Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2016 April 12
2016 April 14 >

13 April 2016

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Important concept ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This template is not meet to G6, and this is it is different from Template:Policy. Also, English Wikipedia's important concept (ex POV) has long history, with significance. The other language's concept is learned from English version. So I would like to appeal and I hope this template is kept. Thank you. Shwangtianyuan Happy Chinese New Year to everyone 03:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Comment from deleting admin: This template was created on April 1 by the filer, and nominated for deletion on April 3. I deleted it on the basis of this TfD, which shows clear consensus for deletion, and in which the filer's comments indicated a certain degree of inexperience with what DRV is for. It was used, apparently, to tag the "five pillars" pages. Creating the template was a good-faith effort to be helpful, but it's unnecessary, and there's no procedural reason to overturn. Shwangtianyuan, thanks for your efforts, but the English Wikipedia has a well-developed template ecosystem, especially for tags that appear at the top of high-profile pages. In the future it would be better to make the suggestion on talk pages first if you think a new tag is needed. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 05:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse clear consensus to delete in the TFD. -- 82.14.37.32 ( talk) 06:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse in line with the consensus at the TFD, but for the sake of efficient and effective logging, undelete and redelete with a link to the TFD rather than a G6 speedy deletion note. As the lister was already advised of at the TFD discussion, DRV is not a venue to re-argue the TFD; we only assess whether the process was followed correctly. Stifle ( talk) 09:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I see an undeclared NAC by Izkala ( talk · contribs). Izkala, please declare all non-admin closes you do. Deleting admin, Opabinia regalis, would you mind countersigning the TfD. It will then be a clean endorse. There does seem to be a consensus against willy nilly templates, unlike in the early days. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I must've not got the memo on declaring non-admin closures. Izkala ( talk) 13:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
      • It's recommended. By me, at least. It was a good close. Other little points: It would be good if you gave a little explanation in the close, not your own opinion but the gist of the discussion, as there was at least one person who didn't get it. And, maybe don't close discussions while your user_talk is tagged with "retired". -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 14:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
        • In the interest of treating all people equally, I'd rather not mark my closures as NACs and encourage other non-admins not to either. (Which they don't, generally.) Possibly, but writing up a summary's not something that's usually done when there's a clear-cut consensus and no more than a couple hundred words were exchanged. I should've probably left a note for Shwangtianyuan but hindsight's 20/20. I don't see what the point of countersigning the closure would be. Izkala ( talk) 14:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
          • SmokeyJoe, NACs at TfD are well-established common practice at this point, and are actually a majority of closures; it hasn't been routine to label them as such for a long time. There are so few DRVs of TfD closes that it hasn't really been an issue. I do usually try to link the discussion in the deletion log when processing these, though, and apparently either forgot or failed at copy and paste in this case. Stifle, I guess I could restore and re-delete with the link in the log, but I'm not convinced there's much use given that the author knows the reason and is the only person who used the template. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 18:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
            • It sounds like a decay from ideal standards has become the norm at TfD. In these circumstances, you should expect some dissatisfaction with process. Shwangtianyuan is not right, but is he the only one confused or dissatisfied with the process? I do recommend that Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions be well respected, including use of the {{ nac}} template in all non-admin closes. This reminds all that a non-admin is playing the role of an administrator and that the NAC closer holds the behavioral standard described at Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability (aka WP:ADMINACCT). This makes it awkward to have a retired user closing discussions. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
              • Shwangtianyuan appears to be confused neither by my status nor degree of accountability. They are confused by process in general; and they'd have been equally confused had an admin closed the debate. Your dissatisfaction with my conduct and the conduct of other TfD closers is not apposite. Izkala ( talk) 22:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
              • @ SmokeyJoe: I've been closing the majority of stuff at TfD for a while now. Personally, I don't use NAC for TfD closes because they're not considered abnormal (alternatively, I have started using it for closing RfCs, where the expectation is that an admin will close). If anything, an administrator close of a TfD is abnormal at this point. Based on zero evidence but a lot of experience, I'd say admins close less than 5% of TfD discussions over the past several months. And I second that the confusion here is in the DRV process in general, which you can see in the use of words like "appeal" in multiple places. I tried to explain this at the TfD so he wouldn't be in for a shock at DRV, but it doesn't appear to have worked. ~ Rob Talk 23:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
                • To add to this, the NAC process at TfD has been up and running for nine months now, involving hundreds of closes by probably a dozen or so non-admins experienced in working with templates and the TfD process. For most of that time I've been the only admin following TfD even a little, so just about every disputed case comes across my talk page eventually. Neither confusion nor lack of accountability has been a source of problems. (Low participation in the discussions has been, though...hint hint...) Oh, and you're right that Izkala should get rid of the retired template, but for reasons other than hypothetical awkwardness ;) Opabinia regalis ( talk) 01:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I also want to thank Shwangtianyuan for their contributions. Fortunately or unfortunately, this is how decision-making works on Wikipedia. Izkala ( talk) 13:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Relist This is a potentially significant template, and would merit wider discussion. There is indeed a practice that non-admins should not close potentially controversial XfDs, and I think this is potentially of such sufficient potential controversy, that closing the discussion without relisting for additional input was not correct. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse (Non-administrator comment). Consensus here was extremely clear. It's also unfair to put this on Opabinia regalis, who merely enacted the closure by an experienced non-admin following orphaning. The filer is viewing this as an appeal of the community's decision, not a review of the close, which is not how DRV works. ~ Rob Talk 23:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Of course the deleting admin's action is being reviewed, peripherally. Endorse. The only comments to offer are advice on how to do things better. Resistance to taking onboard advice is actually the biggest concern at this point. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
I wasn't the closer here, but I'm happy to take on advice. I consider the NAC template a double-edged sword. Where non-admin closures are unexpected, it can be useful, but generally, I think it just contributes to the misconception that adminship is a "leader" role that has more "authority". It is not. They just have some extra tools. So I do use the NAC template, but I try to evaluate where it's really needed. For instance, I used a non-admin template here mostly to indicate I came here by being involved in the discussion, not as an uninvolved administrator, which is undoubtedly useful information. ~ Rob Talk 00:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
You have a peculiar tendency to phrase your thoughts in the passive voice. Are you an authority on whether non-admins oughta scribble 'nac' next to their name? I've listened to your advice and offered my opinion on it. Izkala ( talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm a self-selected student of the esoteric unexpectedly functional policies of Wikipedia. Authority? Bah authority. There is advice at WP:NACD that supposedly describes best practice. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Ah but I'm not a utilitarian; I'm a dreamer. ;) Izkala ( talk) 09:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Yep, whoever pressed the button is on the hook for it... ;) SmokeyJoe, thanks for your suggestions, but I think you're getting feedback on your feedback from people who have a lot of experience in this particular little corner of Wikipedia's cobwebby subbasement and have a good sense of the practicalities. TfD is badly in need of more participation, and IIRC you've been involved in a lot of MfD stuff, so if you're interested in joining us you'd be welcome. (I made it sound so appealing, didn't I?) Opabinia regalis ( talk) 01:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Opabinia, I'm a sucker for calls for help, and hilariously guess what the first TfD I found easily comprehensible enough for a quick !vote. I have rarely ventured into TfD, possibly because all the acronyms there put me off, but probably because my impression has been that the people there know well what they are doing. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm giving it a go of using the {{ nac}} template. My big concern is always someone coming along reverting simply on that basis, which is against community consensus on how non-admin closes should be handled. But in all fairness, there's no sense in ignoring Joe's good faith suggestion, so I'll give it a whirl around the block and see how it runs. If I see a sudden uptick in people questioning the obvious closes I make, then I'll probably switch back. ~ Rob Talk 02:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Only an admin is allowed to revert it (barring very good reason). The only downside might be that, with the RfA recruitment drive, you flag yourself as a target. An advantage is that it provides a link to helpful pages on the subject of NACing.
NB. This is all quite tangential friendly opinion-based advice, sprouting I should say from my inability to say anything else about the close. Apart from: "good close". -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_April_13&oldid=1067890963"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2016 April 12
2016 April 14 >

13 April 2016

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Important concept ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This template is not meet to G6, and this is it is different from Template:Policy. Also, English Wikipedia's important concept (ex POV) has long history, with significance. The other language's concept is learned from English version. So I would like to appeal and I hope this template is kept. Thank you. Shwangtianyuan Happy Chinese New Year to everyone 03:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Comment from deleting admin: This template was created on April 1 by the filer, and nominated for deletion on April 3. I deleted it on the basis of this TfD, which shows clear consensus for deletion, and in which the filer's comments indicated a certain degree of inexperience with what DRV is for. It was used, apparently, to tag the "five pillars" pages. Creating the template was a good-faith effort to be helpful, but it's unnecessary, and there's no procedural reason to overturn. Shwangtianyuan, thanks for your efforts, but the English Wikipedia has a well-developed template ecosystem, especially for tags that appear at the top of high-profile pages. In the future it would be better to make the suggestion on talk pages first if you think a new tag is needed. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 05:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse clear consensus to delete in the TFD. -- 82.14.37.32 ( talk) 06:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse in line with the consensus at the TFD, but for the sake of efficient and effective logging, undelete and redelete with a link to the TFD rather than a G6 speedy deletion note. As the lister was already advised of at the TFD discussion, DRV is not a venue to re-argue the TFD; we only assess whether the process was followed correctly. Stifle ( talk) 09:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I see an undeclared NAC by Izkala ( talk · contribs). Izkala, please declare all non-admin closes you do. Deleting admin, Opabinia regalis, would you mind countersigning the TfD. It will then be a clean endorse. There does seem to be a consensus against willy nilly templates, unlike in the early days. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I must've not got the memo on declaring non-admin closures. Izkala ( talk) 13:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
      • It's recommended. By me, at least. It was a good close. Other little points: It would be good if you gave a little explanation in the close, not your own opinion but the gist of the discussion, as there was at least one person who didn't get it. And, maybe don't close discussions while your user_talk is tagged with "retired". -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 14:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
        • In the interest of treating all people equally, I'd rather not mark my closures as NACs and encourage other non-admins not to either. (Which they don't, generally.) Possibly, but writing up a summary's not something that's usually done when there's a clear-cut consensus and no more than a couple hundred words were exchanged. I should've probably left a note for Shwangtianyuan but hindsight's 20/20. I don't see what the point of countersigning the closure would be. Izkala ( talk) 14:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
          • SmokeyJoe, NACs at TfD are well-established common practice at this point, and are actually a majority of closures; it hasn't been routine to label them as such for a long time. There are so few DRVs of TfD closes that it hasn't really been an issue. I do usually try to link the discussion in the deletion log when processing these, though, and apparently either forgot or failed at copy and paste in this case. Stifle, I guess I could restore and re-delete with the link in the log, but I'm not convinced there's much use given that the author knows the reason and is the only person who used the template. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 18:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
            • It sounds like a decay from ideal standards has become the norm at TfD. In these circumstances, you should expect some dissatisfaction with process. Shwangtianyuan is not right, but is he the only one confused or dissatisfied with the process? I do recommend that Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions be well respected, including use of the {{ nac}} template in all non-admin closes. This reminds all that a non-admin is playing the role of an administrator and that the NAC closer holds the behavioral standard described at Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability (aka WP:ADMINACCT). This makes it awkward to have a retired user closing discussions. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
              • Shwangtianyuan appears to be confused neither by my status nor degree of accountability. They are confused by process in general; and they'd have been equally confused had an admin closed the debate. Your dissatisfaction with my conduct and the conduct of other TfD closers is not apposite. Izkala ( talk) 22:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
              • @ SmokeyJoe: I've been closing the majority of stuff at TfD for a while now. Personally, I don't use NAC for TfD closes because they're not considered abnormal (alternatively, I have started using it for closing RfCs, where the expectation is that an admin will close). If anything, an administrator close of a TfD is abnormal at this point. Based on zero evidence but a lot of experience, I'd say admins close less than 5% of TfD discussions over the past several months. And I second that the confusion here is in the DRV process in general, which you can see in the use of words like "appeal" in multiple places. I tried to explain this at the TfD so he wouldn't be in for a shock at DRV, but it doesn't appear to have worked. ~ Rob Talk 23:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
                • To add to this, the NAC process at TfD has been up and running for nine months now, involving hundreds of closes by probably a dozen or so non-admins experienced in working with templates and the TfD process. For most of that time I've been the only admin following TfD even a little, so just about every disputed case comes across my talk page eventually. Neither confusion nor lack of accountability has been a source of problems. (Low participation in the discussions has been, though...hint hint...) Oh, and you're right that Izkala should get rid of the retired template, but for reasons other than hypothetical awkwardness ;) Opabinia regalis ( talk) 01:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I also want to thank Shwangtianyuan for their contributions. Fortunately or unfortunately, this is how decision-making works on Wikipedia. Izkala ( talk) 13:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Relist This is a potentially significant template, and would merit wider discussion. There is indeed a practice that non-admins should not close potentially controversial XfDs, and I think this is potentially of such sufficient potential controversy, that closing the discussion without relisting for additional input was not correct. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse (Non-administrator comment). Consensus here was extremely clear. It's also unfair to put this on Opabinia regalis, who merely enacted the closure by an experienced non-admin following orphaning. The filer is viewing this as an appeal of the community's decision, not a review of the close, which is not how DRV works. ~ Rob Talk 23:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Of course the deleting admin's action is being reviewed, peripherally. Endorse. The only comments to offer are advice on how to do things better. Resistance to taking onboard advice is actually the biggest concern at this point. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
I wasn't the closer here, but I'm happy to take on advice. I consider the NAC template a double-edged sword. Where non-admin closures are unexpected, it can be useful, but generally, I think it just contributes to the misconception that adminship is a "leader" role that has more "authority". It is not. They just have some extra tools. So I do use the NAC template, but I try to evaluate where it's really needed. For instance, I used a non-admin template here mostly to indicate I came here by being involved in the discussion, not as an uninvolved administrator, which is undoubtedly useful information. ~ Rob Talk 00:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
You have a peculiar tendency to phrase your thoughts in the passive voice. Are you an authority on whether non-admins oughta scribble 'nac' next to their name? I've listened to your advice and offered my opinion on it. Izkala ( talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm a self-selected student of the esoteric unexpectedly functional policies of Wikipedia. Authority? Bah authority. There is advice at WP:NACD that supposedly describes best practice. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Ah but I'm not a utilitarian; I'm a dreamer. ;) Izkala ( talk) 09:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Yep, whoever pressed the button is on the hook for it... ;) SmokeyJoe, thanks for your suggestions, but I think you're getting feedback on your feedback from people who have a lot of experience in this particular little corner of Wikipedia's cobwebby subbasement and have a good sense of the practicalities. TfD is badly in need of more participation, and IIRC you've been involved in a lot of MfD stuff, so if you're interested in joining us you'd be welcome. (I made it sound so appealing, didn't I?) Opabinia regalis ( talk) 01:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Opabinia, I'm a sucker for calls for help, and hilariously guess what the first TfD I found easily comprehensible enough for a quick !vote. I have rarely ventured into TfD, possibly because all the acronyms there put me off, but probably because my impression has been that the people there know well what they are doing. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm giving it a go of using the {{ nac}} template. My big concern is always someone coming along reverting simply on that basis, which is against community consensus on how non-admin closes should be handled. But in all fairness, there's no sense in ignoring Joe's good faith suggestion, so I'll give it a whirl around the block and see how it runs. If I see a sudden uptick in people questioning the obvious closes I make, then I'll probably switch back. ~ Rob Talk 02:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Only an admin is allowed to revert it (barring very good reason). The only downside might be that, with the RfA recruitment drive, you flag yourself as a target. An advantage is that it provides a link to helpful pages on the subject of NACing.
NB. This is all quite tangential friendly opinion-based advice, sprouting I should say from my inability to say anything else about the close. Apart from: "good close". -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_April_13&oldid=1067890963"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE