Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 24

24 June 2007

User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson

User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

While I respect the right of admins to delete (and to protect) their own user pages and even talk-page archives, the deletion and protection of his talk page makes it tough to communicate information to the user in case there is an emergency, or in case he goofed, especially since he is still showing signs of being an active sysop. That is the reason why I'm questioning the deletion and protection of his primary talk page. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

1. 07:59, 23 June 2007 Jeffrey O. Gustafson (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson"
2. 16:47, 5 June 2007 Jeffrey O. Gustafson (Talk | contribs) protected User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson ([edit=sysop:move=sysop])

• Agree I think deleting his talkpage was acceptable (right to disappear and all that) but keeping it protected is inappropriate if he's going to continue making admin actions. Suggest bringing this up on Wikipedia:Requests for unprotection. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn while you do have the right to disappear, if you're still here deleting the talk page seems wholly inappropriate. If it contained material that shouldn't be viewed individual diffs could be deleted. -N 16:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

GearHead

GearHead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

No consensus for deletion on AfD, nomination improperly extended (should've been closed as keep after 5 days passed).  Grue  12:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Pardon me, because I don't do a lot of DRV, but I really don't get it. Basicpally you're suggesting that the three last votes to delete should be discounted on procedural grounds because they were ineligible - the admins already had enough information to close as "no consensus." Am I the only person who is thoroughly baffled by this reasoning? Endorse. YechielMan 13:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse (Keep Deleted) per YechielMan. Correct procedure that the nominator thinks was wrong? Baffling indeed. --tennisman 14:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Sad endorse Sad because I have very fond memories of this great game, but the AfD was handled correctly. Each of the early keep votes was convincingly rebutted, so extending the debate was the correct thing to do. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)