- Climategate scandal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
There were a significant number of opinions expressed in support of keeping the article and after reviewing the arguments the issue seemed far from settled. Further, a close on a disputed AfD less than 12 hours after it was opened when it doesn't meet speedy conditions seems very premature. jheiv (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IAR. I also proposed blocking the article creator for disruption at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Serious_BLP_problems_at_Climategate_scandal. Rd232 talk 11:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That ups the ante - that's pretty clear abuse of tools in pursuit of pushing an agenda - you need to step aside here. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh! That page is clearly forum shopping. There is a discussion in AfD for a reason. If the deletion is overturned as premature I hope your actions will be reviewed as well. jheiv (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: the ANI section has been archived, and I've had an amicable conversation with Wikidemon at User talk:Wikidemon about moving forward with the content, and credit to him for being able to focus on that. I hope this might encourage others to think about how to progress the content issue, which a relisting of a clear fork under a contentious, previously-rejected title will do little for. AFD is always higher-temperature: discussing how to split and/or rename Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident should be done at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, using a WP:RFC if necessary. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Rd232 talk 13:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|