Overturn to NC as a better reading of a 2-2ish discussion, even if those arguing against deletion didn't bold their opinions. Obviously, if this is still an issue, then new opinions and outcomes are entirely appropriate, so no prejudice against speedy renomination. Jclemens (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn & move. I interpret that MfD as 2 keep !votes and 1 delete, even if the keeps weren't explicit. Since it seems more input might be needed (which isn't really DRV's job), I don't object to a 2nd MfD.Clyde!Franklin!10:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The guidelines for Long-term abuse say that long-term abuse files are normally not needed for vandals whose sock accounts will be blocked as vandalism-only accounts. Is this such a case? Pinging the nominator, User:Praxidicae, who appears to have been making that argument. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus basically per Jclemens. Ordinarily I wouldn't have a problem with relisting, but since this is a four-month-old discussion I'd prefer to just allow a new MfD, especially given the argument that things have changed since September. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus Agreeing with Jclemens and Extraordinary Writ. I don't see a good case for endorsing given the split in the discussion. Relisting at this point doesn't make much sense, but of course a new MfD could be made, if needed. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
