Why are "keep" closes reviewable on DRV? It seems kind of silly since if someone really wants an article deleted, he can AFD it again. (and again and again and again)
On 4/15/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Why are "keep" closes reviewable on DRV? It seems kind of silly since if someone really wants an article deleted, he can AFD it again. (and again and again and again)
Presumably because the same admin could then close the second (and third, and fourth...) AfD as a "Keep". More to the point - like any other admin action, it should be subject to review by the community ("...we take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major...")
On 4/15/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Why are "keep" closes reviewable on DRV? It seems kind of silly since if someone really wants an article deleted, he can AFD it again. (and again and again and again)
Well, people quite often vote "keep, out of process" or similar when people do that, don't they?
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:57:42 -0400, "Ron Ritzman" ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Why are "keep" closes reviewable on DRV? It seems kind of silly since if someone really wants an article deleted, he can AFD it again. (and again and again and again)
It's a review of the process. Did we interpret the debate correctly? No need to re-run the debate if the question is one of interpretation.
Guy (JzG)
On 4/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:57:42 -0400, "Ron Ritzman" ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Why are "keep" closes reviewable on DRV? It seems kind of silly since if someone really wants an article deleted, he can AFD it again. (and again and again and again)
It's a review of the process.
That's a common misunderstanding of deletion review, but it's incorrect if you take a moment to think about it. The process by which a good article is kept or a bad article is deleted doesn't matter. Only the result matters. Deletion review is there because sometimes the process works fine but good article still gets deleted. It's also plausible that a review could also ensure that a bad article gets deleted, but as Ron has suggested the more usual way to fix this is to nominate again.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 4/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:57:42 -0400, "Ron Ritzman" ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Why are "keep" closes reviewable on DRV? It seems kind of silly since if someone really wants an article deleted, he can AFD it again. (and again and again and again)
It's a review of the process.
That's a common misunderstanding of deletion review, but it's incorrect if you take a moment to think about it. The process by which a good article is kept or a bad article is deleted doesn't matter. Only the result matters.
The end justifies the means?
-Rich
On 4/17/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 4/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:57:42 -0400, "Ron Ritzman" ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Why are "keep" closes reviewable on DRV? It seems kind of silly since if someone really wants an article deleted, he can AFD it again. (and again and again and again)
It's a review of the process.
That's a common misunderstanding of deletion review, but it's incorrect if you take a moment to think about it. The process by which a good article is kept or a bad article is deleted doesn't matter. Only the result matters.
The end justifies the means?
It wouldn't justify disruption. But objections to an action because of the failure to dot some "i"s or cross some "t"s really aren't on.
On 4/17/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Deletion review is there because sometimes the process works fine but good article still gets deleted. It's also plausible that a review could also ensure that a bad article gets deleted, but as Ron has suggested the more usual way to fix this is to nominate again.
Here's the AFD that prompted me to ask this question, the "keep" closure was upheld.
[[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fictional_portrayals_of_psychopaths]]
On 4/19/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/17/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Deletion review is there because sometimes the process works fine but good article still gets deleted. It's also plausible that a review could also ensure that a bad article gets deleted, but as Ron has suggested the more usual way to fix this is to nominate again.
Here's the AFD that prompted me to ask this question, the "keep" closure was upheld.
[[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fictional_portrayals_of_psychopaths]]
Thanks. I think it would be difficult to argue with that close and that endorsement. Apparently some content problems in the article are being fixed by editing, but if after a month or so you think it still isn't working you have the option to list for deletion again.
Why are "keep" closes reviewable on DRV? It seems kind of silly since if someone really wants an article deleted, he can AFD it again. (and again and again and again)
DRV serves a very different purpose than AFD. AFD is about articles, DRV is about debates. You should be able to contribute to a DRV without ever reading the article, you just need to read the AFD. (Which is why we don't automatically undelete things for the length of the DRV.) If you put something up for AfD and everyone says "keep", and it's closed as keep, then if you still think it needs to be deleted, you would have to go through AFD again. If everyone says "delete" and it is closed as keep, then you should go through DRV.
We really should delete comments about the article from DRVs, they aren't relevant. Too many people seem to think DRV is just another AFD.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
We really should delete comments about the article from DRVs, they aren't relevant. Too many people seem to think DRV is just another AFD.
DRV is a very flawed process at present, and while the most recent gripe I have is an example, it's been ongoing. DRVs are closed as a strict vote count, they fail to weigh consensus, and, while the page claims to be about process rather than content, it offers no guarantees that the discussion will be closed with the issues brought up in mind.
It's the only forum of appeals for deletion we have, it's being overrun, and with no forum to appeal a DRV, that's a major problem that needs to be solved.
-Jeff
It's the only forum of appeals for deletion we have, it's being overrun, and with no forum to appeal a DRV, that's a major problem that needs to be solved.
I think one of the problems is that DRV is closed by just one, ordinary admin, with fairly wide discretion, so it only takes two (one for the AfD, one for the DRV) to come along and say, basically, "the argument I agree with is so brilliant and unanswerable that it trumps consensus", and the decision is made, with no recourse whatsoever.
On 4/16/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
We really should delete comments about the article from DRVs, they aren't relevant. Too many people seem to think DRV is just another AFD.
Has DRV officially become a process-only matter, then? I recall a couple years ago when there was still a health debate over whether DRV should address the article, the process, or both. Some people even used this to game the system, treating DRV one way for articles they wanted deleted and the other way for articles they wanted kept.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
Has DRV officially become a process-only matter, then? I recall a couple years ago when there was still a health debate over whether DRV should address the article, the process, or both. Some people even used this to game the system, treating DRV one way for articles they wanted deleted and the other way for articles they wanted kept.
I don't think DRV knows what it is. In October, we allegedly switched to a consensus-based system, but a discussion in Feburary or March indicated that closing admins were simply using headcounts again. There's no evidence that I'm aware of that arguments are weighted based on the facts surrounding the individual situations.
-Jeff
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I thought it always was. I could be wrong. If it isn't a process-only matter, it really should be, otherwise we just repeat the AfD verbatim everytime someone doesn't like the outcome.
But process is evil! We're not a bureaucracy! IAR IAR! Ahhh!
-Jeff
On 4/16/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Has DRV officially become a process-only matter, then?
I thought it always was. I could be wrong. If it isn't a process-only matter, it really should be, otherwise we just repeat the AfD verbatim everytime someone doesn't like the outcome.
It certainly wasn't always that way. I remember a lot of times that a clearly out-of-process deletion was made and when it was taken to VFU it received a bunch of recommendations to "keep deleted - this article is crap".
Also, if DRV is a process-only matter, what is one to do when an article is deleted and new information comes to light? I guess the argument would be to simply create another article with the new information, but some people will delete an article with the same title as one which was deleted under AfD.
Anthony
It certainly wasn't always that way. I remember a lot of times that a clearly out-of-process deletion was made and when it was taken to VFU it received a bunch of recommendations to "keep deleted - this article is crap".
VFU and DRV are not the same thing. Just look at the titles - one is about undeleting articles, the other is about reviewing deletions. I wasn't very active when the move was made from VFU to DRV, but I would guess that that was when it became about process and not content.
If you believe new information has come to light, then you should recreate the article and explain your point of view in the edit summary of the creation and on the talk page. If any admin speedies the article after that, then you go to the admin noticeboard and I'm sure you'll find someone willing to undelete it. (A full DRV is not required to undo a speedy deletion.)
On 4/16/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It certainly wasn't always that way. I remember a lot of times that a clearly out-of-process deletion was made and when it was taken to VFU it received a bunch of recommendations to "keep deleted - this article is crap".
VFU and DRV are not the same thing. Just look at the titles - one is about undeleting articles, the other is about reviewing deletions. I wasn't very active when the move was made from VFU to DRV, but I would guess that that was when it became about process and not content.
OK then. I thought it was just a name change, to coincide with the change from VFD to AFD.
Anthony
If you believe new information has come to light, then you should recreate the article and explain your point of view in the edit summary of the creation and on the talk page. If any admin speedies the article after that, then you go to the admin noticeboard and I'm sure you'll find someone willing to undelete it. (A full DRV is not required to undo a speedy deletion.)
On 4/16/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If you believe new information has come to light, then you should recreate the article and explain your point of view in the edit summary of the creation and on the talk page. If any admin speedies the article after that, then you go to the admin noticeboard and I'm sure you'll find someone willing to undelete it. (A full DRV is not required to undo a speedy deletion.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brand... seems to disagree with your view that a speedy can be undone by any admin. In fact, it seems to suggest that a consensus is required to undo any speedy which isn't "obviously out-of-process".
"While undeletion policy permits admins to reverse an obviously out-of-process deletion, discussion is the more appropriate response when there is disagreement. The proper venue for such discussion is Wikipedia:Deletion review. As a general rule, articles listed there are left deleted at least until a strong consensus begins to emerge in favor of overturning the deletion of the article, or are marked as "temporarily undeleted" if undeletion is necessary so that participants in the review can see the article's contents. Where consensus is unclear, the article should remain deleted until the five-day comment period has elapsed."
Anthony
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brand... seems to disagree with your view that a speedy can be undone by any admin. In fact, it seems to suggest that a consensus is required to undo any speedy which isn't "obviously out-of-process".
"While undeletion policy permits admins to reverse an obviously out-of-process deletion, discussion is the more appropriate response when there is disagreement. The proper venue for such discussion is Wikipedia:Deletion review. As a general rule, articles listed there are left deleted at least until a strong consensus begins to emerge in favor of overturning the deletion of the article, or are marked as "temporarily undeleted" if undeletion is necessary so that participants in the review can see the article's contents. Where consensus is unclear, the article should remain deleted until the five-day comment period has elapsed."
The idea of speedy deletion is that only articles where there is no room for debate get deletion without debate. If someone (esp. an admin) disagrees, then that is very clear evidence that the deletion was out-of-process. There should be no room for opinion or judgement in speedy deletions, so anything controversial is, by definition, out of process.
On 4/16/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brand... seems to disagree with your view that a speedy can be undone by any admin. In fact, it seems to suggest that a consensus is required to undo any speedy which isn't "obviously out-of-process".
"While undeletion policy permits admins to reverse an obviously out-of-process deletion, discussion is the more appropriate response when there is disagreement. The proper venue for such discussion is Wikipedia:Deletion review. As a general rule, articles listed there are left deleted at least until a strong consensus begins to emerge in favor of overturning the deletion of the article, or are marked as "temporarily undeleted" if undeletion is necessary so that participants in the review can see the article's contents. Where consensus is unclear, the article should remain deleted until the five-day comment period has elapsed."
The idea of speedy deletion is that only articles where there is no room for debate get deletion without debate. If someone (esp. an admin) disagrees, then that is very clear evidence that the deletion was out-of-process. There should be no room for opinion or judgement in speedy deletions, so anything controversial is, by definition, out of process.
So, what are you saying, that you disagree with the arb com decision? If so, hey, I do too, but as long as people are getting desysopped for restoring controversial out-of-process speedy deletions I think you're going to have a tough time convincing admins to do so without a deletion review.
Anthony
So, what are you saying, that you disagree with the arb com decision? If so, hey, I do too, but as long as people are getting desysopped for restoring controversial out-of-process speedy deletions I think you're going to have a tough time convincing admins to do so without a deletion review.
Just as there is a difference between reverting an edit to an article and edit warring, there is a difference between undeleting an article that's just been deleted and wheel warring. From my memory of the arbcom decision, only admins which deleted or undeleted more than once were desysoped.
On 4/16/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
So, what are you saying, that you disagree with the arb com decision? If so, hey, I do too, but as long as people are getting desysopped for restoring controversial out-of-process speedy deletions I think you're going to have a tough time convincing admins to do so without a deletion review.
Just as there is a difference between reverting an edit to an article and edit warring, there is a difference between undeleting an article that's just been deleted and wheel warring. From my memory of the arbcom decision, only admins which deleted or undeleted more than once were desysoped.
Yes, there's a difference, but according to the arb com both are wrong: at least one admin who only undeleted the article once was "strongly cautioned", and the text I quoted says that DRV is supposed to be used for controversial out-of-process speedy deletions. Incidently, the arb com decision also acknowledges temporary undeletion as a valid though optional part of deletion review.
Anthony
On 4/16/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Yes, there's a difference, but according to the arb com both are wrong: at least one admin who only undeleted the article once was "strongly cautioned", and the text I quoted says that DRV is supposed to be used for controversial out-of-process speedy deletions. Incidently, the arb com decision also acknowledges temporary undeletion as a valid though optional part of deletion review.
To be fair, there's a pretty obvious difference between, "hey, you accidentally deleted the good copy while cleaning up pagemove vandalism, I'll undelete it," and getting involved in a large-scale, fast-paced wheel war over an issue being paid great attention by a large amount of editors, and overriding multiple ongoing discussions while you're at it, especially considering that said issue has one of the longest and most checkered histories of any I've yet become familiar with, on Wikipedia.
The word "controversial" doesn't appear too significant, in the sentence, but it's the keystone of the difference.
That's my thought, anyway. -Luna
On 16/04/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
So, what are you saying, that you disagree with the arb com decision? If so, hey, I do too, but as long as people are getting desysopped for restoring controversial out-of-process speedy deletions I think you're going to have a tough time convincing admins to do so without a deletion review.
No, they were desysopped for wheel-warring. What they were wheelwarring over was not at issue.
- d.
On Apr 16, 2007, at 9:51 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Has DRV officially become a process-only matter, then?
I thought it always was. I could be wrong. If it isn't a process-only matter, it really should be, otherwise we just repeat the AfD verbatim everytime someone doesn't like the outcome.
You mean like we can do on AfD with keep votes?
-Phil
On 4/16/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 16, 2007, at 9:51 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Has DRV officially become a process-only matter, then?
I thought it always was. I could be wrong. If it isn't a process-only matter, it really should be, otherwise we just repeat the AfD verbatim everytime someone doesn't like the outcome.
You mean like we can do on AfD with keep votes?
It'd make for an interesting situation. Any borderline article can simply be submitted to AfD over and over again until the right mix of people happen to be paying attention and vote to delete it. Once that happens, the article cannot be recreated, and in fact no article by the same title can ever be recreated, and any deletion review will fail because the 5 or 6 people who happened to participate in the AfD vote have irrevocably spoken for everyone.
But, that's never actually happened, has it?
Anthony
It'd make for an interesting situation. Any borderline article can simply be submitted to AfD over and over again until the right mix of people happen to be paying attention and vote to delete it. Once that happens, the article cannot be recreated, and in fact no article by the same title can ever be recreated, and any deletion review will fail because the 5 or 6 people who happened to participate in the AfD vote have irrevocably spoken for everyone.
But, that's never actually happened, has it?
You make an interesting point. It is a widely accepted fact that consensus can change, yet we have no process by which to assess any such change for deletions. DRV is not intended to be that process, and it shouldn't be that process, but such a process is required. I think we should create an Articles for Undeletion (AFU) which would operate under a similar system to AFD. The article should be undeleted as a subpage of the deletion debate so people can make an informed decision (this is not required for DRV, but would be required for AFU, as AFU would be about content not process).
There would need to be some eligibility requirements for an article to go through AFU. AFU would not be for speedied articles - they can be unilaterally undeleted by any admin, just as they were unilaterally deleted. I think some kind of waiting period would be useful - say 1 week after the AFD is closed before you can start an AFU, and 1 month after a failed AFU is closed before you can start a new one. A requirement that AFUs be started by more than one person (ie. they have to be co-nominated) might also be good - I'm not sure how many people would be the right amount.
I know this idea involves creation of a whole new process, which may well be frowned upon by many, but I think it is necessary. At the moment, DRV doesn't really work because it is trying to handle two jobs - deletion review, and undeletion debate. Those are two different jobs and should be handled by different processes.
They might be an argument for making DRV admin-only. AFDs can only be closed by admins, so only admins should review the closure (although one could be started by anyone, only admin opinions would be taken into account). I haven't thought this through fully, so I'm not sure if it's a good idea, but I'll put it out there for discussion anyway and I'll let you know my opinion once I've formed one.
On 4/16/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
AFDs can only be closed by admins
When this change come about? According to [[Wikipedia:Maintenance]], "Non-admins can help keep deletion pages clean by resolving discussions. Administrators are needed to actually delete pages."
Anthony
AFDs can only be closed by admins
When this change come about? According to [[Wikipedia:Maintenance]], "Non-admins can help keep deletion pages clean by resolving discussions. Administrators are needed to actually delete pages."
Non-admins can close uncontroversial AFDs. If it's going to DRV, it isn't really uncontroversial, is it?
On 4/16/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
AFDs can only be closed by admins
When this change come about? According to [[Wikipedia:Maintenance]], "Non-admins can help keep deletion pages clean by resolving discussions. Administrators are needed to actually delete pages."
Non-admins can close uncontroversial AFDs. If it's going to DRV, it isn't really uncontroversial, is it?
Probably not, then again if it's on AFD it probably isn't uncontroversial.
When was it decided that non-admins can't close "controversial" AFDs?
Anthony
Probably not, then again if it's on AFD it probably isn't uncontroversial.
There are plenty of uncontroversial AFDs. Yes, they probably should have gone through PROD instead, but they often go through AFD anyway.
When was it decided that non-admins can't close "controversial" AFDs?
When we it decided that they could? Wikipedia:Maintenance is not part of the deletion policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure calls the volunteer that closes the AFD the "closing admin" and makes no reference to non-admins closing AFDs. It is generally accepted that an admin isn't required for almost unanimous keeps, but I don't know of any consensus for any other AFDs to be closed by non-admins.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
They might be an argument for making DRV admin-only. AFDs can only be closed by admins, so only admins should review the closure (although one could be started by anyone, only admin opinions would be taken into account). I haven't thought this through fully, so I'm not sure if it's a good idea, but I'll put it out there for discussion anyway and I'll let you know my opinion once I've formed one.
Mostly, it's the admins screwing up the DRVs, somewhat interestingly. Besides, most input on DRV tends to be from long-time editors anyway, who theoretically have better knowledge.
Really, the problem is assuring editors that they'll get a proper appeal and be virtually guaranteed a proper result.
-Jeff