Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2011/April

Standing
Copied from March 30th
 * Yup, I concur with Simon Dodd's second point and with the outcome. I'd question his first point because I think the "threshold" for DRV is set very low.  There's jurisdiction and standing.  In terms of jurisdiction the questions are: a) Has a deletion been performed; or b) Has a deletion discussion been closed. Provided either of these two limbs are satisfied then DRV has jurisdiction.  In terms of standing the question is, does a good faith user want a deletion review to take place?  If the answer is yes then that user has standing.  Access to DRV is not otherwise restricted.— S Marshall  T/C 09:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that deletion review is limited to cases where there has been an unreasonable decision or process hasn't been followed. We don't allow a DRV just because you disagree with a deletion. tfeilS (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty much as tfeilS said; at the threshold, DRV requires something more than bare disagreement with the outcome, but the petitioner relies on nothing more than that, advancing an argument that could have been made (although it wouldn't have been accepted) during the normal run of the AfD. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the custom and practice is that deletion reviews can be, and have been, opened when the petitioner agreed with the outcome and had no quarrel with the deleting admin whatsoever. (Petitioner might be seeking unprotection of a page, for example.)  DRV is usually adversarial in character but not necessarily so.— S Marshall  T/C 16:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP deletion process requires the deletions to be in accord with WP policies and guidelines, and to take account of the arguments submitted and the consensus, and to use good judgment. Therefore any closure that fails to do any of these is a mistake in following WP Deletion process.  For all practical purposes, this opens up everything.   As a principle, there needs to be a way of correcting mistakes, even if the community has made them, and in many cases, this is the only place available.  The ultimate guiding policy is NOT BUREAUCRACY.    DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:DRV says, in as many words, "[t]his process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." We should either adhere to that or delete it, and I think we should adhere to it. As to WP:BURO: Generally, see WP:PIMP, and let's look more closely at BURO while we're at it. "While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies." What principle is served by letting every nomination be refought here? "If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." That obviously doesn't doesn't apply here: making it harder to purge fancruft makes the encyclopedia worse, not better. And while it's true to some extent that "[d]isagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures," the fact is that without rules and procedures for moving from proposal to execution by way of consensus, the search for consensus telescopes into infinity (which is why MERGE is such a total disaster). BURO is not the ultimate touchstone; WP:5P is. We are trying to build an encyclopedia. To the extent bureaucracy and rules hinder that goal, they're bad, which is all BURO and WP:IAR say. But in the mine run of cases, process helps build the encyclopedia.
 * None of this matters in this case, of course, because even if review of this result is appropriate (and I say it isn't), the result should still be endorsed, because the closing admin correctly interpreted the result of the nomination and correctly applied WP policy. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC) End of copied section

I wanted to reply to the first part of Simon Dodd's remark here. The rest of it seems uncontroversial to me, but the passage I wanted to discuss is: ''[WP:DRV]] says, in as many words, "[t]his process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." We should either adhere to that or delete it, and I think we should adhere to it.'' It seems to me that the magic word is "should". Those nominating a deletion "should" state some basis for it, certainly. It does not say "shall" or "must", and I think the subjunctive is important. If there's no valid reason for the deletion review, then fine, it should be closed, and speedily at that. This is so for the specific case under discussion. But what if there were some valid grounds that were unstated? I wouldn't want DRV to be debarred from considering the matter. I want to emphasize this because there has been a time when this "should" clause was mentioned as a reason to close a review that I felt should be continued—in other words, it's not just a theoretical objection, it's based on real experience. (I ought to insert a link here but I'm blessed if I can find it. As I recall the DRV remained open because I threatened to re-open it myself as a good-faith user, and WP:BURO was invoked to keep it going.) In any case, the principle I want to establish through discussion is that requirements of "standing" are satisfied just by the fact that a good faith user wants a deletion review to take place. This should not be an obstacle to speedy closure if no valid grounds exist.— S Marshall T/C 22:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with several points in this (some substantive, some terminological: for instance, I don't think standing is the right legal analogy, jurisdiction is), including the conclusion, but I will confine my response to one of them. While I agree that "should not" is not as strong as "cannot," it has more bite than allowing any editor to reopen the debate for any reason, which is the sum and substance of "a good faith user wants a deletion review to take place." I think the right way to think of the jurisdiction preserved by "should not" is to leave space for the exceptional: Users who couldn't participate, and/or new information that wasn't available in the Afd. (For instance, the AfD centers on notability and the morning after the DelClose, the New York Fishwrap runs a front page story on the subject, thus arguably satisfying notability.) In the case occasioning this discussion, both prongs are failed. We may infer that the user knew the AfD was happening, and the objection raised was nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT. The value that is being ignored or underestimated here is procedural finality: Wikipedia needs to have definite processes, with a beginning, middle, and end, that take an idea from proposal to acceptance or rejection by way of consensus, after which we can all move on to do other productive things rather than getting trapped in an endless loop dealing with the same idea. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with S Marshall here. DVR is the only realistic way to review deletions and they should not be speedy closed because the appellant failed to cite the right formulas in the petition.  Procedural finality is provided by the heavy presumption against second or subsequent DRV's which can and are closed unless new information is forthcoming.  Now it is true that if someone comes to DRV with what is just an ILIKEIT argument they have not stated a claim on which relief could be granted, but I'd rather not have admins speedy closing such DRV's by analogy of a "motion to dismiss".  They only run for a week and content is not automatically undeleted.  It is not like a frivolous request can keep an inapropriate article sitting around for months (as would be the case if these legal analogies were close approximations rather than rough analogs).  Eluchil404 (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, is this actually happening, or are we merely speaking hypothetically, here? With the exception of repeated DRVs for the same subject, I don't remember seeing a DRV speedily closed without an opportunity for people to weigh in (yes, they are sometimes closed after a day or two when the outcome is indisputably clear, but I don't have a problem with that).  Certainly people do sometimes scold nominators for making an "I like it" argument, but that's a different question, having more to do with civility than with DRV process. Chick Bowen 05:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * [insert begins here]
 * Here is a case in which I brought a review to DRV, after the closing admin refused to make a supplemental ruling of the AfD as per the guidelines. Early participants IMO took WP:IAR positions during which time no discussion of the guidelines developed.  Another admin snow closed, also refusing to discuss the guidelines, and in circular reasoning here explained that I should take action that would have required that I knew the closing admins supplemental ruling.  In summary, it was a total waste of everyone's time.  Would have preventing the early close have helped?  We will never know, and this is exactly the point, on analysis, the snow close was unconstructive.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * [insert ends here]


 * Yes, it's actually happening—Deletion review/Log/2011 March 30. Sorry, I thought SMarshall had included the link so I didn't bother to add it in my remarks. Petitioner has done exactly what Eluchil404 posited: "[S]omeone comes to DRV with what is just an ILIKEIT argument they have not stated a claim on which relief could be granted…." Unlike Eluchil404, however, in this kind of situation I would "have admins speedy closing such DRV's by analogy of a 'motion to dismiss.'" Review should be confined to administrator error or serious flaws in the the AfD itself. I gave an illustrative example of a reviewable case before, so here's another one, illustrating what I mean by "serious flaws" in an AfD: nom claims that the subject isn't notable, there's a cascade of delete !votes, closing admin (or NAC) follows consensus, but no one has bothered to check google and discover that there are oodles of reliable sources that easily establish notability. But that almost never happens. DRV should police outliers and error, not serve as an on-demand extension of an AfD. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, by "this" I meant closing a review instantly because of a flawed request. I sympathize with your view, but I think it's a little further than I'm willing to go.  After all, there have been many circumstances in which someone has objected to a close without a good reason, and someone else has pointed out an actual flaw in the XfD.  Chick Bowen 16:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sometimes a DRV is challenged because of new information, and tI don't think that the acceptability of such DRVs is in question--there's never a period at which we should refuse to entertain new information. I think we're talking about other sorts of challenge.
 * Any other challenge to an AfD can be seen as a question of whether or not it was closed properly. :Correct WP deletion process requires the deletions to be in accord with WP policies and guidelines,  to take account of the arguments submitted and the consensus, and to use good judgment.  Therefore any closure that fails to do so in any of these respects is a mistake in following WP Deletion process.  I think it would be rationally possible to challenge about half the AfD decision and quite a number of speedy deletions  on some such basis (the other half are so blatantly obvious one way or another that there would be no point in it, and such DRVs are now normally closed very quickly without any problems. The people who  regularly work at DRV know how to recognize nonsense). The reason most of these appealable closes are not appealed is because it seems fairly clear that another AfD would come to the same conclusion, or because it's not sufficiently important to bother.But a substantial number are not appealed because of unfamiliarity with the process, or an unwillingness to challenge the closer, and I'd say we should be reviewing twice the AfD closes we do, and many more of the speedys.
 * The correct basis for all admin actions is that admins must act reasonably. Therefore any closing that is asserted to not be in accord with correct judgment, or with the facts of the matter,  can be reviewed here.  All admin decisions are reviewable, otherwise the community would not be willing to have admins, as nobody agrees with every single decision of every one of the admins here,       The guiding policy is NOT BUREAUCRACY. If any statement on this page or elsewhere is inconsistent with that, it is not applicable. The way to make the present statement applicability is to read it. ''Don't bring something to deletion review without a good reason. Disagreements with well-established policy should be discussed elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The current statement, that deletion review is not for cases where you disagree with a deletion decision for reasons previously presented, ought to be enforced more rigourously. I don't think there's any argument that deletion review is appropriate where an administrator has made an unreasonable decision, or when new information has come to light that was not [sufficiently] taken into account in the discussion. Is there any remaining disagreement here or do we just need to reword the DRV instructions? fteSil (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should be made clear that any flaw in the deletion process is reviewable (including CANVASS, absolute policy violations etc.) but that simple disagreement about deletion is not reviewable?  Collect (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I could go for that. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * From my point of view the ideal phrasing would say "a deletion review may be speedily closed by an uninvolved administrator if the nominator has presented neither evidence of procedural error nor new information". I like that phrasing because clearly if there are grounds for concern about a deletion/close, then there's no wording for the deleter/closer to hide behind; "may" is not the same as "must". I would shy away from the "not reviewable" phrasing, because I prefer the principle that any deletion or XFD close can be reviewed here.— S Marshall  T/C 21:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with that. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the wording, although not the justification (I don't agree that "any deletion or XFD close can be reviewed here"). "May" instead of "must" is merely WP:IAR, which we have anyway. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you give me an example of a deletion or XFD close that could not be reviewed here?— S Marshall T/C 11:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles removed for specific legal reasons, including, but limited to, OTRS actions. MfDs sometimes end with "mark as historical" which is also something a "deletion review" could do anything about.    Lots of potential wikilawyering exceptions - hence the word "can" (implying all) is not the best word choice IMHO.   Sticking to DRV for flaws in the process (including but not limited to CANVASS violations) would seem logical. Collect (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't review an Office Action. Review of an OTRS action is certainly an available option, but apparently RFC rather than DRV is the preferred venue, so in practice it would probably be speedily closed.  An MfD close as "mark as historical" would be within scope although I don't think most DRV regulars would be all that interested. Okay, let's adjust my previous phrasing.  Instead of "any deletion or XFD close", let's say "any XFD close or deletion not marked as an 'Office Action'."— S Marshall  T/C 23:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * /////////////8 Perhaps you would like langage to the effect:
 * ''Deletion Review is not available for actions deleting articles taken by or on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation or OTRS.
 * Accurate enough? Collect (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It is accurate. May I suggest saying "Scope: Deletion Review is not the right place to deal with Office Actions or OTRS-related deletions.  The venue for contesting an OTRS action is WP:RFC.  Office Actions may not be contested via on-wiki processes" ?  The reason I prefer this is because for someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia, it's slightly more helpful with the links and pointers.— S Marshall  T/C 00:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)