![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Per the above, and per several discussions on talk pages, it seems like a good idea to formalize the following:
Please don't just yell 'instruction creep', what I'm saying here seems like common sense (and of course is open to discussion) and has been the subject of some recent controversies. No harm in writing it down. R adiant _>|< 09:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
I would add the following points in some form or another
I would also note the first point presented does not rule out the option of putting up a second VFD debate instead, and that this is a better option if a better reason to delete is presented. For example, if someone nominated an article on the Norwegian El 19 locomotive for deletion with the reason "We don't need articles about every locomotive class" and is shouted down by twenty voters saying "yes we do", the place to point out that the El 19 doesn't exist is a second VFD debate.
Another question: Currently, we usually need a simple majority to overturn a disputed deletion, but what would be needed to overturn a disputed "keep" result? About 50%, about 75% or what? I don't think that we should leave it at 50% because that would mean that a simple majority could get an article deleted, while a rough consenus is what should be required. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I support the concept. VfU can be productively turned into a more formalized appeal process that works for contested decisions in both directions. We might still want to tweak some of the wording. For ease of discussion while we work on the proposal, I'm adding hard-coded numbers to the bullets.
Great draft. Thank you. Rossami (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I think probably all the points above are instruction creep, with all the attendant downsides. It will likely turn out to be impossible to abide by them at all times. Kim Bruning 14:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
(Was editing my comment but got edit confliced...)
I am worried about the word unilateral creeping in everywhre. It should be defined or dropped. It appears to be synonymous with WP:BOLD? In that case, check and/or modify WP:BOLD first.
Finally, if people continue to instruction creepize and unilateralize, we're going to have to set up a separate wikipedia:special circumstances with an explicit licence to ignore all these new rules. Kim Bruning 14:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Good proposal. Too many sentences. Not instruction creep if written right, as it's just a change of scope. I share Kim Bruning's concern that each new rule is a new battleground for the future. How about:
That says it all, I think.- Splash 17:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, there is evident concern that this is still too stretchy. I think admins need to have a little bit of stretch room, however. One situation I was trying to avoid with the "clearly out-of-process" clause was the Garrett thing: some of his earliest deletions were way out of line, and to make those all go through VfU (as well as AN/I and his talk page) would just have been a bit silly. NOT:a bureaucracy blah blah. To Radiant!'s points:
- Splash 14:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Given a current discussion on the main page, I think we might think about reviving this discussion. It would help greatly to have clarity one way or another. <prods watchlists>.
If this page is to be renamed, I find Deletion review cumbersome; and easy to confuse with "Deletion Reform".
I much prefer the straightforward Undeletion. Septentrionalis 18:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I've removed some material from the main page. If someone thinks it should go back, do that of course.
brenneman
(t)
(c)
23:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
CSD A7 (non-notable bios) has come up for discussion a good deal here. At Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Interpretation of WP:CSD A7 (non-notable bios) is a proposal to clarify the interpretation of this critrion, and particualrly the meaning of "Claim of notability". Please read it and comment if you are at all interested. DES (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
A couple of sections up, in #Proposal and then #Fewer words! there was a formative proposal about extending the scope of VfU to review the outcome of all deletion processes whether resulting in deletion or some other action. Given the current discussion on VfU, we should revive that discussion and complete it.
Originally, a rather convoluted, creepy offer was on the table which was simplified and received some support. The then-current draft of the new scope of VfU was:
|
This sounds ok to me, but it would since I wrote it. If we can generate some discussion and some consensus here, then perhaps admins fighting over AfD closures might come to an end. - Splash 21:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I would support this IFF there were a parallel process, or even the same process were used, to review articles that were kept as the result of a "no consensus to delete" closure of an AfD listing. What this is doing is attempting to go around the AfD process, and is changing the criteria so that if an article gets deleted because of a consensus on AfD to delete, it would only take a majority of votes on VfU to undelete. Change the criteria to require a consensus to undelete as well, or this is just an end run around AfD deletions. User:Zoe| (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
There appears, to me at least, to be a broad support for making a change towards the boxed proposal above. There are concerns about the detail of the process, however. As I read the discussion above (and not the discussion below, since it relates to a fundamentally different approach) we are consider something like 3 options:
Some sort of a merge of the two might be appropriate. What do people think? - Splash talk 18:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Here is a proposed wording for the mechanics, similer but not identical to numer 2 above. What do people think of it? Obviously it is merely a suggestion, and is subject to changes if anyone offers ideas for them DES (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Any coments on the above? DES (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
The thing I like least about this is that it strongly entrenches a philosphy that "admins can when they feel like it", but ordinary editors "must ask nicely". The original proposal treats everyone equally, and I don't fully see the benefit in enshiring inequality. And lets fact it, with nearly 600 sysops you'll be able to find one who'll undelete just about anything. - Splash talk 22:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Tony, I find it deeply distasteful that you make such changes as you just did to an established process when your proposal has thus far received no support. You told us to change policy if we didn't like it. That's what we're talking about doing. You on the other hand, have simply decided to reshape procedure you don't like on a whim. I could as well have changed the header, moved the page to a new anme and proclaimed the issue settled. But I figured discussion was a better way to go. Thus far, everyone apart from you seems happy that discussion is indeed the way to go. - Splash talk 21:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Clearly it is right to include the precise wording from the undeletion policy at the head of VFU. That it was removed, I find inexplicable--whether or not people disagree with Wikipedia official policy, we are still bound by it, so it's only fair to warn editors coming here that if they see "Valid AfD, keep deleted", they will know that those votes are contrary to undeletion policy. I am happy to see that there is now at least some kind of discussion on undeletion policy itself. If you can get a Wikipedia-wide consensus to change that policy and reverse its meaning, good luck. It isn't going to happen. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 02:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
The above section with the DR proposal had overwhelming support with very few challenging it. What's next? - Tεx τ urε 17:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Was bold. brenneman (t) (c) 00:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC) Note - This still leaves the "mechanics" question open.
Based mostly upon DES's suggestions above, but with a smerge of Tony Sidaway by eliminating the "opinions on content will be ignored" section:
Before listing a review request, please:
![]() | If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. |
1. |
{{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~ |
2. |
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
3. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
4. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
|
Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{
TempUndelete}}
template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the
policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.
If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
Some notes:
brenneman (t) (c) 07:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Who gets to determine whether or not there is rough consensus on the Deletion Review? Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Approximately what vote count constitutes a "rough consensus" for overturning (a) a debate closed as a "keep" and (b) a debate closed as a "delete". Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
If we try to imagine the type of deletion review that's going to get a majority but not a rough consensus, we're almost certainly thinking about contentious closures. (Anti-polonism, Religious persecution by jews, CommonLang2, etc.)
One thing I'd like to avoid is discouraging people from doing difficult closures. In parallel, there should be something to be said for simply getting there first. Thus I'm in favor of weighing the numbers slightly in their favor (e.g. +66% as opposed to 51%).
First
BraveAdmin has stepped up to the plate and made the closure. (Almost certainly receiving lots of talk-page abuse whichever way they have decided.) Then they are raked over the coals by their peers at DR, and their closure is overturned with a simple majority and relisted. Then we have another, almost certainly more complicated XfD. Who is going to step up the second time, seeing
BraveAdmin with their tail between their legs?
brenneman
(t)
(c)
01:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Again, what's contentious are those Overturn and (action) that fall into that area between "rough" and 75%. For many admins, this area does not exist. For those who are willing to close a normal XfD in this zone, they'd have to be pretty sure of themselves to commit (action) in this very public venue. Thus this is a non-issue to me compared to setting the lower bound.
brenneman
(t)
(c)
01:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Never cropped up yet but How can one overturn a disputed "merge" result into a "delete" when the closing admin has gone ahead and merged the articles? Revert the merge (which has since possibly been heavily edited)? Delete those versions with the merged content from the history? Or what else? Shall we just say that "merge" results cannot be disputed at DR? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I've altered the text as per suggestioned. My feeling is that it is incorrect to state the XfD paradigm as "no consensus, so keep". It is far more accurate to say "no consensus, do nothing". In fact, we've had some bitter disputes in the recent past over this very matter with regards to how non-consensus closures should be recorded.
I also would have liked wider participation in this. (Tony has said he's not interested.)
I'm swayed by Splash's need for speed and DES' and Titoxd's desire for a lower threshold to relist. I've created a template (it's used above) and added it to the page... in comment wrappers. However, I'd like to make a date in either three months or when it rears its head to talk again about "rough consensus" vs. "50/75 consensus".
brenneman
(t)
(c)
00:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Ok, so Encephalon appears to be busy, and I am not minded to wait much longer. I thus propose taking on board one of his changes (see Aaron's talk page) which is to remove the tail-eating clause. With the clear numerical basis, it is unnecessary. I'm inclined to think that if we need a supreme court for people who can't (or won't) count properly, then it's AN/I rather than endless bickering here. I do not propose the removal of the graduated outcomes, because I do not think it will lead to "havoc" — moreover I think it provides a good way to avoid getting the answer wrong in all but the most serious cases. It also takes things back to AfD unless the community is very sure of itself which addresses at least part (though not most) of some objections to the use of DR/VfU at all. Do people disagree with me deeply on this? If not, I would suggest we do something community minded once the 3 or 4 of us here have nodded. - Splash talk 01:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I just give and give (*sob*). Yes, I agree that the fourth point is not required if we make this more a pseudo-vote and less "hazy". Take it out (*sob again*). I'll make the change. ^_^
brenneman
(t)
(c)
00:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Most people who have commetned seem to support, or at least not oppose, the current proposal and the current version of the mechanics. Have hwe had enough participation and enough time to consider this a consensus to make this change? I suggest that the currently edited proposal and mechanics be reposted (so it is clear what is current) with a date (say in a week?) when we think they should go into effect, absent further opposition, and post renewed notices at the pump and other places where people will see them. On the specifeid date, fi tehre stil seems to be consensus, this page will be moved and the nned alterations will be made to the instructions and other sectiosn of the page, and to appropriate pages that link to [[WP:VFU]. Does this seem like a reasonable way to proceed? If not what does? DES (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
How about raising the sophistication level of the page to something like AfD? It's a trade-off of more complexity weighed up against better history, accountability, etc. I'd also propose the the slightly strange and barely used {{vfu}} be revamped, as it could more correctly be put on XfD debates, not on articles.
brenneman
(t)
(c)
00:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
(Resetting indentation) I've moved those pages from templates to subpages. If this page does get moved to DR, will the subpages move along with it? (Should have asked that first I now realize.) brenneman (t) (c) 10:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I laughed out loud when I saw the vfu template.... that thing is really silly :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Neutrality has been kind enough to provide us with some fodder for discussion in the last few days. - brenneman (t) (c) 00:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
What's a "proper" listing? What should be done with one that's not?
Aside from the obvious (self-revert) ones, when could a debate be closed early?
Wikipedia:Notability proposal is a proposal to explicitly make "notability" a requirement for Wikipedia articles, and to explicitly include "lack of notability" as a reason for deleting articles. Please visit Wikipedia talk:Notability proposal and express your view on the proposal. DES (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Copied from WP:RM
It isn't clear to me what the previous Support votes are supporting.
This is essentially a repetition of a very small part of the debate further up the page. I'm not sure why this has been copypaste-dumped in here, unless that is always the way RfM does things. - Splash talk 01:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Undeletion policy mentions that images can be listed in Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion but I didn't see any image listings here. Can images for undeletion be listed here ? Jay 07:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I've labeled as disputed, several deletions within my comments that were replaced with <personal attack removed> labels. The ones I disputed unfairly and exageratedly characterize my comments, which were more in the nature of accusations, such as might be done in an RfC or an ARBCOM case. Removing accusations such as these, and then characterizing them as personal attacks will have a chilling effect on whistleblowers who would bring abusive behavior to the attention of the community, and would harm the communities ability to openly police itself. I did not dispute a couple of statements, that while they would not be personal attacks if they were true, since I was mistaken and they are false accusations which have I apologized for.-- Silverback 05:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I've moved this page to Deletion Review, per consensus in the above discussion. R adiant _>|< 22:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The problems are pretty obvious. The whole thing seriously misstates both deletion policy and undeletion policy. To claim that it's been arrived at by consensus is to state a very palpable untruth. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 01:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Aaron, do please stop being unreasonable. You've twice falsely claimed that I should use the talk page or block you for 3RR. Since you've come nowhere near to breaking the 3RR, and I have no intention of doing so, and I have used the talk page whereas you have simply taunted me in edit summaries, it's becoming utterly surreal. I'll have another go at reformulating a policy-compatible version of the wording here. Do please try to discuss instead of edit warring/ -- Tony Sidaway Talk 01:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Tony, please do stop trying to muscle over what's been worked out quite congenially. If I didn't make myself clear: I will continue to revert your bad-faith attempts to undermine other contributor's effort up to and beyond the 3RRR limit. As I'd be doing it for the good of Wikipedia (in my own opinion, of course) I'd simply be following the example that you've set in ignoring all rules.
brenneman
(t)
(c)
01:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
As a sub-policy of the official undeletion policy, the instructions on "Deletion Review" (or "VFU" or whatever it's being called today) cannot contradict the official policy that it falls under, regardless of any discussion or consensus found on the sub-page's talk page. Official policy cannot be undermined by consensus regarding related subpolicies. To do so is to commit a fiat of the official policy. Any time that a subpage is out of sync with the policy it falls under, for any reason, any editor is performing properly when they correct the subpage to conform with the actual policy. Please find consensus to change the official undeletion policy before inserting further nonsense about this being about "process only". Un focused 15:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
This was a widely announced policy proposal. It specifically purported to alter the undeltetion policy. It attaind what ZI think was a clear concenssus during a long and well-announced discussion. Where exactly is it stated as a policyu that policies can only be cahged by proposals on their "own" pages, and where is it stated which policies are primary and which are "sub-policies". I think creating the category "sub-poilicy" and to create soem sort of official hierarcy of policies as the above comment implies is one of the more extreme cases of "instruction creep" I have seen on wikipedia. The phrase "process not contet" was supported by a clear consensus during these discissions, and is therefore now policy. TYhose who dislike it should start a proposal to change that, and seek consensus for it. DES (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
The difference is that this page is merely implementation of the official policy. Look at this policy any you'll see that it does not have the {{policy}} tag on it, because it is not official policy. You cannot change official policy by fiat, attacking the mechanism that implements it. Official policies overrule guidelines and process decisions where they conflict. You failed to find consensus to change the official policy, which is the overriding factor governing this procedure. Un focused 16:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
A proposal can change both policy and its implemetation. This was a widely discussed and advertised proposal. The proposal specifically said that it was changing the undeletion policy insofar as that policy disagreed with the new implementation principles. That makes it a policy change proposal. the proposal received consensus in a discussion held after being widely advertised. That means the policy has in fact been changed as muchas it needs to be. DES (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Unless you have consensus to change official policy on the official policy page, then you haven't actually changed anything. Rewording the implementation is fine, as long as it is 100% consistent with the undeletion policy that covers it. I'd suggest discussing your proposed changes on the undeletion policy page if you intend to change undeletion policy, because that's the "master key" of undeletion, and is the page that is on everyone's watchlist. As long as the master policy that regulates undeletion doesn't change, a whole lot of people (including myself) don't really care that much about the implementation, which is why my participation in the implementation debate, if any, was minor. It's also why I've made the changes here, because you're trying to insert changes that are incompatible with the actual official undeletion policy. Change that, the official undeletion policy, and you won't find conflict. Whenever two policies are in conflict, the one that isn't official must be adjusted to harmonize them. Changes in the official policy by fiat are improper; they should be carried out on the official policy page and propagated downward. Un focused 18:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
If you think you have the consensus to change the official policy, then change the official policy, THEN change the implementation of that policy. Otherwise, you're changing policy by fiat, which is no better than simple vandalism. Un focused 00:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
There is currently some controversy about the meaning and relevance of this phrase, and its suitability for inclusion on WP:DRV and WP:DEL. The controversy has manifested as an edit war on those pages (see for example [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]), and a short block on two editors [7]. I believe it might be helpful, in efforts to resolve the dispute, to look at the phrase's history and intent.
Tony Sidaway, SimonP and others are correct when they say that the phrase has been with WP for a long time. Its earliest use that I know of was in the document that eventually became WP:DEL. The original page can still be seen; it dates from February 25 2002, but was actually written in November 2001 in the old software.
That page was an instruction to administrators. In the old UseModWiki software, page deletions were qualitatively different from page deletions in our current system: once a page was deleted, it was completely removed, such that it was "impossible to restore from within the system." The present day equivalent is removal of the page history from the database by a developer.
This permanent quality of deletions made it imperative that any deletion decision was made with particular care—there was no such thing as "undeletion" at the time. The rules were a reminder to anyone about to delete a page what was generally expected of them; to wit, these were "some rules that those tasked with permanently deleting pages can generally be expected to follow in making the decision to delete or not."
On September 20 2003, more than two years ago, old time user Cimon avaro moved the instructions to a very appropriate, newly created page, Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. You can see the original here.
The above history makes the meaning of the phrase in question crystal clear. It is an instruction to administrators (ie. to people who can delete pages) to be careful when commiting that final act, and to desist if they cannot make up their minds about whether they should delete a page. The phrase is an axiom for individual administrators to bear in mind when they make their delete decisions. The Deletion guidelines for administrators also provides other helpful tips to administrators. For example:
These are all sensible rules of thumb for administrators to keep in mind as they consider their closes; "if in doubt, don't delete" is one among them.
I have noticed that this phrase appears to be often misused these days. The clearest misuse happens when someone uses it to proclaim that another admin's close was invalid, because it was closed at a rough consensus standard that they believe to be unacceptable. This is often expressed with something like: "You should not have deleted that page. It was too close; two-thirds isn't a consensus. Remember 'if in doubt, don't delete.'"
This is the sort of thing that makes you go "Whaa—?". It's a misunderstanding of the axiom. IIDDD is not intended to call into question deletion decisions made in perfect accordance with the criteria in WP:DEL and WP:CON by an administrator who had no doubts as to the validity of the closure.
Another misuse of the axiom is the idea contained in the following: "You should not have deleted it because there was doubt. The very fact that I'm disagreeing with you proves that there is doubt. Remember 'if in doubt, don't delete.'" This is incorrect, for what should be very obvious reasons.
Tony Sidaway has recently made several edits to the VFU header page, in which he characterizes IIDDD in an interesting way. He writes,
and
It is unclear to me how an instruction to administrators to be careful when performing deletions became "the chief precept" of WP:DEL. The deletion policy is a document that specifies what things within WP may be removed. Where the main namespace is concerned¹, what may be removed are
These are the bases of article space policy and the fountainhead of deletion policy—they are what the deletion policy was written to enforce.
The axiom IIDDD on the other hand is merely a simple reminder to admins who're on the job not to be trigger happy. It is most certainly not "the chief precept" of deletion policy, just as "don't delete pages you nominate for deletion" is not the chief precept of deletion policy, nor any other of those little, if helpful, reminders given to admins who're working on deletions. The idea that IIDDD makes WP permissive is also misleading, I believe. It neither makes it more permissive nor less. What goes and stays on WP is determined by WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:Copyrights. All else are secondary, and all else are derivations. In this editor's humble opinion, at any rate.
Perhaps the intent is to emphasize the open nature of the wiki. This is a fair point, but:
This brings us to the question that started all this. Should "if in doubt, don't delete" be placed in WP:DEL and WP:DRV? This seems to be the source of much dispute, but that is only because IIDDD is misunderstood. Personally I will not strongly object with listing the admin reminders on the deletion page, because I know what they are and what they were written to for, and putting them there will not make me treat the article-space policy any less seriously. However, I do see the point that they're out-of-place. WP:DEL is primarily written for users and editors of the encyclopedia, not sysops. Placing IIDDD in such a page, in the way it has been placed there now, does sound odd—because non-sysops can't delete, whether they are in doubt or not. IIDDD is directed at sysops, the folks who do the deleting. The correct place for it is Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, where it fits perfectly and where it has been placed since the inception of that page. (Yes, it was also in the page that eventually became WP:DEL, but that was when that page was in fact directed at admins. You can read it [http:// here.)
What about WP:DRV? The same applies. Wherever the thing is placed however, I would ask that it is not misrepresented, or written in a way that gives a misleading account of article space and deletion policy on Wikipedia. If I've been wrong in any of the above, do correct me—it will not be the first time, nor the last :) I do believe that this issue needn't divide us as it has. Kind regards enceph alon 20:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Note
If in doubt, don't delete is a longstanding principle of deletion policy. It stays. Obviously if admins disagree on speedies there is doubt; this is a trivial consequence of
WP:FAITH. In practice taking major disagreements to
WP:AFD always produces a satisfactory conclusion and is the path I recommend. Let the editors look at the content, possibly improve it, and decide for themselves. --
Tony Sidaway
Talk
04:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I've stayed out of this so far, but I just can't any longer. It is absolute nonsense to relegate the IIDDD to Deletion Guidelines for Admins. Frankly, any attempt to dig it out of deletion policy is nothing more than another attempt by bureaucratic deletionists to drag their damned elitism into the workings of deletion processes at WP. The only real reason to "hide" the IIDDD principle in Deletion Guidelines for Admins is so that a lesser number of editors will see it and thusly be aware of it - doing little more than trying to passively change policy by keeping other editors ignorant. As Tony has pointed out, it is a longstanding principle. As far as I'm concerned, enceph's reasoning on this nonsense. Regular editors involved in the deletion process should know what the principles of deletion policy are without having to go digging further than the deletion pages (ie. into Deleteion guidelines for admins). I see the real danger as the opposite of what is being claimed - that deletionist sysops will simply face less opposition to their actions and decisions if the information is further removed from the initial reading of principles that regular editors will encounter when engaging in the deletion process. -- Nicodemus75 05:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Since thare are soem cases (contested speedies) which are laregely content issues, and others in which content is relevant to determine whether the process was correct or not I propose altering this wording from "This page is about process, not content." to "This page is primarily about process, rather than content." to avoid the implicatiuon that any discussion of content is banned, and, i hope, to make things more agreeable to those who object to the current version. DES (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
It appears you're now making my argument for me. Process is NOT the ONLY reason to bring a VFU, yet that is the only instruction that I've been removing (and getting reverted for). If the second item in the undeletion policy has consensus to be removed, then the editors reverting me are correct. Otherwise, they are wrong, because the undeletion policy CLEARLY shows other reasons to bring an article to VFU. Unless undeletion policy is first changed, then consensus on this page's header doesn't matter at all; "official policy" always trumps "consensus procedure" where there is conflict between them. Un focused 01:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Your edit is closer to the actual policy and I appreciate it. However, nothing about Wikipedia articles is ever truly about "process but not content". Wikipedia is not an experiment in social democracy, remember? Un focused 03:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Obviously the whole of DR is about content mainly; review of the process may be involved but the undeletion policy makes it plain that we're asking: is Wikipedia a better place with this article? I've also incorporated a reference to the undeletion policy's exception for remedying out of process deletions, which has been omitted from the header. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 04:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
On avoiding becoming AfD 2, I think such worries are misplaced. The undeletion policy makes it plain that VFU is intended to review content. The longstanding mantra on the header of VFU, claiming that you shouldn't bring an article here simply because you disagree with the result of the AfD, has always been completely outside the undeletion policy. VDU DR is the only place to bring such an article. This is the very purpose of this forum, even if that purpose had been repeatedly traduced. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 04:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Is there no archive of Deletion Review discussions? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 06:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
and then i can link it back again and also my other watchlist things need to be sorted out Perrymason 00:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I am wondering how to submit a page for undeletion. The page "Jonathan Krive" was deleted. I talked with the admin who deleted the page, and he listed the reason as "The requested page title was invalid, empty, or an incorrectly linked inter-language or inter-wiki title." I am wondering how to make the title valid.
Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored.
The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 10:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit]Global Resource Bank Docendo Discimus said: Seems like a project of one guy, John Pozzi, . . .
John Pozzi: This assumption by Docendo Discimus is not correct. Dr. Author Shaw (please see Author Shaw's bibliography at www.grb.net) was the originator of the project and many other people besides John Pozzi have contributed to the project. They include Frances Fox from California, Joanie Watkins from New York City, Lennart Bylund from Sweden, Monika Hoy from Germany and her friend from Switzerland (who's name slips me just now) However Ms. Hoy can provide the Wikipedia Information team with her name and email address. Also many other people that are too numerous to mention in this brief reply. It should also be noted out that the pilot GRB has more than 2900 registered shareholder accounts and 250 registered commercial accounts that have contributed to the GRB project.
Docendo Discimus goes on to say: . . . who even uses Wikipedia as only reference on his website www.grb.net . The entry suggests it was seriously considered by the UN, which it was not.
John Pozzi: I see no problem to using Wikipedia as a reference because I did not write the GRB entry in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia which is correct except for the UN reference and don't know who did. The UN data can be edited to indicate that it was a NGO conference at the UN and that you (Lennart Bylund) as the GRB representative to that conference can provide the details. I see that you did in your email to Wikipedia.
Therefore: delete. DocendoDiscimus 19:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DocendoDiscimus)
Devotchka said: Delete. I like that he uses his own article as reference. Nice try.
John Pozzi: Again I did not write the GRB article in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia and It wasn't a "nice try" by me to deceive the reader. The Wikipedia information team should know who wrote it however I would like to know who it was.
Devotchka 19:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Devotchka
Pete Hurd said: Delete. Interesting mix of original research/vanity/ & copious name-dropping to cover inherent non-notable nature of subject. Pete.Hurd 19:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pete.Hurd
John Pozzi: Original research - yes. However there is nothing vain or non-notable about creating a world central bank that supports a prosperous global community that values Earth's ecoproducts. Giving credit to the work of Dr. Author Shaw through Bob Watson in the GRB bibliography has nothing to do with name-dropping but provides the reader with accurate background information. The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Mr. Bylund:
If I were you I would go to the deletion review page of Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review and follow the instructions. You may want to send a copy of your reply to: Celestianpower, Docendo Discimus, Devotchka and Pete Hurd and everyone I copied this email to -including me.
We can then all discuss the Wikipedia information team's "reply to all."
Thank you,
John Pozzi
Original Message -----
From: Lennart Bylund To: John Pozzi Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 3:41 AM Subject: GRB and Wikipedia
Hi John,
Found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Global_Resource_Bank
Looks like some have a problem with the UN part and some more things... looking how to republish the info.....
/Lennart
Original Message -----
From: "Wikipedia information team" <info-en@wikimedia.org> To: "Lennart Bylund" <Lennart.Bylund@berg.se> Cc: <john.pozzi@att.net>; <mats@brunell.se> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [Ticket#2005110810000679] Global Resource Bank article
> Dear Lennart,
>
> Thank you for your e-mail.
>
> "Lennart Bylund" <Lennart.Bylund@berg.se> wrote:
>
>> About Global Resource Bank deleted page.
>>
>> I have been using Wikipedia for some time now and have so far been
>> impressed about the quality and diversity of articles.
>>
>> Now the Global Resource Bank page has been deleted and some have had a lot
>> of opinions about the info.
>>
>> I can assure that all that was written was correct and probably quit
>> interesting for a lot of peaple and for the future ( I was personaly in UN
>> 2000 at NGO Millenium meeting for example) now what to do? Or is it like
>> this that it should work, that some induviduals have the right to decide
>> what is tru or not... if so the Wikipedia is a dead end sorry...
>>
>> Hope you can reconsider your decision and repost the GRB info.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> /Lennart Bylund
>
> The Global Resource Bank article was nominated for deletion with the following
> justification: "Seems like a project of one guy, John Pozzi, who even uses
> Wikipedia as only reference on his website grb.net. The entry suggests it was
> seriously considered by the UN, which it was not."
>
> A week later, no arguments in its favor having been presented, the article was
> deleted according to Wikipedia process. It is possible for articles to be
> undeleted; if you think your article should be considered a second time,
> please see <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion review>.
>
> Yours sincerely,
> Dan Smith
As a compromise between having a complicated archiving system and the sudden, unexplained disppearance of entries from this page, I have started a "Recently Concluded" section at the bottom of DRV. This tells of recent closings, and points to appropriate AFDs, where applicable. If an achiving system is later worked out, obviously that will supercede this, but in the meantime this seemed quite helpful. Necessary, perhaps. As I can't imagine anything being terribly controversial about this, I just went ahead and did it. Obviously nothing is now forcing everyone who closes these debates from doing this, but I would encourage them to, as it's much easier than looking through the page history to find out what results were. - R. fiend 20:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Per the above, and per several discussions on talk pages, it seems like a good idea to formalize the following:
Please don't just yell 'instruction creep', what I'm saying here seems like common sense (and of course is open to discussion) and has been the subject of some recent controversies. No harm in writing it down. R adiant _>|< 09:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
I would add the following points in some form or another
I would also note the first point presented does not rule out the option of putting up a second VFD debate instead, and that this is a better option if a better reason to delete is presented. For example, if someone nominated an article on the Norwegian El 19 locomotive for deletion with the reason "We don't need articles about every locomotive class" and is shouted down by twenty voters saying "yes we do", the place to point out that the El 19 doesn't exist is a second VFD debate.
Another question: Currently, we usually need a simple majority to overturn a disputed deletion, but what would be needed to overturn a disputed "keep" result? About 50%, about 75% or what? I don't think that we should leave it at 50% because that would mean that a simple majority could get an article deleted, while a rough consenus is what should be required. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I support the concept. VfU can be productively turned into a more formalized appeal process that works for contested decisions in both directions. We might still want to tweak some of the wording. For ease of discussion while we work on the proposal, I'm adding hard-coded numbers to the bullets.
Great draft. Thank you. Rossami (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I think probably all the points above are instruction creep, with all the attendant downsides. It will likely turn out to be impossible to abide by them at all times. Kim Bruning 14:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
(Was editing my comment but got edit confliced...)
I am worried about the word unilateral creeping in everywhre. It should be defined or dropped. It appears to be synonymous with WP:BOLD? In that case, check and/or modify WP:BOLD first.
Finally, if people continue to instruction creepize and unilateralize, we're going to have to set up a separate wikipedia:special circumstances with an explicit licence to ignore all these new rules. Kim Bruning 14:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Good proposal. Too many sentences. Not instruction creep if written right, as it's just a change of scope. I share Kim Bruning's concern that each new rule is a new battleground for the future. How about:
That says it all, I think.- Splash 17:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, there is evident concern that this is still too stretchy. I think admins need to have a little bit of stretch room, however. One situation I was trying to avoid with the "clearly out-of-process" clause was the Garrett thing: some of his earliest deletions were way out of line, and to make those all go through VfU (as well as AN/I and his talk page) would just have been a bit silly. NOT:a bureaucracy blah blah. To Radiant!'s points:
- Splash 14:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Given a current discussion on the main page, I think we might think about reviving this discussion. It would help greatly to have clarity one way or another. <prods watchlists>.
If this page is to be renamed, I find Deletion review cumbersome; and easy to confuse with "Deletion Reform".
I much prefer the straightforward Undeletion. Septentrionalis 18:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I've removed some material from the main page. If someone thinks it should go back, do that of course.
brenneman
(t)
(c)
23:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
CSD A7 (non-notable bios) has come up for discussion a good deal here. At Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Interpretation of WP:CSD A7 (non-notable bios) is a proposal to clarify the interpretation of this critrion, and particualrly the meaning of "Claim of notability". Please read it and comment if you are at all interested. DES (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
A couple of sections up, in #Proposal and then #Fewer words! there was a formative proposal about extending the scope of VfU to review the outcome of all deletion processes whether resulting in deletion or some other action. Given the current discussion on VfU, we should revive that discussion and complete it.
Originally, a rather convoluted, creepy offer was on the table which was simplified and received some support. The then-current draft of the new scope of VfU was:
|
This sounds ok to me, but it would since I wrote it. If we can generate some discussion and some consensus here, then perhaps admins fighting over AfD closures might come to an end. - Splash 21:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I would support this IFF there were a parallel process, or even the same process were used, to review articles that were kept as the result of a "no consensus to delete" closure of an AfD listing. What this is doing is attempting to go around the AfD process, and is changing the criteria so that if an article gets deleted because of a consensus on AfD to delete, it would only take a majority of votes on VfU to undelete. Change the criteria to require a consensus to undelete as well, or this is just an end run around AfD deletions. User:Zoe| (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
There appears, to me at least, to be a broad support for making a change towards the boxed proposal above. There are concerns about the detail of the process, however. As I read the discussion above (and not the discussion below, since it relates to a fundamentally different approach) we are consider something like 3 options:
Some sort of a merge of the two might be appropriate. What do people think? - Splash talk 18:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Here is a proposed wording for the mechanics, similer but not identical to numer 2 above. What do people think of it? Obviously it is merely a suggestion, and is subject to changes if anyone offers ideas for them DES (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Any coments on the above? DES (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
The thing I like least about this is that it strongly entrenches a philosphy that "admins can when they feel like it", but ordinary editors "must ask nicely". The original proposal treats everyone equally, and I don't fully see the benefit in enshiring inequality. And lets fact it, with nearly 600 sysops you'll be able to find one who'll undelete just about anything. - Splash talk 22:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Tony, I find it deeply distasteful that you make such changes as you just did to an established process when your proposal has thus far received no support. You told us to change policy if we didn't like it. That's what we're talking about doing. You on the other hand, have simply decided to reshape procedure you don't like on a whim. I could as well have changed the header, moved the page to a new anme and proclaimed the issue settled. But I figured discussion was a better way to go. Thus far, everyone apart from you seems happy that discussion is indeed the way to go. - Splash talk 21:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Clearly it is right to include the precise wording from the undeletion policy at the head of VFU. That it was removed, I find inexplicable--whether or not people disagree with Wikipedia official policy, we are still bound by it, so it's only fair to warn editors coming here that if they see "Valid AfD, keep deleted", they will know that those votes are contrary to undeletion policy. I am happy to see that there is now at least some kind of discussion on undeletion policy itself. If you can get a Wikipedia-wide consensus to change that policy and reverse its meaning, good luck. It isn't going to happen. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 02:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
The above section with the DR proposal had overwhelming support with very few challenging it. What's next? - Tεx τ urε 17:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Was bold. brenneman (t) (c) 00:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC) Note - This still leaves the "mechanics" question open.
Based mostly upon DES's suggestions above, but with a smerge of Tony Sidaway by eliminating the "opinions on content will be ignored" section:
Before listing a review request, please:
![]() | If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. |
1. |
{{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~ |
2. |
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
3. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
4. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
|
Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{
TempUndelete}}
template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the
policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.
If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
Some notes:
brenneman (t) (c) 07:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Who gets to determine whether or not there is rough consensus on the Deletion Review? Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Approximately what vote count constitutes a "rough consensus" for overturning (a) a debate closed as a "keep" and (b) a debate closed as a "delete". Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
If we try to imagine the type of deletion review that's going to get a majority but not a rough consensus, we're almost certainly thinking about contentious closures. (Anti-polonism, Religious persecution by jews, CommonLang2, etc.)
One thing I'd like to avoid is discouraging people from doing difficult closures. In parallel, there should be something to be said for simply getting there first. Thus I'm in favor of weighing the numbers slightly in their favor (e.g. +66% as opposed to 51%).
First
BraveAdmin has stepped up to the plate and made the closure. (Almost certainly receiving lots of talk-page abuse whichever way they have decided.) Then they are raked over the coals by their peers at DR, and their closure is overturned with a simple majority and relisted. Then we have another, almost certainly more complicated XfD. Who is going to step up the second time, seeing
BraveAdmin with their tail between their legs?
brenneman
(t)
(c)
01:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Again, what's contentious are those Overturn and (action) that fall into that area between "rough" and 75%. For many admins, this area does not exist. For those who are willing to close a normal XfD in this zone, they'd have to be pretty sure of themselves to commit (action) in this very public venue. Thus this is a non-issue to me compared to setting the lower bound.
brenneman
(t)
(c)
01:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Never cropped up yet but How can one overturn a disputed "merge" result into a "delete" when the closing admin has gone ahead and merged the articles? Revert the merge (which has since possibly been heavily edited)? Delete those versions with the merged content from the history? Or what else? Shall we just say that "merge" results cannot be disputed at DR? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I've altered the text as per suggestioned. My feeling is that it is incorrect to state the XfD paradigm as "no consensus, so keep". It is far more accurate to say "no consensus, do nothing". In fact, we've had some bitter disputes in the recent past over this very matter with regards to how non-consensus closures should be recorded.
I also would have liked wider participation in this. (Tony has said he's not interested.)
I'm swayed by Splash's need for speed and DES' and Titoxd's desire for a lower threshold to relist. I've created a template (it's used above) and added it to the page... in comment wrappers. However, I'd like to make a date in either three months or when it rears its head to talk again about "rough consensus" vs. "50/75 consensus".
brenneman
(t)
(c)
00:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Ok, so Encephalon appears to be busy, and I am not minded to wait much longer. I thus propose taking on board one of his changes (see Aaron's talk page) which is to remove the tail-eating clause. With the clear numerical basis, it is unnecessary. I'm inclined to think that if we need a supreme court for people who can't (or won't) count properly, then it's AN/I rather than endless bickering here. I do not propose the removal of the graduated outcomes, because I do not think it will lead to "havoc" — moreover I think it provides a good way to avoid getting the answer wrong in all but the most serious cases. It also takes things back to AfD unless the community is very sure of itself which addresses at least part (though not most) of some objections to the use of DR/VfU at all. Do people disagree with me deeply on this? If not, I would suggest we do something community minded once the 3 or 4 of us here have nodded. - Splash talk 01:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I just give and give (*sob*). Yes, I agree that the fourth point is not required if we make this more a pseudo-vote and less "hazy". Take it out (*sob again*). I'll make the change. ^_^
brenneman
(t)
(c)
00:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Most people who have commetned seem to support, or at least not oppose, the current proposal and the current version of the mechanics. Have hwe had enough participation and enough time to consider this a consensus to make this change? I suggest that the currently edited proposal and mechanics be reposted (so it is clear what is current) with a date (say in a week?) when we think they should go into effect, absent further opposition, and post renewed notices at the pump and other places where people will see them. On the specifeid date, fi tehre stil seems to be consensus, this page will be moved and the nned alterations will be made to the instructions and other sectiosn of the page, and to appropriate pages that link to [[WP:VFU]. Does this seem like a reasonable way to proceed? If not what does? DES (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
How about raising the sophistication level of the page to something like AfD? It's a trade-off of more complexity weighed up against better history, accountability, etc. I'd also propose the the slightly strange and barely used {{vfu}} be revamped, as it could more correctly be put on XfD debates, not on articles.
brenneman
(t)
(c)
00:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
(Resetting indentation) I've moved those pages from templates to subpages. If this page does get moved to DR, will the subpages move along with it? (Should have asked that first I now realize.) brenneman (t) (c) 10:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I laughed out loud when I saw the vfu template.... that thing is really silly :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Neutrality has been kind enough to provide us with some fodder for discussion in the last few days. - brenneman (t) (c) 00:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
What's a "proper" listing? What should be done with one that's not?
Aside from the obvious (self-revert) ones, when could a debate be closed early?
Wikipedia:Notability proposal is a proposal to explicitly make "notability" a requirement for Wikipedia articles, and to explicitly include "lack of notability" as a reason for deleting articles. Please visit Wikipedia talk:Notability proposal and express your view on the proposal. DES (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Copied from WP:RM
It isn't clear to me what the previous Support votes are supporting.
This is essentially a repetition of a very small part of the debate further up the page. I'm not sure why this has been copypaste-dumped in here, unless that is always the way RfM does things. - Splash talk 01:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Undeletion policy mentions that images can be listed in Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion but I didn't see any image listings here. Can images for undeletion be listed here ? Jay 07:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I've labeled as disputed, several deletions within my comments that were replaced with <personal attack removed> labels. The ones I disputed unfairly and exageratedly characterize my comments, which were more in the nature of accusations, such as might be done in an RfC or an ARBCOM case. Removing accusations such as these, and then characterizing them as personal attacks will have a chilling effect on whistleblowers who would bring abusive behavior to the attention of the community, and would harm the communities ability to openly police itself. I did not dispute a couple of statements, that while they would not be personal attacks if they were true, since I was mistaken and they are false accusations which have I apologized for.-- Silverback 05:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I've moved this page to Deletion Review, per consensus in the above discussion. R adiant _>|< 22:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The problems are pretty obvious. The whole thing seriously misstates both deletion policy and undeletion policy. To claim that it's been arrived at by consensus is to state a very palpable untruth. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 01:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Aaron, do please stop being unreasonable. You've twice falsely claimed that I should use the talk page or block you for 3RR. Since you've come nowhere near to breaking the 3RR, and I have no intention of doing so, and I have used the talk page whereas you have simply taunted me in edit summaries, it's becoming utterly surreal. I'll have another go at reformulating a policy-compatible version of the wording here. Do please try to discuss instead of edit warring/ -- Tony Sidaway Talk 01:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Tony, please do stop trying to muscle over what's been worked out quite congenially. If I didn't make myself clear: I will continue to revert your bad-faith attempts to undermine other contributor's effort up to and beyond the 3RRR limit. As I'd be doing it for the good of Wikipedia (in my own opinion, of course) I'd simply be following the example that you've set in ignoring all rules.
brenneman
(t)
(c)
01:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
As a sub-policy of the official undeletion policy, the instructions on "Deletion Review" (or "VFU" or whatever it's being called today) cannot contradict the official policy that it falls under, regardless of any discussion or consensus found on the sub-page's talk page. Official policy cannot be undermined by consensus regarding related subpolicies. To do so is to commit a fiat of the official policy. Any time that a subpage is out of sync with the policy it falls under, for any reason, any editor is performing properly when they correct the subpage to conform with the actual policy. Please find consensus to change the official undeletion policy before inserting further nonsense about this being about "process only". Un focused 15:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
This was a widely announced policy proposal. It specifically purported to alter the undeltetion policy. It attaind what ZI think was a clear concenssus during a long and well-announced discussion. Where exactly is it stated as a policyu that policies can only be cahged by proposals on their "own" pages, and where is it stated which policies are primary and which are "sub-policies". I think creating the category "sub-poilicy" and to create soem sort of official hierarcy of policies as the above comment implies is one of the more extreme cases of "instruction creep" I have seen on wikipedia. The phrase "process not contet" was supported by a clear consensus during these discissions, and is therefore now policy. TYhose who dislike it should start a proposal to change that, and seek consensus for it. DES (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
The difference is that this page is merely implementation of the official policy. Look at this policy any you'll see that it does not have the {{policy}} tag on it, because it is not official policy. You cannot change official policy by fiat, attacking the mechanism that implements it. Official policies overrule guidelines and process decisions where they conflict. You failed to find consensus to change the official policy, which is the overriding factor governing this procedure. Un focused 16:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
A proposal can change both policy and its implemetation. This was a widely discussed and advertised proposal. The proposal specifically said that it was changing the undeletion policy insofar as that policy disagreed with the new implementation principles. That makes it a policy change proposal. the proposal received consensus in a discussion held after being widely advertised. That means the policy has in fact been changed as muchas it needs to be. DES (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Unless you have consensus to change official policy on the official policy page, then you haven't actually changed anything. Rewording the implementation is fine, as long as it is 100% consistent with the undeletion policy that covers it. I'd suggest discussing your proposed changes on the undeletion policy page if you intend to change undeletion policy, because that's the "master key" of undeletion, and is the page that is on everyone's watchlist. As long as the master policy that regulates undeletion doesn't change, a whole lot of people (including myself) don't really care that much about the implementation, which is why my participation in the implementation debate, if any, was minor. It's also why I've made the changes here, because you're trying to insert changes that are incompatible with the actual official undeletion policy. Change that, the official undeletion policy, and you won't find conflict. Whenever two policies are in conflict, the one that isn't official must be adjusted to harmonize them. Changes in the official policy by fiat are improper; they should be carried out on the official policy page and propagated downward. Un focused 18:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
If you think you have the consensus to change the official policy, then change the official policy, THEN change the implementation of that policy. Otherwise, you're changing policy by fiat, which is no better than simple vandalism. Un focused 00:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
There is currently some controversy about the meaning and relevance of this phrase, and its suitability for inclusion on WP:DRV and WP:DEL. The controversy has manifested as an edit war on those pages (see for example [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]), and a short block on two editors [7]. I believe it might be helpful, in efforts to resolve the dispute, to look at the phrase's history and intent.
Tony Sidaway, SimonP and others are correct when they say that the phrase has been with WP for a long time. Its earliest use that I know of was in the document that eventually became WP:DEL. The original page can still be seen; it dates from February 25 2002, but was actually written in November 2001 in the old software.
That page was an instruction to administrators. In the old UseModWiki software, page deletions were qualitatively different from page deletions in our current system: once a page was deleted, it was completely removed, such that it was "impossible to restore from within the system." The present day equivalent is removal of the page history from the database by a developer.
This permanent quality of deletions made it imperative that any deletion decision was made with particular care—there was no such thing as "undeletion" at the time. The rules were a reminder to anyone about to delete a page what was generally expected of them; to wit, these were "some rules that those tasked with permanently deleting pages can generally be expected to follow in making the decision to delete or not."
On September 20 2003, more than two years ago, old time user Cimon avaro moved the instructions to a very appropriate, newly created page, Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. You can see the original here.
The above history makes the meaning of the phrase in question crystal clear. It is an instruction to administrators (ie. to people who can delete pages) to be careful when commiting that final act, and to desist if they cannot make up their minds about whether they should delete a page. The phrase is an axiom for individual administrators to bear in mind when they make their delete decisions. The Deletion guidelines for administrators also provides other helpful tips to administrators. For example:
These are all sensible rules of thumb for administrators to keep in mind as they consider their closes; "if in doubt, don't delete" is one among them.
I have noticed that this phrase appears to be often misused these days. The clearest misuse happens when someone uses it to proclaim that another admin's close was invalid, because it was closed at a rough consensus standard that they believe to be unacceptable. This is often expressed with something like: "You should not have deleted that page. It was too close; two-thirds isn't a consensus. Remember 'if in doubt, don't delete.'"
This is the sort of thing that makes you go "Whaa—?". It's a misunderstanding of the axiom. IIDDD is not intended to call into question deletion decisions made in perfect accordance with the criteria in WP:DEL and WP:CON by an administrator who had no doubts as to the validity of the closure.
Another misuse of the axiom is the idea contained in the following: "You should not have deleted it because there was doubt. The very fact that I'm disagreeing with you proves that there is doubt. Remember 'if in doubt, don't delete.'" This is incorrect, for what should be very obvious reasons.
Tony Sidaway has recently made several edits to the VFU header page, in which he characterizes IIDDD in an interesting way. He writes,
and
It is unclear to me how an instruction to administrators to be careful when performing deletions became "the chief precept" of WP:DEL. The deletion policy is a document that specifies what things within WP may be removed. Where the main namespace is concerned¹, what may be removed are
These are the bases of article space policy and the fountainhead of deletion policy—they are what the deletion policy was written to enforce.
The axiom IIDDD on the other hand is merely a simple reminder to admins who're on the job not to be trigger happy. It is most certainly not "the chief precept" of deletion policy, just as "don't delete pages you nominate for deletion" is not the chief precept of deletion policy, nor any other of those little, if helpful, reminders given to admins who're working on deletions. The idea that IIDDD makes WP permissive is also misleading, I believe. It neither makes it more permissive nor less. What goes and stays on WP is determined by WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:Copyrights. All else are secondary, and all else are derivations. In this editor's humble opinion, at any rate.
Perhaps the intent is to emphasize the open nature of the wiki. This is a fair point, but:
This brings us to the question that started all this. Should "if in doubt, don't delete" be placed in WP:DEL and WP:DRV? This seems to be the source of much dispute, but that is only because IIDDD is misunderstood. Personally I will not strongly object with listing the admin reminders on the deletion page, because I know what they are and what they were written to for, and putting them there will not make me treat the article-space policy any less seriously. However, I do see the point that they're out-of-place. WP:DEL is primarily written for users and editors of the encyclopedia, not sysops. Placing IIDDD in such a page, in the way it has been placed there now, does sound odd—because non-sysops can't delete, whether they are in doubt or not. IIDDD is directed at sysops, the folks who do the deleting. The correct place for it is Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, where it fits perfectly and where it has been placed since the inception of that page. (Yes, it was also in the page that eventually became WP:DEL, but that was when that page was in fact directed at admins. You can read it [http:// here.)
What about WP:DRV? The same applies. Wherever the thing is placed however, I would ask that it is not misrepresented, or written in a way that gives a misleading account of article space and deletion policy on Wikipedia. If I've been wrong in any of the above, do correct me—it will not be the first time, nor the last :) I do believe that this issue needn't divide us as it has. Kind regards enceph alon 20:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Note
If in doubt, don't delete is a longstanding principle of deletion policy. It stays. Obviously if admins disagree on speedies there is doubt; this is a trivial consequence of
WP:FAITH. In practice taking major disagreements to
WP:AFD always produces a satisfactory conclusion and is the path I recommend. Let the editors look at the content, possibly improve it, and decide for themselves. --
Tony Sidaway
Talk
04:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I've stayed out of this so far, but I just can't any longer. It is absolute nonsense to relegate the IIDDD to Deletion Guidelines for Admins. Frankly, any attempt to dig it out of deletion policy is nothing more than another attempt by bureaucratic deletionists to drag their damned elitism into the workings of deletion processes at WP. The only real reason to "hide" the IIDDD principle in Deletion Guidelines for Admins is so that a lesser number of editors will see it and thusly be aware of it - doing little more than trying to passively change policy by keeping other editors ignorant. As Tony has pointed out, it is a longstanding principle. As far as I'm concerned, enceph's reasoning on this nonsense. Regular editors involved in the deletion process should know what the principles of deletion policy are without having to go digging further than the deletion pages (ie. into Deleteion guidelines for admins). I see the real danger as the opposite of what is being claimed - that deletionist sysops will simply face less opposition to their actions and decisions if the information is further removed from the initial reading of principles that regular editors will encounter when engaging in the deletion process. -- Nicodemus75 05:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Since thare are soem cases (contested speedies) which are laregely content issues, and others in which content is relevant to determine whether the process was correct or not I propose altering this wording from "This page is about process, not content." to "This page is primarily about process, rather than content." to avoid the implicatiuon that any discussion of content is banned, and, i hope, to make things more agreeable to those who object to the current version. DES (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
It appears you're now making my argument for me. Process is NOT the ONLY reason to bring a VFU, yet that is the only instruction that I've been removing (and getting reverted for). If the second item in the undeletion policy has consensus to be removed, then the editors reverting me are correct. Otherwise, they are wrong, because the undeletion policy CLEARLY shows other reasons to bring an article to VFU. Unless undeletion policy is first changed, then consensus on this page's header doesn't matter at all; "official policy" always trumps "consensus procedure" where there is conflict between them. Un focused 01:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Your edit is closer to the actual policy and I appreciate it. However, nothing about Wikipedia articles is ever truly about "process but not content". Wikipedia is not an experiment in social democracy, remember? Un focused 03:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Obviously the whole of DR is about content mainly; review of the process may be involved but the undeletion policy makes it plain that we're asking: is Wikipedia a better place with this article? I've also incorporated a reference to the undeletion policy's exception for remedying out of process deletions, which has been omitted from the header. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 04:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
On avoiding becoming AfD 2, I think such worries are misplaced. The undeletion policy makes it plain that VFU is intended to review content. The longstanding mantra on the header of VFU, claiming that you shouldn't bring an article here simply because you disagree with the result of the AfD, has always been completely outside the undeletion policy. VDU DR is the only place to bring such an article. This is the very purpose of this forum, even if that purpose had been repeatedly traduced. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 04:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Is there no archive of Deletion Review discussions? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 06:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
and then i can link it back again and also my other watchlist things need to be sorted out Perrymason 00:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I am wondering how to submit a page for undeletion. The page "Jonathan Krive" was deleted. I talked with the admin who deleted the page, and he listed the reason as "The requested page title was invalid, empty, or an incorrectly linked inter-language or inter-wiki title." I am wondering how to make the title valid.
Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored.
The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 10:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit]Global Resource Bank Docendo Discimus said: Seems like a project of one guy, John Pozzi, . . .
John Pozzi: This assumption by Docendo Discimus is not correct. Dr. Author Shaw (please see Author Shaw's bibliography at www.grb.net) was the originator of the project and many other people besides John Pozzi have contributed to the project. They include Frances Fox from California, Joanie Watkins from New York City, Lennart Bylund from Sweden, Monika Hoy from Germany and her friend from Switzerland (who's name slips me just now) However Ms. Hoy can provide the Wikipedia Information team with her name and email address. Also many other people that are too numerous to mention in this brief reply. It should also be noted out that the pilot GRB has more than 2900 registered shareholder accounts and 250 registered commercial accounts that have contributed to the GRB project.
Docendo Discimus goes on to say: . . . who even uses Wikipedia as only reference on his website www.grb.net . The entry suggests it was seriously considered by the UN, which it was not.
John Pozzi: I see no problem to using Wikipedia as a reference because I did not write the GRB entry in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia which is correct except for the UN reference and don't know who did. The UN data can be edited to indicate that it was a NGO conference at the UN and that you (Lennart Bylund) as the GRB representative to that conference can provide the details. I see that you did in your email to Wikipedia.
Therefore: delete. DocendoDiscimus 19:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DocendoDiscimus)
Devotchka said: Delete. I like that he uses his own article as reference. Nice try.
John Pozzi: Again I did not write the GRB article in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia and It wasn't a "nice try" by me to deceive the reader. The Wikipedia information team should know who wrote it however I would like to know who it was.
Devotchka 19:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Devotchka
Pete Hurd said: Delete. Interesting mix of original research/vanity/ & copious name-dropping to cover inherent non-notable nature of subject. Pete.Hurd 19:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pete.Hurd
John Pozzi: Original research - yes. However there is nothing vain or non-notable about creating a world central bank that supports a prosperous global community that values Earth's ecoproducts. Giving credit to the work of Dr. Author Shaw through Bob Watson in the GRB bibliography has nothing to do with name-dropping but provides the reader with accurate background information. The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Mr. Bylund:
If I were you I would go to the deletion review page of Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review and follow the instructions. You may want to send a copy of your reply to: Celestianpower, Docendo Discimus, Devotchka and Pete Hurd and everyone I copied this email to -including me.
We can then all discuss the Wikipedia information team's "reply to all."
Thank you,
John Pozzi
Original Message -----
From: Lennart Bylund To: John Pozzi Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 3:41 AM Subject: GRB and Wikipedia
Hi John,
Found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Global_Resource_Bank
Looks like some have a problem with the UN part and some more things... looking how to republish the info.....
/Lennart
Original Message -----
From: "Wikipedia information team" <info-en@wikimedia.org> To: "Lennart Bylund" <Lennart.Bylund@berg.se> Cc: <john.pozzi@att.net>; <mats@brunell.se> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [Ticket#2005110810000679] Global Resource Bank article
> Dear Lennart,
>
> Thank you for your e-mail.
>
> "Lennart Bylund" <Lennart.Bylund@berg.se> wrote:
>
>> About Global Resource Bank deleted page.
>>
>> I have been using Wikipedia for some time now and have so far been
>> impressed about the quality and diversity of articles.
>>
>> Now the Global Resource Bank page has been deleted and some have had a lot
>> of opinions about the info.
>>
>> I can assure that all that was written was correct and probably quit
>> interesting for a lot of peaple and for the future ( I was personaly in UN
>> 2000 at NGO Millenium meeting for example) now what to do? Or is it like
>> this that it should work, that some induviduals have the right to decide
>> what is tru or not... if so the Wikipedia is a dead end sorry...
>>
>> Hope you can reconsider your decision and repost the GRB info.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> /Lennart Bylund
>
> The Global Resource Bank article was nominated for deletion with the following
> justification: "Seems like a project of one guy, John Pozzi, who even uses
> Wikipedia as only reference on his website grb.net. The entry suggests it was
> seriously considered by the UN, which it was not."
>
> A week later, no arguments in its favor having been presented, the article was
> deleted according to Wikipedia process. It is possible for articles to be
> undeleted; if you think your article should be considered a second time,
> please see <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion review>.
>
> Yours sincerely,
> Dan Smith
As a compromise between having a complicated archiving system and the sudden, unexplained disppearance of entries from this page, I have started a "Recently Concluded" section at the bottom of DRV. This tells of recent closings, and points to appropriate AFDs, where applicable. If an achiving system is later worked out, obviously that will supercede this, but in the meantime this seemed quite helpful. Necessary, perhaps. As I can't imagine anything being terribly controversial about this, I just went ahead and did it. Obviously nothing is now forcing everyone who closes these debates from doing this, but I would encourage them to, as it's much easier than looking through the page history to find out what results were. - R. fiend 20:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)