Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 14

Procedural question on relistings

When an XFD is relisted, does that mean there's no consensus either way? And if there's no consensus either way, that defaults to keep, right? So what happens if no one comments after it is relisted? Is it a delete, no consensus, keep or what? Is it allowed for anything to be deleted on a relisted XFD that had no comments after it was relisted? –HTD 16:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Its a bit grey, When AFD was better populated a relist was less common and was more more for deadlocked discussions so we did tend to be harder about no commentary after a relist = no consensus. Now we are struggling to get enough participation a relist is often just an attempt to get a bit more participation. In this case if there is a relatively clear consensus once its clear we won't get anymore comments we can go ahead to clear it but obviously the closing admin should be more open to challenge about the close when the participation is a bit on the low side. Spartaz Humbug! 18:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, I was going to reference something, but I realize someone else responded on the discussion, but not a separate vote but a reply to his delete vote that was unanswered; other than that no one else commented. The reply was above the notice of relisting so I didn't spot it. Is this a good enough reason for a DRV? –HTD 18:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Depends what the arguments were. What AFD is this? Spartaz Humbug! 18:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 3#Template:United States Squad 2002 FIBA World Championship. TL;DR: It's WP:IDONTLIKEIT vs WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. –HTD 18:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
          • Hmm TFD is a bit broken and very slow to close and arguments can be arbitary but this isn't one I'd want to hang my hat on for DRV to change the outcome. This looks like a clear participation relist and the close given several users voting to delete and only one real keep voice is well within the closing admins discretion. Honestly? You are most likely wasting your time but are welcome to give it a whirl and see how it goes given that TFD is a bit broken and DRV can be a bit random on both T and C deletions. (If it helps to know what I'm basing this on, I have been a DRV regular from 2006 and was the regular DRV closer for a long while so I do have a feel for the way DRV goes). Spartaz Humbug! 18:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
            • I know it's not a vote count, but basically it was 3-1 with 1 "comment". 2 had some valid deletion arguments as far as deletion arguments go, with just one stating actual policy, and the third one was just a single sentence vote because of "navbox creep". The keep was me (HA) citing WP:OSE and longstanding precedent elsewhere. I know that DRV isn't "XFD round 2" but for certain procedural things in case an admin missed out on something. At the very least I'm expecting a reopening of the XFD and see how it goes from there. –HTD 18:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment

Your comment is requested at WT:Templates for discussion#RfC: Proposal to allow non-admin "delete" closures at TfD. --Izno (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"Previous voted..."

The edit made here seems to stem from the same idea as WP:INVOLVED though as Black Kite notes INVOLVED doesn't quite fit the bill since it seems to extend notions about administrators to closers of XFDs. Maybe it's creep to discuss it in this context. @Northamerica1000: who removed it (I'll let others decide whether it was a bold or a revert), and @MSJapan, Black Kite, AndyTheGrump, Andy Dingley, Reyk, and Timtrent: who participated in the original discussion. --Izno (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Seven Days Rule and Discussion in a Nice Tone / Stop Fast Deleting

Maybe it's just me, but the admins at the German Wikipedia are very rude. Some of my articles were just deleted over night. It wouldn't be so tragic they were deleted, if I would understand why, and when I had a chance to explain my side of of view and they theirs (discussion). When then the better argument would be for a deletion, I would take it calm and say, well that's it. A lot of users, like me, are spending hours and entire days on creating articles/make articles better. So yes, it is hard when a Wikipedia article is deleted, but if it's understandable it's all right.

But German Admins use the "fast deleting" the whole time. And no, I am not spending hours on creating vandalism or things like that. I think it's rude when one person delete an entire article on their own - just because he had a bad day, the wife left him or something like that. It would be nice, if hard working people would get a Seven Day Chance to explain and discuss why/why not it should be deleted.

The German Admins just say "don't relevant, deleted" all the time. And well, the problem is, that deleted means gone forever. At other accounts I've written a lot of complex Chemistry/Physics/Mathematics (since I've studied it with a Phd). Really "basic" for bachelor/master students at those fields. But well, they are all gone, because one admin disliked Science (or what so ever).

I think we user should have some kind of protection from Admins. I think, that a Seven Day politics should be used much more at German Wikipedia. And hopefully some international Admins could fire the German ones and get some better people for the job. I think the fast deleting should only be for **Vandalism** and nothing more. And then let the arguments speak seven days, and based on the arguments and meanings of the Wikipedia community, the decision should be taken.

PS! I think people should be more friendly at the internet. They write thinks, they never would say to us at the face. And some of these Users are Admins. I don't like to get sentences like "this is shit and no one cares about it" - I have put a lot of effort in my articles, like the most. If it's not good enough, the community and author should together try to make it better. If it can't be better, you could at least be so kind to use a good tone and say "I don't think it is relevant, becaus ...". Everyone could live with that. --Basiliussap (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, we can't do anything about the German Wikipedia. ansh666 22:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
No personal attacks also applies to users on the other Wikipedias. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you want, propose at the German Wikipedia, as we aren't Meta-Wiki, but such a rant would have scant success - I suggest you make it less critical. Esquivalience t 02:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Relisting process – Should relisting discussions automatically exclude users from any !voting in the discussion?

Responding to the request for closure at WP:ANRFC. Consensus is against including anything in the guideline about relisting and !voting at this time. That said, there is also general agreement that in some circumstances it's not a good idea, and that some caution is advisable when doing so. Sunrise (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recently an edit was added to the Deletion process page that stated, "Users who have previously voted in a discussion should not relist it, and users who have relisted a debate should not subsequently vote in it." (diff). This addition was based upon the fifteen-hour discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 68 § Question on an AfD procedure..., which was in part about one AfD discussion. I reverted this change because it is rather abrupt and could have significant chilling effects upon users that contribute to AfD, particularly regular contributors who work to keep the backlog down. At this point, requesting community input regarding this matter via RfC. North America1000 14:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose – As worded, this limits users to too great of an extent. For example, if an editor relists a discussion as a part of routine AfD log maintenance, they should not be forbidden from later participation in a discussion. Additionally, if a user participates in an AfD discussion by !vote and the discussion has received little or no other input, or if new compelling arguments or sources are presented that were previously nonexistent in the discussion, etc., that user should not be limited from relisting in efforts for a clearer consensus to be obtained. In instances of AfD discussions with little or no input that require relisting, this type of addition to the guideline would also force users to consider whether or not they want to contribute to the discussion on the spot, adding unnecessary complexity to the process and creating an unnecessary barrier to keeping AfD running smoothly. Also, relisting is not the same thing as closing a discussion, and should not be considered as such. With AfD receiving less and less input nowadays, it seems too abrupt to further limit participation in this manner. North America1000 14:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Order matters Relisting after having made a comment on the substance of a discussion is problematic, a relisting essentially says more discussion is needed for a close, and thus a close immediately after, does sort of contradict the relist, even if not prohibited. Thus you should not relist a discussion you have !voted in. However I see nothing wrong with relisting, and then becoming WP:Involved in the substantive discussion, so long as a relisting was justified at the time you did so. So lets say there are three delete !votes, and no keeps; you should not relist because in its current state it should probably be closed delete, but you may vote !keep, and that may be enough for someone else to relist it. If instead its nom pluss 1 delete !vote and one keep, it would qualify for relisting, and after you relist it, there is no problem with voting either way. Monty845 15:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I used to !vote and relist on the same AFDs but was told I wasn't supposed too, My logic was If you've !voted in an AFD, Come next week your going through the entire log to relist and see the AFD needs relisting despite you voting - The easiest thing to do is relist instead of leaving AFDs here & there & to a certain extent being a pain, I continued to moan here but wiped it as was all off-topic so we'll leave it there, –Davey2010Talk 16:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • My thought on this is that it follows from the same principle as WP:INVOLVED, and I'm not sure that the practicality is worth being seen as being involved. What comes to mind regards Monty's "order matters":
    • For "!vote, then relist", the bad actor scenario here is that someone objects to the apparent consensus in a discussion (at whatever date; don't forget that some things are relisted more than once) and then decides that the consensus is not in his favor, and so prevents an uninvolved person (admin or no) from making the decision to relist by relisting it himself. This is clearly something that we should want to prevent from occurring.
    • For "Relist, then !vote", I think this is just a point of semantics to distinguish between the two. Whether the !vote appears above or below the relist, you still look INVOLVED to have relisted it yourself. Though perhaps I'm taking the case of "these actions are occurring near in time to each other".
  • I don't know whether I oppose the wording or agree with it, however, so this is just some idle thoughts. --Izno (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Circumstantial - the addition (and honestly, WP:INVOLVED as well) pretty much assumes bad faith (or the assumption of bad faith, or...you know) - the situation is almost never that black and white. I think that there should be a warning that relisting and opining on a discussion, in whatever order, could be seen as improper, but that it should not be forbidden except for egregious offenders. Also remember that a relisted discussion can be closed at any time, not only 7 days after the relisting. ansh666 21:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Relisting != closing. Relisting can not really be tainted by a !vote. Yes, editors should exercise some caution when relisting AfDs they have !voted in; however they can be closed at any time and by any administrator or non-admin in the case of clear cases (disagreements can be discussed), not necessarily in seven days. This would be instruction creep at best. Esquivalience t 22:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - First of all, it wasn't a "recent change" - the edit was made by me six weeks ago, based on the statement that BOLD would cover it. Here's the link to the AfD that spawned the discussion and led to the edit: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adarsh_Liberal. The originator of this discussion (Northamerica1000) was the perpetrator of the issues that led to the edit, so this discussion is either disingenuous on his part, or he's hoisted himself on his own petard. TL:DR is: that AfD was 0-3 (inc. nom) after the initial 7 days. It was relisted (by NA1000) instead of closed. The votes then went to 0-5, but the article was relisted again by NA1000, who then voted keep not three minutes later. That is nothing but biased administration. Now he wants to have the policy edit overturned so he can continue to decide unilaterally what should be kept in this community project. Moreover, the edit was not to prevent "!voting", it was to prevent any voting in an AfD by those performing procedures, and vice versa, because INVOLVED wasn't strong enough on this matter. Anyone who relists a discussion should not be participating in it, because the votes matter to the discussion. In point of fact, my change was to address exactly what happened here, because as far as I am concerned, that AfD was going to be relisted until NA1000 got his keep/no consensus. MSJapan (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I admit that regarding the above-linked discussion, it would have been better for me to have provided my !vote and to not have relisted it, leaving the decision to relist for another user. You're misinterpreting my intent here, though, which was innocent and to simply allow time for the new sources to be considered. It's not necessarily uncommon for discussions to be relisted when new sources are presented. For example, see this discussion, whereby an admin deleted an article and then reverted their close because new sources were posted around the same time it was being closed. Also, your vote count above is incorrect (diff): for starters, the first relist occurred after one delete !vote occurred, which along with the nomination, totaled two. Perhaps you misread the comment following the nomination as a delete !vote? North America1000 01:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
And that first comment was basically a keep opinion, though based on potentially faulty reasoning, making the first relist very reasonable. ansh666 03:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Too much logical fallacy here. What happened on another AfD is not germane to this discussion. Finding sources is not what happened here. Debating minutiae only derails the discussion. Off by one vote or not, I saw no issue with the first relist at any time (and stated such). A clear consensus was reached after the first relist, as there were no keep votes. The AfD was relisted instead of closed, with the relister voting contrary to the consensus after the relist. That is a problem, because it appears biased even if it's a mistake. To summarize the situational issues as to why I made the change:
1. Vote and relist/close - if clear consensus is there, there is no need to vote. If there isn't, the person is either creating consensus and closing or voting against the trend and relisting, in either case appearing to manipulate the AfD in support of their position.
2. Relist and vote - If a consensus has been reached, relisting is unnecessary, as is any additional voting. If consensus has not been reached, relisting and voting either way appears biased, as above, and more so when the relister's vote is against the trend.
That is the underlying issue behind the change to the policy page here, as INVOLVED doesn't cover this. I see no problem with adjusting either policy, but the opportunity for issues is too great if there is a requirement to remain neutral - if you look at the discussion on AfD, Black Kite closed several AfDs that fit the pattern I pointed out. It wasn't just one instance. This is one of those cases where if there appears to be a problem, there is. People fixing backlog should be doing admin tasks, not voting on AfDs, because AFAIK, no votes either way still can be closed as delete because there were no objections. We've got lots of precedents for AfD, but what happened in the Adarsh Liberal AfD shouldn't be one of them. MSJapan (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – I feel that what has occurred in other AfD discussions is relevant toward this discussion, in part because changes to deletion policy should be based upon consensus, with consideration being allowed in this discussion toward precedents at AfD that exist, rather than based upon a bold edit to the Deletion process page per one AfD discussion. As I have stated, there is precedent for the relisting of discussions in which new information or sources have been presented, or ongoing discussion/commentary has occurred that was previously not present before a first relisting. As such, people that have participated in such discussions should not be automatically prohibited from relisting by default. Some examples of relisted discussions that were leaning toward or had a consensus that were relisted per new content presented in them are listed below.
I understand the notion of a person who has participated in a discussion that is leaning toward a particular outcome who has !voted against that outcome not relisting it, but I still feel it's too drastic to outlaw any relisting in discussions that an editor has participated in, particularly those that 1) do not have a clear consensus, and would likely be relisted anyway by another user, 2) when new sources/information etc. have been presented that has a reasonable likelihood to significantly counter previous arguments. I also think that a user who has previously relisted a discussion should not be forbidden from later participation, which is unnecessarily prohibitive, with chilling effects. As stated above, the change to the page, which stated (diff):
"Users who have previously voted in a discussion should not relist it, and users who have relisted a debate should not subsequently vote in it."
is too far-reaching and prohibitive, forces users to consider whether or not they want to participate prior to relisting, and does not take into account various circumstances that may occur. North America1000 09:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not sure what problem this solves. Someone relisting a discussion going the "wrong" way and then voting in the hopes that it will stay open long enough to attract votes to their position? That may be a problem but I don't know if it rises to the level of needing a policy to proscribe it. Protonk (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons given by Northamerica1000 and Protonk, though some clarification of 'inappropriate' re-listings might be useful.Pincrete (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Another reason why relisting then !voting may be beneficial is because many assess notability by looking at the references alone, without searching for sources. Often, I come across AfDs with a consensus to delete, yet when I look for sources, they are blindingly obvious, I could just merely vote on the 7-day-old AfD and hope that the closer doesn't do a raw vote count, but it would make sense to relist then vote, as new sources are available, and it requires more discussion. Esquivalience t 02:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Also, as a related concept, at WP:DRVPURPOSE #3, it states that deletion review may be used "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". This is similar to the notion of relisting when new sources become available in an AfD discussion. North America1000 07:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Another AfD relisted per new sources presented in the discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invoicera. North America1000 07:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think the commenters should relist, but the other way around seems relatively harmless. What we actually need is for people to stop hitting the relist button because it's "close" and they want to give it another whirl around rather than close no-consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think it's good practice not to relist discussions you've participated in, but I don't think it needs to be codified as such. The counterpart, about not commenting in a discussion you've relisted, is seriously problematic in the way it discourages participation in the discussion and/or AfD upkeep. I see a questionable relisting once in a while, but I can't think of any example in which it seemed like the person relisting was doing so in pursuit of a particular outcome. The language that already exists implies this, but I might be able to support some brief language along the lines of "If consensus emerges from the discussion, the debate should not be relisted in pursuit of a different outcome." That at least would address the problem, insofar as a problem exists, directly. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification on reference to WP:TPO

Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions has two mentions of "appropriate notice as per WP:TPO". What specifically at TPO is this referencing? An expansion on the details would help, as it is not readily apparent to me. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:recap

{{recap}} is nominated for deletion. This is an ancillary deletion template for processing long deletion discussions -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:NACD

"Notice of the restoration should be posted at WP:RFPP." was added by Unscintillating here. This makes little sense to me. Any reason to keep it? --NeilN talk to me 17:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I think decisions like that should be left to Protection policy. This question was inspired by this request for page protection, which in turn was an application of WP:NACD to a procedural mistake I made at Articles for deletion/International Space Elevator Consortium. Since I agreed with the revert, no point was served by protection. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
If not at RFPP, there should be some other way to report restorations of NAC, so as to avoid confrontations. Regards—☮JAaron95 Talk 18:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Now @Samwalton9 has changed it to "posted at WP:ANRFC." Does it make sense to request closure when it is already closed? RockMagnetist(talk) 18:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point, I misread this as being for when discussions are re-opened so I've reverted again. I don't understand at all where this was supposed to link then, I dont see how posting at RFPP helps anything. Sam Walton (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The ultimate point is to notify an admin about the restoration... Regards—☮JAaron95 Talk 18:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
As pointed out by Timotheus Canens the aim may be to request protection so that further reverting doesn't take place by non-admins. This should probably be clearer if this is the case. Sam Walton (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
For the aim, we'll have to ask @Unscintillating, because this editor did it without any consensus, although there were multiple inconclusive discussions of when it is appropriate to revert NACs at the time of this edit. I agree that no participant should revert a closure, but protection questions should be left to WP:PROTECTION. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:AN can be used to notify and a request for protection is only needed if there's an edit war going on. It should not be automatic. --NeilN talk to me 18:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Since Admins are aware of my restoration, and WP:Deletion Review is underway for reviewing the closure, I'm not reporting it anywhere. WP:AN/I works too! Regards—☮JAaron95 Talk 04:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This conversation petered out. Since there is no consensus for reporting anywhere in particular, I am going to remove the sentence. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

How does a non-administrator propose a template for speedy deletion?

This information should be explained on the project page Jc3s5h (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You place the deletion tag on the template page inside <noinclude> tags (as explained on Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Introduction_to_criteria). If the template's protected, you place the tag on the talk page instead (because you can't edit the main page as a non-admin in that case), although speedy-deleting protected pages isn't a situation that's likely to come up much. I added a description of that to the same area, because it doesn't seem to be listed anywhere and you're evidence that some people seem to be confused. --ais523 21:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Userpage

If you delete a userpage will it delete all of its subpages? I would like to delete a former userpage from a different account I had. StanCubed (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned files with {{Keep local}} tag

A couple of nominations closed recently regarding File:Citizens' Trust Company Building.JPG and File:Clark County Courthouse Indiana 002.JPG - there are other examples. These are files that were tagged with {{Keep local}} by the uploader years ago, but are no longer used in any Wikipedia articles. The debates were closed as "keep" because of the Keep Local tag. I'm wondering if there's any real policy reason to keep copies of these types of images on the local project. The current presumption seems to default to "keep" even if nobody defends retention of the file.

I've run across other situations where the uploader of images with the "Keep local" tag has obviously retired or been absent for years. In those cases is it all right for any editor to remove the tag?

Any clarification/insight is appreciated. Kelly hi! 08:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Well if the file is unused it could be deleted. In the first case the file could be transferred to commons. Really if users add a keep local tag, there should be a reason, eg "I am banned from commons", "I am annoyed by commons policy", "It is OK in USA, but not in country X". If the license are suitably free then commons should be the place to put them if they have educational value. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The meaning of "seven days" in AfD closures

There seems to be an overwhelming agreement that a day is 24 hours and that 7 days x 24 hours is 168 hours. While further discussion about what we can do with this new found information may need to take place, it seems we have settled the meaning if 7 days. HighInBC 16:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Because this was recently disputed at ANI, a RfC is needed to clarify the meaning of "seven days" in AfD closures, and to an extent, relists.

The question is: should "seven days" mean the seventh day or 168 hours? If "seven days" is the seventh day after, this means that the AfD has to be opened seven calendar days before closure (e.g. an AfD opened Jan 15 (GMT) can be closed on Jan 22 (GMT, any hour)). If "seven days" is 168 hours, this means that the AfD has to be opened exactly 168 hours before closure. Esquivalience t 21:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Seven days means 168 hours. Do not disenfranchise once-per-week editors. This does not mean that a discussion can't be closed early if the outcome is obvious. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Of course it means 168 hours. A day is 24 hours. If something needs to be available for comment for N days, then it can't be closed until (N times 24) hours have elapsed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • We aren't wikilawyering hard enough: it should be 604,800,000 milliseconds. Automatic block and desysop of the offender should be triggered based on the timestamp of the close, with a ban to follow after 604,800,000 MB of drama board discussion. ... Sarcasm aside, I agree that it should be 168 hours as the norm. (If it's overwhelming and WP:SNOW obvious, then whenever.) But really, what I think this needs more than an RFC is a good dose of AGF, IAR, and WTF. --RL0919 (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • It should definitely be 168 hours minimum (24×7), otherwise with timezone variations we might get less than 6 days of voting, depending on when people think days are. eg someone in Hawaii opens it at their 1st at 23:55 and then someone in New Zealand closes it at their 00:05 on 7th, it will be open for under 6 days total. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I was leaning towards on the 7th day but Graeme's comment really convinced me of the problems with that, so I say 168 hours on principle, but I don't think an hour here or there in practice is something we should quibble over. Wugapodes (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (as starter of RfC) I am more inclined to go with the 8th day, or after seven calendar days have passed (even though I personally prefer 7th). It should resolve all bureaucracy caused by 1-3 hour differences, and also give equitable time for Wikipedians to vote (although this is not much of a problem). Esquivalience t 01:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • One day is 24 hours; two days is 48 hours; ... seven days is 168 hours. There is no need to complicate issues by defining 7 days in some other way. A deletion discussion is very important to those participating, and it should not be closed before 168 hours has elapsed, unless WP:SNOW clearly applies, or some other WP:IAR factor clearly applies. People closing deletion discussions must be prevented from closing them early—if the result is obvious, why not leave it until 7 days has elapsed? For one thing, that would save all this wasted time discussing the obvious. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • What's with the hurry? Just wait till they're on WP:AFDO - i.e. 8th calender after listing. -- KTC (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Seven days might be 167 or 169 hours due to Daylight saving time. 96.41.0.15 (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Seven days is seven full days. In 2009, we discussed increasing the time for discussion from five to seven full days - Proposal to change the length of deletion discussions to 7 days - with the outcome: "All AFDs will now run a full 7 days. Early closures will be discouraged unless a valid reason can be given from Speedy keep or Criteria for speedy deletion." We should adhere to that. In general, there is no need to close discussions early other than for speedy keep or speedy delete or, rarely, a snowball close. In general, there is no harm in discussions lasting a full seven days or even longer but there is a need to allow everybody to have an opportunity to make an argument in the discussion. As KTC says, "Just wait till they're on WP:AFDO". --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think that if an AfD has obviously had no participation for the last few days of the full 168 hours, there's not really an issue to closing it a couple hours early...but in principle, yes, 168 hours was the intention. ansh666 05:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with seven full days (168 hours) but with a reservation: If you click on the "closing" link at the AfD page, it takes you to the seventh day after nomination - which means that due to time zones and UTC, those nominations have not been open for seven full days. They have been open for six days and a fraction. So it is very easy for someone in good faith to close a discussion which has only been open for 150 hours, or 160 hours; after all, it is on the page that Wikipedia called "closing". Is this something we need to do something about, or is it not a problem? --MelanieN (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    I think the word "closing" there is used in the sense that the discussions are about to be closed due to it being the last day for discussion (unless relisted etc.), rather than that it is actively being closed. -- KTC (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The elephant in the room is the constant re-listing after seven days with no-one being brave enough to make a decision. It's clear that it should be keep, delete or no-consensus (default to keep) instead of seeing AfDs relisted two, three or more times. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Part of the problem (indicated here and at the ANI discussion) was that the AFD closing link gave you pages too soon. I have now changed the responible template[1] so that normally no page can appear there too soon. If the consensus of this RfC would be that instead of the 168 hours / 7 full days, we go with 7th day, then of course the template can be changed back. Perhaps the template also needs to be changed for other XfDs, I only did AfD. Fram (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I endorse Fram's change which seems very sensible. 7 full days is what I've always supposed is intended. Andrew D. (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • As a regular closer, I've always understood the rule as clearly requiring 7 full days. Relists should be limited to two as a maximum.  Sandstein  11:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Just as 7 days for a PROD means 168 hours (just look at the template produced and you will see that it lists a time after which the PROD has expired), so should 7 days for an XfD mean 168 hours. An XfD opened at 15:37 on 24 January can be closed (or relisted) at any time after 15:37 on 31 January, but the usual rules regarding early closures remain valid (e.g. WP:SNOW). — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I have updated WP:DELPRO to say 168 hours per the consensus. Esquivalience t 12:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • 168 hours, obviously, but closing a few minutes early by mistake on a non-controversial discussion isn't a huge problem. Common sense is required. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC).
  • 168 hours, but once the snow has formed, closing on day 6 isn't grounds for DRV, even if it isn't clearly marked as Speedy or Snowy - common sense trumps. — xaosflux Talk 04:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • 168 hours, with the standard allowances for early closes. If we just went by calendar days, then AfD nominations created early in the day would be active much longer than AfDs posted later in the day. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • 168 hours. As a side note, I take a very dim view of controversial non-administrative closures. If an editor wants to engage in controversial closes, they ought to go through an RfA. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • 168 hours. As a worldwide project, figuring out exactly what 7 days means other than 7 24 hour periods would be problematical at best - 7 days for whom? The only thing that makes sense is 7 24 hours periods based on UST times. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • 168 hours. Due to time zone issues, a bright-line rule seems appropriate in this case. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 21:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • 168 hours, per KTC. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • How about we close this discussion? The originator has removed the RfC template and edited the project page in line with the apparent consensus, but the discussion still continues and it is still advertised in the centralised discussion box, even though further comments are very unlikely to change the consensus now: Noyster (talk), 00:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • 7 full days. 168 hours. It's a minimum, not a target. Unless criteria for early closure are met an AfD should run for a minimum of 7 full days. --Michig (talk) 09:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • 7 days = 168 hours. Closing early on all but the most uncontroversial discussions is disruptive. Looking for sources to save a supposedly "non-notable" article is a very time intensive process; as such, editors need to have a firm deadline for when the article's deletion is imminent (barring relists) and get a clear idea of how much time they have left to search for sources. Altamel (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2016

86.187.58.57 (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Copypaste of article deleted previous article deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deniz Kiziloz
 Not done as you are in the wrong place, since this page is only to discuss improvements to Wikipedia:Deletion process.
As you are aware an article on Deniz Kiziloz was previously deleted, as it failed to show he was notable. If you think he is now notable, and wish to start another article, please use the Articles for creation wizard - Arjayay (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Misuse of MFD relistings

This is an ongoing discussion about the flagrant misuse of MFD relistings going on at ANI. Further there are two RFCs going on at WT:MFD to ban relistings there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.99.199 (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add to relistings that "All relistings must be done discriminately and with a comment" following the result of the RFC at WT:MFD. Indiscriminate, comment less relistings are not productive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.99.171 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 24 February 2016‎

 Not done This appears to be a bad faith request, not supported by discussions at WT:MfD, which in any case would not determine practice for other XfDs. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Is it inadvisable to relist and at the same time participate in an AfD?

Previous discussions: Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 9#Relisting process – Should relisting discussions automatically exclude users from any !voting in the discussion? and Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 28#Can we formally ban relisters from subsequently !voting

Is it inadvisable to relist and at the same time participate in an AfD? See the discussion here with SwisterTwister.

SwisterTwister relisted here for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Freeman and voted "delete", here for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Greater Noida Rape Case and voted "delete", and here for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ingrid Lyne and voted "delete".

I think relisting and at the same time voting is problematic because it could give the appearance of impropriety. For example, in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Greater Noida Rape Case SwisterTwister said that it could be closed as keep, "but I'm still not confident about this being comfortable Kept thus I'm relisting for better attention". SwisterTwister was uncomfortable with the "keep" consensus in the discussion, so he relisted the discussion and voted "delete".

As Protonk (talk · contribs) wrote at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 9#Relisting process – Should relisting discussions automatically exclude users from any !voting in the discussion?: "Someone relisting a discussion going the 'wrong' way and then voting in the hopes that it will stay open long enough to attract votes to their position? That may be a problem but I don't know if it rises to the level of needing a policy to proscribe it."

SwisterTwister replied: "I kindly suggest we both drop this and continue with our own path and tasks as I was completely open to closing as Keep but the AfD was not explicitly clear regardless so if I had closed as Keep, it would've been fingered as closing too early thus the Relist. My vote afterwards was not at all affecting the AfD, whether or not what you may think. I will not continue to entertain this thread as I know what my beneficial intentions are and were."

What are other editors' thoughts about relisting and at the same time participating in an AfD? Cunard (talk) 07:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

  • When I used to relist I used to !vote in the same AFD aswell but was told to stop as it could be seen as me wanting a discussion to go in my favour - My only reason for it was to get more eyes on the discussion (Some AFDs I obviously !voted Keep & some delete) - At the time It never even entered my mind that It could be seen as me trying to get something deleted or kept, Although I believe many here !vote and relist in completely Good Faith and like me back then are completely unaware of how it may look it has been an issue for quite sometime so maybe it's a better idea to just either !vote or relist but not bpth in one AFD, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I endorse both Protonk's and the closer's remarks on the prev. ' I don't know if it rises to the level of needing a policy to proscribe it' and 'in some circumstances it's not a good idea, and that some caution is advisable when doing so'. I don't understand what problem this is trying to fix. I repeat what I said prev 'some clarification of 'inappropriate' re-listings might be useful', but a blanket ban seems inapt. Pincrete (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Cunard: I'm unclear as to what your intention is here. Are you reopening the old thread, or are you introducing new variables/perspectives that we should take into account and reconsider? That discussion wasn't too long ago, so for my part, I don't feel like there's been any cause for my opinion to change. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Rhododendrites (talk · contribs), the earlier discussion asked a broad question: "Should relisting discussions automatically exclude users from any !voting in the discussion?" The closer wrote that "there is also general agreement that in some circumstances it's not a good idea, and that some caution is advisable when doing so".

    This discussion narrows the question, asking whether the circumstances I presented above—relisting at the same time as participating in an AfD—is a "good idea" or not.

    At Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 28#Can we formally ban relisters from subsequently !voting, Jenks24 (talk · contribs) wrote:

    I'm not sure. Relisting and then voting straight after is obviously poor form, as is relisting a discussion where you're already a participant. But something I occasionally do is relist a discussion and then when it reaches the backlog again, rather than just relist indefinitely, I'll add a vote so that we try and reach a consensus. I'm interested in whether people think that is wrong, or has the perception of impropriety. Obviously if there's a consensus here to institute a blanket rule against relisters voting then I will abide by it.

    I'm not categorically against relisting and participating in an AfD. For example, I'm fine with the case Jenks24 mentioned in which Jenks24 relists a discussion and when it reaches the backlog again a week later, adds a vote to try to reach a consensus. But I do think relisting and voting immediately afterwards is "poor form".

    Cunard (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Relisting effectively extends the period for discussion, which itself is not harmful, but I think it would be advisable to avoid both relisting and !voting in the same discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • While I have never !voted and relisted in the same click, I have !voted and then relisted (or vice versa), but only in specific circumstances. For example, if I'm !voting on the 8th day, and there is one keep !vote, one ambiguous comment, and then I !vote delete, I might then relist. Another example would be if I am the only !vote on day 7 or day 8. If a clear consensus hasn't been reached by at least 4 editors, I see no harm in relisting. Regarding Cunard's specific suggestion, this appears to be a question of temporal displacement, rather than policy. I understand the perception issue, but one of the over-riding tenets of Wikipedia is WP:AGF, so if we go by that, than what difference does it make if a person !votes on Sunday, then relists on Friday, or does both on Sunday? Whatever the consensus is, I'll certainly abide by it, but it should either be you can either !vote or relist, but not both, or you can do either, regardless of timing. If you start to get into the timing issue, than where is the cutoff? On the same click? Within a minute of each other? An hour? Without any other intervening !votes/comments (which could be days)? Personally, I've pretty much eliminated relisting and !voting within that same relisting (in other words, if I'm the first relister, and NorthAmerica relists a second time, I might vote after someone else has relisted). But that's a personal preference to avoid the drama of folks questioning my motives - which are solely to attempt to follow the guidelines. Onel5969 TT me 20:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I generally try to avoid !voting and relisting at the same AFD. I feel that it would be similar to closing a discussion you've voted at, it's unfairly swaying the outcome of the discussion. However, I believe that there could be some legitimate reasons for doing so, such as trying to achieve a better consensus in the discussion. Omni Flames let's talk about it 21:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I view relisting as a procedural matter, and as people have probably noticed, I perform a great deal of relists. A problem is that AfD simply does not reach the participation levels it was at a couple of years ago, which necessitates relisting. I don't think having relisted a discussion should preclude users from further participation. Precluding later participation places a user who relists in a situation of having to think ahead of time about whether or not they want to participate in the discussion; e.g. "If I relist this, then I can't participate". This could have chilling effects upon both AfD participation and relisting; e.g. "I relisted it so I won't participate, oh well", "I may want to participate, so I just won't relist". North America1000 00:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree - this may have been a problem when we had enough participation at AfD and other deletion related processes, but now that every comment counts, I think a neutral procedural relist should not preclude one from participation. Of course, if it's a bad-faith supervote relist, then that shouldn't be allowed either way, but in general it should not be an issue. ansh666 01:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It depends. I would say for sure that it's inappropriate to take into account your vote when relisting. i.e. If there appears to be some form of consensus but you disagree with it and make policy-based arguments for a different outcome, you should not then relist on the assumption that your vote will change things. Relisting discussions that you've participated at should be reserved for true procedural relistings where it is obvious that no reasonable closer would find a consensus. ~ RobTalk 02:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    • BU Rob13 (talk · contribs), I strongly agree with "I would say for sure that it's inappropriate to take into account your vote when relisting. i.e. If there appears to be some form of consensus but you disagree with it and make policy-based arguments for a different outcome, you should not then relist on the assumption that your vote will change things." This would be a good guideline to follow. Well stated. I think the relist and "delete" vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Greater Noida Rape Case would fall under this because the relister noted, "I'm still not confident about this being comfortable Kept thus I'm relisting for better attention".

      However, I disagree with "Relisting discussions that you've participated at should be reserved for true procedural relistings where it is obvious that no reasonable closer would find a consensus." Per Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions, "That said, relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable."

      Cunard (talk) 05:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

      • That's true, of course. If the XfD has gotten a lot of attention and had a full debate, then it could just be closed "no consensus" (a close which the type of editor we're discussing should not make, since they'd be WP:INVOLVED). Unfortunately, that type of XfD is fairly rare these days. At TfD, where I do most of my closing, we're lucky if we get three total editors in a discussion lately. ~ RobTalk 05:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
        • While there are many AfDs with low participation, there are also many AfDs with high participation that get relisted when they should be closed as "no consensus" (or some other result). One example AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ingrid Lyne, which an editor relisted and voted "delete" on. An admin overrode the relist and closed as "no consensus" because the AfD had plenty of attention and policy-based discussion. Cunard (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I was pinged on this, as one of the archived discussions was one I started. It is my opinion that an administrative action on Wikipedia should be neutral in all respects, no matter who executes it (admin or non). Voting and relisting are two separate processes. If an AfD is open, anyone can vote as he or she sees fit. However, if that vote changes the prior consensus such that it causes a relist, and the voter then immediately does the relist, it has the appearance of not being a neutral action. AfD voting is predicated not on quantity alone, but on the quality of the vote rationale. This means that a well-supported single vote in favor of deletion could close a discussion. So it is a question of what the appearance of the action is rather than the nature of the action itself. MSJapan (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

  • I would personally avoid it; if I come across a debate whilst closing/relisting and would prefer to participate it, I would participate and leave to someone else to close/relist. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I would generally avoid it, too, but I don't see how it could materially sway a deletion process without violations of other guidelines as well (WP:CANVASS comes to mind) - perhaps I'm missing something? I don't see any problem with it, really. I am concerned at the focus specifically on SwisterTwister's relist/votes and I'm curious if there are other examples of this relisting/voting behavior that you ((Cunard) or anyone else is specifically concerned about. I'm also concerned that we're reopening a discussion that's was already completed less than a year ago. I don't think it's really any narrower than the previous discussion, a slightly different focus but in essence the same and I can't forsee any different result than the last one, especially given the discussion so far. To take one of the examples given above, the Noida article, it was not a clear consensus for keep before relisting - while the explicit votes were 'keep' at that point (a grand total of two votes) there were still differing opinions/comments regarding the disposition of the article. As you are no doubt aware, no process at Wikipedia is supposed to be a straight count of the votes. Anyway, that's my two cents here. Chrisw80 (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
As you point out, people generally avoid it. However, there's nothing in policy or guidelines that explicitly stops SwisterTwister from doing what he did, and it was not (that I can see) to the detriment of the deletion process in the case you pointed out. The other examples appear to be long since over with (and discussed ad nauseum in the other discussions. I should also point out that the quotes are specifically talking about admins, of which SwisterTwister is not. He marks his actions as non-admin. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I disagree that relisting and voting is permitted by the guidelines. The guideline Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions says:

However, if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to solicit further discussion to determine consensus. A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days.

An AfD participant cannot be the closer. An AfD participant is expressly prohibited from being the closer at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How an AfD discussion is closed:

An admin who is uninvolved and has not participated in the deletion discussion will assess the discussion for consensus to Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki the article. For how to perform this, see WP:AFD/AI.

An editor in good standing who is not an administrator, and is also uninvolved, may close AfDs in certain circumstances; appropriate closures that non-admins may make are detailed at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure § Appropriate closures. For how to perform this, see below, subsection Procedure for non-administrator close (other)

You asked for other examples of relisting and voting so I listed them with an explanation about how they prompted accusations of impropriety at the time, which is why relisting and voting is detrimental to the process.

I am invoking the general principle and spirit of WP:INVOLVED to explain why it is inadvisable to relist and vote in AfDs.

Cunard (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

A closer is not the same as someone who is relisting - the terminology used is ambiguous, but I think that the prior discussion clarified adequately. Regardless, if we're talking about relisting and voting, we're rehashing a discussion that took place less than a year ago. I see no pressing need to change it's outcome. If you believe that SwisterTwister did not exercise good judgement per the discussion that we are apparently rehashing, then this probably isn't the right forum for it. Either way, I've said my piece. Best wishes to you. Chrisw80 (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Relisting and voting is rarely a good idea, but sometimes, it is good. An example of a good relist and close would be where a borderline consensus discussion is relisted with a neutral comment on focusing on a pertinent point, followed by new comments directed at that point, followed by a pause, followed by a close by the relister. Ideally, the corps of closer is large enough that the relister and closer are different people, but on a quiet week, better for the relister to closer per a clarified consensus than to let it drag on. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The vast majority of relists serve no purpose. If they are nothing more than week markers in a standard three-week listing, just redefine AfD as a three week process that may be closed from one week if consensus is clear. A meaningful relist points to new information, or makes a refocusing statement, and is especially useful to previous !voters. These meaningful relists are the minority, but due to their impression of administrative oversight, they should only be done by someone qualified to close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I would favor relists of well-attended discussions if new information has come to light. (The decision on whether the new information is substantial enough to warrant a relist should be made by someone who hasn't participated in the discussion.) However, in many cases I see numerous unnecessary relists of well-attended discussions that have had no new information that should just be closed. Cunard (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle died

I've used Twinkle to AfD Mind Blowing World, and it seems to have died half-way through the process. Here's a link to the log, but it then died with the following error message:

Notifying initial contributor (Eringroovy): Failed to save edit: error "Internal Server Error" occurred while contacting the API.

What needs doing to fix that up? Schwede66 04:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Sorry for being vague. The question is: what AfD steps will have to be done manually now that Twinkle has died? As outlined above, the log entry has been created, and I have now manually notified the page creator. Is there anything else that needs doing? Schwede66 04:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
@Schwede66: Everything is in order. The notification you did manually was the only part that Twinkle didn't do. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Good. Thanks! Schwede66 04:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_process/Archive_9&oldid=1164982138"