→WP:NAC: Reply |
|||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
::::{{ping|NeilN}} Can you review the AfD [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of MySims characters|here]] and provide an outside perspective? Am I misinterpreting the policies related to [[WP:NACD]] or missing something? Was my closure inappropriate in your opinion? Thank you! -- [[User:Dane2007|<b style="color:blue">Dane<span style="color:#F14D0B">2007</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Dane2007|<font color="#00AC1D">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 02:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC) |
::::{{ping|NeilN}} Can you review the AfD [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of MySims characters|here]] and provide an outside perspective? Am I misinterpreting the policies related to [[WP:NACD]] or missing something? Was my closure inappropriate in your opinion? Thank you! -- [[User:Dane2007|<b style="color:blue">Dane<span style="color:#F14D0B">2007</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Dane2007|<font color="#00AC1D">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 02:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::::"Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins." This is because there's a perception that an admin's judgment has been closely scrutinized when they went through RFA while a regular editor must be scrutinized every time they close an AFD. It's unfair because I know some editors that would probably do a better job at AFD than me but as long as you're closing these types of AFDs, you're going to get a reflexive "you're not an admin!" complaint frequently. And, if you encounter a grumpy "old-school" admin, straight out told to stop doing them. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 03:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
==Disambiguation link notification for August 21== |
==Disambiguation link notification for August 21== |
Revision as of 03:02, 22 August 2016
|
WP:NAC
Please only close obvious AfDs that have an overwhelming support. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark J. Perry had 60% support for keeping and none of the keep !voters addressed the sourcing and BLP (WP:COATRACK) concerns.--v/r - TP 03:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- @TParis: I have re-opened/re-listed the AfD and will abstain from further action on it. I have also reviewed WP:NAC. Thank you for presenting your concerns to me. I appreciate the feedback so that I can improve! -- Dane2007 talk 03:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Same for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of MySims characters. Please let an admin close it? czar 13:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Czar: After relisting, there was no further comments provided in the 7 days that followed the last relist, so i'm going to leave this one closed. I just reviewed it again and i'm inclined to believe it would close as "No Consensus" if not keep, so re-opening it would not be beneficial, especially since no further comments or arguments were made. If you still feel it should be deleted, I would defer to a second nomination. -- Dane2007 talk 02:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- My contention is with the close and not the lack of participation. As TP said above, non-admin closes are reserved for uncontroversial closes. You closed it as "keep" but now say it's "no consensus"—please let an admin decide those types of closes. "No consensus" closes are excluded from the non-admin close purview on purpose. czar 14:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Czar: I closed as keep and maintain as such. My comment was not changing my perception to "No consensus" as you stated, it was simply a statement that if it did not close as keep, that would be the only alternative closure type as there was not enough support for deleting. My review of the discussion that took place kept the first, second and third keep votes (excluding the fourth) as well grounded and valid arguments while keeping the first two delete votes as well argued (excluding the third as flimsy at best). I did not and still do not see the controversy in my closing this AfD the way I did based on the history of the discussion, length it ran and the arguments presented. In reviewing WP:NAC, it states
"Clear keep outcomes after a full listing period (stated in the instructions to each XfD, this is usually seven days), absent any contentious debate among participants. This also extends to other clear closes in which the final task can be performed by a non-admin, for example Redirect or Merge (when a history merge or deletion is not required)."
I don't think the debate was "contentious" or "controversial", I read all of the comments and weighed their validity. WP:NACD indicates that close calls are better left to admins but not restricted to admins. I make all of these statements with the utmost respect, I am just having a hard time finding a violation of policy based on the linked policies and the perception of the AfD. All of this being said - I will take your comments into consideration when i'm at AfD next and I will request an uninvolved administrator review this AfD. As a side note, I have stayed away from AfDs recently to review policies associated with them multiple times to ensure I am performing them correctly. Thank you for bringing the concern - I appreciate it. -- Dane2007 talk 02:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Czar: I closed as keep and maintain as such. My comment was not changing my perception to "No consensus" as you stated, it was simply a statement that if it did not close as keep, that would be the only alternative closure type as there was not enough support for deleting. My review of the discussion that took place kept the first, second and third keep votes (excluding the fourth) as well grounded and valid arguments while keeping the first two delete votes as well argued (excluding the third as flimsy at best). I did not and still do not see the controversy in my closing this AfD the way I did based on the history of the discussion, length it ran and the arguments presented. In reviewing WP:NAC, it states
- My contention is with the close and not the lack of participation. As TP said above, non-admin closes are reserved for uncontroversial closes. You closed it as "keep" but now say it's "no consensus"—please let an admin decide those types of closes. "No consensus" closes are excluded from the non-admin close purview on purpose. czar 14:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Czar: After relisting, there was no further comments provided in the 7 days that followed the last relist, so i'm going to leave this one closed. I just reviewed it again and i'm inclined to believe it would close as "No Consensus" if not keep, so re-opening it would not be beneficial, especially since no further comments or arguments were made. If you still feel it should be deleted, I would defer to a second nomination. -- Dane2007 talk 02:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- @NeilN: Can you review the AfD here and provide an outside perspective? Am I misinterpreting the policies related to WP:NACD or missing something? Was my closure inappropriate in your opinion? Thank you! -- Dane2007 talk 02:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins." This is because there's a perception that an admin's judgment has been closely scrutinized when they went through RFA while a regular editor must be scrutinized every time they close an AFD. It's unfair because I know some editors that would probably do a better job at AFD than me but as long as you're closing these types of AFDs, you're going to get a reflexive "you're not an admin!" complaint frequently. And, if you encounter a grumpy "old-school" admin, straight out told to stop doing them. --NeilN talk to me 03:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- @NeilN: Can you review the AfD here and provide an outside perspective? Am I misinterpreting the policies related to WP:NACD or missing something? Was my closure inappropriate in your opinion? Thank you! -- Dane2007 talk 02:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alayna Ertl, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages GMC and Ping (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)