- Plowback retained earnings (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I believe the closing administrator interpreted the consensus incorrectly and I would like to request that his/her closure be reviewed.
The way I see it, there was a clear consensus to delete. The arguments in favor of deletion clearly outweighed the ones against it. The redirect was determined to be in violation of our policy on page names. It was recognized as a nonsensical misnomer that has never been used outside Wikipedia and that escapes WP:R3 on nothing but a technicality. It was also noted that the redirect's existence cannot be justified using any of the generally accepted reasons for keeping and maintaining redirects. These arguments were not addressed by those in favor of keeping the redirect; rather, they were simply disregarded in a manner akin to covering one's ears and pretending not to hear what is being said, which is largely consistent with what occurred during the redirect's previous two RfDs.
Another problematic thing about the closure, which in my opinion should warrant the discussion's relisting on its own, is that it was performed by an administrator who had also closed the previous discussion of that redirect.[1] This is not the first time this has happened; a similar problem occurred during Plowback retained earnings' previous RfD, which was also initially closed by an involved administrator, though a different one; the closure was taken to DRV and overturned, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 9. User:Deryck Chan clearly shouldn't have effectively repeated User:BDD's suboptimal action which was later on nullified by consensus.
Note: The matter was discussed with the closing administrator prior to the opening of this review, see User talk:Deryck Chan#Plowback retained earnings.
Note: There were two previous DRVs of two other discussions related to the Plowback retained earnings redirect; they're not directly relevant to the matter currently under discussion, but, should anyone wish to review them, they can be found here and here. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The closing administrator clearly failed to consider the strength of the arguments used during the discussion; it would seem s/he simply counted the number of "votes" on each side of the argument without considering the merits of the comments that followed them; such is in direct violation of what WP:CONSENSUS would have him/her do. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Comment: Here we go again. This is now the 3rd time this redirect has been nominated by the same nominator, and the 3rd that aforementioned nominator didn't like the close result (yes, didn't like; the fact that this is the 3rd DRV for this proves, to me, the lack of the nominator liking the result.) As stated above, the situation regarding the previous two nominations is why BDD basically had to avoid this one completely. In my very honest opinion, this DRV should be speedy closed as "speedy endorse" and the nominator/DRV creator should be WP:TROUT-ed for this disruption. (Also, the nominator seemed to recently take an almost-year long break from editing Wikipedia ... and what was essentially the first thing they did? Yes, nominated this redirect again. This editor seems to now have some sort of WP:SPA mentality with this redirect.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I must ask that you refrain from making any further personal attacks against me; instead, please try to focus on the matter currently under discussion. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I will give you, for the last time mind you, the benefit of the doubt, and patiently explain what is wrong with your comment. In your comment, which doesn't serve to further the discussion it's now a part of in the least, you are accusing me of 1) disrupting Wikipedia; 2) being a single-purpose account; 3) having nominated the closure for review impelled by my dislike of the outcome of the discussion. All of these accusations, a.k.a. personal attacks, are not only misplaced but also blatantly false. Seeking review of closures where we believe the consensus to have been assessed erroneously isn't disruptive; it's what WP:DRV is for. I'm clearly not an SPA, as demonstrated by my 4,185 edits to 3,359 unique pages, 84.3% of which were made to the mainspace.[2] It is true that I have recently resumed my Wikipedia editing after a long hiatus and that I'm not currently making any edits to the mainspace; that is due to the fact that I'm still catching up on all the MoS/policy changes that were made while I was away, and I don't appreciate your suggestion that I came back here just to cause mayhem and destruction, or however else you put it. Do not suggest that again. The reason why I nominated the closure for review has been laid out in my nomination statement; my dislike for the outcome is not that reason. If you wish to make any further comments, make sure they contain no further personal attacks; an apology, however, would be entirely appropriate. Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another red herring and a blatant misconstruing of my comments. This seems to be a pattern for this editor. I honestly have nothing else to say to the editor unless they choose to somehow misconstrue this comment as well. Steel1943 (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not exactly the apology I was hoping for, but I suppose it'll do. Speaking of "red herrings," do you actually have anything to say about the closure that we're here to discuss? This is, after all, a deletion review. Iaritmioawp (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Strong endorse Spoiler alert: Iaritmioawp always thinks there's "clear consensus to delete" this redirect. See Talk:Plowback retained earnings for links to all four (!) RfDs, and the two previous DRVs. Deryck's close was perfectly valid, because Iaritmioawp can type until their fingers fall off, but it won't change the fact that this is essentially harmless, if not necessary. The differing opinions registered in the discussion speak to that.
- I'm certain Iaritmioawp won't let this go until the redirect is deleted, so here's some unsolicited advice: if I were the one hell-bent on doing so, I'd continue nominating after several-month intervals, as Iaritmioawp has done, but I wouldn't DRV every time it didn't go my way (cf. WP:OTHERPARENT). Eventually, the body of editors at RfD would change and there could actually be consensus. In the meantime, every time the question gets raised, it looks more and more like WP:IDHT, and definitely the most bizarre case of that I've come across.
- This is also the second time this editor has ignored the very important provision of WP:INVOLVED that admins who act "purely in an administrative role" are not involved. A few editors overlooking this in a previous DRV doesn't invalidate that—or if it does, then the policy page needs updating.
- Being able to accept that things haven't gone your way and move on is an essential skill for any Wikipedian. I hope it's one Iaritmioawp picks up here after round 7. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @BDD: Well, I was about to add to my comment the hypothetical assumption that it seems that this editor keeps on renomimatimg this redirect in the hopes that the body of editors monitoring RFD will change so that the discussion can go in their favor, but you basically beat me to it. Steel1943 (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I guess I had that thought too (see below). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is generally construed very broadly by the community," which is why your WP:INVOLVED closure of the second discussion regarding the Plowback retained earnings redirect was overturned and which is why the closure currently under review should also be overturned. Iaritmioawp (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close (edit conflict × 4) - here is the history of discussions concerning this redirect:
- That's no consensus five times. As much as I dislike this redirect and have !voted multiple times for its deletion, it's clearly not happening. The nominator and other !delete voters (myself included) have apparently consistently failed to present a compelling argument supporting the redirect's deletion to the extent necessary to sway consensus, and there are no more arguments to give. Furthermore, the nominator has not offered any, they seem simply content to dragging this through as many venues as possible as many times as possible, apparently intent on forcing consensus by attrition (including issuing an ultimatum to the closing administrator). I believe it's time to drop this particular stick. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Four closures of effectively the same discussion; two closing administrators. If you believe there is nothing wrong with that picture, I guess I have no other choice but to respectfully disagree. Iaritmioawp (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed I do believe there's nothing wrong with that picture; I believe this makes me the fourth editor to have told you so, but you refuse to hear it. Admins who act in a purely administrative capacity in a discussion are not INVOLVED; the fact that you object to it after the fact does not make them involved either. This discussion has gone exactly the same way four times, and there has been absolutely nothing presented here to make anyone think that discussing it a fifth time would result in any other outcome. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I always love these ones where the nominator bluelinks "consensus" for us, just in case we might have somehow found our way here to deletion review without grasping the concept. This nomination has no chance of success whatsoever. Snow endorse and list at WP:DEEPER.—S Marshall T/C 19:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Overturn to delete. Disclaimer: I've never been involved in any of these discussions that I can remember, and for all that I don't think I even know any of the users involved. Contra Steel1943 (talk · contribs), there is nothing disruptive about renominating a redirect for deletion when the previous discussions failed to produce consensus. On average of once a year (give or take) seems a reasonable period, certainly not worth an accusation of disruption which simply poisons the discussion. That doesn't help Wikipedia. Now, main idea. I see no policy-based arguments raised for keeping the redirect. Editors in favor of deletion suggested, and were not rebutted, that the redirect is implausible and nonsensical. These are reasons to delete. Steel1943 acknowledged in the original debate that the redirect was "implausible", but he also said "but that doesn't meant that it's not useful." Forgive me, but the claim is precisely that--that it's not useful. If Steel1943 has explained elsewhere how it is useful then I can't find it, and no closing administrator should have to trawl through archives like that. The argument that the redirect is unambiguous is irrelevant. Any random concatenation of nouns would be. No one in this discussion has explained why this redirect is useful and should be kept, and many have explained why it is implausible and should be deleted. The closing administrator should have given the latter arguments greater weight and deleted the redirect. Mackensen (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
-
- The rationale for it to be deleted initially was because it was redundant in itself (such as calling a refridgerator a "refridgerating refridgerator"); I did not see that to be a valid reason for deletion, and I still don't. Steel1943 (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's certainly not a reason to keep it--it's useless--and with a preponderance of editors advancing the position to delete (with policies and arguments and other cool stuff) it the administrator should have accorded their views greater weight. WP:RFD#DELETE examples 5 and 8 conceivably apply. Just as important, I haven't seen arguments in favor of any of the points listed in WP:RFD#KEEP. It's comical, if Kafkaesque. We're binding ourselves up in knots to save a redirect no one can justify. Mackensen (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking deeper.... Ban Iaritmioawp (talk · contribs) from ever discussing this redirect again. If he is right, someone else will make a fresh argument, and it is more likely to lead to a consensus if the discussion is driven by someone with less baggage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
