|
This article was on ]. The discussion was clsoed early by ]. After discussion on his talk page , he , saying "I have overturned my closure and relisted on the basis of substantial new information and arguments. Fellow administrators, please let this run ''at least'' another five days from today (see my sig for date) before closing, to let the debate which was shut down ''too'' early by myself complete itself, before making a decision." However, ] nevertheless only a few hours later, with the edit summery "don't be a dick". I was on the point of adding a comment to the AfD when Drini closed, and I asked him twice on his talk page to reverse himself. he refuesed, explicitly citing ] as his justification. (See ) As I was composing a post to Deletion Reveiw, ] reverted Drini's close. Perhaps I should have brought the matter here at once. Insted I added my comment to the re-opened AfD, as did several other editors. Then Daniel Bryant, objecting quite reasonably to Matt Crypto's revert, to Drini's close, thus removing my comments and those of four other editors, made in good faith. He also altered his own earlier request to let the AfD run, significantly reducing its strength to a "suggestion" and removing the mention of the full five days. There are several process problems here, IMO. There was no consensus to delete at the time of Drini's close (and not a clear one at the time of the earlier undone clsoe), but he closed it as a delete. Matt Crypto should not have simply reverted Drini's close (although if IAR aupports one out-of-process action, perhaps it supports a revert of it). Daniel Bryant in undoing Matt Crypto's action, should not have reveerted the commetns of five other editors. Drini's close was based on his judgement of the notability issues, but it was not supported by a consensus, and early closes (particularly when undoing a prior decison to relist) should have a clear consensus, IMO. Some editors had raised ] issues, but argumets i find persuasive said that these do not apply: the informatiuon is well sourced, is not particularly negative or controversial, and the Qian Zhijun himself has created a website on which he publicizes the facts involved, so he must not find them overly embarrasing or harmful. I request that the early closes be '''Overturned''', and that the articel be '''Relisted''', with '''all''' prior commets included, and that we all be more wary of a rush to judgemetn in future. ] ] 00:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
This article was on ]. The discussion was clsoed early by ]. After discussion on his talk page , he , saying "I have overturned my closure and relisted on the basis of substantial new information and arguments. Fellow administrators, please let this run ''at least'' another five days from today (see my sig for date) before closing, to let the debate which was shut down ''too'' early by myself complete itself, before making a decision." However, ] nevertheless only a few hours later, with the edit summery "don't be a dick". I was on the point of adding a comment to the AfD when Drini closed, and I asked him twice on his talk page to reverse himself. he refuesed, explicitly citing ] as his justification. (See ) As I was composing a post to Deletion Reveiw, ] reverted Drini's close. Perhaps I should have brought the matter here at once. Insted I added my comment to the re-opened AfD, as did several other editors. Then Daniel Bryant, objecting quite reasonably to Matt Crypto's revert, to Drini's close, thus removing my comments and those of four other editors, made in good faith. He also altered his own earlier request to let the AfD run, significantly reducing its strength to a "suggestion" and removing the mention of the full five days. There are several process problems here, IMO. There was no consensus to delete at the time of Drini's close (and not a clear one at the time of the earlier undone clsoe), but he closed it as a delete. Matt Crypto should not have simply reverted Drini's close (although if IAR aupports one out-of-process action, perhaps it supports a revert of it). Daniel Bryant in undoing Matt Crypto's action, should not have reveerted the commetns of five other editors. Drini's close was based on his judgement of the notability issues, but it was not supported by a consensus, and early closes (particularly when undoing a prior decison to relist) should have a clear consensus, IMO. Some editors had raised ] issues, but argumets i find persuasive said that these do not apply: the informatiuon is well sourced, is not particularly negative or controversial, and the Qian Zhijun himself has created a website on which he publicizes the facts involved, so he must not find them overly embarrasing or harmful. I request that the early closes be '''Overturned''', and that the articel be '''Relisted''', with '''all''' prior commets included, and that we all be more wary of a rush to judgemetn in future. ] ] 00:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
*'''Keep deleted''' the process is a mess - so let's stick to the 'facts': this is a ] article about a fat teenager who was made fun of on the internet, and got his unfortunate 15 min of fame in some newspapers that were used to wrap chips the next day. We don't need this. Whilst it ''might'' merit a mention on ], the child victim certainly does not merit a perpetual wikipedia biography. Let's not be dicks.--]<sup>g</sup> 00:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
*'''Keep deleted''' the process is a mess - so let's stick to the 'facts': this is a ] article about a fat teenager who was made fun of on the internet, and got his unfortunate 15 min of fame in some newspapers that were used to wrap chips the next day. We don't need this. Whilst it ''might'' merit a mention on ], the child victim certainly does not merit a perpetual wikipedia biography. Let's not be dicks.--]<sup>g</sup> 00:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC) |