[WikiEN-l] Clarification about prevailing AFD closing practices

[Leif Knutsen]

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 at 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 at 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.
>
>


-- 
Leif Knutsen
(also responds to vyerllc at gmail.com and leif at vyer.net)