Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 13

Ch interpeter -- scope of DRV
Moved here since it's getting long winded and getting disjoint from the DRV in question. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

... The closer doesn't have the authority to overrule the consensus on the basis of that source and I hope no blame attaches to him. DRV, on the other hand, does have that authority if it finds the AfD consensus was wrong on a point of fact.— S Marshall T/C 11:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The purpose of DRV as outlined on this page certainly doesn't include editors here deciding that those at AFD were wrong, our opinions are not some how superior. So no DRV doesn't have the authority to run AFD part 2. Still hate the pseudo legal terms like "point of fact" which get thrown around, it isn't a system of law. However if you want to take legal analogies where DRV being a "court" of appeal, courts of appeal don't consider appeals on factual issues, they consider appeals on points of law. DRV stated purpose is also considering process being followed --82.7.44.178 (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You've been around DRV a while, 82.7.44.178. Do you not recall any cases where DRV overturned an XFD on the basis that the XFD participants got their facts wrong?  The reality is that the XFD consensus is perfectly capable of being wrong, and there needs to be a place where an XFD can be overturned on that basis.  If not here, then where?— S Marshall  T/C 23:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me there's a difference between having a different opinion than the AfD of whether notability has been established and finding an actual error. I'm uncomfortable, for example, with assertions that the AfD didn't consider the BYTE article; of course it got considered.  I know I looked at it and so did others.  This was active debate that continued to the end.  But like most AfDs, this was a judgment call considering the totality of evidence (including the evidence of spamming by SPAs), it wasn't unanimous and it's not surprising others may disagree.  But the judgment that got made was as close to unanimous as it could have been and that judgment was for delete.  To call this a mistake, I think you need to find an actual mistake, not just a difference of opinion about whether the sources (which the AfD also considered) are sufficient. I don't think you have that. Msnicki (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Based upon Msnicki's reasoning, I am changing my opinion to Endorse. Guy Macon (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't say I have and I'd probably disagree with it. The idea that the consensus is wrong is a nonsense, out process is that we decide based on consensus, the consensus is by definition right. Anything else would be DRV deciding their opinion is superior to that of the AFD participants, something we shouldn't be pompous enough to believe. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Deletion review/Log/2009 March 24 is a clear example of what I'm talking about that also contains plenty of specific discussion about whether DRV can overrule a previous consensus.— S Marshall T/C 08:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that particular close covers a very different situation of a CFD which is poorly attended and the nature of CFD is very different to AFD. It also recognises that the close is going beyond DRVs general remit. As far as I know no one gave the closing admin there a right to decide that DRV's remit is beyond that as determined by community consensus, and certainly not for such a close to be used to ignore consensus in future debates if DRV participants believe their own views to be worth more than the AFD participants. Really I don't know how you can't see that adopting such a stance would make this an AFD 2 venue--82.7.44.178 (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If a consensus is in error, should it be possible to correct that error?— S Marshall T/C 11:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Define "in error"? we work by making decisions based on consensus. Consensus by definition is correct, so the consensus is error is something of an oxymoron. Now there are some areas where we look to the broader community consensus on such matters - e.g. the way a policy is meant and suggest local consensus can't override that, but that is a faulty close by the admin, they gave too much weight to non-policy based argument. However what we don't do is look at the "points of fact" which require interpretation and substitute our own opinion. DRV checks that the process is correct, policy has been applied broadly in line with community expectation (the wide consensus) and that the consensus was followed. I do not see "In error"  in the context that started this discussion as any different to "we've reargued the AFD and reached a different conclusion". Do I believe that is DRVs role? No. In fact the not AFD 2 mantra is incredibly common around here. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then, there's an irreconcilable difference between our positions. I think that a consensus is perfectly capable of being wrong.  I also think that occasionally the consensus at an AfD is wrong and DRV is the best place to set it right.  If we want to avoid using DRV as "AfD round 2" then I suppose that in these cases, rather than re-arguing the AfD, we could simply find that the AfD consensus doesn't appear to have examined all the evidence fully, and ask the AfD to look at it again... in which case the outcome in such situations would be "relist". How does that sound?— S Marshall  T/C 16:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please define "wrong". The standard for AFD is rough consensus, by definition consensus is right. The only option I can see so far is that "we" disagree with the outcome. The case where significant new information which wasn't available at the AFD comes to light is something which DRV can consider, but that's not even close to declaring the view of AFD participants as wrong. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

For your first example I'd strongly disagree that as a reason to overturn a deletion, I can perceive an argument that it's a case for a relist, but even that I'd say was an extreme. As we decide by consensus if those in AFD reviewed the material and decided it wasn't up to snuff, then that again becomes DRV editors just deciding their judgement is better - I'd strongly disagree with such a notion. If the material wasn't available at AFD then it's nothing to do with a consensual error. The only area I can see here is if the material was presented at AFD and we can somehow show that it very positively wasn't considered by AFD, and that's arguably a process fault. For the second, relative to consensus, if the broader community consensus regarding what OR is isn't met, then that is a fault in the close not a fault in the consensus, the closer didn't take into account policy properly and gave too much weight to non-policy arguments. If it's just DRV deciding they know better in this case, then again it's not a fault in consensus it's just a nonsense view that DRV regulars know better. For the third example that is sod all to do with the consensus view being expressed. These don't speak to me of consensus being wrong or a general view that DRV can dictate such. I'm not sure we're going anywhere with this, maybe it's just a terminology thing. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC) DRV showing that the close interpreted things incorrectly is a process issue, calling on DRV to be in general a place to decide that "your" opinion is superior to that of the AFD participants seems supremely arrogant to me. As does deciding on a apparent arbitary basis that it's not AFD part 2 unless the DRV regulars want it to be. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong (adj.) — Having either (a) failed to take evidence into account, (b) positively committed an error of judgment or (c) an error of procedure. Example #1: Failing to take evidence into account. Articles for deletion/Up North (book): consensus to delete on the basis that the article subject wasn't notable.  But Phil Bridger provided evidence of notability during the discussion.  Parsing it closer:  "Non-notable" = "Lacking in reliable sources independent of the subject"; reliable sources independent of the subject were actually cited in the article; therefore the consensus was wrong, QED.  Deletion review found accordingly.  This differs from the next example because in example #1, DRV overturned an AfD on the basis of the evidence, but in the next one DRV will overturn AfD by simply overruling it. Example #2: An error of judgment.  Articles for deletion/Latitude and wealth: consensus that the article constituted original research.  Unanimously overturned at DRV because DRV found it wasn't original research. Examples of errors of procedure abound, and such are regularly overturned at DRV, so I won't waste your time with that one.  :)  I only included it for completeness.— S Marshall  T/C 20:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't need a dictionary def, I needed it relative to the definition we apply to consensus.
 * I really don't know how I can make it any clearer for you, I'm afraid. It's established custom and practice that DRV does, occasionally, find that a consensus at a previous AfD was wrong.  I don't agree that the consensus is "by definition" right, and I think it's often wrong.  The fact that a consensus should always prevail doesn't make it right.  (The fact that a consensus prevails is why it takes a subsequent consensus, e.g. at DRV, to overturn a previous consensus, e.g. at AfD). Yes, these cases are using DRV as AfD round 2.  We're using IAR to temporarily set aside our normal guidelines, if you like.— S Marshall  T/C 08:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'm not sure how I can make it clearer to you. We decide by the mechnaism of rough consensus that is by definition correct. There is a broader consensus (i.e. policy and guidelines) which has to be considered when determining that consensus. If the closer doesn't consider that broader consensus, then that's a fault in the close i.e. they didn't actually determine the consensus correctly, that is different from the consensus being wrong. Maybe that's where you see consensus to be wrong, rather than the closer simply not reading consensus properly and perhaps that's the gap in terminology. That difference is however very important from my view point.
 * 82.7.44.178, you've been very active in the discussion, but you appear to be the only active contributor who hasn't formally stated a position as endorse or overturn. I don't know if that's oversight or deliberate (or if maybe I just missed it.) Msnicki (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)