User:Encephalon/Policy

This is a User subpage. I've created it as a space to post thoughts and contributions related to WP policy issues. It is not exhaustive. I expect to link to posts here in discussions elsewhere, for concision. I welcome— strongly encourage —criticism of any of what follows, but I do ask that these be placed on the associated Talk page (click on the "discussion" tab above). — encephalon έγκέφαλος === Some thoughts on the G4 criterion === (Lightly edited version of post made to WP:CSD Talk page at 05:05:11, 2005-09-05 (UTC), concerning CSD General rule 4).

There appears to be a logical inconsistency in the G4 criterion, and it can cause confusion, as it did in the Cam Wilson AfD and apparently has in the past in others. This was of course entirely unintended (no one intends confusion, even when they create it), and if we can find a way of expressing less confusingly the intent of those who passed the rule, it may be worth looking into. I do not know if this can be done, but maybe we can try having a shot at it, eh?

Intent
It is helpful first to understand the true intent of the G4 rule. Why do we have it? In its fundamental, most essential form, the G4 rule simply means this: if an article was found unsuitable for WP in the past, and you then find an exact re-creation of it, you do not have to go through the whole rigmarole of formally discussing it again before deleting it once more.

G4 is recognition that the community has dealt with a problem before, come to a decision, and doesn't need to expend resources to reach that same decision every time the problem is recreated. If the article is substantially improved, however, or very different, then common sense dictates it can be considered anew in the usual fashion.

That's it. That's the core of G4. I wouldn't be surprised if in its very earliest manifestations the rule was actually stated similarly to the above.

Concerns
What were the concerns that drove the newest proposal? I cannot be completely sure since I wasn't involved in creating it, but from reading the pages Splash has helpfully pointed out (and from listening to Aaron on the Wilson AfD!) I think the changes were driven by two things:
 * 1) A wish to clarify that recreations under a different title, and recreations that were not exactly the same but nearly so, also fell under the purview of the G4 rule, and
 * 2) A wish to place a check on the power of admins who deleted articles using a special authority, the speedy delete, that was not held by regular editors and rarely subject to their review.

I think they were very successful with 1, and slightly less so with 2.

The current form of G4
We all know what the beast currently looks like. At the risk of seriously pissing off the lot of you, I'm going to ennumerate them here: G4. (Sysops may immediately delete a page [if it is])
 * i. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy.
 * ii. This does not apply to content in userspace, content that was speedily deleted, or to content undeleted according to undeletion policy.
 * iii. other criteria than this one may still apply to such pages.

The first sentence, (i.), is not confusing. It sets out the rule and and introduces the changes in (1.) that they wanted. Good stuff.

With (ii.), the problems begin. It says that this rule does not apply to previous speedies. That is, it removes the authority of G4 over articles that were deleted in the past via speedies. This is problematic. G4 is the CSD rule that empowers an admin to delete (again) something that was previously appropriately deleted, without having to use AfD; the clause however says that the G4 rule cannot be applied to previous speedies. This implies that an admin cannot speedily delete a previous speedy, but must bring it to AfD, even if patently nonsensical. Why was this rule written this way?

The question was asked in the proposal, and the answer provided by a thoughtful wikipedian of great experience:
 * ''If I understand this correctly, an article that was previously speedy deleted is reposted in its entirety, and instead of being speedy deleted a second time, it goes on to VfD because of the provision in the repost speedy delete criterion. Aren't we trying to reduce load on VfD some? Or am I mistaken with my thought process? Comments would be appreciated.
 * No, that's not what it says. It says that an article that is recreated after speedy deletion does not fall under criterion G4 (e.g. it cannot be redeleted solely for that reason) however it will likely fall under another speedy criterion (e.g. 'patent nonsense') and can be redeleted for still being patent nonsense. This proposal does not forbid redeletion of something that was previously speedied, it only requires that you find another criterion than this one for speedying it.

It sounds like the concern for potential abuse of power led to the creation of (ii.); and then (iii.) was created to provide a "window". In truth, there is a slight miscommunication in the above answer: any article that is deleted is always deleted because it violates a fundamental WP rule about articles, which all derive from the fundamental laws of the Wiki (NOR, V, NOT etc). An article is never deleted because it is recreated; it is always deleted because it is lousy. G4 merely provides a method to delete articles quickly whose lousiness has already been determined in the past. Therefore, the correct use of G4 always obtains its authority from another SD or WP:DEL criterion. It is true that this is not always clear, and as DES points out, there are editors who might abuse G4 without understanding that principal. But the solution that was proposed co-opted the misunderstanding instead of clarifying it, and coupled with the "abuse of power" concern noted above, was responsible for the form of G4 we have today.

Possible solution?
Is there a way we can re-write G4 to remove its problems, yet accurately state the intentions embodied in the proposal? Possibly. I'm wondering if a simple rendition that just states what is expected of sysops might work. In truth, what the proposers were trying to do was get admins faced with a recreated speedy to make sure that it indeed violates a CSD (ie. that it was properly speedied the last time). How about:
 * i. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy.
 * ii. This does not apply to content in userspace or to content undeleted according to undeletion policy.
 * iii. Sysops faced with a recreation of a previously speedily deleted article should determine that the article did in fact contravene a criterion for speedy deletion and had been appropriately deleted, before they delete it once more.

Is this ok?

One objection might be: what if the first deletion was a valid speedy, but then the editor rewrote it properly. Does that mean it can be speedied under G4 just because the last speedy was valid? Answer: no. If it was rewritten to such an extent that it met previous objections, it is not a "substantially identical copy" and the entire G4 rule does not even apply. It should be considered anew on its merits. Remember G4 only concerns substantially identical copies of the first deleted article.

Another objection might be the issue that underlies the current problems. Let's say someone writes an article on George Washington (ie. eminently notable, non-deletable etc). Level 6 rogue sysop comes along and speedily deletes (doesn't like the editor's IP, or something). IP man recreates. L6RS re-SDs, then goes on wikivacation. IP man recreates again. You come along. Is there a way you can, in good faith, re-delete the article by claiming that the CSD it violated was G4? I don't think so, because when you apply (iii.) you will see that the previous SDs were not appropriate.

Is it "instruction creep"? I personally don't think so. I have removed two things (the problematic clause in the second sentence, and the whole third sentence), and introduced one. Tried to write it in the simplest version that will still retain meaning. There are many different possible versions (eg. removing "appropriately deleted" in (iii) and inserting "validly" in (i)), and it's also possible to simplify (iii) further. I felt maybe I'd just make this suggestion, and you guys could summarily dismiss it out of hand discuss this or other ways of approaching "the problem." Cheers— encephalon |  &zeta;   05:16:18, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

=== G4: Operational definition === (Useful summary of proposal to reword article G4 of CSD, adapted from discussion on 2005-09-06).


 * ''4. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy.
 * This does not apply to content in userspace, content that was speedily deleted, or to content undeleted according to undeletion policy. Of course, other criteria than this one may still apply to such pages.

G4 is a rule that pertains to a subset of all WP articles: those that were previously created and deleted. In the currently used scheme, an attempt is made to exclude one subset of this subset (ie. articles that were created and then speedily deleted) from the purview of the rule, but yet also make it possible for precisely the action engendered by the rule to apply to this very subset (ie. the speedy deletion of previously speedied articles). Hence, the abstract gymnastics that had to be made in the current scheme.

In the proposal under discussion here, an operational definition is used. The rule is stated, followed by the desired actions. This makes it, I think, simple to understand and to use. The basic scheme is like this:


 * Rule: Substantially identical recreations of stuff previously deleted can be deleted once more via speedy.
 * Desired actions:
 * For the subset of this that are previously AfD'd mainspace articles, apply this rule.
 * For the subset of this that are userpages, do not apply this rule.
 * For the subset that are articles coming out of VfU, do not apply this rule.
 * For the subset that were previously SD, do not apply this rule; simply check to ensure they were correctly SD'd the last time and still retain those objectionable features which led to that deletion, before deleting.

This is much simpler. There is no confusion as to whether a previously speedied article can be speedied again, etc., etc., as what should be done is stated pretty clearly.— encephalon έγκέφαλος   19:05:00, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

Deletion of articles from the WP mainspace undefined
(Overview of articlespace policy and deletion. This text currently forms the introduction and concluding sections of Guide to deletion. Based on post made in the course of a WP:VFU discussion; rewritten and merged into WP:GAFD at the behest of User:Rossami and User:Titoxd).

All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules. These are, principally, the three cardinal content policies—Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research—and the copyright policy, Copyrights. Together, these four policies govern the admissibility of text in the main body of the encyclopedia; only text conforming to all four policies is allowed in the main namespace.

Contraventions of policy are dealt with in several different ways. Text which does not conform to the neutral point of view is usually remedied through editing; Users edit the article or passage to improve it, so that it reads neutrally.

Text that does not conform to any one of the remaining three policies, however, is usually removed from Wikipedia. If the text in question is a passage or section within an article that is otherwise satisfactory, it is usually removed by simply editing it out of the article. If, however, all or most of the article is problematic, the page itself may be removed.

Articles that contravene Copyrights are listed on the project page for copyright problems for further action. Articles that contravene Verifiability and No original research are usually listed (or "nominated") for further consideration on Articles for deletion. This guide deals with the latter process.

Once an article is nominated for deletion, the Wikipedia community may discuss the merits of the article for a period usually no less than 5 days. The intent is to come to a consensus on whether the article under discussion really is unsuited to Wikipedia. The view of the community is held sacrosanct on Wikipedia; by tradition, the consensus opinion of the community about an article's disposition is always respected. At the end of 5 days of discussion, an experienced Wikipedian will determine if a consensus was reached on the fate of the article and will "close" the discussion accordingly.

By long tradition, the consensus opinion of the community about an article's disposition is held virtually sacrosanct, and may not be overturned or disregarded lightly. Sometimes, however, Users disagree with the consensus opinion arrived at in the AFD quite strongly. What can you do if you disagree with the consensus opinion? First, it is a good idea to try to understand why the community made its decision. You may find that its reasoning was not unreasonable. However, if you remain unsatisfied with the consensus decision, there are a few options open to you.

If you think that an article was wrongly kept after the AFD, you could wait to see if the article is improved to overcome your objections; if it isn't, you can renominate it for deletion. If and when you do renominate, be careful to say why you think the reasons proffered for keeping the article are poor, and why you think the article must be deleted.

If you think that an article was wrongly deleted, you can recreate the article. If you do decide to recreate it, pay careful attention to the reasons that were proffered for deletion. Overcome the objections, and show that your new, improved work meets Wikipedia article policies. It can help to write down the reasons you think the article belongs on Wikipedia on the article's discussion page. If you manage to improve on the earlier version of the article and overcome its (perceived) shortcomings, the new article cannot be speedily deleted, and any attempt to remove it again must be settled before the community, on AFD.

Finally, if you are unsatisfied with the outcome of an AFD because you believe that a procedural issue interfered with the AFD or with the execution of its decision, you can appeal the decision at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. Deletion Review is a forum where deletion decisions may be reviewed by the community usually over 10 days; the Review has the authority to overturn AFD decisions. For example, if the participants of an AFD arrived at one decision but the closing administrator wrongly executed another, Deletion Review can opt to overturn the administrator's action. It must be emphasized that the Review exists to address procedural (or "process") problems in AFDs that either made it difficult for the community to achieve a consensus, or prevented a consensus that was achieved from being correctly applied. It does not exist to overide a lawful decision by the community. If an AFD decision was arrived at fairly and applied adequately, it is unlikely that the decision will be overturned at the Review. For more information, please see Undeletion policy. encephalon  08:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)