Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 16

From Aubrey Wentworth
Copied from WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 16

I reply to those points in the same order that you raise them. Although I've expressed concerns admins and questioned some admins' competence to make higher-level editorial decisions, I don't want this to be mistaken for a rant against administrators in general. I also don't want to be obstructive about the RFC's outcome. It's just that I foresee practical problems.— S Marshall T/C 08:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Endorse. This was an accurate close, although it could have benefitted from a clearer explanation by the closer, and I would encourage One to be more expansive with his closing statements in future.  It's a pity that the correct outcome combined with its policy-based reasoning did not emerge during the AfD, but "no consensus" was the right route to it. Where the "delete" voters were right was in their focus on the sources.  As a group, they correctly pointed out that there are insufficient sources to sustain an article about the fictional character, and they correctly determined that notability is not inherited from the actress to the character.  With the honourable exception of JuneGloom, they then incorrectly construed this lack of sources to mean a "delete" outcome.  It does not.  What a lack of sources means is there should be no separate article for the character.  It does not mean "delete". In fact, per WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE, a delete outcome is not appropriate unless all the alternatives have been exhausted.  In this case, there were alternatives, such as "redirect", "merge" or "smerge" to a list of characters for the relevant series.  Therefore, there should not be a separate article but Aubrey Wentworth should not be a redlink. Because One correctly did not delete the article, interested editors can now get together on the article's talk page and form a consensus about what to do next.  If the consensus is in accordance with policy, a merge or redirect will be the outcome.  If One had incorrectly deleted the article, then this route would not be available, so his close was correct.— S Marshall  T/C 12:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * S Marshall, how do you reconcile your comment on alternatives to deletion with the outcome of WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61 (January–February 2011)? Flatscan (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I recall that RFC very well, and thank you for starting it. The reason why I would distinguish that in this particular case is because I see the debate itself as defective.  The RFC was about how to deal with merge or redirect !votes at AfD.  In this case, there was about half a merge or redirect !vote (the one from JuneGloom) and the matter was not discussed, but per WP:ATD, I really do think it should have been.  So our role here is not so much to examine a contested close, but rather to correct a defective debate.— S Marshall  T/C 09:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The inconsistency I see here is that merge considerations not stated in the discussion effectively receive more weight than explicit merge arguments, since the entire discussion is devalued as "defective". I think that merging was considered and rejected by participants. ClaretAsh wrote that "even a merge is probably unjustifiable" . Other delete supporters pointed to WP:PLOT (Jfgslo) and a lack of reliable sources (Raintheone, Stuartyeates) – problems that will not be solved by merging. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the reason I disagree with that is because One did not close as "merge" or "redirect". He closed as "no consensus".  I think that means that in practice, no consideration has really received any more weight than any other, has it?  Certainly, in the case of a fictional character who has no inherent notability of her own, a redirect or smerge to the list of fictional characters to the series seems to be the normal outcome per Wikipedian custom and practice, and I think a semi-consensus to this effect emerged after the Pokémon/fictional character Wikiwars of 2006.  (I've said "merge or redirect", but in fact I would not see a merge or smerge as correct in this case because the character already has her own very brief section in list of One Life to Live characters, and to expand it would I think give her undue prominence in that list, so strictly, I would see the right outcome as "redirect" rather than "merge".)  Early in my first remark I said it's a pity that this outcome did not emerge from the AfD. Basically, I feel that the February RFC ought to lead to fewer findings of merge, smerge or redirect in XFD discussions, and more findings of no consensus instead; and I think One's close was generally in line with that.  I do think that specifically with fictional-character-related XFDs, our normal custom and practice is to maintain one list for each series or franchise, and I don't think it's too unreasonable of me to say that discussions about fictional characters where this option is not fully discussed are defective.— S Marshall  T/C 10:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That raises an interesting question: In closing an XfD, is it the closing admins place to make qualitative judgements about the discussion or simply to recognise its thrust? I can see arguments either way. The reasoning behind this deletion review, I think, is that One should have followed the latter course. However, what appears to have happened is that s/he either made a qualitative judgement (justified or otherwise) or merely opted for no consensus as the easy option.  Claret Ash  12:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Qualitative judgments. For example, it's uncontroversial that sometimes a !vote will need to be disregarded, either because the person making it lacks standing (e.g. a sockpuppet for a blocked user), or because it is somehow at variance with our norms (e.g. a !vote of "Keep! The sources are lacking, but who cares?")  Closers have to assess the weight to give to each !vote.  This is the reason for the epexegesis and tendency towards pleonasm that characterises Wikipedian debates.— S Marshall  T/C 13:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It depends whether One meant no consensus for any specific option or the old "no consensus to delete". I think a consensus against a standalone article is pretty clear. Interestingly, I thought that the RfC, by treating merge and redirect separately from keep, would replace imprecise closes like "no consensus to delete, discuss merging on the talk page" with more specific outcomes. Flatscan (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm also curious about which of those possibilities One meant. I see what you mean about imprecise closes, but I'm concerned about the possibility that this makes the closer into an edit-on-demand service.  The risk I see is that the closer could potentially be asked to carry out quite complex editing actions (e.g. those involving history merges) as part of the AfD closure process, which doesn't seem entirely fair and may potentially put people off making certain closes.  Or do you mean that the closer might say "the consensus was merge" without actually carrying out a merge?— S Marshall  T/C 12:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Standard procedure, per WP:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions and automated by closing scripts like User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD, is tagging with Afd-merge to and Afd-merge from. The tags categorize the article into Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion, a subcategory of Category:Articles to be merged. In theory, if no AfD participant implemented the merge, someone patrolling the merge categories would see and process it. The closing admin might be contacted to enforce the AfD outcome if the merge is reverted, but I think that is rare. Flatscan (talk) 05:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that by your own words, this makes a merge, which was previously an editorial action, into something administrators enforce that others do. The closer decides and others are supposed to do his bidding.  Does this not seem unsatisfactory to you?  I think many users would agree with me when I say that administrators aren't necessarily elected on the basis of their editorial brilliance...— S Marshall  T/C 19:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I will break down my response:
 * As I wrote, I think that calling in the closer to "enforce" the outcome is rare. That requires tenacious opposition (probably edit-warring) to the AfD outcome. For his or her part, the closer has a range of possible responses: declining to intervene and referring to WP:Dispute resolution, leaving a note to respect the AfD outcome unless a new consensus emerges, or protecting the page. Note that these are equally applicable to someone redirecting after a keep separate close.
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "previously an editorial action" (emphasis added) . The tagging is long-standing procedure, and Help:Merging has long included a suggestion to request an uninvolved admin closer.
 * The closer doesn't unilaterally decide – the close is supposed to reflect the AfD consensus. This may be less of the case with "compromise closes", but I think those where no one agrees with the outcome should be overturned to no consensus.
 * Would you clarify "editorial brilliance"? I don't know if that's related to judging consensus and WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 91 (link for other readers, as I see that you participated).
 * Flatscan (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Enforcement: At the moment, enforcement of a close is rare, because (at least as I understand it) there are only really two kinds of close: "Delete" closes in which the bluelink becomes a redlink (which includes userfication and incubation) and "keep" closes in which the bluelink remains. You're right to say that it's not normally necessary to enforce these and on the rare occasions when it does happen, there are established procedures.  If someone unilaterally recreates something deleted at AfD, then there is a well-documented speedy deletion process to use, and if someone unilaterally deletes something kept at AfD, then DRV will deal with the matter (and sometimes using quite sharp language, I've noticed). To me, the much more granular closes that arise from that RFC would seem lead to new questions.  If the close is "merge", does that mean all the content is to be merged?  What if there is disagreement about whether to merge three paragraphs or one line?  Does the closer decide?  Is his decision subject to a later talk page consensus?  Can the later talk page consensus convert a merge to a redirect?  Can someone then take the redirect to RFD or do they need to ask the closer first? It would seem to me that the close should be subject to later talk page discussion which has wide latitude to vary the close on the basis of editorial discretion.  But if I'm right about that, I wonder whether the "merge" or "redirect" close has any real effect at all.  Certainly, it leaves latitude for someone who dislikes the subsequent talk page discussion to refer to the previous closer and ask for enforcement.  It seems to me that administrators would need some kind of guidance about how to react to such an approach, because where the community wants administrators to enforce something, the administrator should have the benefit of some indication of what the community actually expects from them.
 * Editorial actions: There was, previously, a clear dividing line between the decision to close a debate as delete or not-delete (which I see as an administrative decision requiring consensus-assessment skills) and the decision about what to merge, what to redirect, what to excise and what to add (which I see as an editorial decision requiring article-building skills). Post-RFC the dividing line is in a different place and I'm uncertain of the consequences.  If an administrator or other closer decides to make it mandatory that a merge should takes place, but that someone else should do it, then the closing statement will need to be clear and specific about what should be merged to where and what should be excised, because the decision is enforceable and those expected to do the actual work are not mind-readers. Now that I think more about this, it doesn't seem completely insurmountable to me, but it does seem difficult and in need of more thought and input.  I think that closers will need to improve their closing statements a great deal.  Editors will require clarity and precision before they can obey.  I also don't like the implications of this, since it puts administrators even more clearly into a managerial role in the encyclopaedia than they currently are, and I see this steady promotion of administrators—janitors!—into managerial roles as corrosive and dangerous.
 * Unilateral closes: In many cases only one close is possible, or at least, there is only one close that would survive DRV. In more interesting cases, that's not true at all: often two or more closes are possible. In these cases, our procedure is that a self-selected closer makes a binding decision.  DRV can review it, but if there is no consensus at the discussion, then there will usually be no consensus at the DRV, which gives the self-selected closer a massive first-mover advantage.  Essentially, our  self-selected closer can make a unilateral binding decision that cannot be effectively challenged.  The more I think about this, the more I see it as a problem, and I think a higher level of granularity in the closes will tend to exacerbate this.
 * Editorial brilliance: Our admin corps were appointed by processes of varying rigour. Those who received their tools more than about four years ago did not undergo very much scrutiny at all, and even among those who were appointed later, I think it's clear that RFA doesn't give much scrutiny to a prospective administrator's editorial judgment.  But in this post-RFC world, closers are supposed to make what used to be editorial decisions. Now, our admin corps is generally well-meaning but of quite widely-varying competence.  There are children and self-confessed drug users with the tools.  There are people with the tools who have never written any kind of audited content at all.  There are administrators whose role purely revolves around AN/I, XFD closes, RPP, countervandalism, and blocking, who rely on others do to the actual content-writing.  These are important and necessary roles that I do not wish to belittle, but with such users, I do question their competence to make editorial decisions.


 * I am still digesting and considering your comments after a few days, but I have a brief reply to start. I think of merge outcomes as merger discussions that happened at AfD – they may be overruled by stronger talk page discussion. WP:Non-deleting deletion discussions covers this method of appeal (note that I think that incorrect closures should be filed at DRV, even if they don't involve page deletion) . AfD comments are usually too imprecise for the closer to dictate specific editorial decisions. In terms of merge versus redirect, I consider merge to be closer to 100% content merged and redirect to 0%, with the implicit (occasionally explicit, in a detailed closing statement) direction to finalize the details on the talk page. Flatscan (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My comment that "The closing admin might be contacted to enforce the AfD outcome if the merge is reverted" might have led you astray. I clarified what the closer might do to "enforce" the close, but I didn't make it clear that I primarily meant undoing the redirect. Removal of the merged content is a potential problem too, but 1) my impression is that the disputes are most often between maintaining the pre-merge coverage and expanding substantially, especially for lists of episodes or characters, and 2) keeping two paragraphs, two sentences, or nothing is a finer content decision than a separate article versus a redirect. I discussed this general issue with User:82.19.4.7 at WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 27.
 * WP:Articles for deletion/Thou Shalt Not... was a group nomination of Quantum Leap (TV series) episodes. During the AfD (I don't know if he was aware of it), User:Xeworlebi in List of Quantum Leap episodes. Since the (non-G12) individual articles had been split from the list originally, merging them back would have effectively been a revert. Flatscan (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that example, which I need to read again and think through in more detail. Do you think we might be working towards an essay here?— S Marshall  T/C 12:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's enough for an essay. It might fit into WP:AfD and mergers (which needs an update anyway), but I think it will be easier to frame as opinion essay(s). Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, then we agree. Sandstein's just opened a DRV (5th December) which may be relevant.— S Marshall  T/C 01:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 5, I couldn't tell if "weak" or "strong" was intended until Master of Puppets clarified at the DRV. I would have preferred a statement like "The result was no consensus. I have made the editorial decision to redirect to this anchor in the character list." I at the RfC, but no closers have adopted it. I think that a "strong" close here would have been forcing a compromise. Flatscan (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I would have preferred too. Has anyone drawn your attention to this new essay by Spartaz?— S Marshall  T/C 17:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw the various notifications. I think it's a good idea, but overly optimistic. Direct, no-nonsense feedback tends to head straight downhill at AfD. Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)