-
Andrew Neather (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
XfD|
restore)
Nominator
Gagwef retargeted per administrator's
Thryduulf's !vote and recommendation below, which seemed prudent. However, procedurally, this was a flawed close. 1) the nom is clearly
WP:INVOLVED; (2) the nom retargeted on the same day as it was initiated (only provision for nom to self-close is as "speedy keep"/"nomination withdrawn," which nom could've done and then retargeted
boldly outside of the RfD); and (3) the nom short-circuited the debate as there were two !votes to "delete," so my understanding is that the nom would've needed to get buy-in from those two "delete" !votes (one of which was editor
Geolodus) in order to withdraw the nomination. In short, while the retargeting seems reasonable, I am concerned with the multitude of procedural flaws and we should not be encouraging this especially reasons #3 and #2 when #1 applies. My recommendation is to either:
- Overturn and Relist on procedural grounds; or, failing that and in the interests of time,
- Overturn and Retarget as closed, so that the nom can be sufficiently
trouted, at least that way the nomination gets a fulsome 7 day debate.
Friendly ping to my mentor
Trialpears
Doug Mehus
T·
C 17:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Pherhaps a talk page note to the closer would be better then starting a deletion review? As stated in
the purpose section
[Deletion review should not be used] when you have not discussed the matter with the user who closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination . Taking someone to deletion review and trout whacking isn't a very nice outcome for someone's first XfD discussion.
Gagwef would you mind reopening the discussion? ‑‑
Trialpears (
talk) 18:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
reply
- I would mind, actually. I don't want to waste another week of my life on fixing a mistake some mouthbreather made a decade ago. So I didn't adhere to protocol 100%, and I will fully admit to not fully knowing what the hell I was doing when trying to fix the fucking redirect, but if whoever brought this up said that the redirect itself "seemed reasonable" and one of the two people who voted to delete ended up suggesting a retarget instead, then is it really wise to waste everyone's time for another god knows how many days over this piddling pedantry? I don't want to think about this thing anymore, so please, for the love of Christ, can't you let this slide just this once? I doubt this is significant enough to set some kind of a dangerous precedent that will inevitably swerve Wikipedia into vandalistic anarchy, so can you just please, please please please please please please please PLEASE let this thing go?
Gagwef (
talk) 18:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
Gagwef, for the record, I agree with the retarget decision (it seems reasonable), but my issue was with respect to process. As nominator, what you should've done is withdrawn the nomination as speedy keep (nomination withdrawn), and then retargeted per
Thryduulf's suggestion (which I would've !voted for, had I been given the chance) outside of the RfD (as allowed per
WP:BRD). Actually, you could've even just done this retarget in a
bold move before having nominated it for discussion, but you may not have known that likely redirect target. As long as you understand that when nominated for deletion or discussion, nominations can only be closed by non-involved editors/administrators or withdrawn as speedy keep by the nominator provided that there are no other !votes (i.e., in this case, there were "delete" votes), and further that you will submit to a
 Self-trouting, then I have no issue with withdrawing this nomination. Failing that, I think in the interest of procedural fairness, the DRV should stand and I would encourage everyone to !vote for the second option, which would have the practical effect of keeping the result of the closure but overturning who closed it, as a minor point of adhering to policy.
Doug Mehus
T·
C 19:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
Gagwef, what do you mean by "some mouthbreather"? I don't get it.
Doug Mehus
T·
C 19:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Someone created a section into an article where it didn't belong and then made a redirect into said section.
Gagwef (
talk) 23:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
Trialpears True, I thought about that, but when I suggested in the deletion review for the
Washington Redhawks to procedurally close as the requestor hadn't discussed it on the talkpage, there was no take up to procedurally close. So why do we suggest that sometimes and not others? --
Doug Mehus
T·
C 18:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Update from Nominator following
Trialpears suggestion - I have now separately notified
Gagwef of my willingness to have the discussion re-opened, but that in the interests of procedural expediency in the event the editor doesn't edit Wikipedia daily, will maintain this
deletion review in tandem. Should the editor re-open the RfD and let a non-involved editor close and follow proper procedures, I will fully withdraw this
DRV.
Doug Mehus
T·
C 18:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
reply
- I think we all agree then. We all think it should be redirected and everyone want this to be dealt with as quickly as possible. May I then suggest that someone uninvolved just close this as resolved. It's clear that there is a consensus for the retargeting and at this point we're really just arguing technicalities which isn't the purpose of a deletion review. ‑‑
Trialpears (
talk) 19:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
Trialpears I thought part of the purpose of
DRV was to remind, or inform, editors/administrators of their errors so as to mitigate, if not eliminate, the same mistake next time? On that basis, I think it might be worth a the non-involved closer serving up a friendly
trout with a link to the relevant non-admin closing section of
RfD, no? If this were me being brought to
DRV and the roles were reversed, I would welcome a friendly trouting. In fact, I'd probably
Self-trout myself.
Doug Mehus
T·
C 20:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Learning how to become a better closer is definitely important and DRV can provide valuable feedback, but that same feedback can be given on the talk page of the closer without starting a week long debate and unnecessary bureaucracy. While I agree that the close was far from optimal, we all agree that the final outcome should be the same as we currently have. Putting another signature on the close is just arguing about technicalities which is listed under what deletion review isn't for. ‑‑
Trialpears (
talk) 21:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
Trialpears Okay, fair enough. I agree, what I should've done is messaged
Gagwef first and at least reminded him or her how closures are supposed to work (in this case, he or she couldn't have withdrawn it since there were "delete" votes). Probably the best thing would've been to wait for a few more redirects and then get someone to close it early per
WP:SNOW. At any rate, I know there's no specific mechanism for a nominator withdrawal, but
S Marshall and
RoySmith previously closed one of my DRVs when I wanted to withdraw it, so maybe I'll do that now per
common sense?
Doug Mehus
T·
C 21:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Just do me a favour and drop this thing. The simplest, most logical and most expedient outcome has prevailed. Nobody is up at arms about this thing. I've learned my lesson and I'm almost certainly never getting embroiled in any kind of a redirect dispute again. Just let it go. Please.
Gagwef (
talk) 23:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
reply
|