I disagreed with the close and followed the advice given here to attempt resolving it by leaving a request to reopen on the talk page of the closer. I see they took the request somewhat personally since they made reference to my request in the combative terms of being a "challenge" to them multiple times in their response to me. At any rate, my request to have the discussion reopened is based on the poor judgement of the closer [closing]. You will see that they also made factual error in their response in addition to the problems I have already pointed out.
1) In the case of the IP editor, the closer made the claim in their response to me giving them a heads up about this IP that: Consensus is judged by weight of argument, not by who makes the arguments. and But someone making a coherent RfD argument is prima facie evidence that they have some level of experience with how RfD works. Well, without rehashing that argument, I will say this - that IP editor never made any coherent arguments. In fact, they made no arguments at all. They simply wrote a paragraph carrying on about me reverting on another page, and added a comment to agree with the OP. So, you see that assessment resulted in factual error, and is evidence the closer read it incorrectly.
2) Here, you will see the judgement of evidence is dubious by the closer; They presented evidence of 2,000 usages of it to mean list inclusion. You presented evidence of 44,000 usages of a related but different term to mean notability. where you notice that overwhelming evidence is rejected because of its relevance and then here we notice completely subjective and fabricated (not to mention flimsy) "evidence" is accepted as relevant: This is a projectspace redirect, so the audience is editors, not readers. Where !voters (a subset of editors) expect a shortcut to point is relevant.
3) Closer admits mistakes were made (even if not in my favor). However, they say they were prepared to reopen, but saw no other way to close. This strongly suggests to me the only possible outcome they could see was closing the discussion one way or the other. The fact they could not see an alternative of reopening the discussion to let it run some more is indicative of poor closing insight. I do not have any closing experience, but if it were me, and the last comment were by a somewhat suspect IP editor, I would not have said to myself, "ok, that cinches it!", I would have waited for at least one more experienced editor to comment.
I will mostly let my reply to Huggums' initial close challenge speak for itself. ("Challenge" is the standard term here, by the way, Huggums, not me being combative or taking things personally.) But to briefly summarize: This was numerically 4 to 1 with 1 neutral; it had been open for 6 weeks; and 2 weeks had passed since its second relist. An exceptionally strong argument would have needed to have been made to overcome the numerical strength of the disambiguate contingent, and none was. Finally, Huggums537, it is a personal attack to refer to IP78 in the manner that you are. You have presented literally no evidence of wrongdoing on their part, and I have shown you that their /24 IP range has been active in projectspace for two years. Please reword or strike your characterization of them. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)17:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will not reword anything. You prove absolutely nothing that lends credit to the IP, and admit yourself that you made your decision based on a "maybe"; Is it the same person? Maybe, maybe not. That doesn't even count the fact that you counted arguments they never even made, unless you were just counting their "numerical strength", as you suggest, and "cinched it" with an IP of half a dozen edits that you admit "maybe" has credibility. Huggums537 (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – with four editors in favor of disambiguation and a fifth in favor of an even more aggressive change, I don't see how the discussion could possibly have been closed in favor of the single editor arguing for the status quo. The majority made perfectly reasonable arguments, and it would be a supervote for the closer to discount them. I don't find any of the other objections to the close to be any more convincing: unregistered users are not inherently "suspect", and relisting a forty-five-day-old discussion would not be prudent. (As for the suggestion that Tamzin has "poor judgment"...well, let's just say that I'd be more than happy for this redlink to turn blue sometime soon.) I'm not really sure why this eminently low-stakes matter has provoked such strong feelings, but c'est la vie, I suppose. The outcome was reasonable and reasonably explained: there's nothing for us to do here, and I would gently encourage the appellant to move on. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I have nothing to add to what Extraordinary Writ said, other than perhaps that there is no "alternatives to disambiguation" policy that might overcome a numerical disproportion. Jclemens (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also share a view that unregistered users are not inherently "suspect", and I reject any implications that I suggested anything otherwise. Huggums537 (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is that there is a big difference between what someone thinks about all unregistered users versus whatever points may be brought up by someone about any one specific IP user, and that is the distinction I wanted to be understood with my comment here. Huggums537 (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, if someone has anything to say at all about a single IP editor, it is not equivalent to, or the same thing as saying that selfsame thing across the board for all unregistered users. Huggums537 (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as original nominator. We do not need to relitigate this debate a million times so I will not be talking about the content of the arguments, just the close. The debate lasted a month and a half, with two relists, and only one user opposing disambiguation, and I don't see how that can be read as a lack of consensus justifying another relist. I am not sure where this whole idea about the IP cinching it comes from, as it doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere on the RfD page, but ignoring the vote entirely just by virtue of being written by an unregistered user is frankly ridiculous - they are very clearly not completely inexperienced as their first edit on that IP was to reasonably answer a {{Help me}} request (which IPs on the same /24 have done for two years, suggesting that it is likely they are all the same person). eviolite(talk)02:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw review Eviolite has made a convincing case for the credibility of the IP editor. I still think Tamzin could have done a far better job of making a good case with all of the evidence, but her numerical count is correct so I withdraw the review. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment: This was closed as "withdrawn" by an IP, but the instructions provide: "Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf)." I have therefore reverted the closure, and it would be up to Huggums537 to close this request as "endorsed" if they want to do so. Sandstein 10:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of assumed that by making an official statement of withdrawing the nomination, I was asking someone to close the review on my behalf by default. However, I do appreciate the opportunity to do my first close here, but I'm currently on mobile so I don't think I have the tools to do it until I can get on my computer tonight. If someone would like to speedily close on my behalf then they are welcome to do so. Otherwise, I will do so when I get an opportunity. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do not see what (if anything) a further relisting would have achieved. Closers are expected to use their judgment to close a discussion that's clearly had all the contributors it's going to have, not take the easy option of sending it round again for another spin. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I should have thought of that to begin with, since it probably would have been far less confrontational in nature. However, this is what was suggested by the closer when I disagreed with the close. Anyways, I'm closing this now. Huggums537 (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
