Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2019/April

Should DRV participants be asked to declare their prior involvement?
Should DRV participants be asked to declare their prior involvement? Eg “!voted delete/keep”, “article creator”, “XfD nominator”.

This comes up in individual DRV discussions from time to time. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd have thought it would be obvious to anyone who did their due diligence before participating in the DRV. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not unreasonable on first pass of a review to read the nomination at face value. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm more versed with MRV then DRV, and I'd say it's a common courtesy to indicate which way you !voted, but not obligatory. If you want to make it obligatory you'd probably have to start an RFC. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What Amakuru said. It's a courtesy but I wouldn't expect it. Maybe a supplementary note somewhere. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Talking "RFC" and "obligatory" is overkill. This has been mentioned many times over many years with no disagreement.  It would be better practice, no need to talk about it being a "rule".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I edited the instructions: "As a courtesy to other DRV participants, indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic." Let's see how that runs.  This would be a simple improvement in habits.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea, and if it came up for discussion, I would support a rule that AfD !voters can comment but not !vote at DRV. Having uninvolved editors evaluate the discussion and the close is better than rehashing the AfD at DRV. Levivich 23:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would oppose that, firstly as a "rule" where no "rule" is needed, and secondly because a !vote is not a vote but a comment with a bolded summary that assists the reading of the discussion, and because the XfD !voters often say important things. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The change to the instructions seems like a good thing. Not that I have any faith it'll do anything useful, since as far as I can tell, nobody actually reads the instructions :-(  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Very few read the rules very often. Newcomers read the rules sometimes, and they sometimes express confusion over whether they are allowed to participate.  I think it is good to keep instructions reflecting best practice, but changes to best practice here will result from the regulars leading by example.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * When people don't read the rules, the solution isn't to add more rules. —Cryptic 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but not relevant, because there is no issues with not reading the rules. The existing rules are fully complied with, and they are not rules anyway. If you do not bold your “endorse”, your post is still fully considered.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CREEP. The main problem at DRV is people repeating AfD arguments rather focussing on the procedural issue(s).  Getting this right is more important than providing a detailed history of one's involvement.  Anyone assessing a DRV ought to look at the discussion in question and it will then be obvious who the participants were, if it matters. Andrew D. (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I believe I am supporting the addition to the instructions above. This is something I do anyways - I feel uncomfortable !voting at DRV when I've participated in the Afd - and while the comments can still be useful, DRV !votes from AfD participants are really only useful in the rare event the DRV !voter agrees with the close when the close went against their AfD !vote. SportingFlyer  T · C  00:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is instruction creep on a page whose instructions are already four times too long, has been rejected in slightly different forms many times before (example, example), and is useless and distracting in practice (example, example). If we're going to pretend it's best practice for people to declare supposed biases between their vote and their reasoning - you know, the part that actually matters - we'd be better off encouraging things like "(I always endorse keep AFDs and never overturn delete AFDs)" or "(I always endorse G11s of cryptocurrency-related subjects)". —Cryptic 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not “slightly different”. Very different. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel that although there would be advantages to this rule, there's also the risk of discouraging people from participating in the AfD for controversial subjects, because we've implied that not participating in the AfD strengthens their voice in the DRV. So on balance, I'm with Cryptic.— S Marshall  T/C 21:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Occassionaly we see people say they hesitated to contribute to DRV because they weren’t sure they were allowed. If some said that, more didn’t say anything. I think giving the instruction on declaring involvement serves to give them, the worried ones, permission to participate.  Note that the wording is not a requirement, big difference. For anyone who doesn’t (re)read the instructions, no harm. If it doesn’t work out, no harm, but on a number of occasions people have expressed issues with people commenting without declaring prior involvement/bias. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * DRV commenting instrcutions. New text: “Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic“. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would expect anyone participating in a Del Rev--and certainly any admin who closes one--to first look at the AfD. How else can they possibly understand what the appeal is about?  DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed this. Even aside from the discussion above, nobody does this, and the few who previously did did so only for a few days. —Cryptic 19:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added it back. I've always done this, and even though I'm not an admin/don't close DRVs, I also consider it a courtesy. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But not courteous enough that, despite 35 edits to individual DRVs since this change was made, you've indicated your own involvement or lack thereof. Not even once.                                    . The guideline is WP:BRD, not bold, discuss, get fairly-solid consensus against, revert, then revert back anyway.  —Cryptic 03:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We disagree on two things: I do not declare my lack of involvement in the DRV, nor is that reflected by the statement. A spot-check of the DRVs shows I didn't participate in any of those XfDs. Also, I don't think there's a "fairly solid consensus against." There's a consensus against a hard and fast rule, but the statement you removed isn't a rule. If you want me to gain consensus on the statement, I'm happy to start another thread so wires don't get crossed. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So when you said "users do often declare their previous involvement, including myself", precisely what were you referring to? Diffs please. —Cryptic 03:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is a truism. Some consider it a courtesy to indicate prior involvement when entering a discussion. The underlying motivation was to assure DRV newcomers coming from a contested XfD: Yes, you are welcome to participate.  Not a huge deal, and not a frequent issue.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your underlying goal is accomplished by the very first two words of the relevant section: "Any editor may express his or her opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review." If that's not enough, add something like "(even if you've already discussed the article)" to the sentence; don't add an entire new bullet point that A) makes first-time DRV editors feel bad if they only notice it after commenting; B) that nobody else ever, ever does; C) that demands courtesy to users who comment at DRV without reading the AFD under discussion.  The amount of weasel-worded instruction creep I am willing to endure in order to accomplish C is very, very limited. —Cryptic 06:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't one of my posts but is the most recent example I've seen, so I hope doesn't mind: . I don't think this should be mandated and I've never thought it needed to be disclosed in the negative, but I think it should be encouraged. SportingFlyer  T · C  05:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am trying, very hard, to give you an opportunity to come up with a more charitable explanation for your words "including myself" than I can. —Cryptic 06:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to drag me under the bus in case I've screwed up somewhere, but I almost always only comment (as opposed to !voting) on DRVs in which I've participated in XfDs. Examples:  SportingFlyer  T · C  06:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the participants should declare their involvement per WP:AVOIDCOI and WP:AFDFORMAT-- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't about disclosing a conflict of interest with the article subject - that, I might support, if I didn't think it would be ignored almost all the time. This is about disclosing that you previously commented at a prior AFD for an article, which WP:AFDFORMAT doesn't demand.  Anybody who has any business commenting at DRV already knows who edited the AFD, because they should have read it. —Cryptic 06:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In an Ideal world yes they should have read it, but in practice what really happens is folks are regularly seen voting at DRV in a manner that is inline (or supports the outcome) with their AfD vote. There is no major reason why they should not disclose the fact that they have voted at the AfD and hence have a COI with the outcome of the DRV. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That being said, someone who !voted in the AfD who !votes at DRV against their AfD !vote has traditionally been given a lot of weight. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Statue of limitations
Is there a "deadline" on when you can no longer ask for a DRV on an article that was successfully deleted? Howard the Duck (talk) 06:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, but the answer may be: If it is that old, and you can overcome the old reasons for deletion, you may just recreate it. Preferably ask for undeletion of the old deleted version.  If in doubt that you have overcome the reasons for deletion, ask at AfC.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The time elapsed isn't important; the reason you're asking for review is. If you think there was something improper about the deletion, always bring it to DRV. If it's because things have changed in the interim (e.g. the subject has become notable), then just go ahead and recreate it or ask for a WP:REFUND. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks both. The AFD was decided in January, and no, nothing changed in the interim, but there was a person who "swung" the vote when it was relisted, and apparently this person votes delete every single time, and his/her edits are 90% deleted votes (with no edits aside from Wikipedia namespace). I wasn't able to reply to it in time since I was expecting it to be kept (it was a relisting of second nomination), so it was deleted. (Disclosure, the AFD was this one, and the last vote was from User:Sandals1, votes delete every single time with a basic misunderstanding what WP:GNG is.) Howard the Duck (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So yeah, it'd be fine to bring that to DRV – but you should talk to to the closing admin about it first. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In practice though, WP:DRV is regularly used for appeals when new sources are presented even when not contesting the original AfD result, because such requests are summarily rejected at WP:REFUND. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * True, although I would say that in practice people err in coming to DRV too quickly. I think WP:REFUND should be tried first, and if they decline your request there, then come to DRV.  I suspect that there is also an under-addressed ambiguity over whether the REFUND request for an old AfD deleted page is requesting REFUND to userspace, draftspace, or straight back into mainspace.  I think at REFUND they are very hesitant to REFUND direct to mainspace, and much more willing to REFUND to draftspace where the expectation is that it will follow AfC processing.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * At refund we normally would refer to the deleting admin, unless they are one of those that tell to ask at REFUND. I would normally action userfy or draftify requests if the requestor had some evidence it could make an article, but as SmokeyJoe says going straight to mainspace is not the norm. If the page is recreated and sticks, then history restore is possible too. At REFUND we would refer persistent people that have no chance of getting their page back. Usually they don;t try DRV. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Technically, yes, there is. Very old pages deleted before 8 June 2004 aren't easily restorable; see the second footnote in Viewing and restoring deleted pages.  Files deleted before 16 June 2006 aren't restorable by any means short of finding them somewhere else and reuploading; they were erased entirely from the db instead of just hidden. —Cryptic 11:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The lead software architect said “'''Deletion means deletion. The deleted page archives ARE TEMPORARY TO FACILITATE UNDELETION OF PAGES WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DELETED and are subject to being cleared or removed AT ANY TIME WITHOUT WARNING. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * and our deletion policy says, rather more blandly, "deleted pages ... remain in the database (at least temporarily) ... unless they are oversighted". Thincat (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)