Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Changed

I don't know why many editors are still popping in to "Oppose" after I have withdrawn the proposal. It is a dead horse, thank you. Unhat this if you must.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


I've removed this part og the guideline. No where should we be indicating that a group (administrators) have better smarts ability then non administrators. See this policy also where it states:

In the very early days of Wikipedia, all users functioned as administrators, and in principle they still should. From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else. Generally, the maintenance and administration of Wikipedia can be conducted by anyone, without the specific technical functions granted to administrators. While the tools granted to administrators are technical and do not convey authority per se, administrators are people that are entrusted with potentially harmful tools.

Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose removal. The sentence you removed contained the word "should," not the word "must." I see it as advice--the community has long been queasy about non-admin closes of controversial debates, and that should be reflected in policy, which is generally intended to be descriptive of the community will. Chick Bowen 21:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Then why are people using it in DRV arguments for the overturn of decision, and they use this as the only reason? NonvocalScream (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
You are painting yourself into a lot of corners, mate, and I think you should stop. This is starting to look like sour grapes for not having the bit. Just act in a quietly clueful manner and leave it at that, eh? Guy (Help!) 21:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Lets not personalize this. I don't want the bit on this project anymore. I do however want, and I want me fellow editors to be able to participate maximally. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Guy speaks wisely here. One should be careful that the pursuit of a particular goal is for the betterment of the encyclopedia, and not for massaging personal bitterness. Anthøny ✉ 21:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not bitter. But whatever, fuck it. It will be a long time and I'll have to think very hard before I try to improve the meta side of this project even again. I withdraw this proposal and thank you for personalizing this. Appreciated it. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose I see significant problems with NACs on a fairly regular basis. I imagine this change leading to more meatpuppetry to get certain closes, and with the latest scripting tools, there is no longer any backlog to AfD. MBisanz talk 21:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
You imagine this leading to what? Meatpuppetry? This project needs maximum participation, why are we restricting this to administrators? I ought to change the administrator policy to read "Generally anyone who is willing to be thoroughly investigated for a whole week whilst too nervous to even breathe can administer the project.". I don't understand. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Because administrators have been selected for their judgment skills determining when to block people violating policies, what consensus looks like at XfD, and when page protection ought to be invoked, among other things. Opening this up would create more problems and solve none. This is a solution searching for a problem. MBisanz talk 21:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
problem is searching for a solution. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
So you are saying that because another non-admin, who does a significant amount of AfD work, wanted an admin to close a no-consensus AfD that you had tried closing, the policy is flawed? Seems like a very poor justification for a major policy change. MBisanz talk 21:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I reverted your change for the following reason: guidelines should describe current practice, and the consensus of the community. I think you will find that the general opinion is that controversial deletion discussions should be closed by an admin, and this should be reflected in this guideline. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 21:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose your proposed change, NVS. Also find your post to Wiki-en-L to be somewhat on the canvassing side. Controversial closes are difficult enough for administrators, individuals who have been vetted by the community and determined to have sufficient understanding of consensus to close such discussions. Non-admins have not been entrusted by the community to analyse such deletion debates. That does not mean that they are doing a bad job, although some do better than others. Given the number of times non-admin closure comes up in RfA, I think the wording should remain. Risker (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I find your lack of knowing what canvassing is a little disturbing. For it to be bad canvassing it has to be Mass posting OR Biased OR Partisan OR Secret. Which one of those did the email meet? None. I'll kindly ask you retract that accusation. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it wasn't the slightest bit canvassing. Please read up on the guideline. Thank you! Majorly talk 22:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose the deletion. Admins are not given the tools because they're smarter, they're given the tools because they've proven that they have the backing of the community. Anybody coming along and drive-by closing discussions should not be allowed. Corvus cornixtalk 21:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion - I agree with Guy - "should" was appropriate, and not saying "must be" leaves enough wiggle room that experienced and trusted non-admins who close under controversial or close conditions aren't going to get in trouble for it.
Fundamentally, the point is that if we (the community) don't know and trust you, you shouldn't close controversial ones. Administrators are (rebuttably) presumed to be known and trusted by the community. Others may be. I think that we want the policy to be restrictive with wiggle room, and not prescriptive to prevent that wiggle room. That's what the section "Should" say, and did, and I support leaving it in. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • (ecx2) I also oppose the removal, per Chick Bowen. The statement is not included because administrators "have better smarts ability then non administrators", but rather because they are assumed to have a familiarity with the full range of relevant policies and guidelines (the assumption being that they could not pass RfA otherwise). We cannot automatically assume the same of non-administrators, even though it is likely to be true in some cases. I personally wouldn't mind if an experienced non-admin editor closed a "close-call" XfD (as long as a sound rationale was given), but this applies to only a small fraction of the nearly 8 million non-admin accounts on Wikipedia. As long as the relevant statement in the guideline uses "should" instead of "must", it should stay. –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

NonvocalScream does make a lot of good points here. Maybe some re-wording is in order? -- Ned Scott 05:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Rubbish. They are approved to wield the tools by community consensus that they are able and willing to not misuse the tools. Says nothing about ability to assess consensus in discussions anywhere. Everyme 09:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose change. Previous wording was fine as it provides guidance and leaves enough space for non-admin closures including the occasional controversial one as they happen in practice. But that often amounts to stating that there is no consensus to delete, which is easier once you have experience not only with keeps but also with closes that have a (narrow) consensus to delete including the feeling of actually removing something. So my main concern with non-admin closures is about what I'd call a possible methodological bias if they are done on a large scale. Extending non-admin closures to deletions and having some admin push the button can be done in exceptions, but is probably not helpful in general. And not trusting a user with XfD clsures can be a reaosn for an Rfa failing, so the admin part probably amounts to more than the tools.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Non-administrator closures have been an issue in the past. There is a reason why the community trusts administrators with certain higher privileges, such as closures of deletion processes. seicer | talk | contribs 13:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As Seicer said, there have been any number of Non-administrator closures that have been problematic. -- Avi (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Administrators are chosen for their judgement, also there have been almost no multiple administrative accounts per one person. If nonadministrative closures of close-call deletion discussions are allowed then we are asking for the revert warrings on closures, puppet closures, etc. Finding an admin to clse an xFD is much less time consuming than having DRV Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, are you kidding me? Yeah, the many above people say it best. Wizardman 16:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

Trying not to sound too boastful here, but when I was an admin (in my prime early 2007), I worked through hundreds of AfDs and I can't remember a single one that got overturned. I have also closed controversial AfDs, such as the one of Encyclopedia Dramatica, with detailed reasoning, and was congratulated on my talk page for making it a successful close. Now I'm a non-admin, resigned under a cloud, for reasons other than AfDs. I'm also an admin on 3 other projects in good standing. What would you say if I started closing AfDs to anything other than obvious keeps? Am I suddenly completely untrustworthy in this area? Majorly talk 22:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say a thing, unless your closures were contested multiple times (i.e. a history of bad decisions). Synergy 22:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
So why can't other non-admins do it? Until they make a bad close, it's not a problem. Their decisions can easily be reversed. Majorly talk 22:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Because for one, I or others have never been an admin, you have. You also had no issues from what I can tell over closed discussions. It also takes more time to reverse the closure. The general consensus is that it shouldn't be done unless one or more criteria are met. Synergy 22:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
So can I, or can I not close AfDs as I like (well obviously not delete, but anything else)? Majorly talk 22:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I would say this is a brd issue if you close a no-consensus or otherwise borderline delete XfD(and obviously not a delete based close). From there you will have your answer. Synergy 22:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec x2) No, with the exception of "delete" closes. (In general, I don't think anyone should close a discussion as "delete" unless they have the ability to actually the delete the page in question.) My reason for noting this is that you are an experienced editor and your resignation was not AfD-related (I've taken numerous wikibreaks this year, so I didn't even know that you had resigned). With regard to your question to Synergy, I would respond with the following: other non-admins can do it, if they're experienced and trusted by the community (note that the guideline uses "should" instead of "must"). And even though decisions are reversible, reversing an AfD closure requires additional time and effort (sometimes a full-length deletion review). –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Major got tired of blocking vandals and carrying the heavy yellow and red cards ;) Just kidding. fayssal / Wiki me up® 22:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
(EC) I, personally, never assisted to a reversal of a non-admin closure. You'd risk an admin reversion in case of an inappropriate early closure but this can be subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator through DR. Just be bold. You got the experience. I remember your admin closures and your non-admin ones would not be different. fayssal / Wiki me up® 22:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Majorly seems competent enough to close them, never seen a significant issue here before, more of a "no one notices unless you mess up a lot" forums. MBisanz talk 22:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
While I personally haven't been involved in AFD in forever, I think Majorly has a larger point. Is everyone then saying it is ok for non-admins to close AFDs? I mean, I can sit around and make plenty of justifications to allow Majorly (and I trust Majorly more than I trust myself to do it honestly) but I have to be realistic. At some point, you have to have a line in the sand. I say, "here is the line in the sand. We want admins to be closing AFDs. Period." That's it. Sorry if it seems harsh or a little restrictive, but there are some rules that we have. We no longer allow anonymous users to create articles. What's wrong with saying we don't allow non-admins to close discussions on them? We already have admins as the last line for speedy deletions. Why is so odd to continue that for discussions? Besides, we have enough issues with admins doing the work. The last thing we need is more discussions about which individuals should and should not be allowed to close discussions. That's policy-debating for debating's sake. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Well I like to think ppWP:NAC]] is vague for a reason, so permit some non-admin closures of clear cut cases. MBisanz talk 10:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Former admins and non-admin closures

Just an aside observation, but doesn't the non-admin closure section typically get edited every time an admin "steps down" (involuntarily or voluntarily)? Perhaps we should discuss adding something (to the talk page at least) concerning this, to prevent re-having this discussion every time. - jc37 11:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletions sometimes in my watchlist, sometimes not

When I nominate articles for speedy deletions, and then the deletion is carried out, sometimes the deletion appears in my watchlist when it occurs and sometimes it doesn't. What's the difference? —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Relisting

(Transferred from WP:AN.) I notice there's been quite a high recent tendency to relist AFDs multiple times. My own understanding (although I can't find this codified) is that relisting is really only for use if an AFD attracts very few posts; anything more than that should be closed as No consensus (defaulting to keep). Relisting over and above that is fattening up the daily AFDs and (for me at least) increasing the risk that I will double-!vote due to seeing the same AFD two or three times.

So I'm proposing the following as a guideline:

  • AFDs should be relisted once if only one or two users (including the nominator) have expressed an opinion.
  • AFDs should be relisted once if only three or four users (including the nominator) have expressed an opinion and the opinions are relatively evenly split.
  • AFDs with the opinions of more than four users should only be relisted in exceptional circumstances. If the opinions are evenly divided, the AFD should be closed as no consensus (defaulting to keep).
  • AFDs should only be relisted a second time in the case of extremely poor participation.

This isn't instruction creep, just a way of reducing the number of AFDs in any day's listing and bringing a level of closure (no pun intended) to AFDs that might have been running for ten or fifteen days. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I dunno. I'm inclined to agree that WP owes something of a "speedy trial" to articles at AfD. I'm also inclined to agree that relisting after 5 days may sometimes be an indication that someone relisting the discussion wouldn't be "happy" with a no consensus close. But I really do think there is a place for relisting debates that have gotten 3-4 lame arguments and nothing else. I wouldn't feel comfortable closing a debate on the basis of 2 "itscruft" and 2 "ilikeit/WAX" votes, even as no consensus. I also feel that the single biggest change to the number of debates being relisted was the introduction of a 1 click script to relist them. Before, relisting was kind of a pain, but now it can be done with ease. A natural result of that is to see more relisting. Alternatively, we could just add to the relisting policy: "Relisting an AfD does not guarantee that a new debate of exactly 5 days will occur. An admin or non-admin may disagree with the relisting editors interpretation of consensus and close the debate after it has been relisted." Thoughts? Protonk (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Absolutely agree that there are some circumstances under which an AFD with 3 or 4 !votes would be relisted — the above is just a first run at the guideline. I would limit your alternative to an admin disagreeing; non-admins aren't supposed to close controversial AFDs, and if there was enough to convince someone that there should be a relist due to a lack of consensus, then that would suggest that it's controversial. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      • That's fair. Let's try this:
  • Normally, AfD's should only be relisted once. AFDs should be relisted once if only one or two users (including the nominator) have expressed an opinion, however some circumstances can occur where the relisting editor feels the debate would benefit from further discussion.
  • Relisting an AfD does not guarantee that a new debate of exactly 5 days will occur. An admin may disagree with the relisting editor's interpretation of consensus and close the debate at any point after it has been relisted.
  • Relisting a debate is not a substitute for a no-consensus closure. If substantive debate or good faith and policy based opinions have been expressed, a no-consensus close is preferable.
      • Better? Protonk (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Hmmm. In general I like it, but what about a case in which a 3 or 4 AfD is relisted, and then you immediately get 5 policy-driven keep votes. In such a case, assuming a clear consensus has formed after the relist, a nonadmin would be acting perfectly reasonably to close as a keep. I think this is true even if it happens an hour after a relist - the only time period that matters under the rules is the initial five days. I admit, a clueful person will probably wait to ensure that all voices are heard, but it depends on the article. Anyway, I would favor language like this:
          • The AfD process is an attempt to determine consensus. In cases in which only one editor (or no editors) have commented on a nomination, it is appropriate to relist the AfD in order to obtain sufficient comments to determine consensus.
          • Relisting a debate is not a substitute for a no-consensus closure. If substantive debate or good faith and policy based opinions have been expressed, a no-consensus close is preferable. (Stole your language here :) )
          • Infrequently, however, the discussion that has occurred in cases with more than 1 or 2 during the initial five day period will be lacking arguments based on policy. It may be appropriate to relist such a discussion, understanding that it is subject to being closed as soon as consensus can be determined.
          • The decision to relist a discussion with more than one or two comments requires good judgment and discretion, and generally should be left to administrators and editors experienced in dealing with the deletion process.
Too much ? Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that is worded more clearly. I like it. Protonk (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
What I don't quite understand is why they should be closed as no consensus in every case. If there's only a couple people commenting, and there's a split of opinion, yes that would be no consensus. However, if everyone supports deletion or no one but the nominator comments (assuming its not a "procedural nom"), how does keeping the article make sense? If an article is PRODed and after 5 days no one complains, its deleted, but if its AFD'd and after 10 days no one complains its kept? That's completely illogical. Consensus is based on whoever shows up to a discussion, not some magic number of participants. If no one dissents with the nomination statement, we can only assume they have no opinion on the matter. Mr.Z-man 16:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
There was a big rousing discussion of this at the AfD page (later moved to the village pump). The proposal there was to write into the AfD policy that we can close no participation debates as delete. It didn't fair very well at the pump, but I don't know what the status is now. Protonk (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The status is that it fell off the "archive cliff". Shame it didn't have enough supports to go into "persistent". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify (as I made the proposal), an article deleted for this reason could be recreated (G4 wouldn't apply) or restored upon request as with an expired prod. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
There are very few discussions that have only the nominator commenting after ten days. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Any further opinions on this? I'm going to go ahead and edit this if not. Stifle (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Done. I'll drop a line to active relisters to advise of the changes. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure this was a wise change. Having experienced a surprise "delete" close recently that had serious biting potential, I think we need a way for admins who want an article deleted for a reason that was not properly discussed to relist it once rather than delete for a procedural reason. (In this case: The article was unsourced, and the nominator had given this as one of many reasons. Since it was obvious that finding sources shouldn't be a problem, nobody else addressed this particular argument, which eventually became the reason for deleting.) Otherwise a nominator could game the system by hiding one weak but valid reason for deletion between 20 stupid ones. If everybody gets distracted by the stupid reasons and does not address the valid reason, the correct result is "delete". (There was definitely no such intention in my example, but the result was the same.) --Hans Adler (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I am aware that my case is already covered by the paragraph starting "Infrequently, however". The problem is that the relation to the "exceptional circumstances" paragraph is not clear. I expect that this will discourage relisting in this kind of situation. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
If people want something to not be deleted, they should say so. Why is this so difficult? If you think the nominator's rationale is wrong, you don't ignore it hoping that the closing admin will also find it wrong, you challenge it. If people don't address valid reasons for deletion, why shouldn't it be deleted? The reasons are valid and no one challenges or tries to fix them, so the article gets deleted. That's not gaming the system, its common sense. Mr.Z-man 20:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
My point was that a valid but rectifiable technical problem was hidden between numerous easily refuted arguments that reflected the nominator's real concern. I thought we didn't value technicalities of process over content. If I am wrong, and the "wiki spirit" has been superseded by a bureaucratic mentality, I would really like to know it, because I am in the process of evaluating whether this is the right project for me, after all. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, if several people !vote to keep on the grounds that most of the deletion arguments are crap, and nobody mentions the valid reason besides the nominator, presumably it will be kept. I would hope admins aren't closing debates thinking: "Well, nobody but the nominator wants to delete this, but nobody addressed point X, so I'll delete it anyway" - that's not consensus. But if other people want to delete the article based on that technical reason, and it isn't fixed or addressed, and the deletion arguments outweigh and outnumber the keep arguments, then deletion should may be appropriate. Mr.Z-man 16:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think it was closer to the first scenario you described. (The technical reason was "unsourced", when it was clear there would be plenty of sources at least for part of the information, perhaps for all of it. One other participant mentioned this argument in "merge everything that can be sourced", and another voted "delete because it is a list". Three people voted "keep", and the newbie article creator tried to defend his article but didn't vote explicitly.) I don't know how frequently such situations occur, but I think admins should be encouraged to relist once. But I think the horse stopped breathing, so I will stop now. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
About the part where it says that relisted debates aren't guaranteed to run another 5 days, I assumed that was already the case ie anything listed for 5 days or more is "closable", relisted or not. I often go through the logs for the past 4 days to see if there are any relisted debates with a clear consensus to "keep". (trying to follow the NAC guidelines of course) and a few times I have relisted debates with one or two keeps, they immediately get more keeps and I close them. So if relisted debates are closable, then there is really no reason to have restrictions on who can relist debates and when and how often they can be relisted. If you think a debate should have been closed "no consensus" instead of relisted, then go ahead and do so. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up the text.

In doing so, I've modified 2 things:

1.) The idea that a closer may only relist once except under extreme circumstances is simply something that shouldn't be placed on the page. Relisting is under closer discretion, and shouldn't be limited to 1 if deemed appropriate. (Either we trust the closer's discernment or we don't.)

2.) I broadened this to potentially include any XfD. This is rather applicable to CfD and MfD, among others. Again, I think we should at least try to trust to the judgement of those closing the discussions.

Comments and concerns welcome. - jc37 01:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think one of the main points of the change was discouraging continuous relistings. I agree with its removal for now, because I think this is something which needs a little more discussion before we add it in. Under current standards, the default outcome of a no-consensus close is keep. If there is not enough input to determine whether there is consensus or not, we relist it. However, if relisting more than once is discouraged, then that means that the standard is changing as the discussion goes on. That is, if a discussion has already been relisted once or twice, and still hasn't attracted input, then I presume it would be closed as no consenus, which the guideline says is inappropriate. I don't think that this makes clear sense. I think I agree with Z-man and Ron Ritzman that an Afd with no input besides the nomination should be closed as an uncontested PROD. However, a PROD can be contested for any or no reason at all, so even a totally frivolous keep vote would logically prevent a "default delete" close on Afd. So, for example, we have an Afd debate where the only vote besides the nominator is a Keep vote with no rationale, only a signature. After five days, it automatically gets relisted. After the second five days, with no further input, what should happen? Should it be relisted again? Closed as no consensus? Deleted? Under current practice, it would be relisted again, because there hasn't been enough input to get a consensus. If relisting is highly discouraged, then I can only see that it would be closed as no consensus. Deletion is inappropriate because there needs to be a consensus to delete.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I've done a bit of an amendment to say that when looking at relisting a second time, consideration should be given to a no-consensus close. I've also put in a point which is intended to bring this into line with the processes at XFD locations other than AFD — at IFD, RFD, and CFD (at least), a nomination where nobody comments is closed as delete rather than relisted, and relisting such nominations would jam up the process mightily. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't necessarily doubt you, but if applicable, I think that perhaps this should be noted a bit more broadly than just in a section on relisting.
Has this "common practice" already been codified somewhere?
And are there any other reasons besides "relisting such nominations would jam up the process mightily"? - jc37 10:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Well:
  • For images, WP:DPR#IFD point 8: "There is no such thing as quorum. If after the normal time period, there are no objections to deletion of an image, it can simply be deleted."
  • For categories, WP:CFD, third paragraph: "Categories that have been listed for more than five days are eligible for deletion, renaming or merging when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to the nomination have been raised."
  • For redirects, WP:RFD#The_guiding_principles_of_RFD, point 3: "The default result of any RFD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete. Thus, a redirect nominated in good faith and in accordance with RfD policy will be deleted, even if there is no discussion surrounding that nomination."
would be where it's codified. I think the main reasoning is that the deletion fora other than AFD tend to attract relatively few commenters, so it's assumed that if nobody comments on a discussion that there are no objections. Stifle (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Stifle, I think what jc37 was asking is whether it's been codified somewhere for Afd specifically. All of the different XfDs have different standards and criteria for deletion, and there are good reasons for that. However, I think that this is a departure from current Afd practice, and therefore needs wider discussion.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that was it — hopefully he will come back and clarify it.
The relisting process for AFDs has been changed by this discussion — there was a concern that there were too many relists going on. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I was looking for more information in order to better clarify the text. - jc37 21:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Cool. I think you have it now, but correct me if I'm wrong. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

snowball closing?

How would I (the editor who listed an article at AfD) close it as keep (it hasn't been five days), it's pretty obviously consensus is keep, some are calling it a snowball (though I agree it's keep, I don't think it was snowball) [1] ?--Vidkun (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest you simply strike through the nomination and indicate that you've withdrawn it. An uninvolved party will probably close it soon enough, although I do see that there's another good-faith delete opinion. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes for instruction pages?

MFD instructions
close after 5 days
(unless ongoing discussion)
top tag {{subst:mfd top|RESULT}} ~~~~
bottom tag {{subst:mfd bottom}}
archive un-transclude, wikilink, add to list for that day at bottom. archive finished days.
notes note portal deletions here
If keeping
tag talk page {{oldmfd|date=|result=|votepage=}}
or personal note if user page

Maybe this is a goofy idea, but I think it would be kind of helpful to have an infobox on the closing instruction pages with quick info that you might be looking for. Here's an example for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Administrator instructions, I was thinking of making ones for the administrator instructions for RFD, TFD, etc., the idea being just to highlight the differences in the processes for a quick reference if you're already familiar with closing discussions. (Those pages are a little long-winded and have a lot in common). Any objections or suggestions? delldot ∇. 06:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • That's a brilliant idea. Protonk (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
    Aw, thanks! Since there doesn't appear to be any violent opposition I'm going to go ahead, and of course others can revert me or whatnot later if they want. I'm just going to put the code in rather than creating a new template since it's only going to be used a few times and they're not very heavily edited pages. delldot ∇. 21:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The instructions are already at the top of each discussion page. See the small link to "Administrator instructions" at the top right of WP:RFD, for example. I'd recommend correcting those pages before creating new infoboxes (or expanding the pages if we absolutely must but I worry about instruction creep). Rossami (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Those admin instructions pages were the ones I added the infoboxes to. If you don't like them showing up on the main DPR page, we can stick them inside <noinclude> tags so they don't get transcluded there, I don't have an opinion either way. I don't think it's instruction creepy because I didn't add any new instruction, just tried to provide a synopsis of what's already there (indeed, if I added anything new it was a mistake and should be corrected!) At any rate, feel free to make whatever changes you think are necessary. delldot ∇. 02:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-administrator closings being reopened by non-administrators

I think this needs to be clarified. The current guideline says Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator. It's silent on whether or not a "non administrator" can unilaterally reopen these. I closed this nom as keep because only the nominator was arguing for deletion. The other comments were split between "merge" and "keep". Since merging is an editorial decision, I felt that that discussion could continue on the article's talk page and closed it. It was then reopened by a non administrator who felt my close was incorrect.

Note that this is not a complaint about the reopener or I would have posted this to WP:AN/I. I just feel that this needs to be clarified. IMHO, deletion review is there for a reason and that's the proper place to appeal a close one thinks is incorrect. The only time an AFD close should be reopened is if the close was completely off base and that decision should be made by an administrator. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-admins shouldn't reopen AFDs at all, but it's within the purview of admins to reopen AFDs under any circumstances when they disagree with a non-admin closure. Stifle (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Seconded, although I will go farther in saying that I 't think anybody, even admins, should be overturning Afd closures, no matter who closed it. Improper closures should be taken to WP:DRV. (Now that I've written that, I realize that there are going to be cases which are obviously improper closures that should be re-opened, but I think saying "any circumstances when they disagree with a non-admin closure" is a little too permissive.)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to address the original comment here, that it's reasonable to prematurely close an AFD because it would result in a merge. That ignores an unfortunate reality: some merges are somewhat forced. One of the reasons to take an article to AFD is because you have a small cluster of editors defending the article and refusing to delete, merge, or redirect. AFD opens the discussion to the wider community, and can result in a community consensus to merge or redirect. That's somewhat enforceable. If an article has been redirected or merged as a result of an AFD, you can eventually get that redirect protected if an editor insists on undoing the redirect. Without that AFD consensus, that's next to impossible. Preventing that AFD consensus from being reached is not a good idea.—Kww(talk) 12:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Point taken but it was not a premature close. When I closed it, it had already run five days. (nominated on the 29th, closed on the 4th) I had to point this out to the nominator who also thought I had closed it early. Sometimes people forget that Wikipedia is on Universal time. I started working on the 9/29 log when the 10/04 log became active.
Also recently noticed that the editor who reopened the nom also reopened another nom so she could change the closing rationale from "Keep nomination withdrawn" to "nomination withdrawn". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The page explicitly says that "Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator." If someone else disagrees with you so strongly that they feel the need to reopen the discussion, I would generally consider that a sign that the closure might not have been as unambiguous as you thought it was. Just ignore it and wait for an admin to find the discussion. The backlog is not so bad that pages must be closed immediately.
Note: If the re-opening of the discussion was a bad-faith action, that will get handled differently. As a non-admin closer, though, you can usually ignore that part. Rossami (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
But sometimes you don't know if someone disagrees with you strongly until you're being yelled at AFTER the close. However, as I gain more experience doing this I have started pausing if the nominator is actively participating in the debate (that is, he didn't just nominate and walk away, he's attempting to impeach the keeps) even if all the other arguments are "keep. A good example is this nom where the only editor arguing for deletion was the nominator. I closed it but left a message on the nominator's talk page assuring him that I read his arguments. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was unclear. What I was trying to suggest was to just let the non-admin reopen the discussion and wait for an admin to re-close it.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this part. Non admins should never reopen closed AFD discussions IMHO. If she disagreed with my close then she should have taken it to DRV or perhaps even asked an admin to reopen it if she thought it was a complete goober close. Do note that I'm here trying to get a consensus and a clarification on this point instead of yelling at the reopener and dragging her to an/i. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
(Rossami) The Alaska Seaplane example seems fairly unambiguous at first read but a more detailed evaluation would have asked whether the relevant policy was the notability guideline on roads (as several commentors asserted) or WP:CORP. The nominator did not explicitly cite WP:CORP (which was unfortunate) but his/her arguments closely mirrored it and were unrebutted by the 'keep' opinions. If the standard were clearly WP:CORP, the article would almost certainly have failed. Because of the discrepancy over the relevant guideline, if I had closed this one I would have exercized the "admin discretion" to close it as 'no consensus' with an explicit request that future discussions consider the competing standards. Closing the discussion as a 'keep' does not preclude a subsequent discussion but this was a pretty good example of the need to bring more to the closure than just a read of the comments (and far more than merely a count of the bolded comments on the page). Rossami (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
In both cases, the article's in question probably could not have been closed as "Delete" without causing a lot of drama, even with "admin's discretion". "Keep" or "no consensus" they're still there and they can be nominated again in the future, perhaps with better arguments. The admin who eventually closed Victor_Drazen as "no consensus" told me that he should have deleted it but nobody was discussing the sourcing. At this time it really couldn't have gone any other way. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

While there are differing opinions on what circumstances a closed deletion discussion should be reopened, I think there is a consensus that it should only be done by an administrator. I'm going to add this to the project page. If someone feels that I am incorrect about there being a consensus on this point, feel free to revert. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted it. Three opinions is not enough to demonstrate consensus for a policy change. Rossami (talk) 04:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Make it four, then. I don't really see it as a policy change, just a clarification. I would not normally (though it happened to me once and I was fine with it) expect to see a proper NAC be reversed by another admin. I can see arguments against writing this in, but they aren't too convincing. Protonk (talk) 05:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, an opinion on the other side. Nobody should ordinarily reopen a closed AfD, unless it was improperly closed. If it was improperly closed, and if the appropriate action is to reopen it, then I see no reason why only an admin can make this decision and enact it, and I've seen, I think, two XfDs reopened by non-admins, and nobody said boo! about it. In one case the reopen was proper, in the other, clearly not, but nobody raised the argument that it was bad because the reopen was by a non-admin, and in both cases the reopen stuck, i.e., the process proceeded for days more. And lots of admins were watching, in both cases. So this restriction on non-admins just got made up, and recently. Reopening an XfD is essentially a revert; suppose a vandal or IP editor closes an XfD improperly. A non-admin can't reopen it? Why not? Non-admins can close AfDs; if they do so improperly, only an admin can revert it? Why?
Documenting practice here is one thing, creating policy is another. A couple of editors can document existing practice, no problem. But create policy? No. Rossami was correct to reverse that.
Looking at the description of the incident that prompted this, there was a disagreement between two editors on the close. I see no reason to prefer one side of this over the other. If we are going to allow non-admin closes, which have a lasting effect (to a degree), we should definitely allow non-admin re-opens, which have less effect. It's just another editorial decision; consensus seems to be that non-admins shouldn't close "delete," which has a deeper effect, but the primary argument is that some admin is going to have to do the delete anyway, and that admin, to use his or her tools, should be responsible, and thus should review the case (and not be involved) to be satisfied that the result is as determined, and thus really becomes the closer, hence the non-admin closing is redundant. There is no reason for an addition to the guideline on this. --Abd (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't saying she was wrong to revert it. I have no qualm with that. I was just making it known that I don't have a problem with the deletion process noting this common practice in writing. Protonk (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking, it's a guideline and I just thought the point needed clarifying. If this were a policy page, I'd wait for a lot more editors to "chime in" before changing it. I will however concede that it may be acceptable for any editor to reopen one if the close was a clear case of vandalism. Perhaps it should say "non-administrators should not reopen deletion discussions closed in good faith". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, given that an admin would normally only re-open an Xfd that was closed by another admin if the closure was somehow improper, then the same standard should apply for anyone re-opening an Xfd, period, no matter who closed it, no matter who's re-opening it. Once the closure is made, any contestations of the closure should be taken to WP:DRV. Yes, there are going to be some very open-and-shut cases which shouldn't be an issue, but if it's at all possible that the closure was proper, then it should be contested at DRV.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of the new relisting guidelines

It currently says The decision to relist a discussion with more than one or two comments requires good judgment and discretion. Shouldn't "comments" be changed to "arguments"? A lot of AFDs have a lot of comments but not many "keep" or "delete" arguments (Bolded or not). --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Transcluding the administrator instructions

In order to make sure the instructions here and to the various "administrator instructions" subpages coincide exactly, we should transclude them from there. The talk pages already redirects here. I also see that WP:UCFD lacks one, it would be worthwhile to create a subpage. Cenarium Talk 23:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The admin instructions pages are already transcluded here, good idea about making a similar subpage for UCFD. delldot ∇. 06:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Rfd closing script?

Does anybody have a script that can close Rfd's? I currently use Mr.Z-man's great closeAFD script if there's a backlog on Afd, but closing Rfd's is tiresome. Any ideas on other ways to speed up the process?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Automated tools

I see that there's a mention at the bottom of this page about there being automated tools for closing AfDs, but it doesn't give any information about what tools, or who to contact. Does anyone know more about this? --Elonka 16:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The one I mention above is described at User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD. Follow the instructions there to install it into your monobook.js file. And let me know if you find anything else that'ss help speed up the otherwise-cumbersome Xfd closures. Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Oldrfd

I've been using this template on RFD's that I close, but I don't think it's universally used. Is it really necessary?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I ask because I'm closing this Rfd, which has quite a lot of retargeted redirects, and I'm wondering if it's really necessary that I tag them all.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of list articles is much more like deletion of categories: proposed fixes

In light of the discussion at WP:CLN it is apparent that lists and categories complement each other on Wikipedia, and are often used to do many of the same things. There is much overlap and duplication between them, and that's good. It is not good when deletion discussions involving them are not handled by the same people. Which is occuring now.

When somebody has a problem with a category they don't like, they come to category-for-deletion WP:CFD, because the criteria are not the the same as for articles (we also have separate deletion discussion boards as you see in WP:XFD, eight in all, for other things). However, when people want to delete a list article (list of ships, List of trees, List of birds), which is essentialy the same thing as a category, but in list-form, they go to the article deletion discussion page, WP:AFD. That's not good, because the criteria for notable articles are not the same as those for list-articles. The latter only need a header paragraph to explain themselves (see WP:LIST), and then elements which are individually notable. As in List of birds. But other kinds of wiki-articles normally put up for deletion have more stringent notability requirements, and their verifiability methods are not of the same type (a list article many only have hyperlinked elements and nothing else).

All this produces very WP:LAME edit wars, as you see on the WP:DRV page. For example, List of bow tie wearers has been up for deletion 4 times, and has only survived by now having many, many in-article cites, which makes it look very much unlike List of birds. All that because nay-sayers demanded article criteria for what is essentially a category in list-form. You can see much the same type of problem with List of notable people who wore the bowler hat, which is now up for deletion review on WP:DRV on the grounds that some people are arguing that the existence of the list itself needs defending as a point of WP:V, when in fact, this is really a "what categories are natural?" discussion.

  • I propose that a separte page be created for proposed deletions of list-articles.

Comments? I'm going to repost this around on the several TALK pages which deal with this matter. SBHarris 01:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_process/Archive_3&oldid=1143532302"