| Revision as of 05:26, 25 October 2023 editSpartaz (talk | contribs)Administrators52,776 edits OneClickArchiver archived 1 discussion to User talk:Spartaz/Archive26← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:26, 25 October 2023 edit undoSpartaz (talk | contribs)Administrators52,776 edits OneClickArchiver archived 1 discussion to User talk:Spartaz/Archive26Tag: ReplacedNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{-}} | {{-}} | ||
| == ] == | |||
| The discussion clearly has a consensus for keep. That people base their arguments on an essay rather than "official" policy is reflective of the fact that "official" policy is out of whack with what is best for Misplaced Pages. This is exactly why we have ]. Please undo this closure.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 09:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *Hi Spartaz! I second what Headbomb says. This journal is included in three of the most selective databases around (Scopus, Science Citation Index Expanded, Index Medicus). If this is not a "keep", then >95% of journal articles can be deleted, too. As for NJournals, sure, it's an essai and not a guideline, but it clearly describes why I think this is notable enough for inclusion. Please have another look, IMHO at worst this should have been a "no consensus". Thanks. --] (]) 13:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:What is the guiding policy you think I should apply? ] <sup>'']''</sup> 13:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *I didn't express a keep/delete opinion in that discussion, although I participated, but that close is a ] if I ever saw one. It has no basis in consensus of the discussants. Please reconsider your bad close. Your close rationale should be listed as a "delete" opinion instead, which would at least bring the discussion closer to no-consensus instead of consensus-keep. —] (]) 16:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:What policy compliant votes did I ignore. Please explain the supervote in a way that doesn't mean you disagree with the close. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::You are supposed to assess the consensus of the discussion, and close according to that consensus, rather than interjecting your own opinion on what the result should be and closing based on that opinion. Your close rationale obviously did not do that. All comments there were legitimate discussions of whether the sourcing was adequate for the article, most of them agreeing that it was, with only one dissenting delete opinion. That is clearly not a consensus that sourcing is inadequate. Even if you threw out all comments but the delete, for reasons, one delete comment is not enough to establish a consensus. As for your assumption that I am arguing with you here only because I disagree with the result: This is a gross violation of ], and is contradicted by my initial sentence, which I'll quote again for you as you seem to have missed it the first time: {{tq|I didn't express a keep/delete opinion in that discussion}}. —] (]) 21:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Since we're not making headways here, ]  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 23:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::For the record, ], I don't think "Please explain the supervote in a way that doesn't mean you disagree with the close." was intended as an assumption that you are arguing because you disagree with the result. My ] interpretation is that ] was asking you to identify specific policy-compliant votes that were ignored in determining consensus i.e. to provide more detail than was given in your initial comment. ] (]) 18:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I think this is unlikely. "Disagree with the close" can be interpreted either as meaning that I disagree with the evaluation of consensus, or that I am partisan in this and desire a different outcome. If it means the first, then Spartaz is asking for an oxymoron: an argument that the consensus was incorrectly evaluated without taking the position that the consensus was incorrectly evaluated. If it means the second, then it is a bad faith assumption that my comments here were dishonestly framed, omitting my real motivation. —] (]) 18:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I think your interpretation is very reasonable! But I ''do'' actually think Spartaz meant the first, which ended up being an oxymoron due to the very poor wording, but could have been trying to ask for something like ] the close. Either way, Spartaz should have apologized for causing confusion and offense, and you could have worded your interpretation in a way that assumed miscommunication rather than ill intent e.g. "I interpret your question as assuming that I am arguing with you here only because I disagree with the result, which I found confusing because as I previously stated I didn't express a keep/delete opinion in that discussion." ] (]) 21:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Accusing someone of a supervote is always an assumption of bad faith. Once that starts we are done. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::So you think most of the comments in the DRV are based in bad faith? An intriguing opinion but one that I do not share. —] (]) 21:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tpw|c}} I would suggest, as an alternative to reversing to a different outcome, that this discussion be relisted with a relisting note requesting a more specific basis in policy for keeping the article. ] ] 21:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Did anyone raise a matter of policy (sic) at any stage? ] (]) 10:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Apparently the policy is an essay that the community recently refused to make a guideline, meaning it has no standing to overrule an actual guideline (GNG) or an actual policy (N) orvone of the 5 pillars (V). ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The RFC wasn't about elevating it to a guideline, and guidelines are just that. Guidelines. They have plenty of exceptions, and here consensus is that GNG is inadequate for the topic, or alternatively that NJOURNALS is sufficient.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 02:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Kowasek deletion == | == Kowasek deletion == | ||
Revision as of 05:26, 25 October 2023
 Archives |
|
Archive 1 * Archive 2 * Archive 3 * Archive 4 * Archive 5 * Archive 6 * Archive 7 * Archive 8 * Archive 9 * Archive 10 * Archive 11 * Archive 12 * Archive 13 * Archive 14 * Archive 15 * Archive 16 * Archive 17 * Archive 18 * Archive 19 * Archive 20 * Archive 21 * Archive 22 * Archive 23 * Archive 24 * Archive 25 * Archive 26 * Archive 27 |
Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
I'm a long term user (first edit 2006) and have been an admin on or off since 2007. When we first started there was so much idealism and we really had no strong policies about inclusion except a desire to have some level of sourcing. As time moved on we became more structured and around the time I became an admin in 2007 we were grappling with the concept of collapsing non notable articles into lists which I was at the forefront of as a regular afd closer and constant presence at DRV. I had a lot of patience once and for that reason was regular DRV closer for a long time after GR Berry left the project. Sadly, my patience was degraded over time and getting involved in the PORNBIO wars pretty much washed out a lot of the good faith that policy and courtesy quite rightly requires us to show. This was again a major change in our approach to content and one of the first SNGs that was deprecated in favour of a more rigid approach to proper sourcing. Since then our content in this area has become much better and we are seeing similar struggles now in the sports arena where SNGs are slowly giving way to GNG level standards.
I have always taken a very legalistic approach to closing discussions that I recognise does not fit well to the current community standard, where low participation level allowing more brigading of votes or allowing more non-policy based arguments. For this reason I'm not really closing discussions but will still happily review old closes. Otherwise I mostly review and nominate unsuitable content as a BLP is a serious matter and needs to be properly sourced.
i am willing to userfy deleted articles for improvement as long as there is a reasonable likelihood that they can be saved. If you are challenging a deletion, do you have three good sources?
Useful Links:
- Please don't leave talkback templates as I always watchlist pages when I edit and I'm perfectly capable of looking for a reply myself.
Kowasek deletion
Can you please send the deleted page to user ksherin? Ty. Ksherin (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)