Talk:Betty Cherry

AfD closure

Feel free to take it to WP:DELREV, Unscintillating, but there was nothing untoward about my closing the AfD. Take care.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Onel5969: Your history is to ignore me no matter how much effort I put into the force of reason.  As reported at your RfA, "Looking at his/her contributions list, you will see that his/her decisions are done in mere seconds, at a pace that doesn't suggest depth of analysis and due consideration.".  In the current instance, you haven't responded to the point that you've blocked me from your talk page and I can't discuss disagreements with you in preparation for DELREV, if that is the route I choose to take.  And you conveniently disregard the history of your judgment in talk page banning me.  In the current case, your close has ignored my !vote.  Based on history, there is no possibility that you would be able to understand an appeal I made even if I had talk page access. 
  If you knew what you were doing under WP:NACD, you'd know that any other editor on Wikipedia could have restored your closure but yourself.  We don't need NAC closers who are either ignorant of WP:NACD or feel empowered to do it their way. 
  But the key point is that I don't want this to happen again.  And on that point your answer so far is, "I don't hear you." 
  I want you to agree that this won't happen again.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Since you are intent on continuing your historical course of lack of civility, my decision to request you not to post on my talk is quite justified. To be clear, AfD says, "Questions or concerns about a closure should first be asked on the talk page of the editor who closed the discussion. If that does not resolve the concerns, the closure can be appealed at Wikipedia:Deletion review." Since your behavior has you barred from posting on my talk page, that would indicate your course of action. However, in case you missed it, you didn't !vote on this AfD, you simply commented, twice: once with a claim of ATA, and the second time to state that AfD was the wrong venue. Even if one were to infer your intent was to cast a "keep" !vote, and not simply commenting on perceived procedural issues, you would still have been far in the minority. In fact, you would have been the only dissent.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Onel5969: I'm still hearing "I don't hear you" from you.  Whatever your purpose is in calling my !vote a comment, it doesn't chance the basic issue here, because the basic issue is not what you did in this last AfD, the issue is what you are going to do in the future.  I object to you closing discussions in which I have participated.  I don't want this to happen again. 

I want you to agree that this won't happen again.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

And I object to your continued uncivil discourse and personal attacks. So I guess we're done here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

This issue would be resolved had you said "ok". 

Your response does not explain why you are either unwilling or unable to control your actions to the extent of not closing discussions in which I have participated.  Regarding the path of ad hominems, I will repeat here something else from your RfA.  I reposted, "I have consistently treated this contributor with respect, and in return I have been told that my input is not needed."  Unscintillating (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)