Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Private Correspondence (etc.)

Close misses a subtle consensus
Regarding the close as "No consensus". While I don't really object, per se, I do think Xoloz (the closing admin) may have missed an underlying theme in the discussion. While it's true that the parts in bold don't tally well, if you read the details, it seems clear to me that there's a definite consensus that the editor activity surrounding those various proposed policies is unhealthy. Some say "Delete", some say "Mark historical", some (like me) get more long-winded, but almost everyone seems to think something should be done to cool things down. • I also think MfD is the appropriate place for this to be discussed. True, it's not the normal use of MfD, but WP:IAR and WP:BURO would seem to allow people to adapt MfD for this purpose. And discussing the issue at those discussion pages clearly isn't working. • Thoughts from others? — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A consensus on whether to "historicize" something is very difficult to gauge: one must be careful not to let a majority stifle legitimate dissenters. So long as a significant portion of the community has something to say on this issue, a consensus to close the pages is not obvious -- and it certainly isn't obvious at MFD which is very poorly equipped to judge.  The talk page of the proposals is the place consensus can most easily be judged.  I agree that a majority of commenters (roughly speaking) "didn't like" these pages, but a consensus for what exact action to take certainly did not exist.


 * Your proposal to IAR here is not well-taken, and might stem from your failure to consider all other avenues available. With proposal talk pages, centralized discussions, and RfC to choose from, MfD is just not the right location.  IAR should be invoked if one has no constructive alternative; it doesn't work well to justify "muddying the waters" by expanding discussion that has a home elsewhere into a forum where it has never belonged.  People who dislike these pages have at least three other choices, and don't actually claim to want to delete anything: that makes an XfD a bad idea, and a claim of IAR a worse one.


 * Finally, this question is open to resolution by editing -- just tag the pages. If someone disputes the tag with a reasonable rationale, either continue discussion, or recognize that the proposal isn't yet dead.   Your consolation is that all of these pages are a very long way from being accepted.  Its ok for proposals to linger in limbo a bit until all have had their say, and then die naturally.  Trying to cut off a discussion too early is often more trouble than its worth.  I think its safe to say that these pages have less than 10% chance of ever becoming policy, but that doesn't mean the discussion is dead.


 * In any event, what is absolutely settled is that a forum for deletion is not well-equipped to handle matters where deletion is not at stake. That is really the only justification needed for my closure, and I stand behind it.


 * If edit-warring on the pages continues to be a problem, the solution is not deletion; but, seeking sanction against unrepentant 3RR violators. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My thoughts are that this is not the place for the discussion--the "deletion" aspect has confused the discussants enough already. The problems have been discussed plenty enough.  Huzzah's to the editors who lace up their shoes and Just Do It!  Professor marginalia (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a fine sentiment, except when nobody can agree on what the "It" is that people should be Just Doing. :-)  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Xoloz: I think you misunderstood me, in part. I may not have been clear.  I wasn't pointing to IAR as a justification to wave aside objections and act without thinking.  I was pointing to WP:BURO and IAR because I think you are too caught up on the word "delete".  Yes, of course the "fD" stands for "for deletion", and that's how it got started.  But your statement that we have to ignore this discussion because it wasn't properly about deletion is, I think, a very bureaucratic sort of sentiment.  It implies that policy and semantics override consensus, and as I understand it, the opposite is true here at Wikipedia.  That's why I pointed to BURO and IAR.
 * There is also evidence that the more regular discussion process is not working. Tagging the pages and/or discussion at those pages is clearly not going to do anything but fan the flames.  (Check the edit histories, and the protection histories.)  Rather than working towards a productive end, people are just edit waring, and/or writing new proposals with no attempt at compromise.  WP:CENT was attempted and apparently fell apart -- instead we get multiple proposals listed at WP:CENT.
 * Now, I completely agree that WP:RFC/POLICIES would have been a more appropriate format to use than MfD. But per my first point, I don't believe that mistake invalidates the discussion.
 * All that being said, I do think you make a good point about not letting a majority stifle legitimate dissenters. And your point about not trying to cut off discussion early has merit.  I (and others) obviously feel that what is happening is not a discussion, and that the best thing for the community as a whole would be to throw some water on the flames.  Given the lack of consensus on what specifically to do about the problem, I can see closing this as "no consensus" in that regard -- there's no consensus to do anything in particular, so it's effectively dead.  So I guess you've convinced me of that.  And per WP:BURO, even if I have those above issues with your rationale, I'm happy to leave it at that.  Dead is dead, regardless of the cause of death.  :-)
 * So, anyway, thanks for listening, and responding. Happy wikiing!  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)