongoing. You made a clear argument at the deletion review on the discussion. Having revised the policy, and having clearly become involved in the process, you shortly thereafter closed the discussion (with an entirely different analysis from the earlier, also questioned, close), citing the very policy change you had made hours before. This would be a snowballing comedy of errors if it were funny; as it is, it's simply a series of very inexplicable, and seemingly escalating lapses in judgment. Reverse your closure and allow an involved administrator to close the article based on current consensus and current policy. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 06:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::I never edited the article or participated or commented about this before, so I'm an uninvolved party. I agree that this was a close call and it would have been better handled by a different admin. I'm writing here to note that, based on the time stamps, it appears that the AfD was closed within the first possible minute (given the two-hour reset). That's not the normal course of business. Combined with the other factors, it shows a lack of disinterest. A second point, off-topic here, is that this subject is fairly likely to receive further coverage and if so the article could be recreated legitimately, meaning that all of this effort has been a waste. Let's try to handle this in a manner consistent with any other BLP.   <b>]  ]  </b> 07:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::I also agree with SlimVirgin. A closure based on a policy just changed by the closer should have no weight and be grounds for automatic reversal at Deletion Review. Good faith should always be assumed, but administrators have a responsibility that their actions present an appearance of good faith and objectivity, as much as possible.] (]) 09:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

			]
	:::::I endorse SlimVirgin, JohnWBarbour et al. statements above. There are several problems with this closure 1)A clear -even if for sure not unanimous- keep majority of reasoned arguments was deemed a no consensus 2)It was defaulted to delete, even if there was no clear BLP problem or deletion request by the subject 3)It was defaulted to delete after the closing admin ''changed the policy wording'' to endorse his own decision 4)The closing admin asked also for overturn in previous DRV over a technicality, and was thus involved 5)The previous thorough analysis of the AfD by the previous closing admin was totally disregarded. --]] 11:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Me too. --] (]) 14:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
	* Just to try to make things clearer for everybody, I put together this timeline: ] -- ] (]) 15:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

			<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
	== Deletion of ] ==
			<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins&oldid=27650221 -->

			== Dafna Lemish page updates ==
	Could you please review your "No Consensus" close as keep of ]. Was evidence presented that this individual was more than questionably notable? ] (]) 14:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
	:Oh dear, I'm very confused: Jake closed this BLP AfD as "no consensus" and '''kept''' the article? ] (]) 15:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
	::In his defense, he hadn't yet changed the policy. :-) ] (]) 17:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::Both of those comments are unnecessary. –''']''' \| ] 21:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::I'd say the barnstar is a ''lot'' more inflammatory. ] (]) 01:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

			Dear Jake,
	Are you going to take a look at this one? ] (]) 10:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

			Would you please review my latest attempt to update ]? I left you a note to continue our thread.
	Is this on your list of things to respond to? ] (]) 12:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

			Thanks,
	== Earth Song ==

			TheBlueHeronofHopewell ] (]) 21:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
	You protected the article "Earth Song" after a self-pitying and weak complaint from contributor "Pyrrhus16" who now continues to edit/revert on the basis of a creepy obsession with Michael Jackson. Please explain further. Thank you. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research ==
	== Re: The "AFD" ==

			Hello,
	{\| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
	\|rowspan="2" valign="middle" \| ]
	\|rowspan="2" \|
	\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" \| '''The Admin's Barnstar'''
	\|-
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" \| For your close at ]. Regardless of what happens in the ensuing aftermath, it took a lot of guts for you to step up to the plate and close that very complicated, convoluted, and hotly-debated AFD; you deserve at the least to be commended for that. I don't think too many other administrators would have even bothered to close that AFD for fear of criticism and flaming, regardless of the decision; an admin would have came under the same criticism if they closed as "no consensus" or "keep". ] 21:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
	\|}
	:Thanks. — ] ] 21:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
	::Ridiculous. You don't deserve an award. You created a firestorm and whether or not you did it all on purpose needs to be determined. ] (]) 23:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::Jake, ignore this "new" user, who is trying to provoke you. Don't let folk provoke you. But don't stay silent either. Make your views heard, but in doing so make sure you stay calm and reasoned. (do as I say, not as I do, I think the saying goes)... ++]: ]/] 01:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	:I agree with this barnstar; thanks for taking the responsibility to close this debate and your actions were spot on in my view. ] (]) 07:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

			I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ].
	== DRV opened on the Shankbone AfD ==

			Take the survey ''''''.
	An editor has asked for a ] of ]. 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. <!-- This originally was from the template {{subst:DRVNote\|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ --> ] (]) 00:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

			Kind Regards,
	== Request for examples of no-consensus deletions ==

			]
	You wrote in the DRV: "The intent in making that edit was to change the policy to better reflect actual practice; admins close no consensus BLP AFDs often as delete." Can you give some examples, please? <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 02:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	:I'm compiling a list. It won't be complete, as there are <s>thousands</s> hundreds of AFDs I'm clicking through, but should be sufficient to illustrate the point. ] 02:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	::Will it make the point that this is common practice, something that ] should catch up on? ] (]) 02:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::Common practice or commonsense? Definitely the latter, and so far they go back over 8 months, so hopefully the former. Database query is running and will hopefully produce useful results. Original run had faulty regex. Anyway, I'm manually clicking through contribs of editors I recall having seen such closes from. ] 02:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::Thanks, Lara, just a few examples will do. It would be good if Jake would find them himself. Given that he's the one who's relying on this as the reason he changed the policy, he should have some examples at his fingertips. <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 02:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::::There's no reason for Jake to find them himself. He, like myself and others, know that they exist. Who goes clicking through hundreds or thousands of contribs to find them is entirely irrelevant. Default to delete for BLPs was once too. Perhaps you know of some. Help would be appreciated. ] 02:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::::There's every reason for Jake to be the one responding here. He's the admin who changed the policy, who overturned an AfD closure, and who deleted the article on the grounds that it's often done that way. And he's the one people are complaining to. Therefore, he's the one who ought to be replying here and offering examples. As for the link, that proposal was ''defeated''. No admin should be acting as though it wasn't. <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 02:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::All irrelevant. Anyone can do the search. Doesn't matter who does it. And you of all people should know that policies change through precedent. ] 02:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

			<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
	(od)If needed, one can produce thousands of unchallenged edits which go against basically every policy. Should therefore we conclude that the policy is to be changed? Do we have to accept vandalism or POV violatins, because there are routinely unchallanged vandalism or POV violations on WP? If these people closed AfDs against policy, this is all gold for DRV. Policy must change by a broad and informed consensus, not because a few editors bend or disregard current policies. --]] 02:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins_(reminders)&oldid=27744339 -->

			== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
	: Moreover, one can give many examples of BLP AfDs being closed every day listed as no consensus. The bottom line is that a minority has '''repeatedly''' failed to get a consensus for changing policy and then decided to ignore policy and go through and do what they wanted anyways. Trying to point to those actions as evidence of a new consensus is almost laughable. ] (]) 05:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

			<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
	::Your stance on most things BLP is laughable, what's your point? ] 12:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
			<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
	::: Disagreeing with you on certain issues isn't the same thing. It might help if you would actually respond to what people wrote rather than engage in ad hominem attacks. (I incidentally doubt that you can even correctly articulate what my position is on BLPs. I understand you'd rather think of me as sort of evil entity who stands against all that is good and holy but that's not the way the universe works as much as you might want everything to.) ] (]) 15:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
			<div class="ivmbox-text">
	::::Amusing that you seem to think your comment which I responded to was helpful. And I'm not sure you could articulate your stance on BLPs, Josh, but I'd be interested to see you try. ] 16:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
			Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y\|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data\|2024\|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*] 12:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

			If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx\|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
	::Looking them over, nearly all of them are by just two admins, almost all of the other ones have an additional rationale (request by the subject, or being unsourced). This is not evidence for a change in policy, this is evidence for a small group of admins ignoring established precedent. --] (]) 13:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::That would be sample bias, she looked through the contributions of admins she could remember closing afds that way. ]] 13:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::Indeed. I just went through those admins' contribs, sort of sporadically, because my time is limited. ] 16:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

			</div>
	:This should be your "evidence" that process is changing? If so, I can sleep well at night. First of all, about half of them are closures by ], which, despite his attempts in the current Shankbone DRV to present himself as the new guru of Misplaced Pages, is (still) not, and so presenting mostly his own contribs as evidence for consensus is a bit undue. But let's see them one by one...
			</div>
	:*] : Was apparently considered a BLP1E even by keep votes. Not a very good closure if you ask me, but makes more sense than the Shankbone one.
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->
	:*] : <strike>Overturned</strike> Recreated apparently -the article is there.
	:*] : Deleted against policy apparently by personal interpretation of Lar. I will bring it to DRV.
	:*] : <strike>Overturned</strike> apparently -article is there.
	:*] - No keep !votes. Should have relisted, but it's not a "nc" with keep !votes.
	:*] : Consensus to delete
	:*] : Arguments from the 2 keepers all basically useless, so basically consensus to delete.
	:*] : Genuine deletion against policy by personal interpretation of Lar (again). Will DRV too.
	:*] : <strike>Overturned apparently -article is there.</strike>
	:*] : Seriously against policy. Will DRV.
	:*] : Seriously against policy. Will DRV.
	:*] : No keep !votes, consensus to delete
	:*] : Unsourced BLP with keep votes basically useless, consensus practically to delete.
	:*] : Seriously troubling deletion. Will DRV, but gotta read it in detail.

	:So, we have 4, maybe 5 closures with a clear and still unchallenged "nc, default to delete". Half of these examples were by the same admin. Now, how long is the list of "nc, default to keep" BLPs? --]] 13:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	::Oh check your logs, none of those deletions you claim have been overturned were. They are all eother redirects or recreations (which haven't been re-afd'd - not the closing admins responsibility. They differ enough from the original to not fall under CSD G4) ]] 13:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::I stand half-corrected on this detail. No overturns (I didn't check, agree), but I see no redirects either. Recreations most probably. Anyway, it means that subject was notable after all, and that "nc+keep" would have only helped. --]] 13:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::: ]] 13:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, I noticed that. Fred Shapiro to Fred R. Shapiro. It seems only a redirect for title accuracy reasons. Unless he's a different Fred Shapiro -can you confirm that? --]] 13:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::::: I can. It's a different person. ] (]) 13:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::::: Ok. I stand corrected and I corrected above. Now, we have at this point 5, maybe 6 true closures of this kind, mostly by a single admin which is known to have a strong stance on "dead tree" criteria for BLPs (see discussion on ]). We have two cases in which the article was subsequently recreated and therefore didn't need deletion. Other cases are not even close to what happened to David Shankbone bio: keep !votes were either completely inconsistent or totally absent. As an "evidence" that it is changing, it looks as credible as ]. --]] 13:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

	::::::::Concerning Björn Söderberg, nobody in the discussion, and especially the closer, who explicitly quoted BLP and the contentious point on closing non-consensus ones, noted that Mr. Söderberg was murdered and therefore dead, and thus beyond the reach of B'''L'''P. By the way, another poster here and I are sometimes confused. I am the evil entity who stands against all that is good and holy! It's tough work, but somebody's got to do it. ] (]) 16:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::(arbitrarily indenting) The issue with the generation of a list like this is that it's been taboo for years to say "default to delete," so many admins close on the side of delete in cases where the voting is split. They don't shout from the rooftops about it (or even note it in their closing usually), but it happens all the time. Humorously, there's been hesitance to create such a list of deletion discussions because of what we've seen here—people trying to hop up and down and threaten to take all of these old closures to ]. This is all pretty tiresome. I echo Scott's comments below to Slim. What gives here? --] (]) 17:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::::It is not a "threat". Deletion did not comply with current policy or was otherwise debatable = Needs review. I see nothing odd in that -that's exactly what delrev is for. What I find odd is that violation of policy is heralded not only as normal, but positive, with people declaring that policy will "change by precedent", willingly ignoring any community consensus on such a policy change. --]] 20:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::::No. Problematic deletions need review. These deletions weren't problematic. Stop trying to make hay. (Or, keep trying, but your current attitude with regard to biographies of living people may quickly meet a topic ban. This is getting quite out of hand.) --] (]) 22:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

	I really am confused here. SlimVirgin originally PROPOSED that policy ought to be a "default to delete" for BLPs - indeed she championed that position along with Jimbo, (myself) and others. Sarah, you once argued that it was only the only "responsible" thing for Misplaced Pages to do in the face of BLPs. Why are you now championing the opposite position? Yes, granted your excellent proposal, to make a "default to delete" solid policy, failed. But policy is created by doing and not by legislating. In fact, many many admins have been occasionally closing as "default to delete" for low-notability BLPs. And the closures have often been upheld on review. It may not be current solid policy - but we are moving in that direction, and it is certainly a closure "within admin discretion" although certainly not mandatory. I wrote an essay on this some time ago (see ]) with little objections, and there are hosts of precedents (many of which you have supported).

	Now. my understanding is that policy pages should described practice and not proscribe it. Therefore the page should indicate that some admins DO occasionally default to delete on BLPs, and that, while it remains controversial, DRV has in fact upheld such closures on a number of occasions. If the page says that BLP deletion discussions ALWAYS default to keep if there is no consensus, then the page is quite simply wrong. They don't ''always''.--] 13:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

	== ~~Clarify?~~ ==		== Updating Lemish page ==

			Hi Jake,
	I wanted to clarify with you (as is ]), whether you are willing to use the ] for recall, or whether you may have specific criteria already outlined that I'm not seeing? ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 05:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	:You are right, I should have specified a process. I use ]. — ] ] 11:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	::Again, to clarify: do you mean you intend to use that process going forward, or that you believe that process applies retroactively (rather than the default process)? ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 15:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::The process I linked to is the one you should use. — ] ] 21:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	Admin recall, really? Hell in a hand basket. That's where this place is going. ] 17:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

			Would you please take a look at this thread and advise me? I'd really appreciate it!
	All due respect J, this is why I don't allow non-admins to vote for my recall (and why I also require a week-long wait before initiating a request). Take a step back and try to see the bigger picture, please. At the moment, it would appear you've lost all sense of perspective. --] (]) 17:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
			https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dafna_Lemish?markasread=331329314&markasreadwiki=enwiki#c-Axad12-20241101155900-TheBlueHeronofHopewell-20241101124200 ] (]) 19:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

			:I think Axad12 gave you some really good feedback that mirrors a lot of my own suggestions. In keeping with that, I would start a new section on that page and only make a single request. There are two requests in your comment, so you would need to remove one and save it for later. Make sure you use {{tlx\|edit COI}} at the top of the section and ]. Lastly, it's important to make sure that you are logged in when editing. Thank you as always for your patience and attention to our processes. ⇌ ] 19:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
	:I regret we disagree. My "perspective" is that an administrator should not stake a very clear position in a deletion debate, modify relevant policy in the midst of that debate under an inaccurate edit summary, and then ''close'' that deletion debate without consensus (while relying heavily on the revised policy, but without mentioning the revision whatsoever). All of this without ''any'' regard to their prior involvement in the debate. The repercussions of this chain of events alone are serious and regrettable, but the unwillingness to answer any of the questions or concerns raised above, let alone take any sort of responsibility for the significant lapse in judgment, is just too serious to ignore. Further, selecting criteria that apparently minimizes accountability to the community is not something in which you or he should take pride. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 20:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	::It is completely untrue that I have been unwilling to address this. I commented at the DRV yesterday, admitted that I have been mistaken in some of my actions, and explained my reasoning in all of this. The criteria I have chosen is more restrictive than the default, but less so than what many admins use. — ] ] 21:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

			== RFC for a research ==
	The suggestion that Jake could be recalled over this (a suggestion implied if not overtly made, perhaps because its unlikely in the extreme) serves no other purpose than to be inflammatory. We don't recall administrators over a single ill-advised action, particularly when they admit their errors and undertake not to repeat them. Allow Jake (who is a relatively new administrator) to learn from his mistakes, like we all do. ]] 22:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

			@] hi Jake, thank you for guiding me through recruitment on Misplaced Pages - I've already had a project page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/Research:How_LLMs_impact_knowledge_production_processes, and I attached RFC template in the project page and started a RFC thread on the discussion page. May I ask for some guidance on what to do next please? Thank you so much for your help! ] (]) 20:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Question ==

			:You would need to carefully follow the instructions on the page I linked you to, in order to create a project page on the English Misplaced Pages, distinct from the page on Meta Wiki that you linked to above. Once you fill in the name of your study and click "create a project page," you will be presented with a template to fill out. Please be sure to mention that you plan to recruit editors through either talk page messages, the Email User function, or both. Thank you for your careful attention to our policies and do not hesitate to let me know if you have any further questions. ⇌ ] 21:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	How do I suggest that someone creates a page about a subject that I think should be covered by Misplaced Pages? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			::Please do not refer to ] as ], especially to newcomers. I can understand the confusion if you missed the essay template on ] and mistook it for a policy as it repeatedly describes itself as a policy, but it isn't actually policy. ] (]) 08:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	: Try ] or ]. ] ] 22:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
			:::I was coming here to say the same thing. It’s an essay that was a proposed policy at one point but never got consensus. I have found nothing to suggest that the English Misplaced Pages has any requirement for researchers above and beyond the WMF/meta-wiki approval process. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 08:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@] @] Thank you for clarifying this for me! Would you suggest to leave as it is for now, given that I have a WMF/meta-wiki project page? ] (]) 14:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::These editors are correct about the status of that page, and it would have been more appropriate for me to have said, "thank you for your attention to our ''procedures''" or "''best practices''." That said, a number of other editors have identified your attempts to recruit editors as disruptive and have objected the volume of talk page messages and emails. I was attempting to resolve this matter by asking you to solicit community input before continuing. As no other suggestions as to how best to do this have been offered, you may wish to use the aforementioned instructions to open an RfC before continuing. Your involvement in Misplaced Pages is appreciated and I apologize that this feedback was not more straightforward. ⇌ ] 16:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I do think the advice of that essay on how to solicit participants is good advice, so I thank you for linking it. I just took issue with the way it presents itself as an official policy and tells researchers they must follow it. ] (]) 18:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Thank you for the friendly discussion, I totally thought I got into big trouble in the beginning... Jake thank you for providing the information for better recruitment, I really appreciated it! Will definitely try my best to recruit in a better way ] (]) 18:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I disagree with this too. "Procedures" or "best practices" implies that it is a guideline, if not a policy. The community has been asked multiple times if they want a set policy/guide/requirements for researchers, and as far as I can see, '''each and every one''' of those proposals have failed. ] is all but defunct, ] ''is'' defunct and was not accepted by the community, and the page you initially linked was proposed as a policy but not accepted by the community.
			::::::Ultimately, since there is no community prohibition on mass invites through talk page or email for research purposes, there is no policy/guideline based method for you to "identify your attempts to recruit editors as disruptive". People do research on Misplaced Pages - that's a side effect of being in the top 10 websites worldwide. As ] states {{tq\|Observational research generally does not require approval from anyone.}} And later it references the now defunct community processes for approving survey invites.
			::::::Feel free to start a discussion regarding what the community should accept. But as of now, the emails are for a legitimate purpose (research that's been advertised on Meta by appropriate processes) and there does not seem to be any policy based reason to try to prohibit them. I doubt any proposal to limit researchers will get anywhere - it takes no effort whatsoever to ignore an email or talk page comment if you don't wish to participate in research. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 18:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::This isn't about whether the user needs permission to do research, which they obviously don't. Rather, I was trying to help them mitigate the objections that they are facing to the large volume of automated or semi-automated edits to user talk pages that they have been performing. We do have policies and guidelines about that kind of activity. ⇌ ] 21:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::What evidence do you have that they are automated or semi automated? Copying and pasting a statement to talk pages of those potentially interested in the message someone has is not prohibited.
			::::::::Again, if people want to make a research policy, go for it. Until there is such a policy, researchers shouldn’t be hampered for trying to recruit research subjects for their research on Misplaced Pages. Regardless if they copy and paste a message or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 21:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::The answer to that is in ]. If I were to open a dozen editing windows, paste the same talk page message in all of them, and then save them one by one, the effect is the same as a script that sends those messages on its own.
			:::::::::There are more appropriate venues for recruiting research like the village pump. ] ] 17:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:54, 23 January 2025

This is Jake Wartenberg's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6

I Hate Sex

Dear Jake — I recently submitted a draft article on the band I Hate Sex for review. I didn't realize at the time that there was a previous version of the article that was deleted several months ago. Since you were the administrator who carried out the deletion, I wanted to invite you to take a look and provide feedback. Thanks! Qmwne₂₃₅ 14:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

As you mentioned on the draft talk page, your draft has non-primary sources. I'm very optimistic that it will be accepted. Thanks for your work on this! ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 15:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

LTA

That LTA you blocked is back as 49.186.59.12. - ZLEA _T\ 06:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 13:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. For future reference, specifically which LTA was this one? I've seen them around, but I've never known which one it was. - ZLEA _T\ 18:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure, though I've also seen it before. User:Loafiewa was the one to report it to AIV the first time around, I wonder if they can tell us? ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I feel kind of awkward starting a game of telephone, but I think BilCat is more familiar with their MO than I am. But from what I do know, it's an Australian LTA who edits military aircraft articles, adding 'that was' into the opening sentence, and whose edit summaries usually involve insults directed specifically towards the education/intelligence of Americans. Loafiewa (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, among other things, they tend to follow tedious prescriptivist grammar rules that either are no longer followed, or aren't applicable in American English. They're either very old or very young, or possibly both! Sometimes they engage in insults, and sometimes they don't. It's possible they're actually meatpuppets, but I really don't know. the location of the IPs in Australia can be from widely spaced cities, so it's hard to know. BilCat (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Goya Menor

I wanted to move this article to mainspace and found out that it was (correctly) protected by you. Can you kindly unprotect it? I’m keep tab on the article to keep away promo-socks. Best, Reading of Beans 08:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Done! ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 13:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, Jake. Best, Reading of Beans 14:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Block of User:Bomyy

I'm not sure I understand why you blocked this user. To be sure, there was some edit warring at Manipulation (psychology), but you blocked them for spam, and I don't see what is promotional about their edits. Can you please explain? WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 19:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the AIV report that I was responding to. The report states "all refs have this link." This is not the case, so I can certainly see why you reached out. That said, the user subsequently created a new sock account and resumed edit warring. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 21:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

I'll wait a while on resubmitting the Buck Arnold page, since I'm not sure how or why some of those decisions were made. You got me back the text and other information I'd researched and published, and as you can see, there were five references.

But again, I'll just wait a bit to do a resubmit. Thanks Hubdb39 (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm very happy to help. To understand why the article was speedily deleted, you can refer to WP:CCS. Based on WP:NCOLLATH, it's not enough to say that he was the head coach at a Division II school. If there isn't another way to make an assertion of notability, the other option is to find sources that discuss him in a substantial way. You can see WP:BASIC for more information about that. Please fell free to let me know if you have more questions. Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines and deletion processes are really complicated. Another great resource is to submit your draft for review, rather than moving it to article space. That way, if it still needs work, it will merely be declined, rather than deleted. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I did not try to delete Wiki pages

Sorry about this, but I wasn't trying to vandalize Wiki pages. All I did was a minor edit on a page involving programs on The WB 100+. It was just a mistake that it was vandalism. 173.207.89.188 (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted by a vandal, which is why I deleted your talk page. Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages, and please let me know if you have any further questions. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 22:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like it when the edits were reverted by random people even though I was being honest about the edits, and especially bad users who likes to purge Wiki pages. 173.207.89.188 (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages:JDELANOY" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Misplaced Pages:JDELANOY has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10 § Misplaced Pages:JDELANOY until a consensus is reached. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I've gone ahead and deleted this. 2009 was a very different time... ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and sorry for the trouble :) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You should not have deleted this and you need to restore it. It was not eligible for G7 speedy deletion because there were good-faith recommendations for actions other than deletion in the ongoing discussion, the discussion was also no eligible for snow closure. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe that the discussion precluded me deleting the page, so long as the page met the criteria for speedy deletion. WP:DP says, "Pages currently on proposed deletion or deletion discussion may be deleted through speedy deletion." ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions do not preclude speedy deletion - but only if the page actually meets a speedy deletion criterion, which this did not. Speedy deletion is explicitly only for pages that are uncontroversial, the existence of good-faith recommendations for something other than delete means deletion is controversial. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't share that interpretation. Your recourse at this point would be to unilaterally reverse the deletion yourself or to open a DRV discussion. That said, I really think it would be unfortunate to waste more of the community's time discussing an ancient joke redirect. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Now at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 October 12#Misplaced Pages:JDELANOY because this is not a matter of "disagreeing with that interpretation" it is contrary to the explicit wording of the CSD policy. Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

User:JLCSan

Hi Jake! User:JLCSan got blocked but I think that the things they were saying on their talkpage about Tabacalera, specifically the name is not "Tabacalera, S.A." anymore, the type is not "Sociedad Anonima", the predecessor is also wrong, the date it was founded is wrong, it is not Defunct, Products are not those anymore, and the article is almost empty from what the company is and does.. is mostly, but not entirely, correct. Maybe you wanna take a look as a sanity-check? The block was completely unrelated to factual accuracy. I made some edits. Nothing makes sense on that article. Polygnotus (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. I blocked them for their conduct on the article, including edit warring and inserting promotional language. Unfortunately, they were not receptive to being asked to make requests on the article talk page, instead of editing the article directly, and seemed to be unwilling to work with us. They eventually resorted to making a legal threat, and I revoked their talk page access. All that said, I'm not surprised at all that there are some inaccuracies. Given the research you've done, do you think the article meets our notability guidelines? They did request that it be deleted at one point. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I did some digging, and they are not going to like what I found. Not a 400 year history; they started in 1945 in a dictatorship. Somehow they forgot to mention that on the timeline on their website. Polygnotus (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Yikes. Thanks for your work on this article. Please let me know if you need help with anything, such as the page move. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 23:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Gladiators S2 vandal

The IP you blocked from adding unaired info to the Gladiators 2024 article has been doing it again! block them again immediately! Visokor (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Dafna Lemish page updates

Dear Jake,

Would you please review my latest attempt to update Dafna Lemish? I left you a note to continue our thread.

Thanks,

TheBlueHeronofHopewell TheBlueHeronofHopewell (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Updating Lemish page

Hi Jake,

Would you please take a look at this thread and advise me? I'd really appreciate it! https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dafna_Lemish?markasread=331329314&markasreadwiki=enwiki#c-Axad12-20241101155900-TheBlueHeronofHopewell-20241101124200 71.168.164.97 (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I think Axad12 gave you some really good feedback that mirrors a lot of my own suggestions. In keeping with that, I would start a new section on that page and only make a single request. There are two requests in your comment, so you would need to remove one and save it for later. Make sure you use {{edit COI}} at the top of the section and format the references correctly. Lastly, it's important to make sure that you are logged in when editing. Thank you as always for your patience and attention to our processes. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

RFC for a research

@Jake Wartenberg hi Jake, thank you for guiding me through recruitment on Misplaced Pages - I've already had a project page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/Research:How_LLMs_impact_knowledge_production_processes, and I attached RFC template in the project page and started a RFC thread on the discussion page. May I ask for some guidance on what to do next please? Thank you so much for your help! Phoebezz22 (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You would need to carefully follow the instructions on the page I linked you to, in order to create a project page on the English Misplaced Pages, distinct from the page on Meta Wiki that you linked to above. Once you fill in the name of your study and click "create a project page," you will be presented with a template to fill out. Please be sure to mention that you plan to recruit editors through either talk page messages, the Email User function, or both. Thank you for your careful attention to our policies and do not hesitate to let me know if you have any further questions. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Please do not refer to essays as policies, especially to newcomers. I can understand the confusion if you missed the essay template on WP:Research recruitment and mistook it for a policy as it repeatedly describes itself as a policy, but it isn't actually policy. Photos of Japan (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I was coming here to say the same thing. It’s an essay that was a proposed policy at one point but never got consensus. I have found nothing to suggest that the English Misplaced Pages has any requirement for researchers above and beyond the WMF/meta-wiki approval process. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Photos of Japan @Berchanhimez Thank you for clarifying this for me! Would you suggest to leave as it is for now, given that I have a WMF/meta-wiki project page? Phoebezz22 (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

These editors are correct about the status of that page, and it would have been more appropriate for me to have said, "thank you for your attention to our procedures" or "best practices." That said, a number of other editors have identified your attempts to recruit editors as disruptive and have objected the volume of talk page messages and emails. I was attempting to resolve this matter by asking you to solicit community input before continuing. As no other suggestions as to how best to do this have been offered, you may wish to use the aforementioned instructions to open an RfC before continuing. Your involvement in Misplaced Pages is appreciated and I apologize that this feedback was not more straightforward. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I do think the advice of that essay on how to solicit participants is good advice, so I thank you for linking it. I just took issue with the way it presents itself as an official policy and tells researchers they must follow it. Photos of Japan (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the friendly discussion, I totally thought I got into big trouble in the beginning... Jake thank you for providing the information for better recruitment, I really appreciated it! Will definitely try my best to recruit in a better way Phoebezz22 (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with this too. "Procedures" or "best practices" implies that it is a guideline, if not a policy. The community has been asked multiple times if they want a set policy/guide/requirements for researchers, and as far as I can see, each and every one of those proposals have failed. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Research is all but defunct, Misplaced Pages:Subject Recruitment Approvals Group is defunct and was not accepted by the community, and the page you initially linked was proposed as a policy but not accepted by the community.

Ultimately, since there is no community prohibition on mass invites through talk page or email for research purposes, there is no policy/guideline based method for you to "identify your attempts to recruit editors as disruptive". People do research on Misplaced Pages - that's a side effect of being in the top 10 websites worldwide. As meta:Research:FAQ states Observational research generally does not require approval from anyone. And later it references the now defunct community processes for approving survey invites.

Feel free to start a discussion regarding what the community should accept. But as of now, the emails are for a legitimate purpose (research that's been advertised on Meta by appropriate processes) and there does not seem to be any policy based reason to try to prohibit them. I doubt any proposal to limit researchers will get anywhere - it takes no effort whatsoever to ignore an email or talk page comment if you don't wish to participate in research. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This isn't about whether the user needs permission to do research, which they obviously don't. Rather, I was trying to help them mitigate the objections that they are facing to the large volume of automated or semi-automated edits to user talk pages that they have been performing. We do have policies and guidelines about that kind of activity. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that they are automated or semi automated? Copying and pasting a statement to talk pages of those potentially interested in the message someone has is not prohibited.

Again, if people want to make a research policy, go for it. Until there is such a policy, researchers shouldn’t be hampered for trying to recruit research subjects for their research on Misplaced Pages. Regardless if they copy and paste a message or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The answer to that is in WP:MEATBOT. If I were to open a dozen editing windows, paste the same talk page message in all of them, and then save them one by one, the effect is the same as a script that sends those messages on its own.

There are more appropriate venues for recruiting research like the village pump. Awesome Aasim 17:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)