User talk:WilliamJE/Archive 5 (misplaced)

RE: reply at Niteshift's page

Saw your reply, to do a DRV: just paste "{{subst:drv2 |page=Eunice Penix |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eunice Penix |reason= }} ~~~~" to the top of this page (filling in a reason, of course) and you'll have opened the DRV. You could probably go to WP:RFD as well. ANI would probably just tell you do a DRV. Hope this helps, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

J. B. Cox

Why didn't you address outcome of prior AfD in your nomination? That usually will torpedo you.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible premature close.

I thought Niteshift was the OP in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AFD_on_Eunice_Panix_and_Administrator_Mark_Arsten, so I closed it, however, I now see you were the OP, and may feel it was prematurely closed. I think the DRV is the right way to handle the narrow question, and an RFC would be warranted if you want community input on Mark's ability to be an administrator. However, if you think continued discussion at ANI is the best option, I won't object if you revert my close.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes I believe you prematurely disclosed it. The purpose of ANI was addressing a blatantly wrong closed AFD and the behavior of an administrator and how all of this calls into judgment his duties....William 16:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI is not the venue to revisit whether a close was wrong. I don't agree it was blatantly wrong. I suspect we can find hundreds of examples where many editors choose "Delete" as an option, and redirect is the final decision. However, as I said, if you think this is the venue to discuss an admin, feel free to revert my close. If you do so, please identify what action you want to happen. Are you proposing a desysop over a disagreement? Or are you looking for something else? --SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A redirect with only one supporter and seven saying delete isn't blatantly wrong? This is another case of why I don't trust administrators.(In the last week I've had two act snippishly or rudely towards me which they even admit afterwards) You can't see or see the obvious. You go undo the ANI but I'm already guessing its a waste of time. Administrators will protect their own but simple editors do the same, bang talk of boomerangs or blocks placed on a whim without all the facts or deliberate ignoring of them....William 16:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the merits of this particular close, and don't plan to, that's for DRV. Your assertion that it is blatantly wrong because of the vote count is simply not supportable. You have over 20k edits, so you should know this. Many editors narrowly choose either "delete" or "keep" because that's the easy choice. In many cases, those are the only viable choices. If there is a viable redirect, that may be better than a delete, but not considered by the contributors to the vote. If seven said "delete, and opposed to a redirect" then you might have a case. That didn't happen. Someone reported that several are fine with the redirect. How many are opposed to a redirect? Even if there are several, that's relevant information for a DRV. It is not an abuse of power to see a possible outcome that might satisfy most of the participants. I'm not planning to reopen the ANI, because I don't think there's anything to discuss; to repeat myself, if you choose to do so, I won't complain, and if something else does, I'll support your right to do so. But I'm not planning to re-open it. My serious suggestion is that if the DRV supports the conclusion that the original close was flawed, then you should decide whether additional action is needed. If you don't want to wait, that's your call, but if it doesn't go well, it isn't because of admins supporting their own.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You do protect or support your own as seen by another administrator who closed [1] the ANI ignoring half the reason of why I brought it there. If administrators can't police themselves, you're they're little better than the vandals who disrupt this website....William 17:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand how hurtful your allegation is? If your allegation is directed at me personally, please respond with relevant diffs. If you are lumping me in with a group, that's even worse. I don't recall that we've ever interacted, so I am at a loss as to understand why you would say these hurtful things.

I've now looked at the redirect, and I am stunned that you are so invested in this. There is a short blurb about Eunice Penix in the article. Why on earth do you find it so terrible that a reader searching Wikipedia would find that, if they searched for Eunice Penix? We have some information on the woman, more than a passing mention, and you want to pretend that we don't? Why?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Seven people thought Penix failed WP:Politician. Which is the criteria for an article. BTW, you again did not do very good homework. The only reason Penix is mentioned(other than in a listing of city officials) in the Dade City Florida article is because User Jax0677 edited [2] her into it yesterday after the DRV started and the AFD result. Jax0677 is the creator of the Penix article and the one and only editor in the AFD who argued[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eunice_Penix&oldid=408156663 for a redirect.

As for administrators not doing nothing about their own, I've seen it at ANI in the past and the behavior and recent events have done nothing but reinforce my opinions. Mark Arsten's self confessed reasoning for the AFD result is shabby at best and incompetent at worst and should call into question his deciding any AFDs in the future. However administrators don't want to discuss it but bury it instead after a couple of hours at ANI. That so sounds like Marc Arsten who shut down and buried a talk thread 13 minutes after someone he disagreed with last wrote to it....William

You took a cheap shot at me, which might have been a mistake, but instead of clarifying, you follow it up with another. That's rude. After you address that issue, I'll discuss the redirect issue.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we start over?

You have some concerns about admins protecting their own.

So do I. It happens, it deserves serious discussion, and solutions.

On that point, I suspect we agree.

However, in the middle of making your point, you accused me of being part of the problem. Can you understand why I didn't appreciate that?

I would like you to either substantiate your claim with some evidence, or retract it. If you supply some valid evidence, I'll pledge to improve. If you retract it, I'll engage in a discussion about admin abuse, and how to address it.

Is that fair?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

What's not fair is an administrator is being allowed here to abuse his authority and rather than discuss it or do something about it, other administrators close discussions before any debate can take place. Especially when you consider this [3] too. To summarize he wrote an email to a WP editor saying '"You know what, fuck you. You're a petulant, narcissistic piece of shit."

Nothing happened to him there, and that's a far worse situation than his overriding consensus at the AFD. Do you know there is another AFD he dubiously closed but reversed after a DRV was started? This can all add up to a strong case that he doesn't have the judgment to be an administrator. It needs to be talked about, that's for sure. Not swept under the rug which makes it look like administrators are protecting their own. Neither you or I are ANI virgins and we've both been around that often dramatic page if only as bystanders. So I assumed you're doing more of the same protection racket, and if I'm wrong I apologize. After one ANI where I accused an administrator of being involved and having administrators defend that person, I have lost almost all faith in administrators to rule on their own.(There are two administrators, MilborneOne and The Bushranger, who I often go to for advice or to tell them some issue here at WP.) Because at least two of those same administrators had ruled in the past the absolute reverse under almost an exact same set of circumstances.

Ok I apologize. Now what do you think about Mark Arsten overall and does his closure of the Eunice Penix AF. Three of the seven editors(Me, Niteshift36, and Tupelo the typo fixer who said delete have voiced their unhappiness at the DRV with Mark's actions. Granted one of the seven, has also said they're fine with the redirect.

BTW, today is a busy day for me, so my time around here is erratic and not for long periods. So pardon me if I don't back to quickly....William 16:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

No need for talkbacks, I'm watching your page, and composing a response.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This— I assumed you're doing more of the same protection racket, and if I'm wrong I apologize may qualify as the world's most tepid apology. I didn't ask for an apology, I asked for evidence or a retraction. I didn't get either, but I'll show GF and respond.

As for the first incident, it doesn't sound acceptable. I haven't seen the email, nor the context, and I assume you haven't either. I can't image a set of circumstances which would make that email acceptable, but where I would fall on a range of possible reactions (formal censure, temporary desysop, permanent desysop) would depend on the background. Mark gave permission for the emails to be posted, MF declined. Do you support sanctions in the absence of evidence? I don't. I wish MF had published them, because if he published them and the community refused to act, it would be support for your claim.

As for the DRV, if the closure was so awful, we'd be seeing a SNOW Overturn. Which is not what we are seeing, unless you want to argue that it is just admins closing ranks. Except that I see non-admins in the "endorse" column.

I accept that you disagree with the decision to redirect. But that's all it is, a disagreement. You are trying to make the case that this is administrative malfeasance, but the DRV is not close to supporting that thesis.

I understand you are busy. So am I. In fact, I am so overwhelmed with work that I shouldn't even be doing this. I'm happy to continue this discussion, but don't feel the need to rush. If you need to take a few days, Id appreciate a talkback, otherwise, you can assume I'm watching the page.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Won't send any more talkbacks. Feel free to delete I did off your talk page. I do the same thing after getting one.

Mark admitted to saying those words. Some form of punishment should have been handed out. Administrators should be held to a higher standard not a lower one because they should know what is right and wrong. I've blogged for 7 years and have continually said the same thing about law enforcement. Nothing, not even a short term block, was done to Mark and that's dead wrong. If I'd done the same, Toddst would be screaming for me to be banned from here. Double standard! I've never used WP to spew four letter words but I was blocked for 30 days. Why didn't Mark get at least that much? As an administrator he should have gotten double. WP administrators ignoring the sins of their own and this does harm to WP more than any vandal can do. Vandalism can be wiped away, the appearance of double standards can't and that calls into question this website's integrity.

The closure of the Eunice Penix AFD sets a bad precedent, and I've said this already at least two times. Why have a AFD discussion if a administrator is going to ignore the consensus and impose his own outcome? We might as well scrap the discussions and appoint administrators to make the decision as soon as a article is nominated for deletion....William 13:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand that he admitted to using the words. He did apologize, but that is not enough. Something more severe should have been handed down, in my opinion. However, exactly what constituted appropriate punishment depends on the context, and Malleus declined to provide it. That raises a red flag. I suspect the answer is simple, that MF felt there were no possible mitigating circumstances, so context was not needed. However, I have seen many, many situations where the original statement of facts seemingly lead to an obvious conclusion, but the fuller context lead to a different conclusion. I don't think that is the case here, because I fancy I know Malleus well enough, but that's not a basis for a fair review ('We want all the facts, except when we think we can trust you, in which case, we'll work with incomplete information Do you think you can get that written up as a policy?) MF declined to raise it at Arbcom, and declined to share the full contents of the email, despite having permission to do so.

You expressed surprise that Mark did not even get a short block. While I would have been in favor of some sanction, (barring some mitigating scenario in the email which I cannot imagine), a block isn't one of the sanctions that seems appropriate. What basis? Please don't cite personal attacks, as that refers to attack in Wikipedia. This was outside Wikipedia. That doesn't excuse it, I think admins should be held to a higher standard, and we don't think it is acceptable for an admin to use email in such a way, but that leads to questions about his status as an admin, not as an editor. I don't see anything in the blocking policy that applies. Did I miss something?

As for the Eunice Penix AFD, you and I see it differently. I judge the consensus to be that the article at the time did not meet our standards, and should not exist. It was deleted. In accordance with consensus. In addition, the search term was converted into a redirect. This is not incompatible with the consensus. You think it is, I think it isn't. I'm not alone. I'm sympathetic to those that see the decision as a supervote, and argue that the support for a redirect was not sufficiently strong to allow the admin to make that call. However, this is nit picking. It isn't a blatant close against consensus, it is a close call that some will see one way, and some will see another. If you are trying to make the case that Mark does not deserve to be a sysop, you need much better evidence.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

How about Off-wiki harassment where it reads 'Harassment of other Wikipedians through the use of external links is considered equivalent to the posting of personal attacks on Wikipedia.' If wikipedia external email isn't a link, I don't know what is. Nothing got done to Mark, and that was the worst possible outcome. Administrators didn't do anything to one of their own in a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL. So why any editor not think Administrators protect their own?

Back to the redirect and what Mark once said [4] "To go against the numerical consensus would require a strong arguement." To be frank- That don't add up. If numerical consensus is the basis for his decision, 7 delete to 1 redirect gets changed to 5 delete 3 redirect based on the two who said 'Delete or redirect'. Numerical consensus isn't the answer unless Mark can't add. Of course he can add, but he sure did ignore consensus. If a administrator can ignore consensus at the same time using a rationale that doesn't back up his actions, why do we have AFD discussions? He went overboard, and like the business with MF, his own words do him in....William 16:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that link, you are right, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for a block (or other sanctions). (I'd be unhappy if it weren't the case, but I didn't see it in my cursory review of blocking policy). Yet neither you nor I have seen the email, or anything leading up to the email. Had the email been submitted as evidence, either at AN or Arbcom, absent mitigating circumstances I cannot image, I think it would have resulted in a sanction. However, you seem to believe that a sanction is warranted when the recipient of the email posts a (possibly)selectively edited version, and explicitly declines to share the email, even after being given permission to do so. I don't believe in handing out severe sanctions based upon a characterization of evidence by one of the parties. Show me the evidence, and I'll support a sanction. Decline to share the evidence and I'll assume there are some mitigating circumstances. (I can imagine a scenario in which the recipient may choose not to make the material public, either because it is so vile, one doesn't want it in public view, or because it contains some personal details which should not be shared. In either case, there are options, such as sharing it with trusted neutral parties, but that wasn't even alleged.) You are writing as if you think I am opposed to sanction on admins. I am not. I am opposed to sanctions when the recipient declines to share the evidence with anyone. MF appears to believe that context isn't relevant. I disagree. I wish he had shared it, I think sanctions would have followed, but that ship has sailed.

As for the redirect, you are convinced that a redirect is very different from a delete. A closing admin choosing keep when the opinions tally 7 delete and 1 keep needs an extremely strong case. On that we agree. But a redirect is not much different than a delete. Someone at my talk page was arguing they are identical, and I don't go that far, but a plausible redirect is not much different than a delete. I'm not comprehending why you think a redirect of the name Eunice Penix to a section of an article which mentions her is such a bad decision. Have you even made such an argument previously, is there something unique about Eunice Penix that would preclude a redirect or is it this admin? I'm honestly not following why you are so invested in opposing this redirect, is it that the redirect existence is bad for Wikipedia, or are you solely concerned about the process issue?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Mark Arsten admitted to those words, the off-wiki policy quoted, plus WP:Civil tells you to walk away when faced with incivility. No matter what the context, Mark Arsten violated WP policy and nothing was done.

Yes I'm concerned about the process, and an editor(Jax0677, the creator of the Eunice Penix article) trying to take ends around. He did a merge of the Penix article to Dade City, Florida even though that wasn't the result of the AFD. That edit was undone. Back last summer he argued strongly to keep then redirect O. J. Murdoch and in spite of 'delete' at the AFD [5] which was confirmed at a DRV [6], he made the Murdoch page into a redirect. It was deleted, after I discovered [7] the redirect. Note the AFD over Murdoch was a much closer thing than Penix, but the DRV was unanimous which it sure isn't with Penix.

Unless you have something more to say, I think we pretty much covered this subject. Want to wish you a happy holidays and happy new year. I'll add you to my short list of administrators to turn to when some issue at WP pops up. Page protection, possible copyright violation, or advice or clarification on some policy. There was an IP who kept putting a quote into Friedrich Fromm sourcing it from a book. I checked the book out of the library, and the quote isn't there. So I took it out of the article. The IP hasn't returned(He does have a edit history other than Fromm) but could sometime in the future and I wonder what he'll think of my edit. Maybe I'll need you then. Cheers!...William 00:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Mengele

• I'll correct it right now, and I appreciate you for bringing it to my attention. Mandsford 00:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)