 | This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: If admins make a point of explaining which votes counted and which were not and the reasons for it, AFD participants will learn to make better arguments in AFDs |
The quality of AFD discussions has been declining for some time during a time when inclusion standards have hardened, user participation has been falling away and available admins to close AFDs have been reduced. This is not ideal and is bad for Wikipedia for the following reasons:
- Inconsistent decision making leads to confusion about where our inclusion standard should be
- New editors are discouraged from further participation because of decisions that look arbitrary and nonsensical
- Reduced participation will lead to less clear outcomes as policy based arguments are not included and waste editor time through constant relisting and non-consensus closes
- New users with the potential to become good admins won't learn the essential policy skills required for the role.
To combat this, we agree to work to educate users in the AFD process of best practise by:
A) always explaining which votes have been counted and which have been discarded in our AFD closes &
B) always providing direction when we relist a discussion as to why the discussion was relisted and what kind of input is needed to reach a consensus.
Signed :
- Spartaz Humbug! 10:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Although I would do (A) on a general, rather than vote-by-vote, basis-- Mkativerata ( talk) 18:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC) (Generally agree with the sentiments here and by Mkativerata. It also seems important for closers to state what the consensus to keep / delete /etc. is based upon, rather than just what it is not based upon.)
- nice article. Okip 00:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Me, including I_Jethrobot's addition. I "won" an AFD discussion once, but the closing admin gave no reason. The next day, my AFD "opponent" went ahead and did the opposite of the close result. AFDs would become more compelling if closers provided more rationale and details. Moreover, having to spell your reasoning out gets you to think twice, and sometimes change your judgment. I'm not an admin, but I sign for my occasional non-admin closing. ⠀Trimton⠀ 19:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
| This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
| This page in a nutshell: If admins make a point of explaining which votes counted and which were not and the reasons for it, AFD participants will learn to make better arguments in AFDs |
The quality of AFD discussions has been declining for some time during a time when inclusion standards have hardened, user participation has been falling away and available admins to close AFDs have been reduced. This is not ideal and is bad for Wikipedia for the following reasons:
- Inconsistent decision making leads to confusion about where our inclusion standard should be
- New editors are discouraged from further participation because of decisions that look arbitrary and nonsensical
- Reduced participation will lead to less clear outcomes as policy based arguments are not included and waste editor time through constant relisting and non-consensus closes
- New users with the potential to become good admins won't learn the essential policy skills required for the role.
To combat this, we agree to work to educate users in the AFD process of best practise by:
A) always explaining which votes have been counted and which have been discarded in our AFD closes &
B) always providing direction when we relist a discussion as to why the discussion was relisted and what kind of input is needed to reach a consensus.
Signed :
- Spartaz Humbug! 10:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Although I would do (A) on a general, rather than vote-by-vote, basis-- Mkativerata ( talk) 18:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC) (Generally agree with the sentiments here and by Mkativerata. It also seems important for closers to state what the consensus to keep / delete /etc. is based upon, rather than just what it is not based upon.)
- nice article. Okip 00:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Me, including I_Jethrobot's addition. I "won" an AFD discussion once, but the closing admin gave no reason. The next day, my AFD "opponent" went ahead and did the opposite of the close result. AFDs would become more compelling if closers provided more rationale and details. Moreover, having to spell your reasoning out gets you to think twice, and sometimes change your judgment. I'm not an admin, but I sign for my occasional non-admin closing. ⠀Trimton⠀ 19:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)