Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington 2

message: === Statement by Doc glasgow ===
Looks like a case for an RfC at best. This is very premature.--Docg 16:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments about correct forum

message: Looks like a case for an RfC at best. This is very premature.--Docg 16:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Doc glasgow 

message: NHN acted properly according to the rules.  There is no reason for ArbCom to hear this unless ArbCom wants to change the process of AfD.    --Tbeatty 19:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved party Tbeatty 

message: It is really premature, guys. RfC would be the appropriate place for such an issue. I tend to agree w/ Doc glasgow, Guy and somehow Pascal. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 19:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved party FayssalF 

message: Recommend declension in favour of earlier forms of WP:DR. Have to be honest here and say that an RFAR is not likely to accomplish much now. Stifle (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved admin Stifle 

message: Admins are not infallible. If you think there has been a mistake, please take it to Deletion Review. IMHO, This process here does not help. --Asteriontalk 20:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved party Asterion 

message: RfC is down one level and the second door on the right. The other RfC was for a totally unrelated thing, so the "prior dispute resolution" standard is not met. Daniel.Bryant 22:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved Daniel.Bryant 

message: Should this be a separate section somewhere, or do the separate signed postings by (for example) myself and Golden Wattle, which include links to talk pages showing our requests to NHN on this specific issue of his treatment of consensus within AFD closures and his refusal to engage in constructive discussion with us, qualify without being reorganized? 
This is the first time I have put a RfC up, and I would like to insure that everything is put together correctly. Balancer 02:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is such a section in the usual template, so I've added a section for it:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (2nd RfC)#Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the disputeIt probaby would be worth sumarising the previous dispute resolution attempt. You should also sign the "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" section. WjBscribe 02:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, the RfA was not rejected, but withdrawn by yours truly in favor of this RfC before it could be rejected as premature - just in case that matters to anybody. Balancer 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirming that attempts have been made by multiple users to resolve this dispute with NHN 

message: ===Comment re:Radiant!===
This is not about any one DRV (or rather, I should say, any one AFD closure) in particular. A couple of the DRVs relating to this issue are still open, but many (see particularly Pascal.Tessen's examples, or those linked to in the prior RfC) are not, or have not been DRVed. This is a long-term ongoing issue; if anything, it is remarkably late rather than premature. As I have also already said, a number of NHN's deletions have involved appropriate decisions, if not for the correct reasons. Balancer 17:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments re: Statements

message: This is not about any one DRV (or rather, I should say, any one AFD closure) in particular. A couple of the DRVs relating to this issue are still open, but many (see particularly Pascal.Tessen's examples, or those linked to in the prior RfC) are not, or have not been DRVed. This is a long-term ongoing issue; if anything, it is remarkably late rather than premature. As I have also already said, a number of NHN's deletions have involved appropriate decisions, if not for the correct reasons. Balancer 17:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment re:Radiant!

message: I would actually have been surprised to see it go to DRV (or be hotly contested in DRV) had NHN closed as keep or no consensus. It's very rare for any close other than a delete to be appealed in DRV, and practically unheard of for a no consensus close to be disputed in DRV. May I speculate that you meant that another AFD would have come following a no consensus or keep result?
If the result would have been justifiably disputed whether it was closed as keep or delete, then that's the textbook description of no consensus. Balancer 01:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment re:NetOracle

message: I also noticed that he closed several as no consensus lately. Some of those recent closures can be called questionable, but he seems to be working to avoid getting his AFD closures DRVed right now. To paraphrase what was once said about Richard Nixon... I want to trust, but we do have to verify. The fact that he has not even come to comment on his own RfC leaves us with little reassurance. Balancer 01:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment re:Nearly Headless Nick providing more and better explanations

message: "This is a dispute about an administrator's actions re:deletion policy and AFD closures. Nearly Headless Nick has been closing AFDs without, and sometimes against, the rough consensus required by Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Decision policy, excepting those rare cases in which an article cannot meet WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:COPYRIGHT standards."The issue is not at all about if Nick's AfD closures are resulting in more overturned DRV's. His decisions could be entirely correct and well-reasoned. The issue is that he is not explaining this reasoning in the AfD, instead silently and summarily closing topics in clear violation of what I think most people would consider a rough consensus. He is, at the very least, being quite rude in his cursory handling of this issue: denying other editors' requests for his reasoning, responding with one-word answers that insult the intelligence of the asker, and generally calling anyone who doesn't agree with him an idiot (or a pack of numbskulls, if you prefer). That makes it damned hard to assume good faith! I'm confused why anyone thinks this is about the accuracy/turnover rate of his AfD-to-DRV's, as that is not stated anywhere in the opening of the RfC: rather, it states that he is giving an AfD verdict in violation of what is apparently the case, and not offering any reasoning for it. 
As a bit of perspective, please note that I agree with the deletion of several (perhaps all, I have not read the debates closely in all of them) of these articles... but I agree that pretty much all of them have been mishandled, as well.
On top of that, 6 articles is hardly enough for a statistical trend... but it IS enough to see a trend in personal habits. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 10:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment re:GRBerry

message: As I mentioned in The noob DRV, if we are to affirm in general the practice of closing to delete without a rough consensus to do so, it would therefore be contingent upon us at Wikipedia to remove the no-longer-respected clauses referring to consensus in Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and - given the central nature of deletion policy in the current Wikipedia - soon remove, one by one, all the various mentions of Wikipedia:Consensus as one of Wikipedia's pillars of operation, as it is apparent that it is no longer a core principle of operation and that this is the next step.
Frankly, I haven't the heart to perform those edits myself, even if it appears that a fair number on Wikipedia, including but apparently not limited to Nearly Headless Nick in recent closures (although hopefully not in his future closures), have already discarded the portions of policy referring to consensus, but I am obliged by conscience to point this out. Balancer 17:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A point on consensus and precedent 

message: The larger issue with Nick is that even when his decisions are correct, his reasoning or explanation is wrong or misleading. 
Balancer, et.al. are alleging that in this RfC. Several people have commented to that effect after the ban of Cindery. The quality of his reasoning (as opposed to the correctness of his results), and his incivility when challenged was a major part of the previous RfC. This discussion included his reasoning for banning another user, where Nick blocked, stating a really lame username offense, when the real issue was the user's trolling.
It's clear that Nick either does not have a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, or that he views the work of explaining his decisions properly to be beneath him. Either way, I cannot trust him as an administrator, and would be glad to see his admin privileges removed. Αργυριου (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The larger issue 

message: This RfC has gone stale, what's next? Timmccloud 01:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The RfC was not a second round DRV.  Even though the user has not commented here, I see no reason to believe that he has not heard the criticism of his behaviousr and taken it on board.  I disagree that it was a waste of time.  NHN in fact was here, just didn't comment - review the history and you will find his name .--Golden Wattle  talk 09:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing more I'd like to see is some assurance from NHN to that effect. As has been pointed out, NHN seems to have taken the criticism into account during the RfC process, and I think that we have at least discussed all the specifically NHN-related material in this. Balancer 14:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So now what?