Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
"super-!vote"
[the closer] violated one of the most important rules in closing an AFD: He cast a super-!vote. The closing admin's job is not to review the arguments someone else made but to judge what consensus is about those arguments. What they personally think about those arguments is irrelevant and if they let their personal opinion influence the close, as [he] obviously did here, they become involved and thus are disqualified from making a call on the discussion. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_December_27 -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_adminship&action=historysubmit&diff=409036898&oldid=409036651 An administrator "super-vote"d on a WP:AN/I block discussion by unblocking. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make is that while AFD is not a "vote", the !vote count is not completely meaningless. If you have an AFD where there are 5 arguments to keep and 3 (plus the nom) to delete but the deleters make the stronger argument, it is well within admin's discretion to close "delete". It's not the same for an AFD with all "keeps". Punch that one "delete" and you will be defending your "supervote" at DRV.
I can give 2 AFDs I have closed as an example. King Mondo ( DRV) and Jerry D'Amigo ( DRV). If I were to have closed the former as "delete" (which I couldn't at the time) or the latter as "keep" it's all but likely the closes would be overturned. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 04:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I just exercised what could I think be regarded as a valid supervote. [1] (In hindsight I should have provided an edit summary, and I apologise for that, but that's not the issue here.)
There's certainly no consensus to move... proposer and one Oppose. I would also oppose the move, and had I done so formally there would have been a rough consensus not to move.
But I closed it, and that could also have been a valid close as no consensus. I don't think under WP:SNOW there was any need for me to vote, or any reason not to close the RM.
But it isn't really a no consensus close. It's far better seen as a rough consensus not to move. Had I assessed the request as valid, I would have supported and probably relisted the RM, not closed it. Had I been in doubt, I would have just relisted and commented.
Which essentially makes my close a supervote not to move. Comments? Andrewa ( talk) 00:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi SmokeyJoe. I saw your reversion and your edit summary. My thought is that it wasn't useless clutter, but a helpful addition so that new users (and experienced users alike) know that a shortcut exists that they can easily use to navigate back to the article. It appears that we list the shortcuts on other Wikipedia pages, so I thought that I'd add it here. I just wanted to get your in-depth thoughts about it. Also, it's good to see you again! Hope you're doing well :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Here's a proposal of another type of supervote, or if not exactly a supervote, a very close analogue:
While writing, I found an essay similar to this Wikipedia:Relisting can be abusive. What do you think? — Alalch Emis ( talk) 21:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I would like to change some text in this subsection that permits closing against consensus.
A "non-prejudicial supervote" is when an XfD is closed either against the consensus in the discussion or where there is no clear consensus, though the closer has left a closing rationale that the close is an "editorial decision" and states what the actual consensus is (if there is one).
— Added in 2011 amid major revisions
I propose removing against the consensus
. Acceptable closes are generally not against the consensus.
Consensus split between | Result | Acceptable | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Keep, merge | Redirect | Consensus to keep the content, not blank it | |
Keep, redirect (article) | Redirect | ? | May aggravate the dispute, prudent to close as consensus against deletion and suggest a talk page discussion without taking an action |
Keep, redirect (recreated) | Redirect | ? | Only if longstanding state was a redirect, better to close as no consensus, default to restoring prior state |
Merge, redirect | Merge | Consensus against standalone article, can be redirected if merge is not implemented within a reasonable time | |
Merge, redirect | Redirect | Consensus against standalone article, merge can be implemented from page history |
An example would be an AfD discussion where the consensus is towards deletion, but a bold, non-controversial redirection can be made.
— Added in 2015
I propose this replacement: For example, redirect is an acceptable compromise when consensus is against a standalone article but split among merge, redirect, and delete.
If the consensus is delete, the AfD should be closed that way.
Flatscan ( talk) 04:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
"super-!vote"
[the closer] violated one of the most important rules in closing an AFD: He cast a super-!vote. The closing admin's job is not to review the arguments someone else made but to judge what consensus is about those arguments. What they personally think about those arguments is irrelevant and if they let their personal opinion influence the close, as [he] obviously did here, they become involved and thus are disqualified from making a call on the discussion. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_December_27 -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_adminship&action=historysubmit&diff=409036898&oldid=409036651 An administrator "super-vote"d on a WP:AN/I block discussion by unblocking. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make is that while AFD is not a "vote", the !vote count is not completely meaningless. If you have an AFD where there are 5 arguments to keep and 3 (plus the nom) to delete but the deleters make the stronger argument, it is well within admin's discretion to close "delete". It's not the same for an AFD with all "keeps". Punch that one "delete" and you will be defending your "supervote" at DRV.
I can give 2 AFDs I have closed as an example. King Mondo ( DRV) and Jerry D'Amigo ( DRV). If I were to have closed the former as "delete" (which I couldn't at the time) or the latter as "keep" it's all but likely the closes would be overturned. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 04:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I just exercised what could I think be regarded as a valid supervote. [1] (In hindsight I should have provided an edit summary, and I apologise for that, but that's not the issue here.)
There's certainly no consensus to move... proposer and one Oppose. I would also oppose the move, and had I done so formally there would have been a rough consensus not to move.
But I closed it, and that could also have been a valid close as no consensus. I don't think under WP:SNOW there was any need for me to vote, or any reason not to close the RM.
But it isn't really a no consensus close. It's far better seen as a rough consensus not to move. Had I assessed the request as valid, I would have supported and probably relisted the RM, not closed it. Had I been in doubt, I would have just relisted and commented.
Which essentially makes my close a supervote not to move. Comments? Andrewa ( talk) 00:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi SmokeyJoe. I saw your reversion and your edit summary. My thought is that it wasn't useless clutter, but a helpful addition so that new users (and experienced users alike) know that a shortcut exists that they can easily use to navigate back to the article. It appears that we list the shortcuts on other Wikipedia pages, so I thought that I'd add it here. I just wanted to get your in-depth thoughts about it. Also, it's good to see you again! Hope you're doing well :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Here's a proposal of another type of supervote, or if not exactly a supervote, a very close analogue:
While writing, I found an essay similar to this Wikipedia:Relisting can be abusive. What do you think? — Alalch Emis ( talk) 21:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I would like to change some text in this subsection that permits closing against consensus.
A "non-prejudicial supervote" is when an XfD is closed either against the consensus in the discussion or where there is no clear consensus, though the closer has left a closing rationale that the close is an "editorial decision" and states what the actual consensus is (if there is one).
— Added in 2011 amid major revisions
I propose removing against the consensus
. Acceptable closes are generally not against the consensus.
Consensus split between | Result | Acceptable | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Keep, merge | Redirect | Consensus to keep the content, not blank it | |
Keep, redirect (article) | Redirect | ? | May aggravate the dispute, prudent to close as consensus against deletion and suggest a talk page discussion without taking an action |
Keep, redirect (recreated) | Redirect | ? | Only if longstanding state was a redirect, better to close as no consensus, default to restoring prior state |
Merge, redirect | Merge | Consensus against standalone article, can be redirected if merge is not implemented within a reasonable time | |
Merge, redirect | Redirect | Consensus against standalone article, merge can be implemented from page history |
An example would be an AfD discussion where the consensus is towards deletion, but a bold, non-controversial redirection can be made.
— Added in 2015
I propose this replacement: For example, redirect is an acceptable compromise when consensus is against a standalone article but split among merge, redirect, and delete.
If the consensus is delete, the AfD should be closed that way.
Flatscan ( talk) 04:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)