Talk:List of Game of Thrones episodes/Archive 2
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Radiphus in topic Disputing the outcome of the recent merger proposal
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Disputing the outcome of the recent merger proposal
It's poor form to close a discussion you started; per your own link, In contentious cases, the discussion should be closed only by an uninvolved editor or administrator, who may be requested at Requests for Closure noticeboard.
In either way, MOS:TVPLOT is a guideline, not a policy, meaning that it's acceptable for both prose summary and episode summary to exist. Do note also that this article is a Featured List, so make sure you have a very clear consensus to make such changes. -- AlexTW 23:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- You didn't tell us, how is this a contentious case? Both editors that took part in the discussion were in favor of performing the merger. WP:MERGECLOSE says
Any user may close the discussion and move forward with the merger if enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed and there has been no discussion or if there is unanimous consent to merge.
Please note that the WP:HOUNDING you are so used to and the tone you use to adress editors with different ideas is disrupting the process of editorial decision making. - Radiphus (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)- Replies from a mere two editors does not form a strong or binding consensus. For an article that has been promoted so high as to be listed as a Featured List, you need an extremely strong consensus from a multitude of editors to make such wide changes to the article, and thus, you should have advertised the discussion around much more thoroughly. Did you advertise it at all? Or did you just make the single poster? And yes, any user may close it - except the opener. Unfortunately, we don't get to cherry pick on Wikipedia. Furthermore, your accusation of hounding is unfounded, I have followed this article for years and thus have every right to comment here. Stating that specific editors may not contribute to "editorial decision making" is textbook WP:OWN. To clear the air, I'll make a post at WP:VPPOL to get a much clearer view from uninvolved editors. -- AlexTW 01:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've seen what you do to others and how you make Wikipedia an ugly environment to work in, so i will not respond to your accusations. If you think i have done something wrong, please request administrator intervention. - Radiphus (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Nor I to your unfounded accusations. Administration intervention definitely isn't required, we don't need to go that far, just further uninvolved editor contribution is necessary. -- AlexTW 02:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's been five days since you expressed your disapproval of the closure, but i believe you haven't taken any action towards challenging it. Are you planning to do so or have you changed your mind? In case you still think the procedure was incorrect, please note that the established practice is to challenge the closure at the administrator's noticeboard. Please inform the editors of the page about your intentions. - Radiphus (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- My bad, thanks for the reminder. As I said, administration intervention definitely isn't required, we don't need to go that far, so no administrator's noticeboard is required. I've posted at at the village pump for policy, and pinged you in the discussion. -- AlexTW 08:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Today, AlexTheWhovian requested a review of the closure at the Administrators' noticeboard. You can read or participate in the ongoing discussion here. - Radiphus (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC) The discussion is now closed with an administrator noting that
neither a page having FL status nor an editor having admin status has any impact on decisions
. - Radiphus (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Today, AlexTheWhovian requested a review of the closure at the Administrators' noticeboard. You can read or participate in the ongoing discussion here. - Radiphus (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC) The discussion is now closed with an administrator noting that
- My bad, thanks for the reminder. As I said, administration intervention definitely isn't required, we don't need to go that far, so no administrator's noticeboard is required. I've posted at at the village pump for policy, and pinged you in the discussion. -- AlexTW 08:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's been five days since you expressed your disapproval of the closure, but i believe you haven't taken any action towards challenging it. Are you planning to do so or have you changed your mind? In case you still think the procedure was incorrect, please note that the established practice is to challenge the closure at the administrator's noticeboard. Please inform the editors of the page about your intentions. - Radiphus (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Nor I to your unfounded accusations. Administration intervention definitely isn't required, we don't need to go that far, just further uninvolved editor contribution is necessary. -- AlexTW 02:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've seen what you do to others and how you make Wikipedia an ugly environment to work in, so i will not respond to your accusations. If you think i have done something wrong, please request administrator intervention. - Radiphus (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Replies from a mere two editors does not form a strong or binding consensus. For an article that has been promoted so high as to be listed as a Featured List, you need an extremely strong consensus from a multitude of editors to make such wide changes to the article, and thus, you should have advertised the discussion around much more thoroughly. Did you advertise it at all? Or did you just make the single poster? And yes, any user may close it - except the opener. Unfortunately, we don't get to cherry pick on Wikipedia. Furthermore, your accusation of hounding is unfounded, I have followed this article for years and thus have every right to comment here. Stating that specific editors may not contribute to "editorial decision making" is textbook WP:OWN. To clear the air, I'll make a post at WP:VPPOL to get a much clearer view from uninvolved editors. -- AlexTW 01:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)