- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 30#(X)-related works
- Massive deletion of many categories by a non-admin. Using reasoning not based on any Wikipedia guidelines, and ignoring comments made by others. What is the point of discussion when anybody can close a discussion? Why do we vote on admins? This is another example of the problem of non-admin closes. We allow anybody to close a multiple category deletion. Then a robot goes around immediately and makes hundreds or even thousands of category name changes. So why bother editing categories at all? This will discourage hundreds of editors who see this robot changing their work. There should be a delay between when a discussion is closed and when the robot goes forth wreaking havoc. There is also a problem in that sections of talk pages can not be watchlisted. I can not watchlist just this section: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 30#(X)-related works. So people can not really participate in these discussions. How does one know when there is discussion? --Timeshifter (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI: Non-admins can't make the bot empty pages, as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working is fully protected. There is the edit, which allowed the renaming of these categories. Armbrust Talk to me about my editsreview 03:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but a non-admin closed the discussion. Anybody could drop into any category discussion and close it. Once a discussion is closed then the process leads to categories being deleted.
- Also, the person who initiated the deletion/rename discussion was the person who allowed the renaming of the categories as indicated by the diff you linked to, Armbrust. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and re-close WP:NAC says non-admins should avoid closing things except when the result is obvious. As far as I can tell, User:Timeshifter is the only one opposing this, but there aren't enough supports to make this a good NAC. Also, the closer "lack[ed] the technical ability to act upon the outcome", which is no good per WP:NACD. --NYKevin @784, i.e. 17:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and reclose, same result'Endorse - frankly this seems very much a sour-grapes DRV. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Endorse. The close was a correct reading of the discussion. If a NAC is right there is no point reverting it just so an admin an announce the same result. Doing so discourages non-admins from being bold in making correct closures. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist, but not for the reasons given by Timeshifter — a 2-1 vote isn't enough for consensus here. Best to let this get more input before closing. Nyttend (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no consensus. So the discussion should have been closed as "no consensus." --Timeshifter (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus that doesn't agree with your POV is still consensus. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Close The !VOTE was at least 3-1, and arguably 4-1 with a couple more commenting in ways that suggest acquiescence or even support for deletion. There had been no new comments for almost a month at the time of close. Even if the decision is that this should be relisted, the fact that the closer was a non-admin should have no bearing on the result, and under no circumstances should an admin justify a reclose using the fact it was a non-admin close. Monty845 06:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was discussing the merits of the close by a non-admin. That non-admin close was done incorrectly according to WP:NAC. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please reread my !vote, my comment here, and your comment. You are complaining that the close was logically inconsistent. I am informing you that those are allowed, since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I agree that the NAC was bad, but I don't think this is a very good argument for that case. I'm focused on the number and quality of the !votes, which are the most important criteria here. --NYKevin @226, i.e. 04:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. That nomination is a bit if a mess and is one of the reasons I dislike bundled nominations. Anyway, I agree Eluchil's point that we shouldn't revert a correct NAC just because it was performed by a non-admin (NOTBUREAUCRACY and so on). Although I think there was consensus for the "Death-related art" categories (and, if possible, they should not be relisted), I do not think there was consensus for the others ("(X)-related songs", "Race-related works", "Cancer-related works", "Category:Drug-related works", "Category:Adoption-related works") where the only two commentators are the nominator and the opposer (Timeshifer), and both have reasonable arguments (i.e. neither !vote should be discounted by the closer). Jenks24 (talk) 05:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandstein (talk · contribs), who closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 22#Natalia Fowler, wrote:
Per WP:NACD, non-admin closures should be limited to uncontroversial cases and may be reopened by any administrator. The fact that a review of the decision has been requested indicates that the decision is controversial. I am therefore, in my individual capacity as an administrator, overturning the closure and relisting the discussion.
I agree with this approach in nearly all cases. However, in this case, the close was requested on Fayenatic london's talk page because no one wished to close the 25-day-old discussion. Whereas there are many admin closers experienced with closing AfDs, there are much fewer admin closers experienced with closing CfDs. I am therefore willing to give non-admins more lenience with the undesirable tasks that admins are reluctant to do, especially when the non-admins have demonstrated that they have carefully read and analyzed the arguments. Fayenatic's closing rationale is solid and an accurate interpretation of the consensus for the "Death-related art" categories.However, as Jenks24 (talk · contribs) noted above, the bundled nomination resulted in low participation in all of the CfDs, save for the "Death-related art" categories. Endorse the closure of the "Death-related art" categories. Relist "(X)-related songs", "Race-related works", "Cancer-related works", "Category:Drug-related works", "Category:Adoption-related works" owing to the insufficient participation. Cunard (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
