Template:Maintained (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe there are two procedural reasons why this should not have been closed as a delete:

1. I cannot see much difference between this and the previous three TfDs, especially the other two (from 2007 and 2008) that were closed as no consensus. Pretty much the same arguments were made on both sides, in both previous TFDs, with about the same level of participation and the same spirited debate. What made the 2015 iteration different? If anyone endorses the close, I would be very interested in reading an explanation of just what, exactly, distinguishes this from the last two. And based on the remarks on the closing admin's page, I'm not alone in this confusion.
2. The original nominator this time said in before making his nomination that he'd be open to either deleting the template or rewriting it. I really think this sort of nomination should almost always be speedy closed as no consensus—if the nominator can't make up his or her mind, how should anyone expect the community to? We have enough of a problem with people listing articles at AfD who really want to force improvements to them. A deletion nomination should be an unambiguous statement that whatever is being nominated does not belong on Wikipedia ever again, not in any form.

   And here, as in the previous TfDs, editors on both sides indicated they'd be open to working toward rewriting the template. One, ATinySliver, even put possible rewrites on the page, which led one !voter to suggest that the TfD be immediately relisted with that goal in mind. That's farther than either of the other two went, yet this was closed as delete.

Overturn to no consensus or Overturn and relist Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus - it's a straight Monty-Python argument "This has ownership issues" vs "no it doesn't" with no real evidence either way. Given that delete is a really pro-clique, abandon new editors in the wilderness position, more than a good headcount but no argument is necessary. WilyD 10:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - DRV is neither XfD round 2, nor is it for simplistic "I disagree with the result" stances. Unless actual administrator error or transgression is identified, a result should be allowed to stand. ("I have a different opinion about the strength of the delete votes" doesn't cut it) Tarc (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- I think consensus to delete was pretty clearly established at this discussion. DRV is not for "I think people should not have voted delete" arguments. Reyk _YO! 11:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that. I limited my argument to procedural questions. Obviously I have complaints about the substantive nature of the TFD, but I can't raise them here. I really don't think "endorse because the person who started this DRV is upset that he was on the losing side" is an argument that should be taken seriously by whoever closes this, or any DRV. Daniel Case (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus - per WilyD. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:09, 10 April 2015)

• Endorse Admins have to make tough decisions sometimes, but I think he evaluated it well here. The theme of the discussion truly was, that in its current form, the template was an issue and could be misused. As was said in the closing, there is no objection to proposing new versions of the template at a village pump and gaining consensus there. Also agree with Reyk and Tarc's comments. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 14:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So ... this is the logic of how we close XfDs nowadays.

• A lot of people make votes one way or the other based on a primarily emotional misreading of policy or some other specious logic, and refuse to provide factual evidence for the bad feeling they have about this, or, when the failings of their arguments are pointed out to them decide defiantly that no evidence is needed.
• There are some real issues that could be addressed without resorting to deletion.
• The XfD is closed as delete because there were so many of these !votes, with the consolation prize that we're all free to reinvent the wheel that was easily reparable without smashing it all to pieces.

I know this is often how it's done in software development, and the German Wikipedia

By the way, EoRdE6, you just implied again by using "in its current form" (a misnomer now, since the template has been deleted and has no current form) that the issues could have been remedied without recourse to deletion. Can you at least concede the issue that your nomination was half-hearted? It looks like you and I (at least) are going to have drop whatever else we're doing for a while and spend at least next week working night and day to create a new template that will replace this (and all the other similar templates you've been hunting down and nominating for deletion), so we might as well start getting along. Daniel Case (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I didn't actually "!vote" in the last one, but I'd like to make a comment. I found the constant badgering of those who supported deletion in the original discussion to be less than desirable. Now to see another editor categorizing people as "pro-clique" who "abandon new editors in the wilderness position", well that just brings a "sigh" to my lips. That these things are done by administrators is very sad IMO. Don't get me wrong - I'm not "anti-admin", in fact some of my best friends are admins. Still, there seems to be a lot of "WP:I don't like it" going on here. (I could blue-link that - but that might be a bit of a dick move.) — Ched :  ?  14:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I also support the views of User:B and Cunard below regarding a discussion of some sort of replacement. — Ched :  ?  22:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse. No valid rationale for overturning given. re (1) It is not the job of the closer to evaluate previous discussions to see how much has changed, but to evaluate each discussion on its merits. Even if the discussion is broadly similar things change: consensus changes, things get older and so more out of date, other things are developed that partly or fully replace the item up for deletion. re (2) It was not speedy closed. That editors continued to discuss it in good faith on both sides of the debate shows people were happy with the parameters of the discussion. You cannot now undo all that, and say the discussion should not have happened, because you don't like the result.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not arguing that the previous discussions should have been considered substantively (although, yes, I did allude to that). I am arguing that they were no different from this one save for how consensus was judged.

    If this was closed as delete, why weren't the earlier noms closed as delete, then? Consensus can change, to be sure, but we cannot change consensus, or at least the way we read it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • 'why weren't the earlier noms closed as delete, then?' Is an irrelevant question, editors and closers need not consider the previous discussion. But to answer anyway, of the things I listed the one I think most relevant is the middle one; that things get older/out of date. One major concern raised was that many instances of the template were outdated, listing editors who not edited the article, or edited at all, in a long time, and even blocked/vanished editors. And there was no way to find these. This may not have been as apparent or as much an issue years ago.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, as I said, just delete the template from the pages in question. Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • And find them how? You would need to check every single instance, look at the editors listed and see which were still active. And then if they were if they were still active on that page. How? Check the page and talk page history, maybe. Or you could just ask the editors and wait for their reply. That’s a lot of work just for one instance of the template, an implausible amount for all instances of it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" You would need to check every single instance, look at the editors listed and see which were still active" Yup. Good old fashioned elbow grease. It's how Wikipedia got built, by people doing exactly that sort of thing, before there were bots or AWB or Twinkle or Huggle or Sparkle or whatever they have now. Once you do it it's done and you don't have to keep an eye on it.

"How? Check the page and talk page history, maybe" Again, yup. If someone's been inactive for months, or years, just go ahead and remove it. And if someone's been [banned or blocked, you have no excuse for waiting. "Or you could just ask the editors and wait for their reply" Uh, I don't think you'd have to if my suggestions above were to have been followed. If editors are still active, they can go restore it themselves.

Yes, we're lazy bastards, but that should not be an excuse for staying on the couch when we need to roll up our sleeves. It's like selling the backyard instead of cleaning it up. Daniel Case (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And some (such as me) considered this when !voting and decided the best solution was just to delete it. You may have disagreed then, you may disagree now, but DRV is not the place to rerun the debates of the original discussion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have been happy to keep the discussion within the scope of my original discussion; for you to turn the discussion that way and then accuse me of trying for a redo here, when I tried to signal that I was very aware this wasn't the place for that, is dismaying. Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You asked "why weren't the earlier noms closed as delete, then?", and I answered, but noting it was an irrelevant question, and it still is. I am not accusing you of anything, but the TfD was the place to discuss these matters, not here. I only raised them as you asked a direct question.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• point of order. The second reason for overturn offered is The original nominator this time said in his nomination that he'd be open to either deleting the template or rewriting it. This doesn't seem to accurately describe the nomination. Kanguole 15:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I was going to mention that. My nomination said nothing about rewrites, this is really just grasping at straws. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, you didn't say it in your nomination, but you did say as much shortly before. I see no effort on your part to seek out people who might have been willing to collaborate with you on a rewrite before you went running off to make your nomination. Please stop trying to have it both ways. Daniel Case (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you'll be striking that paragraph from your opening statement? Kanguole 17:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have appropriately amended it, yes. Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you not embarassed to be arguing that the nomination (which you now concede was unequivocal) should have been speedy closed because of something the nominator had said elsewhere, and that this is somehow a flaw in the final close? Kanguole 08:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EoRdE6 said later in the discussion that he'd be amenable to a reword. He was always of two minds about this; I do not take his nomination statement in isolation. Daniel Case (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any such comment in the discussion. If you are referring to this remark made elsewhere 7 hours after the TfD was closed, we certainly can't fault the closing admin for failing to take it into account. Kanguole 17:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And as for EoRdE6, would he have said this if he wasn't ambivalent? (Compare Coretheapple's militance, noted by ATinySliver further down in this discussion). Daniel Case (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh ... Daniel ... however much my facial hair may still be singed from that wonderful little experience, I refrained from any namedropping. In addition, that statement reads as if you're saying, "Yes, I'm militant, but I'm not that militant." —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 08:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. There was nothing wrong with the close, and the nomination doesn't present anything that would be a reason to overturn it. The fact that previous discussions from seven and eight years ago resulted in no consensus is irrelevant as consenus can change. As to the calls for evidence repeatedly made during the discussion, evidence was provided several times and completely ignored by the two users leading the charge for evidence. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're going to call me out, at least have the decency (or in your case courage?) to do so by name. I cannot and do not speak for Winklevi on this one, but I will say first that this came after several other editors, including myself, had produced evidence that the template had worked as designed in order to facilitate contact with non-editing readers. As for the evidence you introduced that "proves" the template was used to assert ownership, in those cases the users had engaged in other misconduct that unambiguously constituted ownership in conjunction with placing the template.

The argument you were advancing (or, more accurately, taking long running starts, tucking and giving shoulder blows to in an attempt to advance) was that the template inherently constituted ownership. The implicit counterargument, which you never bothered to address or account for as far as I can tell, is abusum non tollit usum. Daniel Case (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cry me a river. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your biting, rude comments only reflect on you, no one else. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I'm the problem here, not the person who has taken upon himself to reply ad nauseam to everyone he disagrees with both here and the initial request? That's precious. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. If we look at numbers alone, the count was approximately 44 to delete against 24 to keep (and at least three of the keep !votes were conditional). There would have to be some extremely strong arguments on the keep side to sway that strong of a numerical consensus, and we don't have that here. Both sides were basically saying "this is (not) ownership" without much evidence. In the face of that, let the numbers speak. Tavix |  Talk  18:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said I didn't want to replay the debate here, but I do think we keep !voters offered more evidence. I certainly offered one that even some of the delete !voters admitted made the point. Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No one asked you to replay the debate. I gave my opinion that there would have to be extremely strong keep arguments to sway that strong of a numerical consensus. Sure there were "strong" keep arguments, but not enough to "negate" 20 delete !votes in my opinion. Tavix |  Talk  22:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I meant that I tried scrupulously to start this discussion purely about the close, as we are instructed to do so, assuming in good faith that everyone who chose to weigh in, even those who were part of the original debate, would stick to arguing pro or con on those grounds and leave the substantive issues of the debate closed. I can see now that I was mistaken to assume that would happen (although I give you credit for at least finally addressing the closing itself in your reply). Daniel Case (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, but with leave to discuss elsewhere - there seems to be a consensus to delete and a policy-based reason to delete, so that's fine and the decision is correct. But there seemed to be some discussion of possible alternate proposals at the end that might make sense to discuss. There are three important concerns: (1) heavily monitored/edited articles don't need anything like this template because questions on the talk page will be answered quickly by a large number of watchers. (2) It's a really good idea for someone who needs help with editing something to be able to find someone to help and leaving a message on a talk page that is not well-monitored isn't going to necessarily get them an answer. So having a list of users that have said "yes, I know about XYZ" is a good thing. (3) We don't want to imply topic ownership and we don't want to list users who are long-gone from the project. So I think it could be a worthwhile endeavor to discuss those three concerns somewhere, but as far as the deletion discussion, the correct close was made. --B (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation of a modified Template:Maintained after further discussion per the closing admin's closing statement:

  Even some supporting keeping felt the template's language needed editing at the very least. So with that in mind, while the result for this template is Delete, there is no prejudice against starting a discussion somewhere concerning what such language in a new template might be. (At one of the Village Pumps, perhaps?).

  This seems like the best path forward.

  Cunard (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I see good policy-based arguments in each direction; I do not see consensus. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Dave. Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, per above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I'd have closed it as "hold an RfC and see if we can find alternate wording" but honestly it's not clear that such wording exists as many of the delete !voters are really worried about WP:OWN. The problem with deletion is that it make that status-quo "we don't have such a template" making an RfC now have a considerably higher bar. All that said, I think the close is within discretion, so weak endorse. It's not what I'd have done, but it's a reasonable read of the discussion and !vote count. I do agree the delete folks generally had a pretty weak argument ("things could go badly" about an old and well-used template) which is why I'd try to reach a different outcome. But the numbers are very strong and frankly I think they have a reasonable worry (though one I don't much share). Hobit (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the initial argument here was that there were two procedural errors. The first of these is not a procedural problem as accepted elsewhere in the discussion, there is no procedure which says people have to follow some previous precedent or that the closer has to look it up. The second is that the nominator had previously mused on a different solution, again there is no process or procedure which says that is any sort of bar to listing something for discussion. With these sort of templates which are about the way we manage the encyclopedia building process there is no overriding policy of policies, it is going to very much be down to the opinions of the community currently doing the encyclopedia building, the volume of opinion is significant. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse for no reason other than the existence of this template is so offensive to some that it would only continue to come up for deletion—one editor was so desperate to get my alternate proposal out of his way that it was immediately recommended for hatting. (Which brings up the alternative: perhaps the currently unused ((volunteer)) could be rewritten for this purpose?) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As correct as you may be (and it is very sad that we have editors who actually are offended by this template), I don't think "keep it deleted so it doesn't come up for deletion again" is a valid argument in DRV. I posed two procedural issues; only a few of the "endorse" !voters here have addressed them, and while I disagree with them I do so with respect since they did, in fact, address my arguments directly.

I do like the way you worded the volunteer template, and maybe we should just go with that as is (although I have some other ideas that I would like to consider should this deletion be sustained). Oh, BTW, surely you mean the one in your userspace rather than the one in template space? (I can't figure out what's going on in the latter) Daniel Case (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Daniel. Valid or otherwise, that's still my argument. And you are correct in re supplanting the one in template space (which seems to serve no purpose) with the one in my user space. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have nominated the template space one (Template:Volunteer) for deletion since it's unused and just a bunch of gibberish. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect; a proposed replacement template—a few of us have suggested alternate phrasing—could now supplant this, should the move be agreeable. Meantime, someone (no, I'm not looking it up [grin]) complained that a new template would have to be rewritten from scratch, which is inaccurate; any admin could easily retrieve the existing code from which the replacement would be built. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 08:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've decided to be bold and create ((volunteer)) per the discussions. If memory serves, ((maintained)) had additional options that I did not copy over; again, should they be needed, I presume an admin can be asked to retrieve the code. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @ATinySliver: I have started a discussion at the village pump as you seem to have forgotten that the closing admin specifically stated Considering the contention in this discussion, it would probably be seen as disruptive to create such a new template by merely being bold. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saw it and replied, thank you for the reminder. I'll edit my reply there presently. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, as stated above, DRV is not TFD part two. Reading the discussion, there is definitely consensus to delete the template, and clear direction of the next step for further discussion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Can we at least ask that people in DRV not use this in their arguments? I would invoke AGF but if you really think about it that's beside the point. By definition people who start deletion reviews are not going to be happy with the outcome of the deletion process in question and want it reversed. As long as they make genuinely procedural arguments and do not try to refight the XfD, participants in DRVs should address those arguments alone and not sneer that the editor who started the DRV is just trying to get a second bite at the apple. Daniel Case (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  You can ask but you might not get acceptance. An essay does not prohibit the use of an argument which is that deletion review is a place to call attention to errors in process, not a place to express disagreement with the XFD outcome. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I was very clear in my opening statement that I wanted discussion to be limited to possible procedural errors. A few people understood that and wrote endorse !votes which addressed it and which I haven't responded to. Others assumed that I was trying to reopen the entire argument. That's a valid endorse argument if the opening statement was basically a rehash of the non-prevailing arguments; you can scroll through here and find a few of those almost all the time. But when someone has taken pains to follow DRV procedure in making their nomination it's not very good form, I think, to reduce their argument to something they were very clearly trying not to make. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The question of whether the consensus was gauged correctly is what's material to DRV; we can comment on that irrespective of Daniel's supposed motive. Having skimmed through the discussion, I do not believe that there is a consensus here in any meaningful sense of the word. Do not regard this as a !vote to overturn the closure. Alakzi (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - there is nothing new here that wasn't argued, repeatedly, to the point of accusations of WP:BLUDGEON, in the TFD. People contributed to a discussion where there was almost a guarantee they'd have their contribution questioned aggressively (and not particularly politely). That so many still went ahead and supported deletion is, I think, an even stronger endorsement of this result. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read that as "people continued to parrot the same unsupported argument, and instead of providing supprting information when they were asked to, refused to answer or even acknowledge the request, complained about the fact that they were being asked to do so as if they were somehow exempt from the requirement, and in some cases modified their argument to say no evidence was necessary and the fact that they could come up with the argument was enough to justify deletion". But anyway ... as noted above it is insulting and impolite to assume that I started this purely to reopen the substantive issues of the TfD. I realize you're trying to make an argument that the TfD was closed correctly, but you have done so using an invalid criterion (And as anyone reading the TfD can easily discern with their own eyes, this aggressive questioning of opposing !votes was started by none other than Andy Mabbett, a strong delete supporter.) Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I disagree with Stalwart111 and suspect the opposite is the case. Daniel Case, I don't think you've been an effective advocate here; one person showing up to argue at length about something facing deletion over WP:OWN issues is likely to make the other "side" dig their heels in further. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, I don't think they were interested in undigging their heels, to be honest. I understand that people didn't like that I asked them to elaborate further on what empirically supported their belief that the template was inherently a violation of WP:OWN, independent of any additional editorial actions. But the right to vote on something, especially something that can have a consequence in terms of action taken, carries with it the possibility of being queried about the reasons for that vote.

What other options did I have? I could have posted my own vote, perhaps a few responses here and there, and left it at that, hoping a closing admin would see the flaws in the delete arguments that you and I so clearly did (among others). I am not sure that was going to happen. Or perhaps I could have posted a very lengthy wall o' text not only stating my vote but addressing the failings of individual voters' arguments, with liberal use of ((ping)) and ((replyto)) throughout. I think that other people would have been complaining that that, too, was disruptive. And I think they would have been right, because that would have made the TfD even harder to review than this one was.

Responding as I did was not meant to persuade people at first—it was to get people to show their hands to better assist the closing admin in evaluating the soundness of their opinions. Sometimes, people do see how insubstantial their arguments have been, and change their position. I do not think this happened here, but I note your argument for overturning below and you would have had far less evidence to argue that point from if I had not pressed people for it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly what I pointed out at TFD - there were a number of comments there (and not just from me) about Daniel's conduct and his need to press every person who disagreed with him. That continued to the point of becoming the subject of humourous derision. Daniel, it's "insulting and impolite to assume" that people who contribute to the discussions you start do so without reading previous arguments, conducting their own research or analysing what they see as the "facts" of a case before contributing. You comment in response to my contribution (and that of others around that point when you were clearly frustrated that nobody was being convinced by your argument) was particularly rude. That others did the same to the far smaller group of editors who arrived to support your view is irrelevant; they should come in for the same criticism, but only one person has continued that conduct here. Oh, and the conduct of those participating in a discussion is absolutely a "valid" criteria given the closer has to wade through that poor conduct to make a determination. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either people read things they comment on or they don't. If what they say contradicts or is contradicted by something in the record, I don't think it's intrinsically impolite to point that out (one can, of course, always do so impolitely, which is a different question).

"the closer has to wade through that poor conduct to make a determination" The same could be said of any spirited discussion here—there is always a lot of text to wade through, much of it in reply and counterreply, rebuttal and surrebutal, among dozens of editors. I think closing admins know this, and they'd tell you it just comes with the territory. Unless misconduct directly interferes with the ability to properly close—such as changing other editors !votes after things have died down but before the close, which has happened in some cases—I do not think it should be considered in DRV as there are other forums for that. It was, after all, relatively easy for myself and the other editors to come up with rough !vote tallies that more or less agreed with each other, even considering my math error. Daniel Case (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then you were impolite both ways. I'm not talking about "spirited discussion", I'm talking about a total lack of respect from particular editors who feel it is their duty to bludgeon the process to produce an outcome they favour. It wasn't there and it isn't here. Your commentary there was not "rebuttal" and in a few cases came close to just plain old personal attacks, as it has here. You've managed to do yourself a great disservice in two discussions now and I'm done. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn on the grounds of Chesterton's fence. The majority of the delete arguments, including the nomination, demonstrated little understanding of or interest in the way the template was actually used in practice, so considering the number of such arguments as indicating consensus is weak evidence. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Opabinia, for that link. A nice little essay. We need a shortcut for it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse both the close and Tavix's assessment of why it should be endorsed. And I should say that I don't really see anything wrong with the template and would have !voted keep. (As an irrelevant aside, it is time that, as a community, we gave serious thought to supporting our most valued editors by affording them latitude to rule over their articles.) --Mkativerata (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Consensus was arrived at adequately, and assessed appropriately. Deletion review only addresses procedural errors and is not a rehearing. I would counsel User:Daniel Case to avoid WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to respond to this accusation of bludgeoning as this seems to wind down: My conduct did not reach the level described on that page, which was (it seems) meant for people who respond to each and every opposing !vote, which I didn't do (as I've documented elsewhere on this page). I would counsel in turn that the delete !voters who have chosen to comment here consider how this might have gone if all delete !voters had framed their votes the way Barek did, rather than using phrases like "Delete this OWN bait."

  Further, I reject any suggestion that my vigorous defense of the template constituted ownership. I notice that WP:OWNBEHAVIOR does not include "arguing stridently against deletion" among its examples of ownership behavior. Now, I realize that's not intended to be an exhaustive list. But I think also that it was excluded for a very good reason. To suggest that I was "owning" the template is the sort of self-serving argument I was accused of making.

  I would refer the delete !voters who ganged up on me this way (or tried to, at least) to WP:ALLARGUMENTS for reading next time they feel compelled to accuse someone of ownership or bludgeoning.

  Because to continue to throw those two around so blithely is essentially to chill debate. I know most people realize that. But when we seem to have quite a contingent here that complains about XfDs where participants "had their contributions questioned" (excuse me, it's a deletion discussion, those are !votes, not "contributions", and you better be ready for someone to question them), we may not have to worry about deletion review much anymore someday because we won't have two-sided deletion discussions. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  You're doing it again. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, more or less per User:86.2.216.5's comment. I just wanted to add that, while I'm sure that Daniel Case didn't mean it as such, the constant badgering could come across as an attempt to intimidate good faith participants in the discussion. Sometimes, it's best to just state your case, and let the closing administrators sort out the good arguments from the bad ones. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse. Nothing even the slightest bit inappropriate about the way this was decided. But there is more than a little bit inappropriate about the way Daniel Case has turned this into a crusade. First a constant hectoring of "delete" !votes, and now this? Time for him to drop the WP:STICK as the carcass is rotting by now. Coretheapple (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close, in agreement with the arguments above. This time there was a consensus to delete (muddied by the badgering of opposers, primarily by Daniel Case), perhaps due to increased sensitivity to the chilling effects of article ownership. Miniapolis 13:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. Closer's summary of debate was reasoned and proper. Nothing suggested so far gives reason to suspect otherwise. No merit to re-open. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the numbers

I admit that's a clear majority for deletion, about 59%, but I just add that I've seen other XfDs closed as no consensus with what seemed to be wider margins for delete. Daniel Case (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentence of this seems to be a straw man, as far as I can see no one has said, make it a straight vote count. On your other point regarding wider margins elsewhere, that'll be because it's not a vote, so they can't be directly compared in that way. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC

See Tavix's !vote above: "If we look at numbers alone, the count was approximately 44 to delete against 24 to keep ... In the face of that, let the numbers speak". Please. I expect this sort of rushed, didn't-bother-to-read-it exegesis from a mouthbreather on some comments section elsewhere on the Internet; I do not expect it from a fellow Wikipedian. Daniel Case (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your extreme hostility towards anyone disagreeing with you is not doing you any favours. Reyk _YO! 15:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is disgreement to be interpreted as hostility? Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing people of lacking "decency" and "courage" is hostile. So is misrepresenting people with partial quotations, then accusing them of not reading the argument. So is relentlessly badgering everyone who disagrees with you; you've made 23 edits to this DRV and 55 to the original TfD, mostly repetitious replies disgreeing with people. That is way too much by any objective standard. Reyk _YO! 06:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While Tavix did claim I was "twisting his words", he nevertheless offered a clarification, which I expressed my appreciation for, suggesting he retrospectively realized that he had not worded his !vote carefully enough afterwards.

So we have a quota now on how many edits a given editor can make to a discussion? Somebody please link me to that policy page. I edited that TfD 55 times, you say and I do not deny, but Coretheapple made even more edits (about 65 by my count), many of them more provocatively phrased than mine, many showing a serious failure to AGF, yet no one here is saying anything about him (Perhaps because he had the good sense not to show up; I get the feeling even the delete !voters here from that TfD do not miss him).

As for repetitious replies to people in that TfD, I have looked it over again. I made the first reply to about 20 of the 42 delete !votes ... less than half of the total of either delete !voters or my total edits to that TfD. As it became apparent to me that there was a genuine opposition to the TfD, I let other editors speak for themselves and backed away from the TfD, just stopping by to keep an eye on it, and returned to what we all like to do best around here: create and improve quality encyclopedic content.

I did not, contrary to what some delete !voters have claimed, respond with a request for evidence to every single delete !voter in the early going, when I was the only one significantly in favor of keep. I only asked those editors who said "promotes ownership" for such evidence. With other editors who raised other issues I directly addressed those issues: Andy Mabbett brought up the presence of the template on so many pages where the editor named was no longer involved in the project, I responded (as I have above) that deletion of the template was not the way to solve that problem. To Kanguole, who said it was sufficient for people to put articles on their watchlist, I pointed out from experience that many editors have allowed their watchlists to grow into the thousands, making it very possible that a query posted to an article talk page will get lost in the shuffle. And I made no response whatsoever to Barek's delete !vote because I found it to be thoughtful and considered.

So I think there's a bit more perception there than reality. Daniel Case (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of WP:NOTAVOTE. I'm making a point that there were so many more people advocating for delete than keep that you can use that to help support the closer's rationale. This has nothing to do with "just count up the numbers." That shouldn't be the only thing an admin should do. By saying that, you're twisting my words around to make your point. If the numbers were closer, or one side had much stronger arguments than the other, you wouldn't be able to make this point. 63%, (or by my count 65%) is fairly significant, especially when you consider that three of the keeps were conditional. The next step should be finding a solution that works for everyone, not rehashing the TFD. Tavix |  Talk  15:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a needed clarification (as I noted below). Of course an admin shouldn't just count up the numbers. I am not rehashing the TfD, at least not as much as some the !voters here want me to be, and I very much appreciate that you focused your argument on how the TfD was closed rather than the actual TfD. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't see if it's one person, why you'd want to pull out a whole new section where you could have discussed with the individual where they made the comment (which you did also). As he's already responded here also I won't go much further than to say your selective quoting of what he said distorts the reality of it. Your assertion that I didn't read what was said, is unfounded, so as I can see you aren't interested in honest debate I'll just leave it here --86.2.216.5 (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You made the assertion that no one was making an argument that we should just resort to the numbers since the policy question was a wash. I quoted Tavix. He was not quoted out of context. As a result, he provided a clarification to his earlier argument, which I appreciate. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you omitted the original part of his comment where he said "...extremely strong arguments ... to sway that strong of a numerical consensus", i.e. where he clearly is stating that strength of argument is a factor which can overcome numbers i.e. it's not a vote, so yes I did read it and yes your omission of that part is taking what he said out of context. When it comes down to it, I read his original comment and understood it, you apparently read it and didn't so needed further clarification. Yet you reckon it was me who failed to read it. Please keep up this rather twisted view of your own infallibility, it's making for amusing reading. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 05:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

42/(42+25) is 63%. Kanguole 10:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I was wrong (I did the math, I realize, as if the minority vote were a percentage of the majority, not the majority as a percentage of the whole). But I still say that I've seen stronger majorities elsewhere get closed as no consensus due to weak policy arguments on their part.

And, as most of the time, the raw numbers do not tell the whole story. More on that later. Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natter Social Network (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

From the closing admin's talk page:

Sources mentioned in the AfD:

Overturn and relist.

Cunard (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist That's quite a lot of sources to dismiss so blithely, and there was almost no discussion in the AfD of those sources. Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus - I'd almost say keep, given a plethora of sources where presented and not refuted, but given the earlier discussion, a no consensus makes it easier to relist if someone really wants it deleted, but I see no reason to relist it unless we can find an actual person who thinks it should be deleted. WilyD 10:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - refs added late in the game should get some discussion. Random fun fact: Twitter was speedy deleted twice in February 2007. --B (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist to allow for discussion of refs provided later on in the process. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. This is one of those cases in which if the closing admin took the view that the sources presented late appeared "to be lacking in both breadth and depth" — a view that may very well have been correct — a !vote to that effect would have been the safer and more appropriate response. Moreover, there was only around 24 hours between Cunard's input and the close. That's not enough time to infer that the AfDs other participants had reviewed the sources and dismissed them. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Hey y'all--I don't agree with the supervote comment (I rarely do: I believe I stayed on the right side of "admin weighing argument", which necessarily involves a judgment of sorts on the quality of the sources), but it is clear that this is going toward "relist", so someone (Daniel Case, you busy? Kelapstick?) please go ahead and close this. I think you should remove my closing comments in the AfD lest the discussion be skewed, but that's up to you.

  Cunard, thanks, as always, for your efforts in preserving encyclopedic content to the best of your judgment and your ability: that's what we're here for. My apologies for having been too quick on the draw. I could make a non-apology apology and say "sorry if you feel like...", but I see now that 24 hours is a bit on the short side. Thanks all, and relist this quickly so Cunard can get a response and Natter can...well, whatever they do. (Note the clever three-word closing phrase.) Drmies (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I !voted above, I can't close this. Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR. Support is unanimous. Alakzi (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]