Howard Edelstein ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

User:Ritchie333 closed this AFD after the normal one-week discussion period with "The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies." bassed on WP:SOFTDELETE. The discussion had only one vote, but both the nominator and the voter pointed out that this had a likely conflict of interest origin. Today, Ritchie333 restored the article based on an email from an undiscussed person requesting its undeletion. In my view, this AFD should have been relisted at the time to garner more participation, but barring that, then the request for undeletion should have been filed and reviewed formally rather than allowed via direct email request. Essentially, without that type of review, we're left with a situation where an anonymous, and potential COI, has been able to veto this deletion. I'm not satisfied with Ritchie333's suggestion to request another AfD, as I think his initial closing and response is procedurally flawed. -- Netoholic @ 22:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Netoholic, this is exactly how the system is supposed to work. A soft deletion means it can be restored on request (like a PROD). No formal review is required. It is perfectly possible to re-nominate the restored article for deletion, but it would be appropriate to wait a few days and see if the requester is going to improve the article. It they don't - in other words it is the same article that was deleted - it might qualify for G4 speedy deletion without the need for a second AfD. But it should not be tagged as G4 until people have had a chance to improve it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply

The close was " WP:REFUND applies". I don't see anywhere on that page that says to email the initial closer for a direct restoration (it says you can request a copy via email). If someone wants this article back, they should have posted on WP:REFUND per the closing, and the closer should have refused to restore it and instead referred them to WP:REFUND. -- Netoholic @ 23:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Well, that is not how I handle that kind of situation. If someone asks me to restore something I soft-deleted, I do it. Referring to REFUND would add nothing except a layer of bureaucracy. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Yet this close DID refer to REFUND. Does that mean that you do not endorse this close and would have done something different than direct them to REFUND? Perhaps a relist? -- Netoholic @ 23:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply

With two delete !votes (counting the nominator) and no supports, I would have done exactly as Ritchie did: soft-delete it with a notice that it will be restored upon request. REFUND in this context is shorthand for "requesting an undeletion". The actual WP:REFUND page is not the only way to request undeletion and not necessarily the best. Note that the introduction at REFUND says it is intended to assist users looking for an uncontroversial undeletion. Directly requesting the soft-deleting administrator is a perfectly acceptable way to do it - and quite possibly preferable. Look, the process is proceeding, and unless somebody can perform a miracle rescue, the page will be gone in a few days. There's no reason to make a federal case out of this. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Does this seem like an "uncontroversial undeletion" due to the likely COI aspect? By what process do you think this page is likely to get deleted in a few days? -- Netoholic @ 23:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply

This will be my last comment here. Undeletion is uncontroversial because Ritchie said, in his close, that it could be undeleted on request. I have already explained how the page can be deleted in a few days, if it doesn't get improved: tag it for G4. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply

@ MelanieN: but WP:G4 cannot be applied here because: This criterion also does not cover content undeleted via ... deletion discussions closed as "soft delete"). -- Netoholic @ 23:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Oops, I missed that. I never was good about reading the fine print. I guess it will have to be a second AfD. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment @ Netoholic: I spoke with Richie333 about it but this he did not have the details of the requestor of the restore either. It was odd nobody came to defend this article in the AfD (which is why I didn't bother editing it), but knew how to go to Richie333 immediately after, which does not reflect well on the requestor.

I think Richie333 is just following the rules here.

I have started to go through the article and take out references that don't make any reference to Howard Edelstein (a lot). I think when I have done that, I'm going to take out any text that is then unreferenced (this is a BLP). Then we should wait a while to see if the "mystery" requestor re-appears. If they can fix this, then lets see it. If we get nothing, then it can be re-AfD'ed as a smaller article, and maybe it will get more engagement at AfD. Either way, this process will resolve it? thanks. Britishfinance ( talk) 23:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I have finished the job of removing the references that make no reference to him, and removing statements that are both unsupported and are promotional. I have still left in basic statements of positions he is believed to have held but are still unsupported by references to at least leave the "bones" of an article for an AfD (maybe the editor who requested the relist might make an appearance)? Britishfinance ( talk) 01:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close Personally I would have relisted it, but this was within the reviewing admin's discretion. IMO the OP is making a big deal out of something that is minor, bordering on trivial. A "soft delete" is just that. Requesting it be undeleted is the equivalent of vetoing a PROD. Anyone can do it, for any reason, or no reason at all. COI is neither here nor there with REFUND. It is perfectly normal for a deleting admin to be approached either on their talk or via email with such requests. I have received and handled multiple such requests. This is a waste of time. I suggest the DRV be withdrawn and the article be speedily renominated at AfD. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Clear failure of WP:CORP and thus is promotion. Six references: 1, 3, 4. These three are not independent sources, being, for example, interview sources of the CEO himself. Ref 2 I can't read, but is only being used to cite "Warburg Pincus made Edelstein CEO of NYFIX, a newly invested portfolio company." References 5 & 6 do not contain comment on the subject and so do not support Wikipedia-notability. Could the article have been redirect? "He is currently the CEO of BioCatch, a start-up technology company." BioCatch is not notable, so no. At the AfD, but the nominator and one !voter provided solid textbook reasons for deletion. The closer was over-cautious. Overturn (to "Delete"). The refund due to an anonymous off-wiki request irks. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The closer has a wide discretion when dealing with "no quorum" discussions and "softdelete" seems easily justified to me. I agree the nomination and delete argument were both persuasive, and I would not have thought a close of full "delete" definitely wrong, but at the end of the day the matter was of subjective judgement. Thincat ( talk) 09:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Nothing wrong with the close itself, though I would have preferred a relist to gain more consensus. I think the course of action set out by Ad Orientem seems reasonable. SportingFlyer T· C 21:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• endorse and relist at will Maybe not the best close, but one well within discretion. Hobit ( talk) 05:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• While the refund was perhaps defensible (although this gives a very easy way for article creators to circumvent AfD: just keep quiet and hope not a lot of people vote), the advice Ritchie then gave on his talk page was not: "I think renominating it immediately will cause rancour; try and improve the article first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)" WTF? So when you AfD an article and no one but the article creator disagrees (and then only sneakily through email, not even onwiki), then renominating that page for AfD would "cause rancour" and the nominator has to "improve the article first"? That's nuts. If a soft delete is treating an AfD like a prod, then a prod removed by the article creator (or by anyone for that matter) can be taken straight to AfD, and very often is. No one will claim that the nominator should wait between the ProD and the AfD or "try to improve the article" inbetween. If the prod (or in this case first AfD) had sound reasoning, and the deprodder did nothing to show the error of the reasoning (like providing better sources or additional facts), then you shouldn't advice someone not to nominate it at AfD because that would "cause rancour". Brushing of an editor with "Well don't you think you're over-reacting a bit? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)" when you own ill-thought out actions and comments have caused that reaction is not good. Next time, refund the article and reopen the AfD instead, or tell people who contact you offwiki and "wish to remain anonymous" that they should find someone else to do their dirty work. Fram ( talk) 08:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC) reply

I told other people to file the AfD because they've got more of an idea of what the appropriate arguments should be; I would just say "I closed this as soft delete and refunded it but have had objections. I am neutral. Have at it." And yes, people were over-reacting a bit. I was expecting the next AfD to appear at some point but it was not a life or death situation that needed be resolved immediately like a G12 speedy. And BritishFinance has improved the article, using the advice I gave him on my talk (ie: "get rid of all unsourced or unverified content per WP:BLPSOURCES, then see what you've got left") Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC) reply

The article had already been at AfD, you didn't need to come up with arguments, you could have reopened or reused it. More importantly, there was no reason at all for you to indicate that immediately starting a new AfD would be a bad idea, and it's that kind of remarks that cause people to get agitated at your talk page. If you had just said "I restored it per policy (link), you are free to renominate it", you would have been helpful both to the anonymous offwiki (assuming one has to be helpful there), and to the people who actually edit here. "Improving" an article before nominating it for deletion is usually a bad idea though (if you know upfront that you will nomainte it, not if you decide to nominate it based on what you learn during your edits): your edits will all be deleted anyway if you have your way, and the one wanting to keep the pages may well point to the edits as "obstruction", "manipulation", "deceit", ... since you first deleted loads of sources and information, and then nominate it for deletion. Basically, no one was overreacting until you started to sprout your bad advice (which wasted a lot of time for many people). Obviously it was not a speedy situation, that's why we have AfD, as you should know as an admin. But I guess making a caricature of things is the last line of defense you have left here. Fram ( talk) 13:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC) reply

It was 10:30pm on Saturday and I wanted to get to the pub before last orders, with the basic idea that I would set the AfD up when I woke up next morning. If you have a problem with me having a life outside Wikipedia and socialising with real people, then ..... too bad. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Either reply or hat, don't do both at the same time, as it is a rather aggressive way of having the last word. Your excuses now are not convincing at all though, you now claim that you would set up the AfD the next morning, even though you claimed "I think renominating it immediately will cause rancour; try and improve the article first.", "I haven't a clue what to do with the article", and "If you really can't bear the existence of its article and it's keeping you awake at night, file another AfD. " (three posts, spread over more than 1 hour; you continued to edit for 2 hours after this). I have no problem with you having a life outside Wikipedia, great strawman argument though. I have a problem with admins who have trouble admitting that they might have dropped the ball on this, and instead reply like you do here or with "You need to stop getting angry and upset at people who disagree with you, or have different priorities. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)" You didn't give any indication that you had any plans to set up the AfD, in fact you didn't even reply at this DRV until I showed up two days later either. WP:ADMINACCT stretches to explaining an undeletion at the DRV, and giving correct advice to people instead of what you did should be part of it as well. Fram ( talk) 14:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Actually you're right about the diffs, the pub trip was between this edit and this one. However, I stand by my facts that I was going to set up an AfD the next morning; only by that time, events had overtaken themselves and this discussion had opened. It just didn't seem urgent and I don't believe WP:ADMINACCT says you have to address concerns immediately and without delay. I didn't feel the need to reply here because MelanieN had already pretty much made my case for me and I didn't think just saying "I agree with Melanie" was worth writing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC) reply

No, of course not, letting people know that you have read a discussion about an admin action you have taken and your position on the subject, is just a waste of time. Apparently a policy-required waste of your time is something you don't need to do, but wasting everyone else's time is perfectly alright. Looking at this and the TRM / Johnbod ANi discussion, you seem to be very good at using your admin hat to take a minimal action, but not having the time or inclination to do the most basic necessary things afterwards to avoid a lot of drama and timewasting by many other editors. Fram ( talk) 14:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Let's agree to close this discussion and just re-list the article for AfD. Apart from my editing, nobody has come forward to improve/upgrade the article which reflects poorly on the editor who made the request to Ritchie333. Now that the article is a lot "slimmer", it might attract more interest/debate at AfD? Britishfinance ( talk) 11:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC) reply