Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 11

HD-DVD Note
I attempted to add an argument for the undeletion nomination for the HD-DVD AASC code, but Wikipedia's spam filter blocked me from editing, citing the header as a blacklisted number. I'm going to assume that whoever added the numbers to the filter did not realize the discussion would be affected. Please fix? Zeality 06:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is Talk:HD_DVD_encryption_key_controversy - and has been discussed ad nauseum. Teque5 16:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi

 * Moved to Deletion review where it will receive more attention.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletionism, jadedness, lack of compassion and lack of humility on DRV
We know that only admins can properly close deletion reviews, and we know that often a DRV closure requires a complex judgement call given that the special meaning of consensus here and the need for more closures than true, formal, communal consensus is expressed by 5 day windows and sometimes (though we don't like to admit it) headcounts.

There are admins here who are truly committed to giving everyone a fair shake, seeing the process through as thoroughly as they can do without losing too much political capital and doing their best by every nominee, and there are others who've clearly started getting a little jaded, are exercising personal inclinations toward deletionism and losing sight of humility and compassion and supportiveness.

I'd like to find out whether these intangibles are still ideals here.

Is it still the goal of every admin here to work on DRV as if they were just another editor with special custodial powers, wherein each day working this thankless volunteer job is an exercise in not becoming overbearing, in supporting the DRV nominee to the fullest by being helpful, informative and supportive, where we try not to be too deletionist, and balance that tendency with trying to make sure that in instances where there are interested authors present who are apparently making good faith attempts to make Wikipedia better, we support them? Or do we have other goals instead?

I know that the stated goal of all of us at Wikipedia is to not bite the newbies, to improve Wikipedia at the expense of almost all other rules, to try to encourage consensus decisions and be as supportive of each other as we can, assuming good faith and working together while being bold, talking our conflicting issues out and all collectively moving forward towards a better tomorrow.

But I also know that in some ways DRV is the ass-end of that dream and it can be tough to keep the lofty goals in sight when we're dealing with the thousandth troll nominating stupid articles nobody cares about (or that could in a real way damage Wikimedia either through reputation or legal sanctions). And sometimes it can be very difficult to differentiate a new user who's smart and savvy but not part of the community, and not really trusting of us, or endowed with good communication skills, but who'd like to contribute and make the Wiki a better place from a true troll using yet another sockpuppet to make fools of all of us.

So which is it? What kind of admin are you? Are you just one of us editor guys with some custodial duties and access who just wants to have a beverage of your choice afterwards with all the other editors? Or are you something different with a true and unique vision and no time for the fools? I think as a mere editor, I'd prefer the former. I'd like to narrow that gap between admin and editor, not make it grow stronger, and this is one of the unfortunate by-products of DRV, I think. It makes us fight hard for how we feel and in the end of our 5 days, the admin, who is essentially untouchable, makes the decision for us, and sometimes not at all in the way that seems just or right or fair to the mere editor.

I am seeking some kind of consensus here, but I'm also trying to remind all of us of the original goals here on Wikipedia. We're supposed to be working together to catalogue the whole of human knowledge. Unfortunately, that may mean that we don't all get exactly the scope that we want, and it may mean that we have to compromise and see the entirety of the Wikipedia as our creation, even the bits we don't exactly approve of or care about. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel your pain, MalcolmGin. I've been through the mill lately, not as an overworked, underpaid volunteer admin, but as an inadequately-wiki-legalistic contributor with a somewhat confrontational attitude. Be that as it may, there are at least some admins who aren't IMO aren't worth the air, but plainly there are also some who will take on a truely massive flamewar with uncommon good grace. I'm currently in a sort of Purgatory in my own battle but there vividly are some great guys who, I think, are keeping the faith you want to keep.
 * I suspect that the burocracy needs to expand to meet the needs of the Wiki (not merely of itself :-). The wiki is just too large. I'd suggest a second tier of admins, perhaps nominated and elected by admins themselves, similar to second-tier support as we have become familiar with in the modern business models. Second Tier admins could effectively mediate disputes among admins, as admins mediate between contributors. Wiki, like the internet itself, has growing pains on account of explosive growth, that's perfectly historical and understandable, and substantially something to be proud of.
 * But btw, the reason I'm reading here is that I actually can't find the latest current version of the Deletion Review I'm involved in. I'm pretty sure it still exists somewhere. I'm personally overwhelmed. Not all days are good days. Pete St.John 04:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Alleged problems
Please note that  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt; ''' moved this discussion from WT:DRV at some point unilaterally and without my permission. I've asked him to move it back to where it was, since in my mind it was contextually relevant to the other discussions going on on WT:IAR.''' --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Writing several metric truckloads of text here isn't going to fix a broken process. It just makes me stop reading (well, scroll down to the bottom and skip everything in between), and I doubt I'm the only one. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to ignore this page if it doesn't help your editing. :) Slac speak up! 02:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should discuss deletion review on its talk page rather than the page of an unrelated policy? Just a thought.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that if I were of a mind to discuss DRV policy and implementation at all right now, it wouldn't be on DRV_talk or any specific DRV's talk page because as you may have observed, no one actually responds constructively to that kind of talk. It's either abject silence or contentiousness (largely without consensus-building or compromise), and in the end, the closing admin just does what her/his conscience tells him/her to do anyway. Where's the point in talking if it doesn't appear to make anything different? At this point it's pretty obvious to me that only out-of-process discussion makes any dent at all in people's behavior, and then usually just gets their dander up anyway. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, doing the same on this page isn't going to help either. It would seem the problem is that you allege to a problem, yet fail to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the onlookers, the severity thereof.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As you well know, there are folks who agree with my read of the situation. Most of them are not admins, however, so we often get railroaded in DRV closures. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I well know that. That doesn't mean you're being railroaded, though, that means that other people don't believe you because you fail to cite sufficient evidence.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's a railroading. Sufficient evidence has been presented numerous times and has been ignored and dismissed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall a remark by me about two weeks ago where I said, "I reiterate that I'd like to see evidence of someone who consistently misuses tools, so that we can talk about something not as abstract", higher up on this page. I have not seen any evidence in a response to that. As I recall, the alleged problem was that deletions that violate a certain interpretation of policy were failing to be overturned by users who have a different interpretation of policy.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think requesting people to start naming names on a project page like this would only stand to be counterproductive. I also think that this isn't about "certain interpretations" of policy when said policy is specifically worded - there's absolutely no legitimate justification for speedy deletions of, for instance, Darvon cocktail and Matrixism.  This isn't conflicting interpretations, it's one side being correct and one side not being correct. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Review of Matrixism is not yet concluded. If you believe the deletion review of Darvon Cocktail was inappropriate, you can appeal it to arbitration and/or Jimbo Wales.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * True on Matrixism, but who are we fooling. As for Darvon, any honest person would note that the result was improper, and I may appeal it as of yet.  But don't sit back and say sufficient evidence doesn't exist when it's been presented to you numerous times. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Most people do not define "disagreeing with Jeff" as "dishonesty". Since the discussion has taken this turn, I see no reason to continue it.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's probably best for you to leave if you're going to make such an improper conclusion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... any honest person who defines "improper" the same way Jeff does might agree that the deletion was improper, but another honest person working with different assumptions might not. I don't think it's a matter of Jeff saying that those who disagree with him are dishonest; I think it's a matter of failing to address the differences in the language we're speaking. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Or, perhaps, for you to leave, if you're going to suggest this for someone who disagrees with your shrill and absolutist assertions and accusations repeated ad nauseam based on your interpretation of policy and process that don't have strong consensus. There would probably be at least a few people who would help you build your Badlydrawnjeffpedia content fork the way you feel is Correct without interference from people whom you feel are Not Correct. Barno 14:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have some evidence that my reading of policy is incorrect, I'd love to see it. On the contrary - my positions on policy stem entirely from the consensus that created them, and I stand up for it regardless of my personal opinions on the matter.  So, whatcha got? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff, your participation here is indeed combative and unconstructive. Your arguments tend to consist mostly of "Of course I am Right" with little to support them.  Combine this with your stream of accusations against anyone who dares disagree, and you've got a nice little salad of unhelpfulness.  What do you think you're accomplishing?  It's time to shit or get off the pot- in other words, fork and do things Your Way, or accept that your rather eccentric interpretations of policy are just that- your own idiosyncratic interpretations.  Friday (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How you can preach to me with such unhelpful comments you're prone to give is beyond me. Again, why don't you shit or get off the pot - where is my reading of policy incorrect?  I can point out dozens of your improper decisions, go ahead - prove it instead of trying to drive me away. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In my read, Jeff's making proper criticism in a frustrated but neutral tone about issues he's commented about numerous times before, and various folks are piling on to shut him up without actually talking about the issues and behaviors he's criticizing. I've had a distinctly parallel experience of being a critic of process and procedure and not being allowed to actually discuss the issues. Instead, folks who disagree with me attack my person, personal ethics, intelligence and other entirely unrelated issues to the matters at hand.
 * In this case, the matter at hand is that process and procedure are not being followed properly on DRV, there is railroading, there is headcounting instead of consensus-building/consensus-determining, and there's general hostility toward any suggestion that the actual behaviors engaged in here having anything wrong with them.
 * It's this behavior that's unreasonable and unacceptable, and I'm tired of feeling like I'm being dismissed. I can't speak for Jeff, but it certainly burns my cheese. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 15:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Some such behavior has been shown by people on both sides of this set of issues. I've been reading both the specific topic debates-and-reruns, and the underlying policy debates, for months, and I agree with each side on different specific points of policy and process.  I haven't seen that either side's position is remotely worth abandoning WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, et cetera.  Look, with all the volume of topics and edits that pass through Wikipedia, mistakes get made.  Some can get fixed with the next level of review, as different people look at it and the "many eyes -> shallow errors" paradigm has its effect.  When there's a problem that can't readily be resolved, sometimes one has to let it go and move on.  When one or two people get such a burr under their saddle about a single point that they keep repeating it ten times a day in every AfD and every DRV and every process talk page, and more specifically when the postings turn from "Here's a new reason why this case ran counter to policy" to "No honest editor could say..." and "It's best for you to leave", it loses its potential to implement a reasonable solution, and becomes disruptive to our purpose of building an encyclopedia.  Whenever this starts, as it has a bunch of times lately, I am less inclined to contribute to the discussion of the actual topic, and I'm sure many others have been driven away completely.  Yes, Jeff has primarily been trying to make proper criticism, but each time people make countering arguments including asking for new specifics, things turn into childish rages that are "unreasonable and unacceptable".  This is what leads people to get dismissed, not the particluar interpretations of policy that they've chosen.  The best choices remaining are to either settle down (and draw a broader range of editors into DRV so a truer consensus can be determined instead of "railroading"), or to fork a project that does things your Absolutely Correct and True way so you don't have to get so exasperated every day and drag others into the same frustration.  (After edit conflict and server delay) The fact-based study Jeff added to the following section at least gives rational grounds for discussion instead of hostility; thank you.  People can review the cases and might disagree with conclusions about "we know" ... "is against policy and consensus", but at least there's a basis for considering whether DRV is "broken" or just needs a word of guidance to a few closers. Barno 18:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's turn the tables in our heads for a bit. Supposing you felt there was something out of kilter about how a large bloc of like-minded folks were interpreting rules and guidelines and you felt that it was your duty to point it out. On pointing it out, you found generally a lot of sticking together, defensiveness and hostility, and at best, when trying to actually discuss the issues, the discussion would wind around to "I don't see anything wrong here. Show me some evidence!" and this kind of approach to your good faith criticism was widespread.
 * I think it's understandable for me (let's not talk about Jeff here but me) to get a little tired of it. Like Jeff, I've spent literally hours of free time sifting, collecting, analyzing to present the evidence from tools and data stores not really suited to cough up that kind of evidence (one reason the evidence is not obvious is that the amount of labor involved to compile it is pretty high). I don't know if you've seen it, but on WT:IAR, I analyzzed the entire editing history of WP:IAR in order to find evidence that WP:IAR has not always been policy, and WT:IAR in order to find evidence that Jimbo didn't do any specific thing to end up on the support side of the Straw Poll supporting the policy. The problem with coming up with the evidence is that it takes a lot of time, and the game of asking for and providing and dismissing evidence can end up being a huge amount of bother for not much to show for accomplishments.
 * You are asking for good faith and more politeness, as well as concrete evidence. Please understand that I am not interested in making baseless accusations. But also please understand that the kind of evidence I've been forced to provide for discussion has been the kind that takes a lot of time, effort and dedication to present.
 * In asking for good faith, please have some yourself. Be patient, please do not make references to the slowness of being forthcoming with evidence, and please remind your compatriots in this discussion to do the same. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * some of us here that have previously experienced the down side of wikipedia come lurking back to observe the process and maintain some idea of what is going on, hoping that change will take place and that we will ultimately feel more comfortable here, that it will be more just, whatever that is. It's quite a good place to get confronted with our beliefs and be forced to think about our actions and beliefs really deeply in order to be able to decide that we really are still good persons with good intent after such bashing by some exceptionally clever people hiding behind cleverness that appears so well balanced that it is for all purposes of 'the rules' NON POV, etc etc.. That any system can be manipulated is an inherent defect that is not just unique to this space. Let me point out that I have zero knowledge of this series of issues and cant be bothered wading right now but it seems to be par for the course. Often in these debates/discussions I dont think anyone is particularly wrong, we are all just different and the outcomes end up being experienced as painful by some and ok by others. The real benefit of wikipedia for editors, in my view, is to learn just that. I had to learn to give up my quest for the patience and collaboration here that I believed at first was possible. My belief was a dream, and unreasonable in light of human nature. I think that what I learned and continue to learn here is exceedingly valuable; that the rich texture of humanity does work, even though it is seriously flawed in so many ways. Once I gave up the view that I had a 'natural justice right' to ensure that truth and fairness prevailed among the committed editors, it became easy, but wiki lost a great deal (in my opinion of course). So my view now is that it would be good for all editors to be mindful of each other, and use the 'out of process' events as an alert to a need to take stock. The book 'Irrationality' (Stuart Sutherland) details many flaws of human nature that exist glaringly here, I recommend you take a read. I hope you guys sort it out asap, and change the process if that can be agreed on, or whatever the best outcome for the most people is.  Too much discussion about too much discussion is just that: too much discussion. Hope is more appropriate than belief, I hold on to that, and practice patience. I honestly can not see the purpose of being so surgically minded that so much must be eradicated.. it's NOT cancer!! it's not life threatening, how about lightening up a bit? thats a possibility that might work, given a chance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mozasaur (talk • contribs) 00:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC). sorry moza 00:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC) moza//
 * I don't want to make it worse in your eyes by responding at length, so I won't. But I wanted to say that not talking about things flies generally in the face of consensus-building which is all about talking, so from my POV, it really depends what you want. If you want consensus, then talk. If you want some sort of organic cooperative chaos, then don't, and use other measures to try to keep folks working together. Thanks for the link to the book, though. Sounds interesting! --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

DRV fail rate (with detailed evidence)
Okay, so the Matrixism debacle today inspired me to finish a project I've been working on for a while, and the "DRV is broken" results are in. Thie page is a listing and analysis of every daily log since March, eliminating reviews that were outside of the purview of DRV. Here's what we know from looking at the results through today:


 * We do very well with uncontroversial decisions. If it's a blatant problem, we generally do the right thing en masse.
 * If there is controversy, we do a poor job reflecting the purpose of DRV.

In March and April, we hovered at a 15% fail rate, which means that 15% of all appeals (controversial and uncontroversial) that cannot be dealt with via another method (an admin reversing his/her speedy after seeing it here, a contested prod) close in a way that is against policy and consensus.

What I did not do, and what may end up being my next step, is eliminating all the proper closures that were unanimous, which would give a better idea as to how we do when we're not all in agreement (although there are not normally multiple interpretations in the cases of, for instance, speedy deletion). I also did not bother with looking at who did the deletion or nomination, although that may turn out to be interesting.

What we do with this data is up to us, but something has to give at this point or I plan to escalate it further. But I think we can be in agreement that a 15% fail rate in an appeals process is not tolerable, especially given the uncontroversial closures included in that. I repeat the question - how do we fix DRV? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Point of order. It's your opinion that those closes are in any way "failures." You have made the unsupported assumption that your opinion is shared by everyone else. The great majority of those so-called "failures" are nothing of the sort. Like, the deletion of "Brian Peppers in popular culture," for example. FCYTravis 19:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Point of order. If DRV says it's for process review and not a review of content, then it's not just Jeff's opinion but mine as well that the closes are failures. If you'd like to contest that then I'd suggest considering a very quick rewording of the DRV project page to talk about how they are also content reviews. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, no. Malcolm pretty much covered it well - the Brian Peppers one, which you note, may have been the proper outcome, but not done via speedy deletion.  If you want DRV to be something different, then let's hear it out, but if you have a problem with the conclusions based on policy, then map 'em out and we can plow through them.  Trust me, there were plenty of incorrect outcomes that I didn't add to this because they were my opinion rather than supported by evidnece - if it were "what Jeff thinks should happen," the fail rate would be roughly 10% higher.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your view that we should overturn a speedy simply to delete the article via AFD is a rather process-wonkish and eccentric minority view, completely at odds with with standard practice. Friday (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny you link to the 5 pillars as if that has anyhting to do with this discussion. My view is not minority or eccentric, it enjoys wide consensus as Wikipedia policy.  You have not shown much in the way of understanding Wikipedia policy, and I implore you to read up on it to gain a better grasp so we can move forward in this discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, given the number of people who have expressed disagreement with you, do you really think that there is consensus you are right, or are you at least willing to concede that there might be a substantial number of good faith individuals who believe that overturning a speedy simply to delete an article via AFD is, in fact, a bad idea? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I expect hostility - no one likes to be told they're wrong. But yes, I believe that there's a consensus that I'm right, because my position comes from the consensus that created the policies we have in place. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Radiant, Friday, Xoloz, Chairboy, Interiot and GTBacchus have all come down pretty clearly, in just the last 24 hours, that they disagree with your stance on DRV/AFD/speedy deletion. I know all of these people, are, in your mind, wrong, but how many people saying "Wait, I don't agree with Jeff" does it take before you accept that, at the very least, neither you nor they have consensus to do what they are doing? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That list of people are all against the consensus of the wider community regarding speedy deletions. The DRV situation is obviously a mess, and I'm trying to fix that, and I don't know how they feel about AfD.  But, to answer your question - how many people?  How about as many as it takes to actively change the policy.  If they have consensus for their views on what should occur - views that are contrary to current policy and what's expected to be current practice, then they can get those policies and processes changed, and I'm grudgingly on board.  But there's no reason to accept "We think you're wrong" as reason to rethink it, especially given some of the complaintants -  that's not how it works. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How many people need to line up and say "you are wrong" before you accept you don't have "wider community" consensus? I'm not asking how many people need to line up and say "you are wrong" before you accept the community has determined you are wrong - that's the number to change the policy - just how many it takes for you to determine that you are not speaking for the "wider community." Feel free to ignore them, but don't pretend to speak for "wider community," when you haven't really acertained that they agree with you - unless you have? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When said consensus changes to the point that the policies I'm working off of change, I'll know when my position on the policy must change. When someone tells me that the speedy of Darvon cocktail was correct, however, it doesn't matter how many people line up in that instance - they are wrong until we're at the point where speedy deletion policy reflects the ability to delete that article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If the community, and not just you and MalcomGin agree that deleting things that are unquestionably harmful to the encyclopedia is not appropriate, someone other than you or MalcomGin will engage in such discussion over my Bold change to the deletion policy. If you disagree that that article was only questionably harmful, then you should seek a consensus of users that such was true. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The community already has spoken - "things that are harmful" is not a speedy deletion criterion, and likely never will be.  That's why the DRV result was improper - it endorsed an incorrect result.  If the list of people you rattled off agree that speedily deleting things that they believe are harmful is appropriate, they can engage in such discussion at the proper page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, as of right now, things that are unquestionably (bold shortly in origional) harmful to the encyclopedia are, in fact, speediable. I'm asking that you wait for a community member who is neither you nor Malcom to say they disagree with this policy change before determining that you have the will of the community behind you. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That won't be happening. If you want to make the change, you can do so with consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have consensus. The only users who dissent from it are you and Malcom. WP:SHUN for you again - I thought you might have been serious about the whole "the community supports me." I was wrong - you just want to insert shit in an encyclopedia. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I dissent, adn i suspect that there are othes who will do so also. DES (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Jeff means well, albeit abrasively at times, and there's no consensus that he should be 'shunned' or disregarded out of hand. Deal with the argument, not the arguer. -- nae'blis 00:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You have no consensus. And here I was thinking you might have changed - I see your civility issues haven't cleared up.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflicts) This is a really weird assertion to make. How many thousands of users are on Wikipedia and interested in these topics? Maybe give it some time before opining something that risky? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 20:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (multiple edit conflicts)I would have avoided the word "unquestionably", because it's so open to interpretation, and generally when some phrase like that ends up in a discussion, folks who agree that the value judgment is unquestionable end up railroading the folks who feel that questioning the judgment should be enough to overturn the action. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 20:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Without "unquestionably," the proposed policy allows for more things to be deleted than with the word there. I believe that without the word, the policy is too lienent. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand. The language I would choose is more restrictive, not less so. Something explicit like "without objection from other editors" or some other phrase that made it clear what a question is in your use of "unquestionably" would be more my speed. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The only credible measure we currently have of consensus is the ways the policy changes. If you'd like to suggest a way that doesn't involve small groups of editors/admins who are used to throwing their weights around (and I'll include myself in that category), that we can all agree on, then maybe we can build a consensus about who speaks for what. For now, though, I can only take my direction from extant and current policy and project decription pages and what little I hear from the grapevine about what is community consensus and what is not. It's more difficult to hear that kind of opinion-challenging criticism from folks who are used to ignoring and railroading me, so I suggest finding a more neutral, more 3rd party, more potentially objective read on consensus before challenging who does and does not speak for consensus. I'm with Jeff, however, too, in that if your gang can change policy to what you want it to be, I'll follow it. It would be better than reading policy, following it in good faith and having some admin just patronize me about my lack of understanding of consensus. If you see consensus as different from policy, please change the policy, and until then, please follow the policy, as the policy is the most most of the newbies (like me) have to go on with respect to right behavior. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 20:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) There is a consensus of at least 2 on Jeff's interpretive viewpoint (i.e. me as well). It's obviously something we should be talking about and building consensus about, instead of just stating extremist opinions and making other folks deal with it. As I've said before, I'm not interested in feeling or being railroaded, and as I said below, the disparity between what DRV's project states it is for and how it's actually used/implemented really bothers me. Can you concede that there's a disparity? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Ignore all rules and other related policies/guidelines/essays/opinions doesn't mean you can ride roughshod whereever you like. If you cannot be arsed to build consensus and create policy/guidelines/essays/opinions out of community opinion, please don't deride those of us who think it's important. If it is in fact community consensus that DRV is for content review, that's fine, please find/build that consensus and make that change in the project page. For now, the project page asserts something different from what you assert, and it's that disparity that bothers me the most, honestly. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Section break

 * I find myself in general agreement with Jeff. DRV was creatred explicitly to be a reveiwd of procedural error -- I had a had in thsoe debates, so i know -- and it still claims to serve that function in its heading. But many of the instances Jeff poitns out are cases whre there clearly was procedural error, but DRV didn't act on it because of judgment by some editors about the content. This is, IMO, a problem. DES (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you think it's more beneficial for deletion review to focus on process rather than product? I see it as more valuable as a sanity check on AFD decisions than a "let's make sure the right forms were filled out" check.  Friday (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Usually, if it gets to this point, it's one and the same. It's more beneficial to make sure we made the right decision than to assume the right decision was made, and when we're not on the same page on what our intent is, there's no way to figure that out.  This isn't the forum to figure out whether the right product is resultant, though - that's for AfD or CSD to decide.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't exist to determine the right outcome then it should never change the outcome. Sure have your trial against those who you think didn't follow the nomic rules well enough, but don't push wrong results onto the project because you've found some personal fault in the person who made the prior changes. --Gmaxwell 20:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But that's exactly what we're trying to prevent - the wrong result. Yes, there are a number of problematic editors outside of the DRV issue, but it doesn't change the fact that the structure of DRV in practice a) doesn't reflect what DRV is intended to be, and b) doesn't cause the proper results. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) If the purpose of DRV is not purely as a procedural check, but as a reality check and a further discussion of the merits of the deleted article, then perhaps the text of the project page should change to reflect that reality. I would also note that talking about "the wrong result" without addressing the fact that we're using different definitions of "wrong" is unlikely to be helpful. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But if that occurs, we lose a vital forum for appeals, and it becomes a secondary AfD. We don't want that, either, right? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I know what we want, but I don't think we want a disparity between what the page is for, and what it claims to be for. Which of the two needs to change is an open question, I suppose. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well i for oen think that the purpose section now has it about right, and the problem is that people aren't adhering to it. I explain why at soemlength below DES (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree on the disparity issue - it's a drum I've been pounding for a few months now, which is why I did this research. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing it. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff, could you provide some examples of endorsed deletions that should have been kept? Not just sent to AfD, but actually kept. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd point you to the page I linked in my original comment, I have detailed information in there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I read that, although I stopped when I got to Brian Peppers in popular culture. I simply could not find one instance where the discussion established that the article should have been (although I could not read the original articles).  The one on Dean Roberts (criminal) came the closest. (BTW, Melissa Scott (pastor) now redirects to [[Eugene Scott.) ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Second section break

 * It is my view that the proper process, the "forms being filled out" as Friday puts it, actually help ensure that the right result is reached for the project. For example, there is a review on the page now where the page being discussed in an AfD was never tagged with a deletion notice -- no one who edited that page would have known that it was being proposed for deletion, unless s/he happened to search the AFD subpages for it routinely. And that this did prevent interested editors from finding the discussion is shown by the fact that none of the editors who had commented on the previous AfD (which resulted in a Keep) commented on the more recent one. How could any AfD discussion under those circumstances be a valid way to measure or generate a consensus? AfD is not supposed to be a star chamber or walled garden. Yet a number of editors expressed the view that this didn't matter, with such comments as "valid AFD, bureaucratic arguments don't cut it." and "valid or not, due to it having a snowball's chance overturning the Afd is a waste of everyone's time." Is it really a mere bureaucratic detail to inform untested editors of a discussion? Is it so very clear that something tat was kept at a previous AfD doesn't have a snowball's chance now? Similarly, in a number of cases speedies that concededly are beyond the bounds of the speedy criteria are endorsed because people think they wouldn't survive AfD, or shouldn't. But the speedy criteria are quite narrow for a good reason. No article (or page) should be deleted with only one or two sets of eyes on it except in fairly narrow circumstances, and part of what people trust the admins to do is to follow consensus, including the consensus that stuff is not to be deleted without discussion except under very clear and narrow circumstances. If invalid speedies are routinely endorsed here, than more admins will make them, and simply by the law of averages, more poor deletion decisions will be made, because admins are human. Unless people start to patrol the delete logs instead of AfD, and routinely review every speedy, which would be a far greater burden than taking such things to Prod or AfD in the first place. If stuff that doesn't fit a CSD really doesn't have a snowball's chance, why not use Prod? What's the rush? And if people aren't reminded to use speedy only where it should be used, the speedy criteria will become a dead letter, and the rule will be "anything that any admin thinks should be deleted will be" That is not operating on consensus. Furthermore, following the proper process, and correcting procedural mistakes when they occur, improves transparency greatly. Those editors who do want an article that shouldn't in fact be hare can see why, and any future admin has an AfD debate to point to if the article is recreated. Similar arguments apply to other purely procedural issues that come up, but are not always attended to, her. DES (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * An excellent discussion DES, and I don't see anything to disagree with in it. I do have two further points to add here.  I don't claim that I always live up to those standards DES articulated; I reviewed all my 2006 contributions to to DRVs earlier today, and at least 3 cases I clearly expressed an "endorse despite process failure" opinion (1 article, 2 userboxes).  If people are going to endorse an out of process deletion, I think it is better to be open and frank about saying that the admin did it the wrong way, so we get less undercutting of the general consensus.  The second is that Wikipedia the encyclopedia needs the community of Wikipedians in order to continue existing, and following process is generally better for keeping the community happy and healthy than heading in the direction of anarchy.  So there is a long run negative effect to snowball endorsements, and the more such we have the worse the negative effect.  At somepoint, making the right decision the wrong way harms the encyclopedia far more than it helps it.  GRBerry 02:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not, especially when that material is tabloid trash or, worse, libelous. Based on OTRS information, especially, I have made numerous speedy deletions "the wrong way" - by simply doing it. Whether or not the "process" is correct is of absolutely no consequence - the actions stand on their own merits. If they're correct, they should stand. If they're wrong, they should be reversed. As for "Wikipedia vs. the community," we are a community that exists to build an encyclopedia, not the other way round. The moment we forget that fact is the moment we ought to disband the project.
 * Please note that I absolutely agree with the idea that there are a lot of bad speedy tags and speedy deletions. I make a point of speedily undeleting things which appear on DRV as clearly wrongful. I am all for better training of admins to understand what is and is not a speedy deletion. I think Jeff would do us a service by collaborating with others to put together a page to that effect. What I am wholly opposed to is the idea that it's somehow a "failure" for DRV !voters to endorse the speedy deletion of several truly awful articles which had absolutely no place on the encyclopedia, one of which was a blatant attempt to end-run the Brian Peppers fiasco. FCYTravis 04:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * With some minor pruning I could copy that list to "List of abject nonsense on a stick". Steak and Blowjob Day? Brian Peppers in popular culture? Red wings (Sexual Act)? The userpages of indef-blocked users, of no interest other than prurience? Decisions on content at Wikipedia are based on policy, not bureaucracy, as the fifth pillar says, and this list takes the exact opposite approach. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that you're one of the worst offenders, I'm not the least bit shocked by this statement. Your misunderstanding of the fifth pillar aside, you don't get it, and I hope that changes someday.  By the way, to answer ObeiterDicta up there, here are three things that really should not be redlinks right now.   --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's clear who gets to decide what constitutes a "misunderstanding" of the fifth pillar. Is it Jeff? Is it Sam? I can't tell. Sam, you mention the Steak and Blowjobs article... I was just looking at that DRV, and I was bothered by it somewhat. There were a lof of WP:IDONTLIKEIT-style comments made endorsing the deletion. Surely those are a bad idea. I mean, the reason for deleting something should never be that it's distasteful, right? That part bothered me. I was also bothered that nobody arguing for deletion really addressed the Village Voice article, for example. They're hardly an Intarweb-rumor-mill. I haven't seen much of DRV in the last year, but if that particular one is indicative of the general culture of the page, I can understand why some people are disgruntled. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * He views the fifth pillar as carte blanche for the activity that's eventually going to bite him in the ass (you'll see that a lot of the problematic issues have his name attached to them), when the fifth pillar merely points out the malleable nature of our policies and how they can be changed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff, I'm not sure that your understanding of the fifth pillar is correct. It certainly isn't the impression that I got when I joined Wikipedia, and I'm a pretty perceptive guy, I think.  I don't think you'd characterize me as an abusive admin, or someone who wants to protect abusive behavior, so maybe there's another way of understanding that pillar. I'm also not 100% confident that you're accurately representing Sam's thoughts.  Sam is probably a pretty good authority on what Sam thinks.  What do you think, Sam? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is, given the original intent of what people attach to it, IAR. I don't know if I'cd characterize you as one, but I don't have to check up on you as often as I do others.  As for your second thought, AGF only goes so far, let's put it that way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to check up on me. My move log would take a little while to wade through, and it's not without errors, but I try.  As for Sam's good faith, I'll assume it as far as I'm comfortable doing so, and I guess you'll do the same. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 22:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you mind me asking you to clarify what exactly you want to know about what I think? Nowadays my mind shuts down in self-preservation whenever Jeff says something like "the activity that's eventually going to bite [Sam] in the ass" or "you'll know when I'm ready to escalate this further" or "I'll start the fires". Until I start feeling the presence of sharp teeth, or something Damoclean being lifted over me, or a burning sensation, or possibly a set of dentures suspended by a hair above my head which is on fire, you'll forgive me if I don't follow every little branch of these threads in case "eventually" has just turned into "now". --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sam, this is the comment that was originally directed towards you, which Jeff took it upon himself to answer. I don't assume that he speaks for you on this topic, and I'm curious what you think about the value of WP:IDONTLIKEIT-style !votes in DRV and the failure to even address sources such as The Village Voice.  Isn't that style of argumentation a bad idea, prone to lead to conversations like this one? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Brian Peppers, in whatever form you want to call it, absolutely should be a redlink. The article in question was a blatant attempt to do an end-run around the deletion of an article which had no place on a respectable encyclopedia, and as such, was quite properly speedily deleted. The community has already spoken as to the validity of any article about that man. FCYTravis 23:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked at those three deletion reviews. It's been well established that Brian Peppers has insufficient sources describing him to write an article on him (I'm too lazy to link all the deletion discussions.) and, anyway, was deleted on humanitarian grounds as well.  Read JzG's explanation in the DRV as to why Red Wings fails to meet the notability requirements. (I can't improve on that.)  The Steak and Blow Job Day article comes closest, although the sources are either (i) unreliable blogs or (ii) only mention the day in passing (one paragraph at most).  The one exception is the article in the UC-Irvine student paper, and it's up in the air as to whether student newspapers are reliable sources or not. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I note that the majority of discussion even in this section is still talking about WP:IDONTLIKEIT type reasons for why particular articles were not failures, instead of addressing the point I have, which is that DRV's project page states that DRV is for process review, not content review. I don't have particular reasons to dislike content review, except that's what the project page says DRV isn't, so my point is that if you want DRV to be content review, then come up with the consensus and change the damned project description to cop to what DRV is de facto about. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 00:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There are already several fora for contetn reveiw. it is my view that there needs to be one place for process review. i expalin why I think so above. That was also the vire of a considerable number of editors who created DRV out of teh fromer VfU, and to some extent of those who created VfU before it. i can link to tjhose discussion iof you want to see them. DES (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 4 and subsequent sections. DES (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It certainly should be primarily about process review, but as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, it is perfectly proper to endorse, say, the speedy deletion of an article that would not have a snowball's chance in hell at AfD. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly where I find the writing about what DRV is on the DRV project page lacking, because you say that (as do a number of other folks here), but the consensus wording of the DRV process on the project page does not assert that, so I keep saying that someone should change the DRV project page (by consensus process) to reflect that reality, yet all I get is insult for my trouble. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 00:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And what you're missing is that Wikipedians are not required to strictly adhere to the letter of each and every policy or "consensus wording" if said policy would require actions that are either nonsensical, pointless or clearly unnecessary. The wording doesn't have to be changed "by consensus process." That is the very essence of WP:IAR. These "failures," then, are not failures at all - but successes. Endless Wikilawyering and process fetishizing was avoided. The encyclopedia was improved - just as I have repeatedly improved the encyclopedia by speedily undeleting articles which were clearly wrongfully deleted.
 * I note that the opening of this thread admits that "we do a good job with uncontroversial decisions." What follows, then, is a list of DRV decisions, many of which were closed adversely to Jeff's expressed opinion. One is left to make the inescapable conclusion that to Jeff, a close is a "failure" anytime that a DRV closer makes a decision which rejects Jeff's opinion. FCYTravis 01:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, reviewing, at least the first few I've looked at Jeff didn't express an opinion in. So your characterization of the list is just plain wrong.  And we all know that Jeff tends to the inclusionist end of the spectrum, but one of those (April 18th) was described as "Invalid speedy keep endorsed", so Jeff is actually testing whether DRV is functioning to its stated purpose.  That is exactly what we should test.  GRBerry 01:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, note the edit to "many." One quick look at the page finds many examples of what I mean. Peppers, Libricide, "Red Wings," Darvon cocktail, etc. It's instructive to consider that "failure" in this case is not a black-and-white fact, but instead the subjective opinion of one editor. Who says that speedy keep was invalid? Jeff? Well, sure - it's his opinion that it's invalid. I'm sure other people have other opinions. FCYTravis 01:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What you're engaging in here is not something that strikes me as "good faith". In good faith, Jeff spent hours compiling this list. In good faith, he put it out for discussion when other editors/admins variously rudely or respectfully demanded that he show them some evidence. Now you are picking it apart. There is no way to present "evidence" that is completely objective about a process that is about judgment calls and subjective process. If you'd like to make up your own report on the data with your own opinions or would like to edit Jeff's report to make your own views and a consensus/compromise or separate accounting using your own judgment calls, I'd love to not only have that data but have a better glimpse into how you think. But this sniping from the armchair is something anyone who simply disagrees with Jeff can do. Let's have some good faith effort on both sides and some respect for honest work put into a body of evidence presented. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Travis, if you think my application of polciy and process is incorrect in any of these, please point it out - I was extremely careful about it. This has nothing to do with subjective disagreement, in none of the cases I listed was there a subjective answer to it.  If there was a subjective answer, I din't list it, and in fact noted that it was a complicated closure.  It's one thing to say that it's only adverse to my opinion (which is false - most that end up with an article remianing deleted are against my "expressed opinion"), it's another to make the charge that I'm misinterpreting policy.  I don't believe I am. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I don't think I am missing any points. I don't think Wikipedians are required to strictly adhere to rules. I do think though that in general it's a good idea for Wikipedians to do so as individuals. I know that part of the way that I participate in Wikipedia process, policy and consensus is by making my feelings known about the behavior of my fellow editors and admins. Note that this is what I am doing. I think, however, that it is good practice to try to make written, stated project goals and policy (and guidelines) adhere to de facto process because then it helps minimize frission for folks like me who tend to go to documented sources to try to divine guidance for what we should do. I know that among folks who talk about process/policy adherence I am a minority, but I don't know if it's true that I represent a minority of the consumers (i.e. people who simply read and follow) of Wikipedia policy.
 * I also know that there are in fact ultimate authorities here on Wikipedia, and I know they're largely not other individuals here but groups and bodies (ArbCom and the Jimbo with the Board), and because there are ultimate authorities it is a logical equivalent to say that there are actually rules we are required to follow if we with to stay in this community. There are boundaries. I don't think that most policy actually marks out those boundaries (usually there's a good distance between the boundary of policy and the boundary in actual fact), but I think that policy, project goals, guidelines and other documentation about process and policy should, by good practice, be updated to reflect de facto procedure. This is a core assumption for me.
 * Folks who, like you, tend to argue that they don't have to do anything about the documentation because we're not required to follow all the rules should probably have a look at the consensus decision-making around IAR. There's a very lively discussion on WT:IAR (which is currently the primary storehouse of consensus interpretive material about IAR) that seems to indicate that all is not what it seems with respect to IAR being a get out of policy free card, and that in general one does not invoke IAR in cases where one disagrees with the rules, but only if the entire consensus disagrees with the stated rules. I think we are still hammering out right now whether there is consensus to change the stated goals of DRV. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sub-discussion
Let's take, for the purpose of this sub-discussion, that it has been shown that DRV as currently functioning has a 15% error rate (plus or minus a bit) on issues of controversy. Given that editors are human and that Wikipedia's rules require the application of judgement, a zero error rate is not something I consider a possible outcome. What is an acceptable error rate? Are there different types of errors that are more, or less, significant than others?

I'd be quite happy with a 5% error rate, and wouldn't lose any sleep over a 10% error rate.

I have some thoughts on errors that are more and less signficant. I think that the article space is more significant than any other space; with the image space probably in second place, so mistakes involving articles are the most important. I think that a mistake that endorses an XfD result is less a problem than a mistaken endorsement of a speedy deletion. I think mistakenly leaving a title salted (literally or effectively) is more significant than merely leaving it deleted or existent. I think there are probably more important dimensions, on which some errors are worse than others, but I can't yet articulate them in a way that satisfies me. GRBerry 01:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be worthwhile for you to think about articulating it in a similar format to Jeff's, so we can all be talking about the same sort of figures. Right now a lot of it's clearly pretty vivid in your head, but not so much in mine. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, first, this is a 15% error rate including uncontroversial closures. If we pulled out all the unanimous decisions that were not contrary to policy (and there are many), that percentage shoots up.  Is a zero error rate possible?  No, but there are two things we can do:  1) Closers must start weighing arguments properly.  If 5 people endorse an improper speedy deletion, and three people show exactly how it's improper, that can't be closed as deletion endorsed.  That's completely bizarre.  2) We need to have a better system to appeal bad closures.  Maybe a relisting isn't the answer, but we need some sort of check on the decisions.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If there were significant defects in the speedy deletion, and any question as to the article's merit (see Deletion review/Log/2007 May 11), then certainly DRV should give the article another shot. But if an article's deletion is only "improper" because some specific process was not followed, but there is no legitimate argument that can be presented to suggest that the article has a snowball's chance in hell of surviving, it ought not to matter how many people yell "improper process." Undeletion for the sake of process and nothing more is needless bureaucracy.
 * As for the appeals... are we going down the road of a Deletion Review Review? Then a Deletion Review Review Review? How many levels of appeal do we create before people figure out that some articles are simply not coming back because they don't belong on the encyclopedia? FCYTravis 23:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, I can't predict the future, nor can anyone else, so why even go down that road. As for appeals, I don't know, but certainly this shouldn't be the end of the road if something goes horribly wrong, right? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that anything has, though. If something ever does go "horribly wrong," I suppose we could deal with it at that point. FCYTravis 23:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It has numerous times. I note that you still haven't responded to my question about where my interpretation are faulty, which is part of the issue here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please show me where it's gone horribly wrong and not been rectified. Don't point at Brian Peppers in popular culture, either. FCYTravis 01:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine, Brian Peppers aside (and that does count), Matrixism and Darvon cocktail are excellent examples of two different issues - the former having never had a full consensus to delete at an AfD, the latter being a completely improper speedy deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've thought about the Darvon cocktail article a bit, and I think that's an appropriate speedy that the current CSD don't cover, and therefore a valid use of IAR. When unsourced information has the potential to cause great harm, the rules change.  Standards become higher, and wait times pretty much disappear, and that is as it should be.  It's similar in spirit to WP:BLP, under which potentially libelous material is subject to immediate removal.  I suspect there's a valid speedy criterion in there that's worth writing down, properly articulated. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Complete nonsense abound. Who decides what's harmful?  There was a similar discussion on the mailing list regarding suicide method that went the same direction - you can't force your personal ethical situation on the project, because there are too many different potential cultures at play.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's interesting. I'm absolutely not interested in "forcing my personal ethical standard on the project," but if that's how I came across, I obviously need to think about my words more carefully. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a collective you, but the point still remains - the only way one can view that as "harmful" is throughtheir own personal ethical prism, not through any objective standard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, how about this? Let's say I found an article... a really bad one.  Yeah, I'm imposing a personal standard here, because I'm talking about the kind of article that I speedy immediately, block an IP range, and call the FBI.  Let's say I think it's being seen is likely to cause general panic with the distinct possibility of lots of deaths.  Let's say it doesn't actually meet one of the speedy criteria.  I don't think we've got one that covers that.  I also don't care, nor should I.  You have to ask, is there anywhere you'd draw the line?  How many lives is procedure worth? It's not like some kind of black and white question either; there's a continuum, where the more dangerous an article is, the more quickly and decisively we delete it, and the less we worry about procedure.  If someone exhibits bad judgment in this regard, they'll lose their buttons before they make that mistake very many times.  It seems that plenty of people agree with the judgment in this case, or we'd be hearing more about it. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to take it you mean something that's akin to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater? Sure, you individually IAR, and then you try your very best not to get defensive or any other of the varieties of jackasss available to you when someone reviews your deletion. Because in my mind, fiat or IAR or whatever you want to call it is for emergencies, but it also doesn't mean you don't have to get your work reviewed later if someone calls it into question after the abject emergency is over. Right? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 23:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've claimed that I or anybody else is immune from being reviewed. If I'm reviewed and found sufficiently lacking in judgment, I lose the buttons.  Fair's fair. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see it more as the "A terrorist knows where an atomic bomb is, and the only way you'll get the information is to torture him" argument. This is more a situation for the office, really, and I'd think you would be better prepared to restore if someone were to challenge you on it.  Are there exceptions to any rule?  Absolutely, in extreme circumstances, but we're not dealing with extremes here, and we shouldn't assume that, since an extreme situation may warrant it, that it should apply across the board.  This is a very poor example, though, because it's way, way too vague. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You bet it's a situation for the office. As soon as I got off the phone with the FBI, that's who I'd call next.  As for restoring the material if challenged, not on your life.  I'd have already put it in the Office's hands, and they would make that call, not I. As for whether we're dealing with extremes here, it seems that the deleting admin thinks we are.  Who gets to make that call?  Has the decision been reviewed and found by the community to have been a bad judgment? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * well, this is the whole point - we're dealing with hypotheticals with absolutely no specificity. But this "shoot first, don't ask questions later" mentality is carrying over too often, and then there's no way toturn it around, regardless of the situation.  That's what we need to address here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's fair to characterize what I just described as a "don't ask questions later" mentality. Where have I suggested being anything less than completely open to asking questions?  I've been quite clear that I'm on the side of dialogue at every stage, haven't I? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly as Jeff says. For example, take Infibulation. No sources at all. Not only is the practice totally controversial in the West, but its cultural context is widely not completely reported (i.e. Did you know that the practice is related to other cultural beliefs that can alternately lead to communal outcasts - which can be difficult to survive for outcast folks living in harsh environments like Africa - or simple death by communal assault if the infibulations are not performed? Did you know that Western activists commonly leave out those important details and fail to provide other adequate contextual measures for alternate practices - that would prevent these collateral deaths caused by the lack of infibulation but still having the other cultural referents that tell these peoples to cast out or kill the folks who remain untreated - but simply decree that the infibulation must be stopped? Probably not because the information we present at Wikipedia is incomplete and unsourced and written largely from an uncareful Western activists' perspective), but for some reason we're okay with causing that kind of death with incomplete information published without sources.
 * If we're going to make value judgements based on our own cultural beliefs and fear for liability, we'd better start doing a good job of it, because otherwise by your reasoning, Infibulation should go just as quickly as Darvon cocktail, and it looks like it's been around for 4 and a half years. Or is it that we just don't have the spectre of folks negatively impacted by our words - third world women killed by their communities not really being vocal opponents or critics of what we do - to fear in this case? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 15:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If it seems that the argument I was making would apply to the infibulation article, then I wasn't very clear. I'll try and figure out how to articulate my thoughts better.  As an immediate response, I can't think of a good reason that the infibulation article should remain unsourced for 4 years. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My post may fall aside of where this thread is presently going... I just want to present one point for consideration. Even at law, procedural flaws do not automatically result in an undoing of all prior deliberations.  There is the notion of de minimis harm: it is perfectly in order for a consensus to conclude that procedural defect did not affect the fundamental fairness of the outcome.  A misplaced comma is not likely to result in the invalidation of a search warrant.  The existence of a process-defect cannot be considered determinative; it is for the consensus to decide, applying policy and common-sense, whether the defect was significant.


 * Secondly, VfU/DRV has always been more than a process-forum; new information, new argumentation, new (significant) participants -- any of these changes in circumstance can result in relisting without any process-defect existing. Maybe it is from this expansive purview (rather than from IAR) that editors begin the practice of talking about the "bottom line" of article merit.  My view has always been that article merit is impossible to determine when process-defects significantly affect fundamental fairness -- that is why Process is Important.  WP must be fair.  Where a consensus acknowledges a process-defect, but considers it insignificant -- a call that an exercise of the community's judgment, not a failure of the system.  There are many times when significant process defects rightly win a relisting.  Other times, deletions get endorsed despite rough edges.  I will never close a review if I cannot do in good conscience; while I likely makes loads of mistakes, I will never knowingly close an "endorse deletion" where I feel a significant process-defect has rendered an unfair result. Xoloz 23:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

DRV is not broken
I'm establishing a rebuttal to the notion that DRV is somehow horribly broken, at User:FCYTravis/DRV is not broken. FCYTravis 01:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer me to discuss them inline there? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to wait until I was done, but GTBacchus broke the ice, so go for it. FCYTravis 03:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if that was premature... you're welcome to remove my comment and finish, if you prefer. :/ -GTBacchus(talk) 04:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, no, don't worry about it. The ball's rolling now :) FCYTravis 05:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Where did this discussion go? I was curious as to how it evolved. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * He chose to delete it, once some bad blood resurfaced and it was clear we're on opposite ends on this. His userspace, his choice. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's too bad. I hope we find a way through this that doesn't make or keep lifelong enemies. I didn't come here to find enemies. :) --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So how do we fix this?
Given that there is a problem what do we do? In the meantime, can the closers actually close these using consensus parameters instead of vote counts? That might start the ball rolling a bit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not a given that there is a problem. Those who perceive one are free to suggest improvement, those who dissent are free to object to such.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussion is absolutely fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't get us closer to consensus. What would be grand is if we all put a lot more time and energy into hearing each other - it's as important to hear others' points of view as it is to be heard in consensus-building. So how do we get from discussion and disagreement, then, to another, shared conclusion? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's quite questionable as to whether there ever can be a shared conclusion. I see a permanent divergence between those who see this process as a failure and those who see it as a bulwark against two things: bad speedies and terrible articles. FCYTravis 14:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There must be other divergences you're not seeing. I see DRV as a potential failure but also as a bulwark against bad speedies and terrible articles, so it seems like your categorization is not entirely accurate. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And I was sitting here saying it's a failure because it does a poor job acting as a bulwark against bad speedies and terrible articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I see several people who believe that if an article was deleted out of process, it must for the sake of process be put on AFD so that it can be deleted there even if the outcome is abundantly clear - they are saying that the article should be deleted, but in a different fashion, even though the two "fashions" are indistinguishable to nearly our entire audience. Bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake is not going to fly. I would suggest dropping that particular angle and focus on problems of substance rather than problems of form. For instance, I have noticed recently that DRV is particularly susceptible to vote stacking, which could become problematic in the future.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Process and form: Have you noticed how important process is to the ArbCom (one of the highest authorities on Wikipedia)? It seems like there's a lot of complex stuff going on here than the simplicity that process is unimportant. I see aspects of disagreement with that assertion all around me. It's primarily here on DRV where speedies are often contentious and folks' good faith efforts are often up for review in a contentious environment where I find the assertion that process is unimportant most prevalent. Also in speedies themselves. Given that DRV still states that it's actually about process, it seems to me like there's an obvious divergence between stated intentions and actual fact. This is what I keep coming back to. Is there a way we can fix this discrepancy? Or does it need to remain a discrepancy?
 * Vote stacking: Particularly troublesome, yes, since consensus principles say voting doesn't count, yet the short window of DRV discussions pretty much prevents actual consensus-building and turns what is stated as a consensus-based process into a vote-based process. Given that I don't think the problems of vote stacking or the communication trends that encourage it are going to go away or stop via appeals to people's virtue (much like I think the ideal of Jeff's appeal to common sense and the tradition of process/consensus will probably fail - the temptation to do otherwise is too great, no matter how much virtue there is in Jeff's appeals/ideals), are there ways in process that we can stop counting votes and start going back to the consensus-based decision-making that's important in the rest of the Wikipedia? Or are there other options available to us that might be equally as effective? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No matter how we word CSD, it's going to have gray areas. In my opinion, if something fits the spirit but not the letter of WP:CSD, and it is contested, then proper process would be to discuss it here, because this is the forum to review deletions. I have seen scant evidence of deletions endorsed on DRV where the article should have been kept (as opposed to "deleted in a different fashion"). With respect to vote stacking, it may pay off to be more vigilant with respect to "ILIKEIT" arguments here.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So you see no problem with how things are going? I'd much rather work out the issues here than escalate it further, something I'm prepared to do, but I'm surprised you'd think there isn't an issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I just stated that I did see an issue.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there is an issue, but I also think a very large number of the articles selected as examples are absolutely terrible ideas to hang your hat on defending. You do your point of view no good at all whatsoever by defending "process" for articles which a very large number of people consider absolutely useless and/or actively bad - to name one just yesterday, the List of of Muslims involved in a crime. Anything related to Brian Peppers, for another. You will continue to absolutely galvanize your opposition when you proffer the idea that we should waste even more time debating the validity of articles such as those. If you feel that these articles really do deserve to be on the encyclopedia, that's your right, but you will never get anywhere worthwhile with myself and countless others. FCYTravis 15:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think, by listing off every and any problem, I'm being fair to the process in place. You have to defend the worst if you're going to get anywhere with the rest of it, and I don't think it looks well for your side when you're so quick to defend misusing the tools in such a way - it only means those tools will go away once people are fed up.  In fact, I think Peppers and the Muslim articles are both excellent examples of the problems we're facing - instead of being an encyclopedia, we're being something else by getting rid of encyclopedic topics.  It's pathetic and against our calling.  But we're straying from the greater issue - if you're willing to toss out a red herring about what you believe (with no evidence or no ability to predict the future, I might add) are "terrible" ideas, we aren't going to get anywhere.  Of course, the conspiracy theorist in me wonders if that's the point of these types of deletions - a conscious attempt to move the bar instead of get consensus.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. You want to fix everything you perceive as a problem. But your approach would gain more momentum if you would limit yourself at first to things sufficient other people also perceive as a problem. Rome was not built in one day.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think people understand that there is a problem, though. Travis may disagree, but he's not disagreeing based in policy.  If you disagree, I fail to understand why at this juncture.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand that this is about creating an encyclopedia, not following a book of policies. The policies are designed to help us create the encyclopedia. When they fail to do so, it is policy that they may be ignored. FCYTravis 16:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I can think of anything less constructive to dialogue than throwing a piped IAR-link at jeff. Seriously, can we move forward/orthogonal on this? -- nae'blis 16:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There are various methods we have in place to try to make sure that everyone who wants to contribute can do so, as freely as possible. The policies are designed to help foster this goal. When the policies fail to be followed, we have some recourse but the primary recourse is really talking it out and trying to make sure that everyone involved knows how everyone is feeling, and trying to find ways where we can all work together in agreement instead of just being pissed off at each other. Let's build bridges, consensus and community, Travis, not just bitch each other out for failing to immediately agree. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 16:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The policies are there to help us create the encyclopedia, correct. So stop ignoring them for personal gain, especially when the articles can help. If there's a disagreement, then maybe your need to ignore policy wasn't a good one. Why the disdain for discussion and consensus? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what other angle you expect me to take when I'm accused of "not disagreeing based in policy." I, and many, many others, believe that we are improving the encyclopedia by keeping dreck such as Brian Peppers and a list of every Muslim who ever got a parking ticket from being on this encyclopedia. It is policy that we may improve the encyclopedia regardless of any policy to the contrary. This is again pointless, and I'm not sure why I'm bothering to waste my time here. FCYTravis 16:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (after ec, but before second ec) FCYTravis, I don't think that's a helpful line of conversation with Jeff. He's much easier to communicate with when one avoids that angle, I've found. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And one, you might not be, and two if you need to rely on IAR, you're not doing anyone a service except saying "To hell with anyone who disagrees with me." I could just as easily IAR and replace it all (well, unfortunately not Peppers), but I don't do that because it's rude and I actually give a shit as to what people think.  If there is an actual consensus for, say, the Muslim article to be deleted (and DRV will not come to that consensus because it's not designed to come to that consensus), I have no problem with that.  I do have a problem with one person saying "No, we don't need this," and then the usual suspects coming in and piling on the votes knowing full well that the arguments aren't going to be weighed.  That's the problem here, and a problem that you seem fully okay with allowing to continue by tossing out IAR and trying to predict the future. If you really truly don't see a problem with that, I don't know what else to say.  Then again, you also think I have a disdain for accuracy, so I'm not entirely confident in the perception issues here.  It's very hard to see this disagreement in good faith with the track record we're working with combined with the complete lack of respect for the consensus we have regarding the policies in question.  I hope you at least get that.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have personally asked you before to review current interpretation of that particular policy. I think you may find that there isn't a lot of consensus support for the interpretation you've chosen. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 16:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there is, sir. I hate to break it to you, but there is. There is wide support for the idea that an article which has not a snowball's chance in hell of surviving an AfD can be speedily deleted and endorsed via DRV, regardless of whether or not it fits into a CSD box. FCYTravis 16:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for such a thing. This is entirely false, and this myth needs to stop being perpeutated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're not going to bother to go and review current interpretation that's fine, but please don't promulgate old information based on your understanding of previous interpretations. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 16:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If Jeff would focus his efforts on articles like The Baseball Channel, which truly do get wrongfully speedied by overzealous admins, I'd be falling all over myself to agree with him. Instead, he's defending the worst of the worst, utter dreck which has no place on this encyclopedia, and as long as he does that rather than trying to find common ground, it's hopeless. FCYTravis 16:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But The Baseball Channel is just as much a problem as Darvon cocktail is. The same concept that allows the deletion of the latter is what justifies the former - one person bucking consensus and saying "I don't think we need an article on this." --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) Jeff, I agree that there's a problem. Why don't those of us who agree there's a problem see if we can define what the problem is? Then it might be easier to talk about how to address it. I think that Jeff's research, and the discussions that it has generated and may continue to generate, could be quite useful in that regard. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I de-indented here. The problem is simple - DRV fails to properly and consistently deal with the appeals process for deletions.  Especially in contentious issues, it has an unforgivable fail rate, and much of that may have to do with how the discussions are closed - by vote count rather than by weighing arguments properly.  100% success rate is impossible, but a 15%+ fail rate is inexcusable given that the 85% successes include obvious answers. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff, I agree that you've identified what you think the problem is. I'm interested whether others would identify the same problem.  I, for example, would state it differently.  That's why I suggest we talk about what the problem is, and why.  We're unlikely to get consensus on how to address the problem if we aren't agreed what the problem is. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem, as I understand Jeff's point, is that DRV usurps the role of AFD, and does it in a way that is biased against the subject (in that it requires a majority to override deletion rather than consensus to trigger deletion) and against the article itself (in that it precludes incremental improvement of the article during the debate). In addition it conflates conduct (the dreaded "admin abuse") and content issues (the question whether the subject/article is wikiworthy). I'm somewhat sympathetic to this view, but I don't think changing the way DRV's are closed solves the problem. I still believe that DRV should focus on its original scope of investigating admin decisions and avoid getting dragged into content discussions. More or less, we have three types of admin decisions that come up at DRV: 1. Closures of XfD debates, 2. CSD speedy deletions, and 3. IAR speedy deletions. There is no reason to have a full five-discussion about standard CSD deletion here if it becomes clear within hours that the call was controversial. CSD should only be invoked in uncontroversial cases, so as soon as it's established that there is controversy over the merit of the article it should be passed on to the forum where content is discussed. XfD and IAR decisions on the other hand should be discussed for five days here, and in particular IAR decisions should be discussed under the premise that the status quo ante is the default, and the decision itself requires community consensus. ~ trialsanderrors 21:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, this is almost exactly what I would suggest. I'm sorry if that weakens your position. d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think much of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 10 is still relevant. It is only two months old, and I touch back there regularly.

As to my opinion in that discussion, I think we've gotten a few more regular eyes here (jeff is back, Xoloz is back closing so I can come back to opining, other regulars new or return are here) that the lack of regulars isn't making this a random number generator the way it was in late February/early March. However, the lack of a clearly agreed upon vision persists. This, I think, is the primary problem.

I suspect trialsanderrors opinion in that discussion is still very much on point. We do pretty good reviewing AfD closures, not as good on speedy deletions, and really have trouble with intentional IAR deletions. We don't have enough non-AfD XfD close reviews for me to be comfortable placing them on the spectrum; I suspect they are of similar quality to reviews of speedy deletions, as many of us are acting outside our expertise zones in reviewing them, but they aren't as inherently troubling as the intentional IAR decisions.

In the end, every process at Wikipedia is about producing a better encyclopedia. Thus, the ultimate underlying question in every discussion is "what action will produce a better encyclopedia"? In the case of deletion review, the goals include 1) providing a forum for reviewing deletion decisions made either in other forums to see if those decisions improved the encyclopedia, 2) educating editors (including admins) on what community standards are, 3) providing cloture to discussions of deletions, and 4) preventing wheel wars.

I personally think that the community of editors is critical to the production of an encyclopedia, so I will err towards excess process in order to protect the community in the short run and the encyclopedia in the long run. I know that others differ strongly with me on how much the community needs to be protected and how bold admins should be in taking individual actions. This difference affects our reviews of speedy deletions and (even more so) of IAR deletions. I thus suspect this range of opinion is a root cause of the problems and frustrations. GRBerry 21:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is, also, the need to make sure that editors feel they're getting a fair shake on these. If we're seeing "IAR deletions," (and while I have ill will toward IAR, this would be the case regardless), and we're simply allowing a pile-on when someone challenges them in good faith, it really hurts the project on a personell standpoint, especially given that an IAR deletion requires one to say "standing community consensus doesn't matter."  We need to be able to deal with those properly if we're going to consider them acceptable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Soliciting WP:Essay feedback
Please see Categories are different from articles. -- Kendrick7talk 20:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Using our heads
Okay, so now that we're aware of the problems, I propose the following changes. some are not changes - we often do this already. But we need to add protections into the language here to better our chances of getting it right:


 * 1) In reviews of speedy deletions that are obviously improper, and are not for reasons of protecting the project (i.e., copyright violations, slander/libel, legal liability, etc.), the articles should be restored upon notice, and dealt with through the proper channels.  The actual content should not be at issue during these reviews.
 * 2) In reviews of speedy deletions that are not obviously improper, or deal with issues that were good faith out-of-process deletions that do not fall under the previous reason, the reviews should last for at least five days and have a clear consensus to uphold the deletion, or it should be undeleted.  The actual content may be at issue during these reviews.
 * 3) In reviews of XfD processes, the review should last for at least five days and have a clear consensus to overturn the decision of the closing administrator.

Obviously, the language should be cleaned up, but it half reflects current practice (which, while improper at the moment, probably works better), and half better reflects the ideals of consensus that everything else on this project uses, and better reflects the intent of deletion review. Thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Re 2, if that gets implemented, we should throw out the "relist" as an option. Either endorse because the subject is invalid or overturn because the article covers a valid subject (even if it might fail to assert notability). If the problems with the article are not fixed in due time, it can be listed at AfD editorially by anyone. ~ trialsanderrors 05:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fair. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My thought is you're still the only person, possibly one of two or three, who thinks there is a problem. If the problem is that people are ignoring process, how is more process going to help? Us evil rouge admins will just ignore that too when the proper outcome is clear. If we're already breaking the rules, but our rule-breaking is being ignored, then clearly enforcement is your problem, not the rules, which means that maybe you should follow through on your continual threats to sort that out. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then maybe I should. Of course, it's clear I'm not the only one, or "two or three", but if that myth helps you sort things out better, more power to you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm about to beg you to start it. Because I keep almost opening a request and then realizing I truly don't know the overall impact or costs or what I'd be getting myself into. If you did it, at least I'd have a lead to follow. But jackass baiting like what Sam just did is screwed up and totally violates WP:CIVIL. But then so does my protest about it unless I talk about it as if I were having high tea with the queen, and Sam's not worth that much care, I don't think, at least not at this point when I keep getting continually slapped for my trouble by admins who don't give a crap about alienating editors. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 20:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ingnoring recent DRV decision
The article Qian Zhijun was listed at AfD after being on here with a fairly contentious discussion which was closed with the decision to undeleted and list of AfD. The afd was then closed as a delete less than one hour after it was opened, this completely ignoring the decision reached here (I'm not sure I can call it a true consensus, given the degree of contention). IMO this was completely inappropriate. A discussion here resulted in a decision to list on AfD in an attempt to achieve consensus, and the discussion was reclosed without there being enough time for even those who were known to be interested to express a view, much less for consensus to emerge. I am appalled. I call for this to be overturned and not relisted. See Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun (second nomination). After I posted this to today's DRV log, the posting was [removed], the removal was reverted and the discussion was then marked closed. i think that it is imprroper for soemone who was involved in the debate of this article to close the AFD page so very early, and it was and is improper to attempt to prevent discussion of this closure on the Deletion review page. Serious complaints by established editors are not generally closed here in this kind of way, nor should they be. If process doasn't matter, why should anyone refrain from wheel-warring? DES (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as people fight for their right to do whatever the hell they want with AfDs and DRVs, this sort of nonsense will continue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yah... we need still more emergency IAR powers. Our Republic Encyclopedia remains endangered by the evil seperatists process wonks.
 * This situation is at RfC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Speed of Review?
Is it considered standard for discussions to be closed with less than two hours of "review"? I'm curious, only because it seems like an awfully short window for people to participate, much less for a consensus to develop. I mean, 120 minutes... and, it's over? If this is considered standard, accept my apologies in advance. Jenolen   speak it!  21:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone? 120 minutes is good for deletion review?  Hello?  Anyone want to answer this one?   Jenolen    speak it!  03:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello? Bueller?  Bueller???  Now, what's interesting to me is, you can get a group of Wikipedians to write page after page about just about anything.  But NOBODY here is willing to offer up an opinion as to whether less than two hours is the right amount of time for a "deletion review"?  It's a simple question, people!  C'mon, help a brother out... Is two hours (or less) an appropriate amount of time to conduct a deletion review under current policy?  Anticipatorily curious...  Jenolen    speak it!  16:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It depends on the review, obviously. What is it that you're talking about?  Friday (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with Friday. Generally those that are closed within a short span are reviews of articles that have been discussed ad nauseum or are blatantly obvious in one direction (like a contested prod or a review of an attack article that states "But Timmy really is a douchebag").  Some examples of what you're talking about would be helpful.  Metros 16:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * According to pages linked to from DP, all articles, categories, and images get five days of discussion; stubs and templates get seven. Although redirects are supposed to stay up for seven, there are instances where items deletions have occurred within an hour of nomination.
 * As for MFD and UCFD, information is unavailable. --Folajimi (leave a note) 23:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Prod in reverse?
I'm specifically looking at this case - which looks like a slam-dunk reversal of the speedy, particularly in view of the admin's non-response to a challenge, I'd like to propose the following:


 * In the case of speedy deletions, where the deleting admin is asked for an explanation (by a talkpage note) and does not respond within 48 hours, any admin who believes the content has validity may simply undelete it. Any type of response by the deleting admin should mean a DRV is required (however invalid it may appear in somone's opinion) as we don't want wheel wars, and items should only be undeleted under this provision if the undeleting admin sees validity in the actual content. This isn't to be used for process wonking.

My aim is to eliminate reviews of deletions where no-one is likely to turn up to defend. DRV like AfD should be for cases of disputed decisions - not slam-dunks. If the deleting admin turns up later with a good reason - then it can go to AfD. The same basis prod works on.--Docg 21:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This might work fine, but why? We needed PROD because AfD was getting too backlogged. There isn't any such situation here at DRV, and I stand by my philosophy that discussion is inherently better than non-discussion. -Amarkov moo! 22:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Only if there is actually something to discuss. But looking at the 'debate' I cited - this is effectively what's happening - stuff if getting immediately undeleted. So it is probably defacto. Forget it.--Docg 22:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought that any admin not mere could, but in general ought to, agree to a good faith undelete of a speedy for improvement. If it goes to DRV it usually means someone is either being really stubborn, which is usually wrong because speedies should be for obvious rejects, & a rapid undelete and close is appropriate, or someone is trying to force us to follow every step when they know damn well its absurd, and then perhaps a rapid DRV close makes sense. DGG 06:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Game (game)
This is getting bloody ridiculous. I've no view on the content - but we're getting DRVs twice a week and it is becoming disruptive. If everyone sane agrees that this has been given a fair crack of the whip, I propose a six month moratorium, during which we simply remove any appeals as trolling. How does that sound? (If it hasn't had a fair discussion - then let's have one more - and then a moratorium.)--Docg 15:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should ahve one fair assessment (as a lot has changed since the last AfD/DRV), and if it's not successful, we can move on without people complaining that their voices aren't ebing heard. Why squelch discussion unnecessarily? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that it wouldn't hurt, and might help, to let the article have another AfD, considering that new sources have appeared. An AfD can decide whether we can write an encyclopedic article, and if not, then we've got that AfD to point to. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of this thread was not to review the deletion and suggest an Afd - that avenue is being constantly closed (probably rightly) by the immediate speedy closing of the multiple DRVs. I am suggesting that we have a moratorium - i.e. we remove all DRVs without comment - and block the tenacious trolls who keep bringing this back. At some ppoint people have to understand the word - NO.--Docg 08:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I second the moratorium. This is just a bit of silliness that turns into a tendentious sockfest whenever we let it. Besides, we don't want Wikipedia to lose the game.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Aside from being irritating, what's actually wrong with a sockfest? We have tools to be able to determine for the most part when a sock is being used and lump it in a sock category. DRV isn't supposed to be about headcounts anyway, so why not ignore the socks completely and concentrate on compelling arguments by real editors, and I don't know, maybe build consensus? Seems like if you had one good run and were able to actually establish consensus about the article, then you could speedy close further DRV requests. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems to me we had several "good runs" already, and an established consensus e.g. here, and we are indeed speedily closing DRV requests on those grounds.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, at nearly 6 months ago, more evidence has surfaced. You full well know that consensus can change. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I know it can. I believe it hasn't.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So once again you feel that your belief should override the process that's designed to build consensus? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, and once again stop putting words in my mouth.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. I was asking you a question. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fallacy of many questions.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is precisely for this reason that I find it extremely difficult to believe you do not link to things like WP:WRONG during other administrative actions out of malice. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 15:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Need I really explain? You are asking a leading question. "Once again you [do something bad]?" is similar to "Have you stopped beating your wife", in that both are phrased like a question but imply several negative statements. That's precisely what the link I gave you explains.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For completeness (I missed this before), a) since it's a pattern I feel is valid in interpreting your motives and actions, I don't think that the question is at all unfair. I've seen you do this bad thing, and I was calling you on it. b) Have you stopped beating your wife yet? I.e. have you experienced a change of heart or epiphany that will keep you in the future from repeating this pattern? I sincerely want to know. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 04:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And I think that's a terrible idea without giving a full consideration of the new material that has been presented. A moratorium is fine if we've shown due dilligence in considering the new material, something we haven't done. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that new sources have been linked in a few of the recent DRV requests. If so, they constitute new information, and a reason for running at least a DRV discussion again. As all the recent requests have been speedy closed before I saw them, I don't know whether or not the newly offered sources are enough to make an AFD worthwhile. I'd say it is at least worth having a DRV, where someone takes the time to dig up all the recently offered sources (plus the old ones), and we see if there is a case. GRBerry 13:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur. Radiant believes that consensus hasn't changed, but I think it's only fair to run a full DRV or AfD for the benefit of those of us who haven't caught up with Radiant yet.  Once we've given the sources proper consideration, I'll happily support a moratorium on further DRVs if the sources are found to be insufficient. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded. If a new DRV has a consensus (i.e., not a headcount) that the new sources don't constitute anything, I'm all for a moratoriam.  But not before. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that the previous DRV(s) were decided on headcount rather than consensus?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, nearly all of them are. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's see what the history here is. I'll not waste time with anything prior to the most recent AFD with a delete consensus.
 * 1) AFD6 appears to be the most recent AFD, closed as delete.
 * 2) DRV of 1 January 2007 was a full DRV and overwhelmingly endorsed the closure of that AFD.
 * 3) DRV of 12 January 2007 offered no new information and was closed after 3 hours due to the prior DRV.
 * 4) DRV of 25 January 2007 offered only, which was not new information, and was speedy closed after 2 hours.
 * 5) DRV of 13 February 2007 offered no new information, and was speedy closed after 2 hours.
 * 6) DRV of 7 March 2007 offered no new information, and was speedy closed after 1 hour.
 * 7) DRV of 20 March 2007 offered no new information, and was speedy closed after 7 minutes.
 * 8) DRV of 24 April 2007 was the first to offer new information, specifically an article in the Daily Nebraskan.  In the 2.5 hours prior to closing, User:badlydrawnjeff commented "Replace the Daily Nebraskan with something a little more reliable and you'll probably be golden.", and half a dozen folks chimed in with "endorse deletion".
 * 9) DRV of 14 May 2007 offered, but did not link, new information in the form of claims to "have been mentioned in the following sources: Daily Record, Daily Star (in October 2005, December 2005, March 2006, July 2006, September 2006, Leicester Sound's website - a full mention of The Game (Game) written by Naomi Kent."  Closed after 1.5 hours with no participation in discussion.
 * 10) DRV of 15 May 2007 offered, but did not link, new information in the form of claims "It was mentioned in Company magazine, January 2007, Love it! magazine, at some point in November 2006, and also March 2007, plus it will be in a new issue soon (but that would be crystal balling to mention it!) as a full article. The game was also mentioned on John Moores University and Liverpool University's website plus Motor Trend's website as a joke piece, and in other sources, notably More magazine".  Closed after 45 minutes, it had 1 call for relisting and 1 for "trolling is getting old".
 * 11) DRV of 20 May 2007 offered the Daily Nebraskan source first mentioned on April 24.  Received 1 endorse deletion comment prior to being closed after 4 hours.

Looking over this history, there was no reason to give the DRVs from 12 January through March for a full run. The later ones, considered together, might be worth a full DRV. Of course, with jeff saying that the Daily Nebraskan source wasn't up to snuff, and none of the other supposed sources linked, I don't think speedy closing any of these was wrong. But if an established Wikipedian wanted to make a case linking all the sources mentioned in the DRV nominations from April and May, there would be enough new information for a full discussion to be worthwhile. However, on this topic I am not going to take the time to look for all those places where it has been mentioned. So I'll leave that effort for someone who does care about whether we have an article on the topic.

As to Radiant's question about headcount versus consensus, I think we had a clear consensus in the 1 January DRV, and the others were closed on a reasonable judgement by an admin that there wasn't any real reason to doubt that prior consensus had changed (not consensus of that specific discussion, nor on headcount). GRBerry 14:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's what we should do. If someone wants an article on this, let them right a complete and verified article with sources on a user sub-page. When that article is reasonably deemed complete, link to it from DRV and have a discussion on the verifiability (which seems to be the sole issue here). This discussion should be completely isoltaed from all previous AFDs/DRVs/votes/discussions. Anyone whose rationale for either a delete or a keep is based on an earlier vote will be horsewhipped publicly. The discussion is to begin afresh. Votes that give no rationale (or say only "we discussed this already") should be crossed out, as will votes that add nothing more than "I herd of this". This should be a discussion on sources, and lack thereof. If we can get a consensus that the article meets WP:V, then it will be moved into the articlespace. Anyone like this idea? -R. fiend 14:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fiend. Alleged sources don't cut it, and they have to be more than passing mentions, per the usual.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also broadly agree with the above. Consensus can change, so if a new and complete argument is put forth, there should be a discussion as described above. DRVs that present no new information (or only unsupported claims) can be got rid of quickly. Trebor 14:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Allowing someone the time to put together a sourced article sounds good to me. Then we can see whether it measures up, and if it doesn't, we've got a discussion to point to, and then a moratorium on further DRVs for a while would make a lot more sense. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems like a reasonable approach to me, if an estabnlished editor is willing to do the work on an article that may well wind up deleted after all. If this really is verifiable, we chould probably have a neutral article about it -- not soemthing that tries to be part of the thing it is reporting on. (No "you have just lost" stuff) DES (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My only concern is that this will end up being another Matrixism situation, where people will undoubtedly game (no pun intended) the situation to ensure the result. I'm willing to give it a shot, but not if I'm not going to get any backup when the time comes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How about an agreement that the new discussion can't be closed early, regardless of how it appears to be trending? If a full case is put forth, it's given a proper discussion, and then the result stands (unless there are major new developments). Obviously such an agreement would be unenforceable, but we could try... Trebor 16:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not worried about that as much (although it's always a concern) as much as putting forth an effort, making sure the article is compliant, and then the usual suspects coming along and making it a waste of time anyway. If this is simply going to be some charade to make sure the article won't exist after giving it its hearing, I want no part in it.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a fair consideration, but then I don't think I'm one of your usual suspects. If we form a consensus here for giving it one best shot run, then you won't have to worry.  So I'd recommend waiting to see what Doc and Radiant have to say, as they have been most in favor of a moratorium. GRBerry 16:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm proposing, at least, but I think ti would be helpful to have a complete, independent discussion that can be considered binding, at least for some time. Certainly the discussion should not be closed early; early closures are usually done in the name of "we just discussed this last week and the result was x", which is exactly what I intend to avoid with my horsewhipping comment, and it seems to be why we have about 4700 discussions on this topic already. We should also prevent a partisan individual from coming along and arbitrarily closing it how they see fit even if it is given sufficient time. I think if we can limit the discussion to sources nd verifibility, and prevent the anons (and registered users too) of coming along and adding their "keep, notable", or "delete juvenile" comments, then just tallying the votes, we can actually get somewhere. -R. fiend 16:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed with both of you. However, I'm sure you understand my hesitation.  I'd gladly be the one to fix it up if possible (some of the history would be good right about User:Badlydrawnjeff/The Game) since one of my larger-scale projects needs less of my attention, but I have plenty of other projects to do if this is just going to become a vehicle to get the available sources in there and then get the article deleted so we can't use those sources again, y'know?  --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem a bit cynical here, but I guess that's somewhat understandable. But if you can get sources (good verifibile, reliable sources) then I think there is little chance of the article being deleted. At least you'll have won me over, and I've been labelled quite the deletionist. As for this concern over getting all the sources together in one place so they can be ambushed and destroyed in one fell swoop, well, I'm a bit confused about that. -R. fiend 16:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I seem a bit cynical because I am. d;-) But seriously, I'd simply hate to have the required sources to meet our standard, and then have enough people come along to say "no, it's not enough" to essentially invalidate the entirety of what's compiled.  I've seen it happen before, and I'm lacking in faith in the process, but I will try. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with R. fiend, we should have a sourced, userspace version of an article before the next DRV is run. Other DRVs can be closed with closing notes of "will not be considered until a sourced userspace version is presented".  GRBerry 16:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to support this suggestion. We can have a good five-day substantive and constructive evaluation of the topic vis-a-vis Wikipedia's inclusion policy and guidelines, if we have an actual sourced article instead of not-a-vote-page claims of "it can be sourced."  If we don't have that to review and consider in context, then an AfD rerun is liable to turn into a rehash of old AfDs/DRVs and a new wave of ILIKEIT and IDONTBUYIT intended-as-votes, no matter how much horsewhipping or troutslapping is threatened on one insiders' page. Barno 23:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. If there was a better version in userspace (with, you know, actual sources instead of alleged sources) I would not be inclined to close a DRV.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, guys, the new sources are reliable enough. I don't have the original to work from, so I had to discuss it at DRV. If people want to discuss it at DRV, it's their prerogative. Allow people to discuss it when they want. Matrixism can be discussed as often as possible if people want. Don't use ILIKEIT or WP:NOR as arguments, they don't cut it. I can say though, POTW's meatpuppets are the ones requesting undeletion... --Flexwick32 09:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's NOT trolling to repeatedly discuss something IF NEW EVIDENCE COMES TO LIGHT, which it did here! Besides, that Chinese gas station guy deserves an entry, as he is notable enough. Let people discuss him, or The Game game as often as they like. Do we really want to go to arbitration over this?? No! So the answer is just allow discussion of it. --Flexwick32 09:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Same for Matrixism as well. Allow fair discussion of these, and everythings going to be OK. is responsible for the meatpuppets who keep discussing these articles, it is believed (so I was told by someone, not saying who to protect them!). Allow discussion of these articles, it's better to do so. Speedily closing DRVs without justification is a BAD THING. --Flexwick32 10:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And let's not forget Church of realityand Briefsism (both of which should be allowed to be discussed at DRV, but are not, due to people who see discussion of them as "trolling").
 * Flexwick32 is blocked indefinitely for trolling, so feel free to ignore him. - Bobet 10:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Whyville
This article was speedy deleted as non-notable. The deletion was upheld at DRV (WP:DRV) but the article got recreated again anyway, with no further claims of notability and no further references. I placed a db-recreated tag on it but User:Aecis removed it claiming that since it had never gone through AfD, db-recreated was not appropriate. Then why should we ever have a DRV review on a speedy deletion, if all I have to do is recreate the article, even if it's identical to what it was before, and force the discussion to go to AfD? Corvus cornix
 * If there hasn't been substantial change in the article, whatever speedy criterion applied the first time would generally still apply. The only time this type of re-creation would survive is if it was a borderline speedy and the second reviewing administrator disagreed with the first, in which case the article probably ought to be on AfD anyway. This is not, however, an endorsement of the practice of re-creating speedied material without trying to improve it so that deletion would no longer be justified. Newyorkbrad 22:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But if we have to go through AfD in cases like this, then a user is perfectly justified in recreating the article over and over again because db-created is not a valid deletion tag and the article hasn't gone through AfD. Corvus cornix 22:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a unique instance, isn't it? How often does this turn up, really?  But no, db-recreation is not valid, but if it's identical, the original reason for it being speedied would still qualify if that reason was originally appropriate.  I just looked at the discussion - the DRV never upheld anything, it was speedy closed because he apparently wasn't arguing for undeletion.  So since the original speedy wasn't actually upheld, recreation is entirely im proper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm... when you say improper I think you mean proper? TerriersFan 00:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been a long day. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:UBX/Suicide
Why is this still here? This crap didn't deserve five days of fame, let alone another five. Someone blow the whistle already. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It was initially closed by Sr13 (diff), and reopened by the same admin (diff). We allow admins to reopen their AFD closures, I see no reason to not allow them to reopen their DRV closures.  (We've previously tested and rejected the idea of holding a DRV to review a DRV.)  GRBerry 13:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Gail Mangum
Alright, where do we get a "deletion review review"? This looks to have been closed against a pretty clear consensus to undelete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * After having looked through the discussion, there simply was not anywhere near a sufficient consensus to speedily close the debate. Accordingly, I've reopened it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good move. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And to answer your question, for "deletion review review" go to the admin noticeboard, and/or the ArbCom.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"Non-deletion review"?
Can I also use this page to dispute when an image was kept in opposition to policy (in my opinion)? If not, where should I go? &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  16:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on the second paragraph of the page, yes:
 * Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions. This includes appeals to restore pages that have been deleted as well as appeals to delete pages which were not deleted after a prior discussion. Before using the Review, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy.
 * It does allow for appeals to delete pages that were kept. Metros 16:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What's nice about this is that it allows a page, or image, to continually be submitted to deletion review, until it's deleted! First three times it survived?  Nominate it a fourth!  Yes, deletion review - not subject to those pesky double jeopardy standards we so often find in the real world.  Shouldn't there also be a procedure for non-deletion non-review?  Or would that be just as silly as non-deletion review? ;)   Jenolen    speak it!  17:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Repeated requests are a form of WP:POINT, and tend to get closed instantly on grounds of "stop wasting our time".  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * With the possible exception that if there were clear, obvious problems, a second review might be allowed. If, for instance, evidence appeared showing that the majority of participants in a discussion were all puppets, as with the recent Runcorn/Newport/Simul8/etc. case, we'd probably re-review without hesitation.  It's the difference between "everyone but me is still wrong!" (disruptive and/or pointy) vs. "we overlooked a serious issue" (valid reason for review).  This applies to both repeated reviews and even to review reviews (where the threshold for acceptance is generally so high that some people believe it doesn't exist, even though a valid case would almost certainly be accepted without question).  Xtifr tälk 23:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting development
See here. This doesn't really phase me (although I think it better reflects what we need to be doing), but, especially in the context of this from a few weeks ago, it's an interesting aside. Regardless, I'm pretty sure we're all on the same page of strength of argument rather than votes, and a lot of issues from the previous weeks could be avoided with this in mind. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we please quit snowing these things?
This process is the time for someone who feels they have been wronged by the deletion process to have their time to air concerns. Sure, in a lot of cases, the right outcome is obvious ... but for crying out loud, half of the time, the reason the issue is here is because process wasn't followed - snowing it doesn't help things. Unless the nomination was clearly in bad faith or the nominator withdraws his nomination, can we stop snowing them? --BigDT 05:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm inexperienced in matters regarding AfD and this whole review thing. Could you explain what you're talking about? Unschool 10:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW ... I'm referring to early closing of discussions. --BigDT 13:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's getting beyond obnoxious lately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, in most cases. Speedy closures should happen here only if the nomination was in bad faith, is withdrawn, the deletion has been overturned, or there is no deletion to review. -Amarkov moo! 00:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Or there are no new arguments and it's just an attempt at re-arguing the xfD. Corvus cornix 01:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I don't quite agree with that: The recent DRV on my speedy of List of Muslims involved in a crime, or for that matter a certain one from February, were rightly closed early rather than waiting 5 days or more of drama. But early closing should not occur when there is valuable discourse still ongoing; for example, some useful points are being made in discussing my deletions of a pair or articles this weekend, and I would prefer not to see that discussion closed too soon. Note that calls for the deleting admin to be reprimanded, suspended, desysopped, or taken out and shot are not part of what I consider the valuable discourse. Then again, I might be biased. Newyorkbrad 01:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I might add that early closings discriminate against those who don't live *in* Wikipedia. Many contributing editors visit every few days.  I had a closing take place within eight hours of it's opening, while I was asleep!  Ridiculous.  Process should be allowed to run it's course.  And calls for admins to be reprimanded are deserved when the admin uses their power to subvert the process. Wjhonson 02:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It depends, really. Several people are abusing DRV to repeatedly make spurious requests, such as the weekly debates on "The Game", Brian Peppers clones, and a NN website or two. We're obviously not going to waste time on a full redundant discussion every three days, hence WP:SNOW.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but that's really something that needs to be IARed, instead of trying to define what constitutes disruptive renomination. -Amarkov moo! 23:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not really worried about trolling or repeat debates - by all means, if it's bad faith or if it's a rehash of a previous discussion, close it. I'm talking about the good faith, albeit inconceived ones.  Take Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat.  Someone at some point is going to feel inclined to speedy close this.  It has already occupied a lengthy MFD, a long ANI thread, and several user talk pages.  It's a patently silly issue - wheel warring over a redirect from a user's old name to his new one.  At some point in the next five days, someone is going to want to speedy close it.  My strong exhortation is don't.  Speedy closing it will only cause ill will and cause people on the "losing side" to be upset.  Let it run its course.  The same goes for any other good faith nomination - let it run its course - there is no deadline. --BigDT 05:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What the hell happened to assuming good faith, being supportive of folks you might not agree with and overall being respectful? Are you my Mommy? Do you really believe you have the authority to tell us when we are trolling and when we're not? Clearly a significant number of editors disagree with the general assertions you make here (but not in all cases, of course). Things that have been SNOWed have sometimes even been in RfC or RfAr for god's sake. Just let process be once in a while. It won't kill you, I promise. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 04:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think either side can escape blame for the way things have been going recently. The IAR/SNOW crowd seems to be completely ignoring the increasing disruption that they are, directly or indirectly, contributing to. If letting a gods-be-damned debate run for five days will avoid huge battles on dozens of different forums, why the hell not wait!? Contrariwise, though, the policy wankers would get a lot more sympathy from me and others if they picked their battles more wisely. When you vow to fight to the death over even the most trivial and minor transgression, it makes it hard to take you seriously even when a more justified battle comes along. Remember the tale of the boy who cried review the review of darvon cocktail, er, sorry the boy who cried wolf? Anyone remember the days when compromise, cooperation and consensus were considered important in Wikipedia? Xtifr tälk 03:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I must note that compromise is easier when folks are less catty. You could stand to not mention Darvon Cocktail at all, given that it's still clearly a sore point with the folks you're taking issue about (i.e. me, among them). Good faith negotiations need to go both ways, which includes folks on all sides (i.e. including you) being nice. Sincerely nice, not just pretend nice. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 04:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with standing in the middle ground is that people on both sides can and will consider you to be wrong. That shouldn't stop people from trying, though. Yes, SNOW is abused at times, and no, never SNOWing is not the solution either. The trick is to SNOW with care. If you IAR something and nobody objects, arguably that was a good invocation. The point is that this trick is, well, tricky.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Malcolm: I was one of the people arguing "overturn and relist" for Darvon Cocktail, almost to the bitter end. If that one still rankles, it's because I feel that Jeff's actions ended up undermining my credibility!  And furthermore, I think it harmed our cause of trying to reign in some of the overzealous admins.  That one could have been a great example of how out-of-process deletions can cause more problems than they solve.  Instead, it's become a textbook example of how some people refuse to accept compromise or consensus.  You think it's still a sore point?  You're absolutely right!  But I'm not on the outside making fun; I'm on the inside, lamenting.  And Radiant: thank you.  I have no intention of giving up the middle ground.  :)  Xtifr tälk 01:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we at least agree that a DRV should not be re-snowed after another admin has re-opened it? — Omegatron 21:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Allison Stokke
Who's going to step up and do the right thing here? Three disruptive closures in a row. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's merely 2 reversions of you trying to unclose my original close. That's different from 3 closures. For three closures, you'd have to open three DRVs. Why don't you try that instead? ^ demon [omg plz] 13:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I might have to. Are you going to disruptively close them again? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll close them. Disruptively? Well, if you say so, I know it must be the opposite.  Daniel  13:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll note that the closing admin for the AfD told me to bring it here. And yes, disruptivwely - good faith challenges to AfDs should never be early closed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and no-one - especially those who are paramountly involved in the debate as you are - should revert an administrator's close of the debate. Not on, Jeff.  Daniel  13:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. Disruptive closures should be reverted on sight. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm with Jeff on this one, you don't get to short-circuit the decision AND shut down discussion of it by throwing the 'I'm an admin' flag. Remember, if WP:SNOW is opposed you're probably not doing it right. There's no way that AFD should have ended in any manner but no consensus. -- nae'blis 13:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is deleted. That is the right thing. Trying to edit war the discussion open to force your point of view on anybody and everybody is most certainly the wrong thing. Nick 13:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is improperly deleted. Deletion review is the forum to discuss improper deletions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Give me 10 legitimate outside sources that establish notability (not in regards to the meme), and I'll unprotect and undelete right now. ^ demon [omg plz] 13:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Where does this "ten" number come from? Either way, be aware that some of these do mention the meme, but still establish notability outside of it:    ("#2 in the state"),   ("Will vault in the US Junior Track and Field meet"),  (story only about her),  (breaking Freshman record),  ("national best for sophomores," "among the top pole vaulters."),  (while a reprint of the Post article about the meme, notes her five national records),  (primarily about the meme, but notes her sophomore record and her state rank).  That's nine ten without counting repeats and other attention.  I can't count.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * First and foremost, most of those links were from the same site. Secondly...how is coming fourth in a state high school pole vaulting tournament considered something notable? I won 3rd place in my state's individual improvisation competition with theatre in high school. Do I have an article? ^ demon [omg plz] 14:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Get photographs of your gorgeous body plastered all over the internet, and we'll see. ;) --Docg 15:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you've gone on Wikibreak, but I suppose shame on me for thinking you'd be taking this seriously. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Unsalting pages
The recent events involving "HHO gas" has convinced me that some process in needed for dealing with the requests to unsalt a page. The March 14 DRV log includes a request to unsalt HHO gas and Brown's gas and other related titles on the basis that "this topic needs to be covered in some form or other". As a result HHO gas and Brown's gas were unsalted, and within two weeks new articles appeared and recently were once again deleted on the basis of a lack of reliable sourcing. The articles are once again salted, and I hope they stay that way for a while.

It seems to me that salting should be taken as prima facie evidence that a title is not appropriate for Wikipedia, most likely due to some difficulty in creating an acceptable article on the topic. It seems to me that if someone wants a title unsalted, that they should be required to create an article on it in their user space and to demonstrate that it deals with the issues that have resulted in the historical deletion of said article. A simple "this should be covered" should be wholely inadequate to obtain unsalting. I also advise that the editors who participated in the prior deletion discussions be invited to review the candidate article. Obviously I doubt that I would change my mind on HHO gas, but if there was some national scandal involving HHO gas or one of its variants or something else that gave it genuine notability I would change my mind on this issue, and I think that others would show similar flexibility in the appropriate circumstances.

In short, let's require that a real case be made for unsalting and that an acceptable article be ready to go into a salted slot before unsalting occurs. --EMS | Talk 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

DRV is not AfD
Every time I've seen an article get put up for deletion review, the DRV just fills up with the exact same arguments that were made in the AfD. I thought DRV was for commenting on the process itself, not the article.

It would be nice if such comments could be removed to keep the DRV uncluttered and prevent rebuttals and counter-rebuttals from spiraling out of control and taking over the page. AfD is for deciding whether the article should stay or go. DRV is for deciding whether the AfD was processed correctly.

(Also, was there a point in time in which only admins could comment on DRVs? I thought that was the way it always worked, but it is apparently not.) — Omegatron 21:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We can't, though, because the people who do that insist that since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, there may be no focus on process at all. -Amarkov moo! 23:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So we just let it continue as an ochlocracy? — Omegatron 00:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless you can solve the problem of people insisting that their opinion is sometimes just right, and everyone else's is irrelevant. I know that I can't. -Amarkov moo! 23:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're wrong. My way is obviously the best, and I'm going to use my admin powers to prove it. — Omegatron 23:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

OLHP/Satanist deletion
It's come to my attention that several pages (all of them) reguarding the 'Order of the Left Handed Path' have been deleted sometime in the last 2-6+ months. They once had a fairly flowery page up that connected to 'ordo sinstra vivendi', 'OLHP', and satanism. (in general, they're a satanist group that focuses on deception) I know that wikipedia admin 'elonkna dunnin' is of the order, though i do not know if she herself deleted it. I'm mostly interested in having the pages undeleted & have admins pay more attention to internal politics (& motives) for various parties. any help would be greatly appreciated. -the good guy, with eyes
 * To do start a deletion review simply follow the steps listed here.Bassgoonist 17:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

5 days?
Deletion_review/Log/2007_June_21 has reached a fairly clear consensus, but has not been closed by an admin. I'm just curious why most reviews from the day before and day after have been closed, and this one hasn't (and no one has added to the discussion in several days). Bassgoonist 17:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

drv when there's a clear consensus but when you disagree with the outcome
when there's an afd and there's a clear consensus to keep, you can renominate the article for deletion. what happens when there's a clear consensus to delete or merge? starting a new afd seems inappropriate since you're actually trying to keep it - not delete it.

in looking at the drv's, it seems that most are for articles that were speedily deleted or for ones for which the alleged consensus is debatable. i don't see any for articles where you disagree with the consensus, hands down, and for which you have a new argument that you believe might sway.

any ideas? 209.209.214.5 06:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If new information comes to light, and that may plausibly affect the outcome of an xFD discussion, then DRV is appropriate. Otherwise, no, because you would go in a xFD -> DRV -> xFD -> DRV cycle ad infinitum, if the only reason to revisit the debate is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 08:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If an article was deleted in an AfD without process problems, your best bet is probably to create a new version in "userspace" (e.g. User:Example/My neat article) and then propose undeletion at DRV. If the new information/sources are substantial you can even recreate the article directly but direct copies and cosmetic rewrites are subject to deletion under speedy criteria G4, so when in doubt ask on DRV first. Eluchil404 05:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

June 4 - June 27
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. What happened to all the deletion reviews between June 4 (archived) and June 27 (main page)? Am I missing something painfully obvious here? Drewcifer3000 21:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They still exist (eg Deletion review/Log/2007 June 5) but they need to be added to the archive. Does anyone know the correct procedure?  Eluchil404 04:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You just need to transclude the listing for the day. For example, to archive the debates for 5 June, one would add Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 5 to the June log. Anyone is welcome to keep an eye on Deletion review/Recent and see when the whole day's worth of debates are closed; once this is done, then the day's listing can be added to the relevant monthly log (no changes are necessary to Deletion review/Recent, it's an automatic listing). --bainer (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've set up the July page, going back to the system Trialsanderrors designed, where we just move a comment line up the page as each day closed. DRVBot was approved as a bot to manage the daily/monthly logs, but it hasn't made a contribution yet.  I'll go nudge the operator.  GRBerry 19:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone deleted the image at the Hapa article
Someone deleted the Hapa girls image at the Hapa article. Should I report this? Should I request undeletion? What should I do? Does anyone know why this article on the topic of mixed race was deleted? July 10 signed: --69.234.214.122 17:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)hapa boy

Mario Party DS
I know that it isn't kosher to do this, but could I get a speedy undeletion? Mario Party DS has been confirmed and has a video. Here is Nintendo's EU release list to prove it: - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what use anyone would have for the pre-April versions that were deleted, seeing as those would consist mainly of rumors. I'd support a speedy unsalting, though. -Amarkov moo! 18:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant, but I didn't know a better term. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Soulja Boy
I came to Wikipedia to find information about the rapper Soulja Boy, as it is usually a reliable source for such things. What I have found is that the article has been deleted and locked for protection, so one cannot be created. The reason? The discussion page for the deletion included something about him being a "fag" and a "shitty rapper." Clearly Wikipedia is better than this. I don't think notability comes into play either because I live halfway across the country and he is played on the radio frequently.

Allow this article to be unlocked and prevent further abuse so that Wikipedia can continue to be used as a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.46.82 (talk • contribs)

Format of Deletion review/Content review
... is pretty hard to follow, as it's a list of deleted articles. Anyone mind if I reformat it, as it's an excellent candidate for re-building in the vein of Requests for page protection. This will make it a lot simpler for editors to list their articles and request articles, as well as greatly simplifying admins in handling requests. As it is, it's a bit of a mess and is difficult to maintain and respond to requests. At the very least, it needs editable sub-sections. I'm thinking it could look like this very easily, which also makes a very useful navigable Table of Contents;

Requesting undelete of the above article for reasons of whatever - A l is o n  ☺ 07:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * - userfied to User:Alison/whatever (or declined or emailed or whatever) - A l is o n  ☺ 07:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

We could use templates similar to RFPP. Comments? Thoughts? I'll gladly produce the documentation and formatting, etc & do all the work - A l is o n  ☺ 07:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * makes sense to me. DGG (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

July 9-17 in the twilight zone
More dates in the twilight zone: the page has July 18 to the present, and the July archive has July 1-8. Where can I find July 9-17?--Fabrictramp 19:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As discussed a few sections above, just update the July archive page to include the other days that are complete. For July, that means moving the end comment line up N days.  There is no DRVbot running, so it is up to the human editors (this means you) to get the updates done.  GRBerry 12:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would gladly do it, but I've read the appropriate section above about 5 times now and it still makes no sense to me.--Fabrictramp 13:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And I see that someone has already fixed it. Thanks!--Fabrictramp 23:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge of some content from deleted page
I did not make this a request on the front page of this as I have already saved the article to a sub page. I just wanted to know if it was OK to merge some of the referenced content from the deleted article "Straight pride" to a section "Opposition" in the "Gay pride" article. I have added the suggestion to the talk page but wanted to be sure and ask before doing so.--Amadscientist 23:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

deletion and editing
Unfortunately, I get the impression that Wikipedia is already failing in that with all the procedures and protocols that have been implemented, it is almost impossible for a layman to follow. I made an edit and then the whole section was deleted and I tried to use the various links to figure out what was done and why and could never even get close to finding out.

The system is now way over-tinkered with, so it is basically incomprehensible. Also, adding the administrators with all that additional power has created a "super-class" that decides how things should be; that makes Wikipedia into something that is run by the aficionados and not the general public; that defeats the purpose of creating the people's encyclopedia.

It is way out of hand. If it works, that's fine I guess, but let's not deceive ourselves -- this thing is being run by some self-appointed overseers who make decisions and not the public, and that's not the way it was envisioned.

69.181.188.254

Oligarchy in action
The way this page is operated, it is not an effective at ensuring that admins respect the will of the community. The admins that closed a debate are allowed to restate their position. Other admins then back them up on the grounds that admins have more or less unrestricted authority to do whatever they like. The debate on this page is then closed by an admin, who has an inherent bias to favor admin rights. This page preserves an illusion of openness and equality, but it does not ensure that the will of the whole community is acted on. Golfcam 19:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree with the underlying logic, never mind the conclusion. Since becoming an admin, I've offered a higher percentage of "overturn" opinions here than I did before I became an admin (the pre-admin endorsement percentage was over 80%).  GRBerry 19:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with GRB--one of the virtues of being an admin is that one already is an admin, and can take perhaps a broader perspective. I feel just a little more comfortable in saying overturn now also, when I think it is appropriate. I also have wider experience, and think I know much better when it is and when it isn't appropriate. The immediately practical way to deal with problems here is for more people to come and discuss the matters raised, and not just when they are concerned over one particular article. Stay around, for in general everyone is i fact listened to.  DGG (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It just isn't true that everyone is listened to, at least not all the time. There may be some good admins, but there are enough who think that admins as a class are entitled to boss the project to make it a waste of time for non-admins to contribute. You appear to be two of the more reasonable admins, but the fact that even you show a complete indifference to the high-handed attitude of some of your fellows is sufficient to demonstrate that non-admins should not have any faith in the process. I see complete blindness to the arrogance of the oligarchy across all the admin pages. Even the introductory page about the role of admins is a comical whitewash that just pretends that they all live up to high standards and act as servants of the community. Some do, but overall they act as an overclass. What I see in discussions here is an arrogant celebration of this power: "We can trample over the rest of you, so we will." Golfcam 16:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisting Question
If the outcome of a deletion review is too relist an article at AFD (or user page/template at MFD), does the article get recreated to allow users to view it before they comment at the XFD? Sasha Callahan 14:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. If BLP was an issue, we are usually very conservative and protect it blank, with the history visible.  Otherwise, the article is returned to normal status, and can be edited and improved during the AFD.  Focused effort may help determine the outcome of the AFD; see WP:HEY.  GRBerry 14:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Info
I would like to see a chart on DRV success rates, like who has the most deletions overturned (not including prods) etc. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 19:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 9, which offers part of what you are asking. I don't know of any analysis by acting admin or by proposer.  In December roughly 30% to 33% of controversial items were overturned.  (Controversial = not PROD and not with consent of deleting admin)  GRBerry 20:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Restoring sub-cats +re-populating articles
Following on from this CFD, and the previous DRV (here) is it possible to restore all the sub-cats that were deleted and repopulate the articles with a bot? Lugnuts 15:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Images probably in the public domain
Greetings. Image:Oneill.jpg was nominated for deletion, based on the suspicion that the image was not actually in the public domain. I deleted it, based on this reasoning, and the deletion was overturned here. I am not objecting to the decision, but I would like some feedback about how we should deal with images that are probably (but not certainly) in the public domain.

This image was published in 1936. It could still be copyrighted. If any of the following are true, then it is in the public domain:
 * If it were previously published before 1923, then it's PD. But there's no evidence it was.
 * If it were first published without a copyright notice, then it's PD. But there's no evidence either way.
 * If the copyright was not renewed in the 27th year after its first publication, then it's PD. According to User:Kenosis, it was extremely rare for a copyright on an individual photo to have been renewed (before 1977). But it could have been.

So we have a situation where a great image is probably in the public domain, but it might still be copyrighted. Notably, the Nobel Foundation website is quite cagey about whether they claim copyright on the images. They imply that they do, but don't say so outright. This image was, after DRV, kept. How far should this go? Should an image created in 1976, that may or may not have been published without a copyright notice, be kept? Should a similar image to the one above be kept if a party explicitly claims to hold the copyright? I'm really looking for feedback here. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Quadell, thanks for the note about this conversation on my talk page. I add one more important statement about the US Copyright Office search. I stated on the image page, on the IfD page, and I believe also in the DrV page, that I myself did a search, a fairly time consuming one in fact. It came up empty. As I've also explained, not only did virtually no one renew copyrights on photos in the US Copyright Office, as a practical matter there was no need to, because unlike today, making high-quality copies was extremely difficult, so the main issue back then was who owned the negative. ... Kenosis 15:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The template non-free unsure exists. It was deprecated for some reason I have been unable to find out. I suspect some combination of "people will abuse this template, we must require them to find out the information!" (not realising that information, no matter how 'free' we want it to be, can sometimes just get lost), or copyright paranoia along the lines of "we must err on the side of caution if we don't know enough about the image, as otherwise we might get sued!". Both these concerns are valid for recent (last 30-50 years) pictures. I suggest that this template be resurrected for much older pictures (70+ years) where a search has been conducted and we suspect public domain but can't conclusively prove it due to lack of records due to the age of the image. On the other hand, it might be easier to design a new template for these cases. Oh, and the deletion review talk page gets very little traffic. I suggest taking this back to IfD/NFCC. Carcharoth 15:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm around here since 2004 and we don't used to accept images as PD unless we could prove it was PD. This recent DRV decision is a move in a new direction. Now, we require someone to prove that the image is not PD in order to delete it. I believe this is a big change that will cast a shadow over Wikipedia's content. --Abu badali (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not use non-free unsure? I know it says it is deprecated, but why was it deprecated? Carcharoth 17:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I created the "non-free unsure" tag back in 2004 for images of al-Qaida figures, where the photographer obviously wanted to remain unknown, and where it was unfathomable that they might file a copyright suit in U.S. court. I didn't ask for consensus or discuss this with any project; I just made it. It was deprecated because we like to view images as either "free" or "non-free", and ne'er the twain shall meet. I think we should have a clear policy on keeping images where the creator has broken a law in the creation of the image and will not, therefore, be able to legally claim copyright. But that's different from this case. I don't advocate using non-free unsure when it's possible to find out. The case here is one where the copyright status is certainly knowable -- the renewal is either on file at the copyright office or it's not -- but none of us on Wikipedia knows for sure. You can pay the Copyright Office to do a search: it's $75 per hour. Kenosis has shown that it's not on file online, but it could be in a dusty file cabinet. It's unlikely, but it's possible.

In my opinion, if we're 99% certain that an image is in the public domain, and no one is claiming copyright, then we should tag it as PD. (My only objection in this particular case is that the Nobel Foundation appeared to be claiming copyright on it, and if they clarify that they're not, then I'm satisfied.) After all, we can't ever really prove with true 100% certainty that any image is in the public domain -- I could always make an argument to introduce a tiny sliver of doubt. The tricky part is determining whether an image is 99% certain. I'd just like some guidance on this. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh my goodness. You did create it! I'm always telling people to investigate properly, to look at page histories, and so on... :-) What do you think of the way the tag has been used? Have a look at the images in the category it populates: Category:Public domain unless fair use images (564 pics). Have people misinterpreted the way it was meant to be used? What should be done with those 564 images? Is it better to systematically deal with them, or to let IfD gradually deal with them piecemeal? Carcharoth 20:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say less than 10% of our ostensibly public domain images actually have the documentation needed to prove that they really are in the public domain. You have to establish a publication date and usually none is given. Even the death date of the author isn't present half of the time. Haukur 22:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * But until recently, whenever disputed, such images would be deleted. Now we're going with a brand new strategy: to have an image removed, it's no longer enough to dispute the lack of PD-evidence. We need to prove the image is not PD. --Abu badali (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Was the volume of IfD nominations the same back in 2004? The impression I get is that until recently the volume of nominations was low enough not to attract a lot of attention. Now that the volume has stepped up, the number of controversial nominations have increased as well, hence all the fuss. Anyway, what's with all this proving a negative nonsense? Those opposing an image ask those wanting it kept to prove that it is "not copyrighted", and those wanting it kept ask those opposing it to prove that it is "not public domain". What should be asked is the other way around: "prove it is copyrighted" and "prove it is public domain". Often, the answer is that neither can be proved. What then? Think of it as three sets of images: (1) A set of images where it can be shown that the images are still in copyright (NB. an organisation or person attaching a copyright symbol to an image doesn't necessarily mean they hold the copyright to that image); (2) A set of images where it can be shown that the images are public domain; and (3) A set of images where there is not enough information to tell either way. What is needed in case 3 is common sense and not copyright paranoia. Carcharoth 01:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Copyright commandeering is also interesting. Carcharoth 01:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Foundation's position was never one of exploring the corners of copyright law. We used to assume something is copyrighted in the lack of evidence otherwise. We don't want copyright claims to popup after we have 10.000 burned DVD shipped to schools in India or Africa. But most of the users just think about the website... so a takedown notice is really not something to worry about. I propose the creation of the image tag PD-Pre-1978-No-Proof-of-Copyright-so-far. --Abu badali (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dunno, I'm a bit leery about endorsing a tag that would basicaly say that something is public domain because the random user who uploaded the image could not find any proof it was copyrighted (I've seen too many "it says copyright 2004 so it's expired now" type statements to blindly trust the expertice of all our users on copyright issues). Unless we set up some kind of copyright investegation team and somehow actualy got them a small budget to pay for the copyright office looking into things I fear such images would rarely get a second look, and even so there will likely be far more images than we could ever afford to have checked out at the rate of 75$ per hour... --Sherool (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your reasoning. But the fact is, we are currently accepting those images . Any user can claim that an image's copyright wasn't renewed and now you'll have to pay the 75$ to have it deleted. --Abu badali (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, you do realise that this only applies to a subset of historical images? The ones taken in the last x years can't have a claim of "copyright wasn't renewed". Not sure of the value of x, but hopefully someone will clarify. And I see I used the paranoia word above as well. I apologise here for that, as well. It is a common phrase I see used, and I wasn't intending to offend anyone. Carcharoth 17:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Important update: I've been looking through the various online methods used to determine whether a copyright has been renewed or not, and it now appears that you can conclusively determine whether a given work has had its copyright renewed or not. Details are on my copyright helpfile. Two caveats, though. Caveat one: you have to know the name of the work, author, or claimant, to do an effective search. So if you know the name of the photographer (and it's not a work for hire), or the name of the book or magazine where the photo was first published, then great! But if you only know it's a photo of Person X taken in 1938, you can't search on that. Caveat two: you have to be searching for the renewal of the first publication. So if Life Magazine published a photo of FDR on its cover and didn't renew the copyright, but that photo was previously (first) published in a book, then the photo could still be under copyright (along with the magazine cover, as a derivative work). But still, if you know what you're searching for, you should be able to conclusively determine whether the copyright was renewed or not.

How does this apply to the Nobel Laureate images? It doesn't really. We don't know what format the pictures were first published in (or even what country), and we don't know the photographer in most cases. The Nobel Foundation seems to claim copyright with a boilerplate statement on their image pages, but they also seem to claim copyright on images that are unambiguously PD. Every time I ask them for details, they get wishier and washier, simply repeating that "we don't give authorization due to copyright concerns", without stating whether they're concerned about violating someone else's copyright or protecting their own. (Plus, their own copyright page specifically excludes laureate portraits as works they hold the copyright to.)

Here on the 'pedia, conservatives will say that if we can't conclusively show the images are PD, we should assume they're under copyright. Liberals will say that if there's no good reason to think an image is copyrighted, we can treat it as PD. We moderates will have to hash out where to draw the line. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it really something to be decided by the community? Shouldn't the Foundation be consulted about that? I don't mean only the nobel images, but the whole class of Can't be sure about copyright renewal images. There are many suspect copyright claims (like those from Nobel) around, but is the Foundation willing to dispute it? Is it willing to ignore them until a takedown notice arrives? --Abu badali (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

gnaa
Hi can we review this article? I want more infomation on the organisation. Thanks! 211.28.78.74 18:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)