Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jews in the history of business

This is pretty much a snowball keep anyway, but I'm confused about the process. The article has been moved around a few times and has no AfD tag - can someone please explain what's going on process-wise? It looks like it should be speedily closed (without prejudice) as out of process. Wikidemo (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion re early closure and reversion of that closure

 * There is no process for "cancelling" a closure. The whole thing is out-of-process and administrators are no more entitled than non-administrators to make up procedure.  The delete opinions were I believe voiced when the article had been moved and renamed to favor deletion by the nominator, who later withdrew the nomination.  A considerable part of the discussion was happening when the article was not actually nominated for deletion - no AfD tag, for example.  I haven't bothered to respond on the substance, and if there were a deltion result I would simply recreate the article and we would be back in AfD.  Instead of mucking around, please follow DRV process and, if applicable, simply allow re-nomination of the article so that this can follow proper procedure.  Wikidemo (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As the creator of the article in question do you not see that you have some conflict in this and are probably the wrong person to be deciding if the user withdrew or not? The nominator inserted the deletion onto the main afd page at 20:20 UTC, notified you of the discussion at 20:24 UTC and 3 minutes later removed the AfD note with summary "rvt to original while in CfD", I do not believe this was an intentional withdraw by the nominator. It appears if anything it is you who has failed to follow the deletion process. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What conflict? That I edit Wikipedia and ask to follow policy?  The process is all mucked up here as I explained.  If anyone believes the article should be deleted, simply nominate the article under its actual name, follow deletion procedure, and we can have a deletion discussion. Wikidemo (talk) 10:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So you don't believe that you creating the article recently and presumably then beleiving it should be kept, and then being the party to determine that this is a keep isn't a conflict of interest? As you are keen on policy and process can you please point me to the policy/process under which your close as keep was valid? --82.7.39.174 (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As soon as you can explain why an IP editor with only a few dozen edits seems to have such a consistent interest in AfD and DRV. Do you have an account?  We're well outside of any process rules.  I didn't start this, incidentally.  COI, btw, is about having a real world interest that influences Wikipedia editing, not about having and following an on-Wikipedia standard for inclusion standards.  I only became involved after a CFD on this subject - the article isn't my original idea, just a better way to present information that had been judged in a controversial close to be inapt for a category.  Wikidemo (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See Foundation Issues. So let me get this straight my status as to if I have an account or not, affects if you can point out the policy/process you were following when you closed the debate as keep? FWIW I haven't been involved in this debate, debates on a similar subject, touched the article or similar articles under this IP, any other IP or using any named account. Happy? "We're well outside of any process rules", so your compliants about being no process for reversal of the closure was just hand waving then?  And your comment to which I was replying which states "That I edit Wikipedia and ask to follow policy?" again, just applies to others but not you? The fact that you became involved in and of itself is indicative of support of the idea. Now WP:DPR states "Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page that you have edited heavily presents a conflict of interest and should be avoided. The sole exception is if you are closing your own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep and all other viewpoints expressed were for keep as well." that applies here, you shouldn't have closed it, since (a) you heavily edited the page and (b) it wasn't your nomination and (c) others had opined delete. (And I still don't believe the nominator had withdrawn it, made a mistake, but that doesn't invalidate the process). Similarly for an admin reverting your close it states "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator.". The only person who seems to be acting out of process/policy is still you. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have a named account? If so you are sockpuppeting.  Either way an IP editor shouldn't be contentiously re-nominating articles for deletion, much less gaming deletion debates.  NAC doesn't apply here.  The process is invalidated because it was gamed by the nominator (and now you) in a way that renders the opinions invalid.  They were responding to a claim made by doctoring the article that this is a list article that had been deleted before, for some at a time when the article was not even listed for deletion (meaning those who troll the deletion lists came to vote but those who read the article do not).  Closing administrators judge consensus - which can't be properly established.  This is a fledgling article on an important topic.  It's ridiculous to have to deal with this - I hesitate to waste the time time.  Any deletion that would result is faulty, and would be overcome by simply recreating the article to answer the purported reason for deletion. Wikidemo (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And if I am sockpuppetting? You point to it as some great argument winner, it isn't. If you have some evidence of abusive sockputteting rather than inuendo please feel free to file a checkuser request or whatever. My status as an IP is just a red herring, trying to turn around a problem with your actions an point them to me is just so transparent, try actually addressing the points. "NAC doesn't apply here" just saying it's so doesn't make it so, how convenient that we can just declare something to not apply when we want to. Your declaration that "this is a fledgling article on an important topic" are precisely the reasons you shouldn't have made the descision to keep, you clearly are not neutral in your view of the debate and have predetermined the "correct" result (See your talk page comment on this AFD made when 4 opiners had commented, 3 for delete and 1 for rename whilst you declare this to probably be a snowball keep). As for the process being broken by the nom gaming the system by changing it/breaking it/not having an afd notice on it, stop clutching at straws. The nom actually reverted any changes made to make it exactly as you left it, this was when the AFD notice was mistakenly removed. And the time for which the notice was removed that all these "trolls" (I'm sure those who commented during that time appreciate the label) could come in and massively influence the debate - 3 hours out of a 5 day (120 hour) process. As for "Closing administrators judge consensus - which can't be properly established" is about as non-sensical as your other rantings. If there is an issue with the nomination or behaviour, then it just needs to be stated and the closing admin will factor it into their analysis, this happens all the time. "would be overcome by simply recreating the article to answer the purported reason for deletion" - no need to do that, address the concerns of the opiners here whilst the debate is still open and it won't get deleted in the first place. If you can't do that and you just keep recreating it in another form, then the person attempting "gaming deletion debates" will be ? ---82.7.39.174 (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's really toxic. I take it that you're admitting to be a sockpuppet.  And uncivil now.  Sure.  Wikidemo (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No I'm not a sockpuppet, but as pointed out sockpuppetry isn't in itself disallowed. Uncivil where? I guess calling those who got to opine on the debate trolls was of course perfectly civil. Your continued fail to actually address the substantive issues is once again totally transparent. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you do not have a registered account? If so then by definition you are not sockpuppetting.  If you do have an account that you are currently using then more or less by definition you are using this IP to avoid scrutiny and to make controversial edits - good hand / bad hand per WP:SOCK.  There seems to be consensus on this point, and also considerable sentiment but perhaps not consensus that IP editors should not participate in meta discussions at all.  In any event you severely limit yourself because people tend to disregard or discount the contributions of IP editors in process discussion.  The incivility is that you're accusing me of nonsense and ranting, and you're also mocking my arguments.  You're not going to convince me of anything that way.  I know full well what I did and why I closed the AfD.  Incomplete or misformed AfD nominations are routinely closed - the longer they stay open the more of everyone's time they waste, and if they survive to a substantive closure the result isn't valid.  I don't think there's any way to address the concerns because the AfD is mis-framed as overcategorization of lists when, if anything, it should be about the notability of the phenomenon.  That's more or less a snowball.  I don't see how any informed person could argue that there's no juncture between Jewish culture and business practices.  So I'm not sure it's worth my time to participate in the substantive discussion.  If it gets deleted I'll just recreate the article without the list.   trolling is a verb, btw, and I use it in that sense.  It means to go to or linger in a place one would not normally be, with the intent to find and engage something, knowing in advance the type of intended target but not who or what one will find.  That's a perfectly apt term for people who cruise the AfD page hoping to prune the encyclopedia or to engage in a good debate.  If you let in the boats without alerting the fish you get a one-sided contest, one of several problems.   Wikidemo (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am fully aware of the definition of sockpuppets and what abusive sockpuppetry is. As I have said I am not a sockpuppet, you can determine for yourself what that means. My edits aren't in anyway controversial, again you saying so doesn't make it so. My decision to use an IP is my choice. "There seems to be consensus on this point, and also considerable sentiment but perhaps not consensus that IP editors should not participate in meta discussions at all." that makes no sense how can you say there is consensus but perhaps not consensus. I am fully allowed to participate in meta discussion strength of argument is what matters, nothing else. "Incomplete or misformed AfD nominations are routinely closed...", again this maybe true but comes back to NAC, something you have declared doesn't apply, but give no policy/process backup to why that wouldn't apply. If the AfD is misframed you need to discuss that on the AfD and show that is the case, just declaring that the nom is wrong and that this must stay because of that isn't the way it works around here, you need to demonstrate that it's false. "If you let in the boats without alerting the fish you get a one-sided contest, one of several problems", for a 120 hour debate, a 3 hour head start is nothing, and is predicated on the assumption that those who regularly peruse AFD are going to opine for deletion, that isn't the case. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't play games with me here. Do you or do you not have a current registered account?  If you won't answer I'll probably report you as an abusive sockpuppet.  If you admit to it we'll have the same discussion but at least you'll be showing good faith rather than an attempt to avoid scrutiny, and there's little chance your main account would be blocked as a result of a good faith misunderstanding or disagreement over permitted uses of alternate accounts.  Wikidemo (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not playing games with you, I've told you I'm not a sockpuppet, and quite frankly I didn't have to even tell you that. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a process for cancelling a closure, it's at WP:DPR. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem to fit - NAC is about substantive closures, not how to deal with broken process. Wikidemo (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)