This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
List of ambassadors of Australia to Venezuela is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Venezuela, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Venezuela on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VenezuelaWikipedia:WikiProject VenezuelaTemplate:WikiProject VenezuelaVenezuela articles
Hello LibStar, Hut 8.5, RoySmith, Whiskeymouth, Davey2010, S Marshall, Hobit, Cryptic, Hobit, Stifle, Tavix, Lankiveil and Lemongirl942. On 25th June 16, I had closed this AfD as No Consensus. It was taken to DRV by LibStar citing "inappropriate non admin closure". Although, the DRV discussion itself was a close call in terms of opinion, the AfD was relisted on 3 July 2016 by Sandstein. Sandstein was very clear in what he said, no issues and his advice taken. I was accused of several things in the DRV and people refused to listen to any logical points; but I did try to explain. After relisting on 3 July 2016, the AfD was closed by Lankiveil as No Consensus within 24 hours??!!?? The reopened AfD (for whatever time it was open) attracted ZERO comments / participation. Even the people who complained so much on DRV (including the nominator) did not bother to give the AfD a look after it was opened up. I just want to ask all of you - What did we achieve by reopening the AfD? Is the final outcome exactly not what I had done initially? Why such ugly and hostile behavior towards senior editors, that too when the contributions are positive?? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lankiveil:, AKS.9955 has a fair point here. Why was this closed in less than 16 hours after a relist? The DRV concluded as a relist so it should have been left open for at least 7 more days. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:RELIST it is not necessary to wait another seven days before closing after a relist. In my view, as mentioned in my closing summary, another seven days would not have moved the discussion any closer to a consensus in any case, given the discussion that had already happened. Lankiveil(speak to me)05:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Lankiveil Since a decision was taken to relist, why not just let it be? If we spent so much time on a DRV and a decision was taken to relist, at least we can let it be open and see if there are any responses. There doesn't seem to be any harm letting it be open for a week. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lemongirl942, I am copying something from RELIST that you and others advocating for relist in this case may want to read. Quote "Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors". Unquote. I hope people will be more pragmatic in the future and not waste time by dragging obvious decisions to DRV and insulting and discouraging dedicated editors. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I don't see where is this "insulting" being done? We are all here to build an encyclopaedia and a larger participation always helps. I'm simply stating my position. I would be glad if you could supply diffs to prove your allegation that I have been "insulting". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about my own behaviour. You mentioned here "about mindless comments like you just made here and in the DRV discussions." So I want to know what are these "mindless comments". You also later saidI hope people will be more pragmatic in the future and not waste time by dragging obvious decisions to DRV and insulting and discouraging dedicated editors. Previously you saidWhy such ugly and hostile behavior towards senior editors. So I am asking for a clarification about the following
Were my comments "mindless"?
Were my comments "insulting"?
Were my comments "discouraging dedicated editors"?
Were my comments "ugly and hostile behavior towards senior editors"?
I'm asking for a clarification here. Please provide diffs and show me if I have been guilty of any of the above and I will change my behaviour. Otherwise it comes under casting WP:ASPERSIONS. I hope you will clarify. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lemongirl1942 and User:AKS.9955, my advice to both of you would be that these sorts of heated, pesronalised discussions are unlikely to convince the other party or lead anywhere productive. This might be one that it's better to just walk away from, at least for a couple of days until heads cool. Lankiveil(speak to me)06:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Lankiveil - Please reopen the discussion - I appreciate you may think it was a waste of time however consensus was to Relist so the AFD should still be up for the entire week, Don't make me drag us all back to DRV. –Davey2010Talk08:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, when there was a consensus to relist at DRV, early closing is not going to progress things. Please reopen and relist the debate. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stop flogging a dead horse. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not argue endlessly about procedural trivia. @AKS.9955:, I've been your biggest supporter, but now I'm having my own doubts. Part of being a productive member of this project (whether you carry a mop or not) is understanding that not every decision goes the way you would have liked. There's plenty of work to be done, just move on and do some of it. As for the re-opened AfD getting closed in less than a day, I read the DRV close, This controversial non-admin closure doesn't get consensus support here and is therefore relisted for somebody else to close as meaning that the problem was specifically the WP:NAC, not the debate itself. Thus, the relist was not to allow another week's debate, but to allow an admin to re-evaluate the discussion and provide their own close. That's not an uncommon outcome for WP:NAC-related debates at DRV. I don't agree with that, but such is life. Move on and do something else that's useful. -- RoySmith(talk)11:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=small}
