Have you brought this up with Neutrality, or are you taking it straight to the mailing list?

Even so, you really should have tried to communicate with him before taking it too the list. I agree that the decision is totally absurd, but you should let him defend himself first. And if he does, as you suggest he will, ignore/blank you, you will have more ammo for a discussion.

I'd just like to note that Mr. Turley has recently disputed a AFD I closed as well recently, that AFD being the one for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck the South, the resulting conversations can also be found at my talk page and at votes for undeletion. -Jtkiefer _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 9/25/05, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson(a)gmail.com> wrote: Ammo for discussion? What's wrong with simply discussing the issue rather than gathering "ammo"? Look at it from my point of view: an arbitrator/administrator rebuffed my attempts to communicate with him. An RfC was started, and it went nowhere, apparently because so many people refused to believe the RfC was about refusal to communicate, instead choosing to believe it was that he nominated articles en masse to VfD. If I had any reason to believe I would get a good faith answer from the person in question, I would post on his talk page. However, not only have I not been given reason to believe that he'll communicate, I've seen the opposite because shortly after the last time, he added a somewhat hostile "policy" to his talk page which seems to be meant to justify his capriciousness. I'm not one to go banging my head against brick walls. I don't like to waste my time, and I don't like the headaches. Ignore me if you so choose, but I prefer to discuss this in the open with several other reasonalbe users rather than try to start a conversation with a single user who's already proven unresponsive to myself and several others on this exact issue. -- Michael Turley User:Unfocused _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Oskar Sigvardsson wrote: Okay, he should have tried talking to Neutrality first. In the meantime, though, I've checked the VfD in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crescent_Park_… and it appears that the basic complaint is true - this was clearly _not_ a consensus to delete. It's very clear that it isn't, too, since as pointed out there's actually a clear majority of votes for keep/merge versus delete. I'm putting this on VfU, but really, I think this should be a speedy undelete. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 9/25/05, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: While I don't necessarily agree with the decision (I think there was no consensus either way), one can see how some of the votes might have been given greater weight than others. For example: "Keep, we winning the fight aginst school deletionism." "Keep. I heard from Aranda56 that we needed more votes for this article." "Keep I heard from Radman's sisters' aunts' brothers' cousins' girlfriends' sister that this needed to be kept!" "Keep." -- Stephen Bain stephen.bain(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

While I don't necessarily agree with the decision (I think there was no consensus either way), one can see how some of the votes might have been given greater weight than others. For example: "Keep, we winning the fight aginst school deletionism." "Keep. I heard from Aranda56 that we needed more votes for this article." "Keep I heard from Radman's sisters' aunts' brothers' cousins' girlfriends' sister that this needed to be kept!" "Keep."

Ok, that's it. As soon as I get the chance (eg. in a few days time), I will launch open a request for comments with everyone listed on [[m:AIW]] and [[m:ADW]], and I invite anyone who is sick of the way AfD is being run to join me.

The deletion of one (or even a couple of dozen) school articles doesn't hurt Wikipedia. This action may affect the reputation of the administrator involved for a short term, but that also will recover.

Tony Sidaway wrote: hurt The lurking of users on AfD for the sole purpose of voting to keep or delete articles /with no thought given to the votes/ does.

In the meantime, though, I've checked the VfD in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crescent_Park_… and it appears that the basic complaint is true - this was clearly _not_ a consensus to delete. It's very clear that it isn't, too, since as pointed out there's actually a clear majority of votes for keep/merge versus delete. I'm putting this on VfU, but really, I think this should be a speedy undelete.