Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 7: Difference between revisions
13,127 edits →Wikipedia:Inclusion_criteria: Fixing this just for the record, the statement should have been directed to the content, not the contributor... |
No edit summary Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ --> |
Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ --> |
||
====[[:Wikipedia:Inclusion_criteria]]==== |
==== [[:Wikipedia:Inclusion_criteria]] (closed) ==== |
||
{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" | |
|||
* <span class="anchor" id="Wikipedia:Inclusion_criteria"></span>''' [[:Wikipedia:Inclusion_criteria]] ''' – Withdrawn by nominator [[Special:Contributions/81.100.164.154|81.100.164.154]] ([[User talk:81.100.164.154|talk]]) 16:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC) <!--*--> |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
|||
:{{DRV links|Wikipedia:Inclusion_criteria|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_15#Wikipedia:Inclusion_criteria|article=}} |
:{{DRV links|Wikipedia:Inclusion_criteria|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_15#Wikipedia:Inclusion_criteria|article=}} |
||
I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_15&diff=1062939697&oldid=1062936856 disagreed] with the close and followed the advice given here to attempt resolving it by [[User_talk:Tamzin#Disagree_with_close.|leaving a request]] to reopen on the talk page of the closer. I see they took the request somewhat personally since they made reference to my request in the combative terms of being a "challenge" to them multiple times in their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_15&diff=1062953082&oldid=1062939697 response] to me. At any rate, my request to have the discussion reopened is based on the poor judgement of the <s>closer</s> [closing]. You will see that they also made factual error in their response in addition to the problems I have already pointed out. |
I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_15&diff=1062939697&oldid=1062936856 disagreed] with the close and followed the advice given here to attempt resolving it by [[User_talk:Tamzin#Disagree_with_close.|leaving a request]] to reopen on the talk page of the closer. I see they took the request somewhat personally since they made reference to my request in the combative terms of being a "challenge" to them multiple times in their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_15&diff=1062953082&oldid=1062939697 response] to me. At any rate, my request to have the discussion reopened is based on the poor judgement of the <s>closer</s> [closing]. You will see that they also made factual error in their response in addition to the problems I have already pointed out. |
||
Line 28: | Line 36: | ||
*'''Endorse''' as original nominator. We do not need to relitigate this debate a million times so I will not be talking about the content of the arguments, just the close. The debate lasted a month and a half, with two relists, and only one user opposing disambiguation, and I don't see how that can be read as a lack of consensus justifying ''another'' relist. I am not sure where this whole idea about the IP {{tq|cinch}}ing it comes from, as it doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere on the RfD page, but ignoring the vote entirely just by virtue of being written by an unregistered user is frankly ridiculous - they are very clearly not completely inexperienced as their first edit on that IP was to reasonably answer a {{tl|Help me}} request (which IPs on the same /24 have done for two years, suggesting that it is likely they are all the same person). [[User:Eviolite|<span style="color:#BA5D00"><u>''ev''</u>iolite</span>]] [[User talk:Eviolite|<span style="color:#008484">(talk)</span>]] 02:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse''' as original nominator. We do not need to relitigate this debate a million times so I will not be talking about the content of the arguments, just the close. The debate lasted a month and a half, with two relists, and only one user opposing disambiguation, and I don't see how that can be read as a lack of consensus justifying ''another'' relist. I am not sure where this whole idea about the IP {{tq|cinch}}ing it comes from, as it doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere on the RfD page, but ignoring the vote entirely just by virtue of being written by an unregistered user is frankly ridiculous - they are very clearly not completely inexperienced as their first edit on that IP was to reasonably answer a {{tl|Help me}} request (which IPs on the same /24 have done for two years, suggesting that it is likely they are all the same person). [[User:Eviolite|<span style="color:#BA5D00"><u>''ev''</u>iolite</span>]] [[User talk:Eviolite|<span style="color:#008484">(talk)</span>]] 02:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC) |
||
*'''Withdraw review''' Eviolite has made a convincing case for the credibility of the IP editor. I still think Tamzin could have done a far better job of making a good case with all of the evidence, but her numerical count is correct so I withdraw the review. Thanks. [[User:Huggums537|Huggums537]] ([[User talk:Huggums537|talk]]) 14:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC) |
*'''Withdraw review''' Eviolite has made a convincing case for the credibility of the IP editor. I still think Tamzin could have done a far better job of making a good case with all of the evidence, but her numerical count is correct so I withdraw the review. Thanks. [[User:Huggums537|Huggums537]] ([[User talk:Huggums537|talk]]) 14:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC) |
||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|} |
Revision as of 16:18, 8 January 2022
7 January 2022
Wikipedia:Inclusion_criteria (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I disagreed with the close and followed the advice given here to attempt resolving it by leaving a request to reopen on the talk page of the closer. I see they took the request somewhat personally since they made reference to my request in the combative terms of being a "challenge" to them multiple times in their response to me. At any rate, my request to have the discussion reopened is based on the poor judgement of the 1) In the case of the IP editor, the closer made the claim in their response to me giving them a heads up about this IP that: 2) Here, you will see the judgement of evidence is dubious by the closer; 3) Closer admits mistakes were made (even if not in my favor). However, they say they were prepared to reopen, but saw no other way to close. This strongly suggests to me the only possible outcome they could see was closing the discussion one way or the other. The fact they could not see an alternative of reopening the discussion to let it run some more is indicative of poor closing insight. I do not have any closing experience, but if it were me, and the last comment were by a Overturn and propose closer reverse changes and reopen discussion. Huggums537 (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |