Login
Login

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Wikipediocracy

Remove improper <s>non-admin</s> revert of closure

I have removed the non-admin revert of the closure here, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipediocracy&oldid=556869695 diff], with the edit comment, "remove improper non-admin revert as this is something left to administrators, further if an admin reopens this discussion, this is the one that gets reopened, not the procedurally closed #2".  There was no new closure, it said, "The result was...Inappropriate NAC per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_May_24 Spartaz Humbug! 14:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)".  Additionally, the talk page at the article had not been updated, it still said that the closure was "keep".  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

:*To answer your question, no, Spartaz doesn't identify his user page with the administrator icon, and my last contact with him he was doing DRV closes without being an administator.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm refactoring a comment from my talk page here:

{{cquote|But you still owe me an explanation of why you reverted my admin action.Its slightly disingenuous to say discussion is ongoing on the talk page when you are not engaging there and the requested explanation is still outstanding. Spartaz Humbug! 02:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)}}

:Unscintillating (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Why won't you explain yourself? Spartaz Humbug! 01:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

:*I posted this discussion at 15:52, which was before you reverted me.  Your revert at 15:54 fails to acknowledge my edit comment, as if the post was done in haste.  You then later posted on my page as if you were still unaware of either my edit comment or the post on this page.  I directed your attention to this talk page, and you posted on my talk page again.  Now that we are here, you still seem to be unaware of either my edit comment or the post on this page.  I don't think that objective observers would agree that I have not explained myself.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Spartaz, you still haven't explained why you didn't reclose the AfD discussion here, and why you left the talk page result for this AfD discussion as keep, and it has been more than 24 hours.  The distillation of your revert of the NAC is that you overturned a keep result to a keep result.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

  • You often really don't make any sense and this is one of those times. Firstly, your edit summary referred to "remove inapppropriate non-admin revert" but I am an admin and you reverted an adminstrative action as I referred to the DRV close in my edit summary. I voided the AFD close and referred users to AFD2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipediocracy&oldid=556869695 This is the state I left it in] as that was the way that I closed the DRV. Clear enough? After your revert, you restored a non-admin close that I had voided[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipediocracy&direction=next&oldid=556869695] as an adminstrative action and proceeded to lecture me about how I should or should not order the closed discussions - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FWikipediocracy&diff=556879840&oldid=556869695 remove improper non-admin revert as this is something left to administrators, further if an admin reopens this discussion, this is the one that gets reopened, not the procedurally closed #2].

:*As a non-admin you don't get to fetter the options o an admin closing a discussion

:*You reverted me as a non-admin when I am an admin&

:*You reverted an adminstrative action that was linked to the relevant DRV in my edit summary

:Your explanation doesn't address any of that. That is why I am querying your actions. Perhaps your response could be to address the points I raised and not referring me to an edit summary that makes no sense. Thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 13:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

:*Spartaz, Instead of what you said in your first seven words, you could have said, "From my viewpoint, you often don't make sense."  That might have opened a door to us finding out what your problem is with understanding me.  Instead you represent that my alleged lack of sense-making is a matter of objective fact.  In the world of wikispeak, characterizing the contributor and not the contributions is a WP:NPA.  So before you ask your questions, you've set without evidence your own expectations, and maybe those of others, that what I say will not make sense.  Does that make sense?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

:*You say that you "voided" the discussion here, but (1) Scottywong's deletion tool says that the result is "keep", (2) the talk page of Talk:Wikipediocracy says that the result is keep, (3) the word "void" does not appear on the Project Page here, (4) the word "void" does not appear in the edit commentand (5) the word "void" does not appear in the DRV closing.  Is there any evidence or policy basis for this statement?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

:*My role here has been to revert a bad edit (stated as objective fact but technically it is an opinion) by what I believed to be a non-admin.  You now claim you are an admin, but you don't post the administrator icon on your user page, so it seems that you don't want people to know that you are an admin.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

:*Analysis shows that you have not acted here as an admin, but as an individual.  The DRV closing does not overturn, endorse, void, or anything else this AfD.  The WP:NACD guideline states, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator."  But you haven't reopened this discussion, so you have not acted here in regard to the NAC.  Let's take a look at WP:SNOW, "The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions from the start."  Looking at the !votes you've entertained by the relist at AfD2, when I counted yesterday you'd garnered 12 keep !votes, 2 procedural keep (one being mine), and 1 delete !vote.  Since then we've added a !vote for "kelp", which is a signal that AfD2 has gone beyond a WP:SNOW stage.  So independent of the NAC, the snow close is being validated.  The fact that an NAC made it ergo has no bearing on the matter.  Regarding the NAC issue at the DRV, only one editor supported you on that point, yourself...you say, "The point that everyone seems to have missed is that the original SNOW close was an NAC..."  There is no technical purpose to overturning this AfD, which falls within WP:BURO.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

:*I've told you many times that I respect you.  IMO you could do so much for this project.  But your DRV closing exhibits WP:OWN, including, "this is for sure how I would have been closing this DRV in however many days hence of pointless argument".  I noted at AfD2 that given your opinion about the NAC, you should have entered a !vote, and let someone else do the closing...so your decision to both bring evidence and be the judge is WP:OWN point number two.  I also noted at AfD2 that you cited the WP:NAC essay instead of the WP:NACD guideline, where the most likely explanation is that you are not familiar with the literature.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

:*Regarding the importance you attach to the word "sourcing" in the DRV closing, you've yet to answer the question I posed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes.  And if you care about sourcing, where is your defense of our WP:V core policy, such as is being discussed at WP:V#Should closers of AfD discussions use the incubator for articles that pass WP:N but fail WP:V??  Unscintillating (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice of 2nd AfD

AfDs for this article:
    {{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipediocracy}}




Unscintillating (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)