Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 19

Scope of DRV
The following notice was placed by Spartaz. This does not substantiate its claims and, observing the objection of another editor, I have moved it here for further discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Spartaz's grandiose bold ruling on our scope here is improper. The scope of DRV is not limited so, and Spartaz's opinion should hold no more weight than the weight of any individual, especially uncited as it is.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Spartaz's grandiose bold ruling on our scope here is improper. The scope of DRV is not limited so, and Spartaz's opinion should hold no more weight than the weight of any individual, especially uncited as it is.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If the role of DRV is not to review deletion procedures whatever their outcome, then what role does it serve. The only justification for such a grandiose statement would be if the various deletion procedures were formally prevented from intervening in merges, which is surely a Stupid Idea. Physchim62 (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Spartaz's point that there are several issues that are less directly relevant to the DRV, such as whether merge is a valid AfD outcome or whether this DRV should be speedy-closed as outside of DRV's scope. They should be raised here (the talk page) or the relevant Wikipedia talk: pages. I support a notice directing interested users here.
 * Previous discussions:
 * WT:Deletion review/Archive 15 (July 2009)
 * WT:Deletion review/Archive 15 (December 2009)
 * WT:Deletion review/Archive 15 (December 2009)
 * Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge as an outcome of an AfD is a common thing, and is an obvious good thing if the consensus of a discussion is for a merge. What is not clear is whether the community agrees that it is the purview of an administrator in closing to judge a rough consensus as a merge, and for that decision to be binding subject to an a subsequent established consensus to reverse it.

The DRV should definitely not be speedy closed if for no other reason than that this is a contested debate. Speedy anything is not for contestable issues. This DRV is a proper and well attended community discussion about a case in point. The WT:Deletion Review discussions were fine discussions, but have they run afoul of the debated "policy is descriptive of practice" mantra? Should editors be allowed to mandate practive via debate and consensus on talk pages as if the talk pages are empowered legislatures? I think not. If those debates said that this AfD close, and its meaning, cannot be reviewed at DRV, then those WT discussions should be tossed as whimsical. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree on both points – merge is a valid close; speedy close here would be inappropriate. Flatscan (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Restored Notice
OK I put the notice back up as it correctly reflects the scope of DRV here and its pointless arguing outside the scope of the decision. The discussion about the scope is here and the notice accurately summarises that consensus. By all means raise the issue on talk DRV if you disagree with this but the scope that the DRV will be closed against is not clear so addinga clarification is sensible. Spartaz Humbug! 10:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That discussion does not represent a significant quorum and this discussion in this case shows that it does not represent the general community. Our processes are determined in a bottom-up, not top-down fashion and so this attempt to control the discussion is improper.  Colonel Warden (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't be absurd, the discussion on the scope of DRV was held at talk DRV and my notice is designed to clarify this so that there is no process wanking about whether the discussion is in the scope of DRV. How can a discussion on a talk page be top down? Spartaz Humbug! 13:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Spartaz, on careful reading, I have little problem with most of what you say, but there are problems. One is that the link you provide is to a discussion that is long, unclear in its result, and not obviously summarised by your note.  A link to actual text in policy is needed.  Did the agreements on talk pages result in something recorded on the policy pages?  The second is the final sentence ("Anything else is out of scope and irrelevant to this discussion").  It is not for you or anyone to tell everyone what is relevant before they have said what they have to say.  Third is the nature of your comment.  You may be right, but what you have to say is not so important that it needs the backing of special formatting and location to support it.  You should add you comment in the body of the discussion, just like everyone else.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Policy is what we do, not what we say, and if you want to go with the old consensus I'll close the discussion right now and declare the merge is the same as keep and refer you to WP:ND3. By all means amend the notice but this is clearly a confusing issue for more then one participant and if you think consensus is served by not clarifying exactly what the scope of this discussion will be and the basis on which the closing admin will be reviewing the discussion then you have a strange idea of community involvement. The notice is to enfranchise those editors who do not spend enough time at DRV to understand how merges are dealt with so that they can frame their comments in a way that the closing admin will take account of.. Sheesh. Spartaz Humbug! 13:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to get my head around this, and admit that it has not been. I hope you don't mind me putting two commas in your "Policy is what we do, not what we say,"; it had me stuck for a bit.  I'm quite happy for DRV to judge whether the closer was right in judging consensus, and would not be happy to see the discussion closed procedurally as per Non-deleting deletion discussions.  I may still be confused.  Which participants do you think are confused about the scope of the discussion?  I think I read most people talking around whether the consensus was what the closer said it was, with little AfD2 talk sprinkled in.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There has been one call for this to be closed as out of scope and there have been comments concerning the mechanics of the merge, given that the notice was up for a while, is it possible that it assisted editors in focusing their comments on the scope for DRV. Now that there is no notice it is not entirely clear whether new commentators will know how to keep their comments in scope, but there you go, we can't have admins trying to be useful to enfranchise editors on a DRV that involves a very unclear policy point can we? Spartaz Humbug! 15:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't much like the tone (confrontational) and phrasing (tad wordy) of your notice. I started to edit, but stopped.  I've said enough, and was not involved in the discussions.  I think the notice should go back.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that there should be some sort of notice, but I would prefer if the current one were trimmed down and de-bolded. There is disagreement on how much weight a merge closure carries, and the interpretation "an editorial recommendation rather then a binding judgement" should not be presented as undisputed. Flatscan (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no issues with it being edited by someone else. Spartaz Humbug! 05:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite
Per Spartaz's approval, I have rewritten the notice here. Feel free to revise it further or copy it back. Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No issue from me. Spartaz Humbug! 04:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I posted the modified notice . --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)