596:!vote. That he later closed the discussion as "keep" suggests a supervote. Had Champion not relisted this likely would have closed as "retarget", but later discussion reveals a different result, so I think the only reasonable outcome is no consensus, though I wouldn't object to a re-close. The functional difference between "keep" and "no consensus" is that "keep" is a result we agree on, while "no consensus" is an indication that there is neither agreement nor result: it's a discussion that failed. It's not just semantics, but even so semantics are important in these things. As for wbm1058's separate move proposal it should be just that: separate.
480:– which I wasn't expecting to find, but just did), at 8–8 Champion found a consensus. Looks like a supervote. Combine this with the idea that a group of western white guys might be letting their biases and prejudices determine the primary topic for an article about people of color in Africa to be the negative connotation rather than the positive one, and I'm a bit uncomfortable with this.
391:
I might've called it no consensus, especially when asked post-close, but I agree with Stifle that there's no functional difference here. Sure, if the titles are nominated again in the future, someone could start with "There was no consensus on these last time", but the results of the first discussion
475:
did not, so they relisted. However at the end of the second round, the consensus was less clear at 8–7 so relisting at that point was fair. By the time this closed, the !vote was 8–8, so I'm puzzled as to how consensus for the scam was found. The optics don't look right to me; seems
Champion didn't
595:
basically per wbm1058. Consensus was very strongly in favour of retargeting prior to
Champion's first relist, causing one to wonder why Champion relisted it. He did not provide a rationale, so we have to assume he didn't agree with the consensus, and that makes his relist basically an implied keep
494:
It's not necessary to accuse people of racism. Our disambiguation policies favour usages which are most common amongst our readers. As those are by definition
English speaking people with an internet connection that is inevitably going to make certain types of title more popular. We can't really
434:
numerically this was split, but it does seem to me that the Keep side had the stronger arguments. The main retarget argument was basically "someone looking for the scam isn't going to type in
Nigerian Prince", which was rather effectively rebutted by Sro23 doing just that. The argument invoking
531:- The reason this close has been deemed acceptable above is because no consensus would default to the same outcome. That aside, if the closer is giving more weight to one side because they find that argument stronger, they should state so in their close. I sympathize with the nominator.
575:
There is a difference between a keep and no-consensus outcome: an article or redirect can be almost immediately renominated after a no-consensus; it is very strong preferred to wait a good while after a keep, because immediate renomination can be seen as abusive.
329:
There is no functional difference between a keep and no-consensus outcome as neither results in the redirect being deleted. It's unclear therefore what re-closing would achieve. If there is a desire to retarget, this can be worked out via
466:
is the right venue for an appeal. This one did "raise my eyebrows" in several ways. At the end of the first round, the vote was running at 8–2 and I would generally think that 80% was sufficient to determine a consensus to retarget to
556:
without prejudice to renomination. Difference between the outcomes is functionally zip. Some possible solutions (e.g. moving the page) weren't discussed until the very end, so the case could be made at a new RfD for that option. ----
510:
Well I stopped short of making any personal accusations; I'm just pointing out how this may look to outsiders. A lot of fuss here over 3 redirects that combined get barely more than 10 views per day.
476:
like the apparent result when it was 8–2 so relisted rather than close. Then, though I'm not sure on the consensus for relisting editors closing a discussion that they had relisted (see the essay
78:
Editors note that "no consensus" might also have been possible or perhaps preferable, but that the result is the same, so it makes no difference. Either way a renomination remains possible. –
413:
By the way, I initially assumed Steel1943 didn't attempt to discuss this with the closer, given the absence of discussion on
Champion's talk page. There is discussion, though, at
305:
287:
225:
163:
48:
34:
43:
275:
213:
151:
563:
477:
296:
234:
39:
605:
455:
172:
21:
355:
I know, but I wasn't sure where else I could go to dispute this close, and this seemed like the best/correct venue. See
540:
468:
621:
101:
17:
245:
183:
436:
610:
587:
567:
548:
519:
505:
489:
449:
426:
401:
374:
343:
323:
90:
121:
414:
370:
356:
319:
408:
383:
558:
515:
485:
241:
339:
179:
600:
459:
117:
70:
415:
User talk:Steel1943#Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 6#Nigerian prince
360:
357:
User talk:Steel1943#Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 6#Nigerian prince
309:
81:
583:
472:
422:
397:
304:
From what I see, there was no consensus to "keep all" in the related RFD discussion (
511:
498:
481:
463:
442:
331:
495:
close the discussion with your option as you were the only one who supported it.
350:
335:
534:
578:
418:
393:
392:
will be the same, and equally accessible for future discussants. --
306:
Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 6#Nigerian prince
454:
As I recommended at the end of this, I think we should move
439:
by using search results wasn't really rebutted either.
282:
268:
260:
252:
220:
206:
198:
190:
158:
144:
136:
128:
308:). Either re-close to "no consensus" or relist.
8:
100:The following is an archived debate of the
598:(NOTE: I !voted "keep" in the discussion.)
63:
7:
624:of the page listed in the heading.
478:Knowledge:Relisting can be abusive
28:
456:Nigerian prince (disambiguation)
620:The above is an archive of the
1:
469:Nigerian traditional rulers
647:
611:15:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
588:12:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
568:19:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
549:19:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
520:01:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
506:22:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
490:19:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
450:18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
427:15:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
402:15:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
375:15:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
344:09:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
324:23:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
91:08:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
627:Please do not modify it.
593:Overturn to no consensus
107:Please do not modify it.
76:"Keep" closure endorsed.
40:Deletion review archives
359:for further details.
334:or the talk pages.
104:of the page above.
634:
633:
599:
547:
412:
387:
242:Nigerian princess
89:
638:
629:
597:
543:
537:
532:
501:
445:
406:
381:
367:
354:
316:
299:
294:
285:
271:
263:
255:
237:
232:
223:
209:
201:
193:
180:Nigerian princes
175:
170:
161:
147:
139:
131:
109:
88:
86:
79:
64:
53:
33:
646:
645:
641:
640:
639:
637:
636:
635:
625:
622:deletion review
608:
566:
546:
541:
535:
499:
460:Nigerian prince
443:
437:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
361:
348:
310:
295:
293:
290:
281:
280:
274:
267:
266:
259:
258:
251:
250:
233:
231:
228:
219:
218:
212:
205:
204:
197:
196:
189:
188:
171:
169:
166:
157:
156:
150:
143:
142:
135:
134:
127:
126:
118:Nigerian prince
105:
102:deletion review
82:
80:
71:Nigerian prince
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
644:
642:
632:
631:
616:
615:
614:
613:
604:
590:
570:
562:
551:
539:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
452:
429:
404:
379:
378:
377:
302:
301:
291:
278:
272:
264:
256:
248:
239:
229:
216:
210:
202:
194:
186:
177:
167:
154:
148:
140:
132:
124:
112:
111:
96:
95:
94:
93:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
643:
630:
628:
623:
618:
617:
612:
607:
602:
594:
591:
589:
585:
581:
580:
574:
571:
569:
565:
564:contributions
560:
555:
552:
550:
544:
538:
530:
527:
521:
517:
513:
509:
508:
507:
504:
503:
502:
493:
492:
491:
487:
483:
479:
474:
470:
465:
462:. So perhaps
461:
457:
453:
451:
448:
447:
446:
438:
433:
430:
428:
424:
420:
416:
410:
409:edit conflict
405:
403:
399:
395:
390:
385:
384:edit conflict
380:
376:
372:
368:
366:
365:
358:
352:
347:
346:
345:
341:
337:
333:
328:
327:
326:
325:
321:
317:
315:
314:
307:
298:
289:
284:
277:
270:
262:
254:
247:
243:
240:
236:
227:
222:
215:
208:
200:
192:
185:
181:
178:
174:
165:
160:
153:
146:
138:
130:
123:
119:
116:
115:
114:
113:
110:
108:
103:
98:
97:
92:
87:
85:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
59:13 March 2017
57:
50:
49:2017 March 14
45:
41:
36:
35:2017 March 12
23:
19:
626:
619:
592:
577:
572:
559:Patar knight
553:
528:
497:
496:
441:
440:
431:
388:
363:
362:
312:
311:
303:
106:
99:
83:
75:
69:
58:
601:Ivanvector
84:Sandstein
44:2017 March
364:Steel1943
313:Steel1943
473:Champion
20: |
573:Comment
554:Endorse
529:Comment
512:wbm1058
500:Hut 8.5
482:wbm1058
444:Hut 8.5
432:Endorse
389:Endorse
297:restore
261:history
235:restore
199:history
173:restore
137:history
471:, but
351:Stifle
336:Stifle
606:Edits
584:talk
536:Godsy
464:WP:RM
332:WP:BB
283:watch
276:links
221:watch
214:links
159:watch
152:links
52:: -->
16:<
542:CONT
516:talk
486:talk
423:talk
417:. --
398:talk
371:talk
340:talk
320:talk
269:logs
253:edit
246:talk
207:logs
191:edit
184:talk
145:logs
129:edit
122:talk
32:<
579:DGG
561:- /
419:BDD
394:BDD
288:XfD
286:) (
226:XfD
224:) (
164:XfD
162:) (
22:Log
609:)
603:(/
586:)
533:—
518:)
488:)
458:→
425:)
400:)
373:)
342:)
322:)
74:–
42::
582:(
545:)
514:(
484:(
421:(
411:)
407:(
396:(
386:)
382:(
369:(
353::
349:@
338:(
318:(
300:)
292:|
279:|
273:|
265:|
257:|
249:|
244:(
238:)
230:|
217:|
211:|
203:|
195:|
187:|
182:(
176:)
168:|
155:|
149:|
141:|
133:|
125:|
120:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.