-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Please come comment here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_process#Changed
- -- Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream]
Brief comment:
The main justification for having restrictions on non-administrators closing deletion discussions is that discussion closers are expected to be trusted to close without needing his or her closures double- and cross-checked.
2008/9/13 Jon scream@datascreamer.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Please come comment here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_process#Changed
Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkjMMWQACgkQ6+ro8Pm1AtW2xQCfSPj9ZEqO2eiMmuD+l4zQNyyZ A6EAnAtgiZpJHX8UursvwxAieVCScK8J =7Dla -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 5:48 PM, AGK agkwiki@googlemail.com wrote:
Brief comment:
The main justification for having restrictions on non-administrators closing deletion discussions is that discussion closers are expected to be trusted to close without needing his or her closures double- and cross-checked.
There are certainly plenty of cases where the closer doesn't need to be trusted… things like landslide keeps which no one else bothered to speedy close. Effectively the close in those cases are purely procedural ones which require do not require special trusted judgement.
My own thought is that if no one cares, no one cares. Perhaps it's not something that should be generally encouraged, but if someone disagrees they could simply unclose it and leave it to an appointed administrator to deal with it.
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
My own thought is that if no one cares, no one cares. Perhaps it's not something that should be generally encouraged, but if someone disagrees they could simply unclose it and leave it to an appointed administrator to deal with it.
Those are more or less my thoughts on the matter, as well.
If it's a non-controversial closure, I doubt anybody will bother to check if the user is an admin, anyway. ;)
-Luna
The thing is it's about close calls, which are always possibly controversial. I think pretty much everyone agrees on landslide keeps not being the issue here. But that wasn't what the change was about.
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 10:18 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If it's a non-controversial closure, I doubt anybody will bother to check if the user is an admin, anyway. ;)
That's my view - if you do it right, people will just assume you're an admin, so what difference does it make?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 4:18 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
That's my view - if you do it right, people will just assume you're an admin, so what difference does it make?
Well, the convention is that you put "non admin closure" in your closing statement. The new Zman AFD closing script does that automatically.
The problem is that there's been a charge that AFD closes that don't strictly adhere to the wp:nac essay, particularly "no consensus" closes, are being challenged for no other reason then that they were closed by a non-admin. How accurate the charge is I'm not certain but my view on this is that the phrase "comment on the edit, not the editor" should be extended to AFDS, "evaluate the close, not the closer[1]". If it's a bad close (not just one you don't agree with) then it should be reverted or taken to deletion review even if closed by an admin. If it's a reasonable close, then it shouldn't matter who closed it.
That being said, wp:nac was written for a reason. If the non admin is unfamiliar with deletion policy and has no experience judging consensus (or lack thereof) then the only AFDs he should be closing, if any, are ones that are unanimous or near unanimous keeps.
1. The only exception is if the closer, admin or not, has a COI and/or !voted in the AFD.
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 12:43 AM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 4:18 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
That's my view - if you do it right, people will just assume you're an admin, so what difference does it make?
Well, the convention is that you put "non admin closure" in your closing statement. The new Zman AFD closing script does that automatically.
The problem is that there's been a charge that AFD closes that don't strictly adhere to the wp:nac essay, particularly "no consensus" closes, are being challenged for no other reason then that they were closed by a non-admin. How accurate the charge is I'm not certain but my view on this is that the phrase "comment on the edit, not the editor" should be extended to AFDS, "evaluate the close, not the closer[1]". If it's a bad close (not just one you don't agree with) then it should be reverted or taken to deletion review even if closed by an admin. If it's a reasonable close, then it shouldn't matter who closed it.
That being said, wp:nac was written for a reason. If the non admin is unfamiliar with deletion policy and has no experience judging consensus (or lack thereof) then the only AFDs he should be closing, if any, are ones that are unanimous or near unanimous keeps.
- The only exception is if the closer, admin or not, has a COI and/or
!voted in the AFD.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
AfD closures are not supposed to have to be reviewed much. Admins are (supposed) to be trusted by the community to be able to judge the consensus in a debate. If there is not a clear consensus to keep, and a no consensus closure means no clear consensus to keep, having a non admin close such a debate means that people will be more likely to review the close. Without the backlog on AfD, that just means people will be doing extra work, which is not needed.
On 9/13/08, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
There are certainly plenty of cases where the closer doesn't need to be trusted… things like landslide keeps which no one else bothered to speedy close. Effectively the close in those cases are purely procedural ones which require do not require special trusted judgement.
My own thought is that if no one cares, no one cares. Perhaps it's not something that should be generally encouraged, but if someone disagrees they could simply unclose it and leave it to an appointed administrator to deal with it.
From WP:AN: When in doubt, non-admins should not close AfDs unless the consensus is obvious. Wizardman 20:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Why? NonvocalScream (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Because there is no desysopping to threaten them with if they screw up (duh... ). — CharlotteWebb 20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
—C.W.
I don't understand this...how can a non-admin close an AfD except as a keep, lacking a delete button? Or have they fiddled around the speedy deletion process to accommodate this?
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:29:02 -0500 From: charlottethewebb@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Non administrators closing deletion debates
On 9/13/08, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
There are certainly plenty of cases where the closer doesn't need to be trusted… things like landslide keeps which no one else bothered to speedy close. Effectively the close in those cases are purely procedural ones which require do not require special trusted judgement.
My own thought is that if no one cares, no one cares. Perhaps it's not something that should be generally encouraged, but if someone disagrees they could simply unclose it and leave it to an appointed administrator to deal with it.
From WP:AN:
When in doubt, non-admins should not close AfDs unless the consensus is obvious. Wizardman 20:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Why? NonvocalScream (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Because there is no desysopping to threaten them with if they screw up (duh... ). — CharlotteWebb 20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Get all your favourite content with the slick new MSN Toolbar - FREE http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354027/direct/01/
2008/9/16 Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk:
I don't understand this...how can a non-admin close an AfD except as a keep, lacking a delete button? Or have they fiddled around the speedy deletion process to accommodate this?
Closing as "keep" doesn't require technical powers.
- d.
Aha, I see. Isn't there a danger, though, of excess AFDs getting wrongly closed as keep by wannabe admins looking for something to do?
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:30:20 +0100 From: dgerard@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Non administrators closing deletion debates
2008/9/16 Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk:
I don't understand this...how can a non-admin close an AfD except as a keep, lacking a delete button? Or have they fiddled around the speedy deletion process to accommodate this?
Closing as "keep" doesn't require technical powers.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Discover Bird's Eye View now with Multimap from Live Search http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354026/direct/01/
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Christiano Moreschi < moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Aha, I see. Isn't there a danger, though, of excess AFDs getting wrongly closed as keep by wannabe admins looking for something to do?
I don't know if I'd go that far, but it does bring up a good reason why non-admins shouldn't close non-obvious keeps. If they do so honestly, there's a good chance they'll spend a lot of time reading through the discussions only to find out that their efforts are wasted as the proper close is a delete.
I guess I just flip-flopped on my opinion on the matter. If non-admins can't close deletes, they shouldn't close non-obvious keeps either.
Of course, the whole system is rather stupid and needs to be overhauled.
Anthony
2008/9/16 Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk:
I don't understand this...how can a non-admin close an AfD except as a keep, lacking a delete button? Or have they fiddled around the speedy deletion process to accommodate this?
A few years ago, what would happen was they'd close it, tag the article as a speedy-deletion candidate, and mark it as "per the deletion discussion [here]", or something similar. This was sort of frowned on, but simply because it meant an extra step - the deleting admin had to check the discussion was indeed a fair close.
I assume this then became unpopular.
Mind you, I'm not entirely sure how to close a deletion debate *properly* - I've been an admin three years and never closed one. :-)
On 9/16/08, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
A few years ago, what would happen was they'd close it, tag the article as a speedy-deletion candidate, and mark it as "per the deletion discussion [here]", or something similar. This was sort of frowned on, but simply because it meant an extra step - the deleting admin had to check the discussion was indeed a fair close.
Maybe in theory but in practice, half the admins watching CSD will swing at anything without examination or comment.
Mind you, I'm not entirely sure how to close a deletion debate *properly* - I've been an admin three years and never closed one. :-)
Far from rocket science, you should try it.
—C.W.
I even have a lovely little script in my monobook that does everything for me - all I have to do is write the closing rationale.
And Charlotte is completely correct about admins and CSD....
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:05:21 -0500 From: charlottethewebb@gmail.com To: andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk; wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Non administrators closing deletion debates
On 9/16/08, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
A few years ago, what would happen was they'd close it, tag the article as a speedy-deletion candidate, and mark it as "per the deletion discussion [here]", or something similar. This was sort of frowned on, but simply because it meant an extra step - the deleting admin had to check the discussion was indeed a fair close.
Maybe in theory but in practice, half the admins watching CSD will swing at anything without examination or comment.
Mind you, I'm not entirely sure how to close a deletion debate *properly* - I've been an admin three years and never closed one. :-)
Far from rocket science, you should try it.
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Get all your favourite content with the slick new MSN Toolbar - FREE http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354027/direct/01/
On 9/16/08, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
I even have a lovely little script in my monobook that does everything for me - all I have to do is write the closing rationale.
And Charlotte is completely correct about admins and CSD....
In the last couple of years I've closed several things as "keep" and have gotten a couple of complaints here and there. That is I've had people say "I agree with the result but the discussion wasn't open long enough" or "I disagree with the result but neglected to participate" but I don't ever recall anything on the basis of "zomg ur not an admin".
I've also closed several things as "delete" (insert pink tag, wait five minutes). Never had a complaint about any of these.
So I can't really conclude anything from this other than that the community is cognitively biased toward deletion.
—C.W.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/08, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
A few years ago, what would happen was they'd close it, tag the article as a speedy-deletion candidate, and mark it as "per the deletion discussion [here]", or something similar. This was sort of frowned on, but simply because it meant an extra step - the deleting admin had to check the discussion was indeed a fair close.
Maybe in theory but in practice, half the admins watching CSD will swing at anything without examination or comment.
I have the same feeling about this, but is it in fact the case, or is it not so bad? The only reason I follow the feeling is that it is a common sentiment, but I have never seen anything what the sentiment is based on, apart from slapping a CSD tag on everything that moves from some editors. When I go over CSD, I decline between 30% and 50% (which is still a rough guess). Many still end up deleted at AfD though. I have no idea what other admins going over CAT:CSD do, or how well they look through an article (and the web) before deleting it.
<snip />
___________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/08, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
A few years ago, what would happen was they'd close it, tag the article as a speedy-deletion candidate, and mark it as "per the deletion discussion [here]", or something similar. This was sort of frowned on, but simply because it meant an extra step - the deleting admin had to check the discussion was indeed a fair close.
Maybe in theory but in practice, half the admins watching CSD will swing at anything without examination or comment.
I have the same feeling about this, but is it in fact the case, or is it not so bad? The only reason I follow the feeling is that it is a common sentiment, but I have never seen anything what the sentiment is based on, apart from slapping a CSD tag on everything that moves from some editors. When I go over CSD, I decline between 30% and 50% (which is still a rough guess). Many still end up deleted at AfD though. I have no idea what other admins going over CAT:CSD do, or how well they look through an article (and the web) before deleting it.
<snip />
That's a little higher than what I do, but it's probably 20%-33% that I reject
Brian
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 5:48 PM, AGK agkwiki@googlemail.com wrote:
Brief comment:
The main justification for having restrictions on non-administrators closing deletion discussions is that discussion closers are expected to be trusted to close without needing his or her closures double- and cross-checked.
And all admins can be trusted, but all non-admins can't be?
Fine. Here's the thing. You need to change [[Wikipedia:Administrators]]:
"In the very early days of Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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."