| Revision as of 07:16, 7 August 2007 editCool Hand Luke (talk | contribs)14,522 edits →[]: endorse.← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:17, 7 August 2007 edit undoMoshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,202 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| *'''Endorse''' That was a good thoughtful close of a tough afd. ^demon used his administrative discretion to determine the consensus on the issues of policy rather than counting the votes. ]] 06:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | *'''Endorse''' That was a good thoughtful close of a tough afd. ^demon used his administrative discretion to determine the consensus on the issues of policy rather than counting the votes. ]] 06:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Endorse'''. Close was explicitly reasoned, and unlike the American apartheid article, there is no credible claim of a conflict of interest. ] '']'' 07:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | *'''Endorse'''. Close was explicitly reasoned, and unlike the American apartheid article, there is no credible claim of a conflict of interest. ] '']'' 07:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Overturn''', I really don't have any problem with the vast majority of administrators, but this situation is just one more example of an admin that has either forgotten or just never knew that they are not supposed to have any more power that any other run-of-the-mill wikipedia editor, they just possess a couple more tools to help wikipedia maintain order. Demon seems to believe that he is supposed to be some kind of judge.- ] | ] 07:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:17, 7 August 2007
Allegations of Chinese apartheid
- Allegations of Chinese apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
This article and related articles has been subject to intense content disputes, replete with accusations, personal attacks, etc. It was nominated for deletion at 01:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC), and the nomination attracted at least as much controversy and discussion as the article itself.
^demon (who takes curious pride in deleting rather than creating things on Misplaced Pages) closed the nomination at a point where there were - by my rough count - 59 who wanted it deleted, and 45 who wanted it kept. Others counts showed slightly different results. demon justified the closure by determining that "consensus" was the side of the argument he/she found most persuasive, and later on his/her talk page that "It happens with every controversial AfD such as this, and nobody can deny it. I decided to read the debate, and close it, before any "impartial" admin could come in and pass judgment." It was also closed two days before the usual time had expired.
Clearly, there was no basis for consensus, and the closing admin misconstrued his/her role to be that of a judge in content disputes.
I'm not even going to get into the very tired content dispute here, but it's hard to see how anyone can back this deletion. --Leifern 02:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Without any comment to the technical merits, the above nomination makes many assumptions of bad faith. I urge the nominator to re-write it without the insinuations or step back and ask someone else to write a DRV case for the article, a subject this controversial deserves better. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have no opinion about the admin's motivations for closing, as the presented reasoning makes little sense. But I can go by what he/she wrote for the reasons. --Leifern 02:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I endorsed the deletion, as I would have done it myself had ^demon not beat me by a few minutes. If his reasoning isn't sufficient, use mine. --Hemlock Martinis 02:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse; nominator doesn't explain why demon's reading of the debate is incorrect. The normal time, 5 days, does appear to have expired. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn per Leifern. There was no consensus to delete, not even close. As for the above comment about "reading of the debate", I think it's very simple, there was no consensus. There was no basis for discounting any arguments of the "keep" side, so I don't see how this complies with policy. 6SJ7 04:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse the accusation of premature closure is clearly inaccurate; accusing the closing admin of "taking curious pride in deleting rather than creating things" have crossed the line on personal attack, IMHO. The decision taken accurately summarised the mood and arguments of the debate, and the application of wiki policies that basically the article was in breach of WP:SYN. So who cares if the votes were "nearly tied"? AfD is not a vote. Ohconfucius 04:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse - it's clear there's a more general issue here, but I do not find the closure unreasonable, given the ability admins have allowed to determine what consensus is in this case. --Haemo 04:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn This is one of the easier calls I've seen. A clear majority of editors put forth cogent arguments that the article should stay. demon's reasoning for closing is--literally--incomprehensible. That a later editor added an opinion (which was merely a loosely reasoned assertion, rather than an argument) after the AfD had closed is irrelevant. If AfD's are to be decided by random admins who appear to lack experience actually writing articles (correct me if I'm wrong on that), let's have that be the policy. If not, not. IronDuke 04:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- This goes for both IronDuke and Leifern: If you have a problem with ^demon's position as an administrator, please take it up with him on his talk page. DRV is NOT the place to be sniping at the closing administrator for perceived bias because they choose to be involved in closing deletion debates. Viridae 05:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse That was a good thoughtful close of a tough afd. ^demon used his administrative discretion to determine the consensus on the issues of policy rather than counting the votes. Viridae 06:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse. Close was explicitly reasoned, and unlike the American apartheid article, there is no credible claim of a conflict of interest. Cool Hand Luke 07:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn, I really don't have any problem with the vast majority of administrators, but this situation is just one more example of an admin that has either forgotten or just never knew that they are not supposed to have any more power that any other run-of-the-mill wikipedia editor, they just possess a couple more tools to help wikipedia maintain order. Demon seems to believe that he is supposed to be some kind of judge.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)