I'd like some views on an issue that's come to puzzle me very recently, namely the basis for closing and deciding the outcome of an AFD. Here's my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong: * Articles are generally subject to deletion if they violate any of the criteria for inclusion, outlined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion * If it is clear-cut, there are ways to accelerate the deletion policy * If there is controversy, especially with notability, the matter is put to a community of editors who are interested in the discussion * Unless a clear consensus emerges, the discussion goes for a prescribed period of time * No consensus defaults to keeping the article; only when there is a clear sense to delete is it deleted * As a matter of community trust, the closing admin is obliged to not have an interest in any content dispute, but is rather charged with interpreting the sense of the discussion to discern whether there is a consensus.
Did I get anything wrong here?
On 8/7/07, Leif Knutsen vyerllc@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like some views on an issue that's come to puzzle me very recently, namely the basis for closing and deciding the outcome of an AFD. Here's my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong:
- Articles are generally subject to deletion if they violate any of the
criteria for inclusion, outlined here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion
- If it is clear-cut, there are ways to accelerate the deletion policy
- If there is controversy, especially with notability, the matter is put
to a community of editors who are interested in the discussion
- Unless a clear consensus emerges, the discussion goes for a prescribed
period of time
- No consensus defaults to keeping the article; only when there is a clear
sense to delete is it deleted
- As a matter of community trust, the closing admin is obliged to not have
an interest in any content dispute, but is rather charged with interpreting the sense of the discussion to discern whether there is a consensus.
Did I get anything wrong here? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
yep that is correct
to an extent, theres also OFFICE actions and BLP concerns to be had. But its best not to look to rigidly at the rules, use common sense. The only rule that truely matters is what helps improve wikipedia towards its goal. Thats why we have IAR as one of the five pillars. I just bring this up because Deletion and Review discussions are usually crammed with wikilawyers.
On 8/7/07, Kamryn Matika kamrynmatika@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/7/07, Leif Knutsen vyerllc@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like some views on an issue that's come to puzzle me very recently, namely the basis for closing and deciding the outcome of an AFD. Here's
my
understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong:
- Articles are generally subject to deletion if they violate any of the
criteria for inclusion, outlined here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion
- If it is clear-cut, there are ways to accelerate the deletion policy
- If there is controversy, especially with notability, the matter is put
to a community of editors who are interested in the discussion
- Unless a clear consensus emerges, the discussion goes for a prescribed
period of time
- No consensus defaults to keeping the article; only when there is a
clear
sense to delete is it deleted
- As a matter of community trust, the closing admin is obliged to not
have
an interest in any content dispute, but is rather charged with interpreting the sense of the discussion to discern whether there is a consensus.
Did I get anything wrong here? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
yep that is correct _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/7/07, Leif Knutsen vyerllc@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like some views on an issue that's come to puzzle me very recently, namely the basis for closing and deciding the outcome of an AFD. Here's > > my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong:
[snippity doo da]
On 8/7/07, Kamryn Matika kamrynmatika@gmail.com wrote:
yep that is correct
I get the feeling the OP is about to drop the other shoe and say that wasn't done in [wp:articles_for_deletion/The weather_in_London]
On 8/8/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/7/07, Leif Knutsen vyerllc@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like some views on an issue that's come to puzzle me very
recently,
namely the basis for closing and deciding the outcome of an AFD.
Here's > > my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong:
[snippity doo da]
On 8/7/07, Kamryn Matika kamrynmatika@gmail.com wrote:
yep that is correct
I get the feeling the OP is about to drop the other shoe and say that wasn't done in [wp:articles_for_deletion/The weather_in_London]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
/sigh
well if it was clearly an incorrect deletion there is [[WP:DRV]], it doesnt need to be argued about on the list
On 8/7/07, Kamryn Matika kamrynmatika@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/8/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
I get the feeling the OP is about to drop the other shoe and say that wasn't done in [wp:articles_for_deletion/The weather_in_London]
/sigh
well if it was clearly an incorrect deletion there is [[WP:DRV]], it doesnt need to be argued about on the list
Overturn this travesty! Everyone should be able to look up "The weather in London" and find out that it's "Wet." One shouldn't have to miscapitalise london to get information! And there are lots of links to it! Clearly it's notable! And the keep vote is so much more persuasive! The article is true and succinct, so clearly it should have been kept. The crazy deltetionists [it's always spelled that way, right?] didn't cite any policy! It was speedied out of process! The VfD was only open for more than TWO MONTHS, which clearly wasn't enough time, since only three people voted! It was a Vote for Deletion and not an Article for Deletion, so it's even more invalid! And all the comments were on <s>April Fools' Day</s> Christmas Eve, so can't be taken seriously!
Ok, I'm done now. Sorry folks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_weather_in_...
-- Jonel
On 08/08/07, Kamryn Matika kamrynmatika@gmail.com wrote:
/sigh
well if it was clearly an incorrect deletion there is [[WP:DRV]], it doesnt need to be argued about on the list _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oh if only DRV solved it! ;)
On 8/8/07, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 08/08/07, Kamryn Matika kamrynmatika@gmail.com wrote:
/sigh
well if it was clearly an incorrect deletion there is [[WP:DRV]], it doesnt need to be argued about on the list _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oh if only DRV solved it! ;)
-- Alex (Majorly) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes, but DRV by its very existence is always going to be full of drama and arguing. I don't really think there's much we can do about it - can we regulate human nature? People are always going to complain about their pet article being deleted. But it's nice to be able to say "take it to DRV" rather than put up with their moaning all over the place.
On 08/08/07, Kamryn Matika kamrynmatika@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/8/07, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 08/08/07, Kamryn Matika kamrynmatika@gmail.com wrote:
/sigh
well if it was clearly an incorrect deletion there is [[WP:DRV]], it doesnt need to be argued about on the list _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oh if only DRV solved it! ;)
-- Alex (Majorly) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes, but DRV by its very existence is always going to be full of drama and arguing. I don't really think there's much we can do about it - can we regulate human nature? People are always going to complain about their pet article being deleted. But it's nice to be able to say "take it to DRV" rather than put up with their moaning all over the place. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That's what I do on the close - "If you're unhappy with the result, take it to DRV".
Leif Knutsen wrote:
I'd like some views on an issue that's come to puzzle me very recently, namely the basis for closing and deciding the outcome of an AFD. Here's my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong:
- Articles are generally subject to deletion if they violate any of the
criteria for inclusion, outlined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion
- If it is clear-cut, there are ways to accelerate the deletion policy
- If there is controversy, especially with notability, the matter is put to
a community of editors who are interested in the discussion
- Unless a clear consensus emerges, the discussion goes for a prescribed
period of time
- No consensus defaults to keeping the article; only when there is a clear
sense to delete is it deleted
- As a matter of community trust, the closing admin is obliged to not have
an interest in any content dispute, but is rather charged with interpreting the sense of the discussion to discern whether there is a consensus.
Did I get anything wrong here? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You are correct...but only in general. A lot of people interpret "The closing admin should only interpret consensus, never override it" as "Count the votes and shut up." I do not know if that is your take on it, but that is not the case. (If it were, we wouldn't need admins to close AfDs, we could have a bot do it.)
Admins are expected to look at strength of argument, applicable policies and guidelines, and the like, and weight accordingly. Someone making a strong, convincing, policy-based argument will (and should) be weighted much more heavily than (insert one of: bare vote, interesting, likeit, dontlikeit, cruft, useful, effort, etc.). If many early arguments are based on a lack of secondary sourcing, and then significant secondary sources are found, a good closer will discount the earlier arguments based on the now-falsified premise entirely (unless the person who made it indicates that they re-reviewed the situation and still believes deletion to be appropriate).
Or in other words, it sounds simple, but try doing it sometime.
I think there are two opposing extremes here.
On the one hand, if it were a clear majority vote, then Todd is right - a bot would suffice to close it, precisely 120 hours after it opened.
On the other hand, the preponderance of the views have to count for something, if the term "consensus" is to have any meaning. Otherwise, it would suffice to bring a nomination to an admin board, where the first avaialble admin could decide.
POV forks and AFDs are often employed as "weapons" on controversial topics. Some POV forks become useful articles in spite or possibly even because of their intent. Others that survive an AFD probably collapse under their own weight after some time. (DRV's are often reruns of the NDA, in my experience).
It seems to me that admins who wade into edit wars by closing an AFD one way or the other, need clear guidelines to protect their actions and make decisions more straightforward.
On 8/8/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Leif Knutsen wrote:
I'd like some views on an issue that's come to puzzle me very recently, namely the basis for closing and deciding the outcome of an AFD. Here's my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong:
- Articles are generally subject to deletion if they violate any of the
criteria for inclusion, outlined here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion
- If it is clear-cut, there are ways to accelerate the deletion policy
- If there is controversy, especially with notability, the matter is put
to
a community of editors who are interested in the discussion
- Unless a clear consensus emerges, the discussion goes for a prescribed
period of time
- No consensus defaults to keeping the article; only when there is a clear
sense to delete is it deleted
- As a matter of community trust, the closing admin is obliged to not have
an interest in any content dispute, but is rather charged with
interpreting
the sense of the discussion to discern whether there is a consensus.
Did I get anything wrong here? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You are correct...but only in general. A lot of people interpret "The closing admin should only interpret consensus, never override it" as "Count the votes and shut up." I do not know if that is your take on it, but that is not the case. (If it were, we wouldn't need admins to close AfDs, we could have a bot do it.)
Admins are expected to look at strength of argument, applicable policies and guidelines, and the like, and weight accordingly. Someone making a strong, convincing, policy-based argument will (and should) be weighted much more heavily than (insert one of: bare vote, interesting, likeit, dontlikeit, cruft, useful, effort, etc.). If many early arguments are based on a lack of secondary sourcing, and then significant secondary sources are found, a good closer will discount the earlier arguments based on the now-falsified premise entirely (unless the person who made it indicates that they re-reviewed the situation and still believes deletion to be appropriate).
Or in other words, it sounds simple, but try doing it sometime.
On 8/8/07, Leif Knutsen vyerllc@gmail.com wrote:
I think there are two opposing extremes here.
On the one hand, if it were a clear majority vote, then Todd is right
- a bot would suffice to close it, precisely 120 hours after it
opened.
Bots aren't very good at detecting sock puppets.
On the other hand, the preponderance of the views have to count for something, if the term "consensus" is to have any meaning.
The term "consensus", as used in Wikipedia, lost its meaning years ago.
On 8/8/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/8/07, Leif Knutsen vyerllc@gmail.com wrote:
I think there are two opposing extremes here.
On the one hand, if it were a clear majority vote, then Todd is right
- a bot would suffice to close it, precisely 120 hours after it
opened.
Bots aren't very good at detecting sock puppets.
On the other hand, the preponderance of the views have to count for something, if the term "consensus" is to have any meaning.
The term "consensus", as used in Wikipedia, lost its meaning years ago.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
True. But a bot could be useful for completely unanimous nominations with over a certain amount of comments. So if one person dissented, it didn't do it.
And perhaps a bot for relisting non-unanimous nominations that haven't reached a certain number of editors who have commented.
Just a thought.
On 08/08/07, Leif Knutsen vyerllc@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that admins who wade into edit wars by closing an AFD one way or the other, need clear guidelines to protect their actions and make decisions more straightforward.
Basically when I close an AfD that is not clear one way or another, I give
quite detailed reasoning for it. Otherwise, the reasoning is generally common sense. But um edit warring over closes are something to be avoided. Even worse is the subsequent warring that sometimes occurs on deletion review.
On 8/8/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
You are correct...but only in general. A lot of people interpret "The closing admin should only interpret consensus, never override it" as "Count the votes and shut up."
Admins are expected to look at strength of argument, applicable policies and guidelines, and the like, and weight accordingly.
This is just my opinion but I think a closing admin should, for normal issues such as "notability"[1], be able to set aside an AFD consensus if he feels the umm, "voters" didn't properly consider policy but only if it's a "delete" consensus just as judges in US jury trials can set aside only "guilty" verdicts. A "bad" article kept can always be renominated later.
1. Deletions for issues such as privacy, copyright, and some BLP concerns should be an exception.