This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Restarting the TC as Trash compactor/List of sexual references in Star Wars/4th nomination and creation of Valid reasons to put something back in the trash and Two weeks for TC discussions? in the Consensus Track. jSarek 05:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Per the newly adopted administrative autonomy rule, I have created this forum to discuss an administrator action. --Imperialles 17:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Involved administrators: Darth Culator, Imperialles

The disputed action: Darth Culator closed the Trash compactor discussion regarding the article "List of sexual references in Star Wars" after the discussion had been up for ten days, with a result of "No consensus." (link) (diff)

The dispute: Darth Culator feels enough debate has occurred, and wishes to keep the thread closed. Imperialles feels the TC discussion could benefit from more debate, and wishes to re-open the thread.

The issue was discussed in part in Wookieepedia's IRC channel. (log)

DiscussionEdit

I would like to see the thread re-opened because this is a difficult case that, given more debate and time, we might see a clear-cut consensus in. I feel ten days is far too little time to establish consensus in a disputed TC such as this. Additionally, there already exists a consensus to leave TC discussions open for two weeks before closing (link). --Imperialles 17:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• 1: I have replaced Imp's strategically edited log with a complete one. 2: That so-called "consensus" to keep VFDs open for two weeks is anything but. It involved a total of six people. Two of those haven't edited regularly since 2006 and two of the remaining four disagreed with two weeks. 3: This TC was a re-do, which is bad form to begin with, and which ended in no consensus last time. 4: The default position of a TC is "keep". I am in favor of the default, while Imp is desperate to delete. Keep these points in mind when you consider this matter. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 18:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 1: "Strategically edited," as in "Edited out the parts that had nothing to do with the discussion"? 2: There is no rule, other than your personal interpretation, that declares that consensus null and void. 3: I'm surprised to see you condemning the TC as "bad form," when you have been known to push a single issue in the past in a similar manner. 4: I am in no way desperate. The fact that you voted "keep," which happens to be the default for no consensus Trash compactor discussions, does in no way reassure me that your interpretation of the consensus was unbiased. --Imperialles 18:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Restarting a discussion which previously ended with no or unclear consensus, or where a new arguement can be presented to change the existing consensus, is perfectly acceptable, and has been done several times before. We have Wookieepedia:Votes for deletion/Near-Hutt and Wookieepedia:Votes for deletion/Near-Hutt (renomination); Wookieepedia:Votes for deletion/Jedi brute and Wookieepedia:Trash compactor/Jedi brute; and a few others. (The sex references page has been discussed here, here, and most recently here, for those people who want to track the previous discussions.) —Silly Dan _(talk) 19:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    • 1) Every TC should get a minimum of 2 weeks for people to see it. This one did not, and that is unfair. 2) Putting the issue this of TC aside, I would think that most reasonable people would realize that the "merge" and delete options here are not mutually exclusive, but rather two options that will end up with the same result; to say otherwise is again unfair. The premature closure of this TC does not reflect the consensus of the community, but rather the preference of a single individual. Reopen. -- Ozzel 20:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Notice in the initial discussion, "[12:31] <@Xwing328> Imp - I say 15 for some form of keeping". So your view that the merge and delete options have the same end result is not a unanimous one. Further, we often have TCs run less than 2 weeks. The only difference here is that I got to it before Imp could pull another K'kruhk's hat on us, so now he has to find a different angle to attack the page from. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 20:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
        • No, this time you pulled the "K'kruhk's hat." And if you read the "arguments for merging", several of them say they would favor it being out of the main namespace (therefore, deletion). There are only 7 votes to actually truly keep the article where it is, as it is, and one of those isn't even properly signed. But y'know, I'm not gonna debate this. The whole deal is crooked; Culator has just taken advantage of the confusion of some people over the idea of a "merge" vote, and I think most people will see this for what it is. -- Ozzel 21:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Other people have said it well. It is clear to me that the TC debate should have been kept open, and there was certainly not enough time allowed in order for consensus to be reached. 10 days is an extremely short time for a TC. Per Ozzel. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 13:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• The simple fact is that I was well within my rights to a: close it at ten days, and b: call it a no-consensus result. I'd like to hear your reasoning to claim otherwise. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 13:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Considering that a more standard procedure for CTs and TC threads is A) 2 weeks unless painfully clear that consensus was reached, B) Some sort of merge/delete compromise was still possible and C) You said, and I quote "What the hell is wrong with you people", indicating possible bias, I don't think the thread should have been unilaterally closed. Is it "illegal" (whatever that means)? No. Was it the most NPOV and responsible thing to do? I think it wasn't. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 17:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with all of Ozzel's and Ataru's points. Even if we put aside the merge/delete issue (in which it's clear that all 20 wanted it off the main namespace), the 10 day thing is extremely suspect, especially for such a controversial page. - Lord Hydronium 22:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Agreed with Ozzel, Ataru, and Hydro. When I'm heavily invested in a contentious vote and am on the winning side, I don't close it myself even if I'd be completely within my rights to do so (just ask some of the IRC regulars how many times I tried getting someone to close the CT Archive/Links within references thread). The fact that this was closed before the customary fortnight (which I DO agree is based on a very tenuous "consensus" that needs more looking at) takes it from slightly questionable to very questionable. However, the merge/delete confusion has tainted the existing TC; rather than re-opening the previous one, we should start a new TC thread without prejudice, explicitly clarifying before people start voting that merging/moving to a non-main-namespace location is equivalent to a delete vote. Also, opening a formal consensus track to get a broader community opinion on what sort of timeframe TCs should allow would probably be a good idea. jSarek 05:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
      • That TC was bung, anyway. People were voting to merge with a subpage, people. Somebody's subpage. That, to me, = broke. Yes, do lets start a proper version of that TC, and a CT getting some stronger rules on this whole damn issue. Because it's starting to get messy. Thefourdotelipsis 12:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Starting a new CT would definitely be a good idea rather than restarting that last mess. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 01:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, it seems that we should start a new one then. Any takers? -- Ozzel 06:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
          • I guess we'd need to open three new discussions:

1. A CT thread on how long a TC discussion should be allowed to go on, at minimum, before an admin closes it as "no consensus, defaults to keep." (I'm assuming that keep is the default for TC threads with no or unclear consensus — that's certainly how we've been operating.)
2. A CT thread on what circumstances allow an article kept after a previous TC thread to be put back in the trash compactor.
3. A new TC thread on the sex article.

Does this make sense to the rest of you? —Silly Dan _(talk) 23:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Quite. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 00:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, we now have Wookieepedia:Trash compactor/List of sexual references in Star Wars/4th nomination, Forum:Valid reasons to put something back in the trash, and Forum:Two weeks for TC discussions?. Unless anyone can think of further actions which need to be taken, I guess that concludes the discussion. Anyone else have something to add? —Silly Dan _(talk) 02:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Just that I wish you all luck if you ever decide to oppose Imp's rule by fiat. You've set a terrible precedent here. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 02:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't see rule by fiat here. I see two admins disagreeing, an attempt to discuss the situation on IRC getting nowhere, and an administrative discussion leading to a restarted TC thread and two new policy discussion. Everything seems to have gone along with the "autonomy" rules you suggested. —Silly Dan _(talk) 02:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
        • And I see one bureaucrat starting a bitch-fest thread because he didn't get his way. Which will happen again in the future, mark my words. Any time Imp doesn't like something someone does, he'll start one of these and the person on the "wrong" side will get nibbled to death by ducks. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 02:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
          • <Waves flag> Hey, let's keep it civil and out of WP:NPA territory. Take it up with Imp on IRC or maybe his talk page, but this thread is about a disputed trash compactor closing, not the things that any admin doesn't like about another admin. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 18:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)