Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 31

Eyetrust vision (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Let me apologize in advance for sounding like a kid in junior high, but I'd like to ask for your help with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyetrust vision. I nominated the article for deletion, but really should have listed it as a speedy delete, as I believe it meets criteria for unambiguous advertising or promotion. Today, User:Davey2010 re-listed the deletion discussion (which I understand). My concern is that this non-admin may not be the best person to be closing deletions I have nominated. Just 3 days ago, when I dared question this editor's judgement in a different deletion discussion, User:Davey2010 left a message on my talk page here threatening: "pull a stunt like that again and I promise you I'll have your arse blocked quicker than you can blink!". Would an admin have a moment to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyetrust vision? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 07:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. This isn't quite what DRV normally does (one could quibble whether a relisting is a discussion close that would be within our purview), but I would suggest that we address it because (1) it fits in our broader capacity of overseeing the deletion process and (2) this user has been referred to deletion review by AN/I so it behooves us to be helpful.

  I've noticed on a couple of occasions that Davey2010 sometimes relists debates that could have been closed. He's not the only one who does this, but multiple relistings are covered under WP:RELIST. The two AN/I discussions which are now archived seem quite courteous and as far as I could see, the sudden threatening language on Magnolia677's talk page seemed to come out of nowhere.

  Procedurally speaking I think that when someone starts a DRV, that DRV should not be removed. There are times when a DRV is speedily closed and archived--always by an uninvolved person--but to remove it completely is not correct behaviour unless it's obvious vandalism. We might start a discussion on WT:DRV about whether to add this point to our rules at WP:DELREVD.

  But relisting that particular debate was perfectly reasonable and I propose that we allow the relisting to stand.—S Marshall T/C 08:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Magnolia677: - I saw no reason that it needed speedy deletion - It simply needed community input...... As for the TP message - You took me to ANI twice for basically me assuming good faith which IMHO was out of order, I stand by what I said, You can't just go around reporting everyone who assumes good faith with you!.
• @S Marshall: - I understand your concern but surely If I remove the discussion and instantly relist there shouldn't be a problem?, I can completely understand If I removed the discussion WITHOUT relisting but I done what I thought was the correct procedure,

As I'm new to this this is a learning curve and I can only learn from the mistakes so thanks for the message - Much appreciated, –Davey2010 • (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't get me wrong, I fully accept that you acted with the best of intentions. Even very senior community members would pause before removing a DRV, but there's nothing that actually says that anywhere, so an honest mistake is very understandable. I've proposed above that we should amend our rules for increased clarity.—S Marshall T/C 12:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah okay, I suppose something should be done really, Thanks –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really very sorry to air dirty laundry here, it isn't the place. This all started here when I asked User:Davey2010 (I think politely) the following: "Hi there. I noticed you did a non-admin closure and marked it "keep". Why? Also, you relisted the deletion discussion. Where is the relisting? You also removed the AfD tag from the article. Why? Thanks."

User:Davey2010 responded: "because someone deemed it notable?, Since it's apparent you have no idea about AFD I strongly suggest you read this, Cheers". This effectively shut down any hope of dialogue, and I worked through the admin board, where my concern was supported.

I've added joy, friendship, rapture, desire, and lots of love, love, love, love, love to Wikipedia, and don't deserve bad manners and ego. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best we discuss this on your page so I'll reply there instead :), Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Before the civility brigade come & make everyone lose all faith in humanity - I've removed the above message and apologized (1). –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]