Wikipedia talk:Deletion review

Post-AfD move review for Paradisus Judaeorum

Paradisus Judaeorum, renamed per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews is currently in discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 December, and may interest watchers here.Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The instructions should require pinging of all editors involved in the delete discussion

Either previously-involved editors should not be allowed to !vote, or they should all be notified, but allowing previously-involved editors to !vote without requiring that all previously-involved editors are notified of the discussion leaves the gate open to the supporters of one side of the discussion to be involved and !vote whilst the supporters of the other side may be unaware that the discussion is ongoing. You see this particularly where a well-organised group of editors fails to get their way at AfD and then brings a deletion review in which they all engage. FOARP (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• I suspect that automatically pinging all AfD participants would lead to DRV becoming a second AfD where all the AfD participants turn up and say the same things again. Hut 8.5 20:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• The point of DRV isn't to restate and rehash the original deletion discussion, with substantially the same participants and same arguments. DRV also isn't decided by a straight vote (or !vote) count.

WP:DRVPURPOSE is pretty clear that DRV is intended primarily to deal with serious procedural errors and oversights—something that doesn't generally require the renewed participation or inspection of all the original AfD's participants to assess. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Ideally the original participants shouldn't be involved in a DRV at all. The process is most effective when it's a discussion amongst uninvolved editors with experience of closing discussions and deleting pages. We can't enforce that, but mandatory pings should certainly be avoided as having the opposite effect. – Joe (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

In which case: forbid previously-involved editors from !voting. This is the best way of avoiding DRV becoming AFD 2. If that can't be enforced then at least prevent canvassing (e.g., notifying editors on specific projects etc.). If you see almost all the editors who voted on one side of a delete/keep split contributing here, but not the other side of that split, then that should signify that something is wrong. FOARP (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Wrap each discussion in a collapsable box by default?

When a DRV discussion is closed, it gets wrapped in class="navbox collapsible collapsed". I propose that we wrap all current discussions in a similar template which generates a box that defaults to the opened state. This would make things easier to navigate, especially on mobile. If there's two long discussions on the same day, it's too easy to scroll past the break between them and then it's hard to navigate back. If each discussion had it's own box, I could collapse the ones I'm not interested in. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Dealing with the markup for that will be irritating and confusing, especially for inexperienced users. In particular, we will continuously move new comments that are placed at the ends of discussions, outside the boxes. The process is already far too heavyweight and instruction-laden as-is: even admins, and the admins who are regulars at DRV who are trying to clean up after them, regularly get it wrong. —Cryptic 17:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. I get where you're coming from about the complexity. As for the specific example you cited, I guess the best I can say is touché :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

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. – 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.  — 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)

Should I not have done this?

IronGargoyle, whose opinion I very much respect, has said that he feels I should not have --- err, hatted --- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 24. I would welcome other input, and if I was wrong to do this then I'm very sincerely sorry for doing it.—S Marshall T/C 14:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@S Marshall: You say it isn't a closure but, as IronGargoyle said, it really is. I would not say that the discussion has moved to ARCA, rather a related discussion has been opened there. If I were you I'd reverse the closure and leave the DRV open until the ARCA concludes. – Joe (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Very well: I've self-reverted. I'm disappointed to see that the ARCA is in the process of reaching the most poorly thought-out of the decisions available to them, in which any deletion can be inoculated against community scrutiny -- as soon as the deleter uses the "Arbitration enforcement" label, all supervision will be reserved to Arbcom.  :(—S Marshall T/C 19:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

S Marshall, I agree with you; perhaps there should be a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. Leviv ich 20:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree that closing/hatnoting/whatevering this was a sub-optimal decision. Thank you for self-reverting. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions says:

Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.

The dispute is whether "any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary" includes the deletion of a page as part of the discretionary enforcement process. I would like to submit an RfC to the community asking a similar question to the one the arbitrators are answering at the clarification request:

Can AE admins delete pages under "other reasonable measures" as part of the enforcement process?

A) No

B) Yes

C) Yes, but only per deletion policy

The RfC would amend Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy to reflect the community consensus. I would follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Ratification and amendment about amending the Arbitration policy: "Proposed amendments may be submitted for ratification only after being approved by a majority vote of the Committee, or having been requested by a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing" by asking the community to sign a petition to hold this RfC. Pinging current arbitrators AGK (talk · contribs), BU Rob13 (talk · contribs), Joe Roe (talk · contribs), KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs), Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs), RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs), SilkTork (talk · contribs) and former arbitrators DGG (talk · contribs), Doug Weller (talk · contribs), and Drmies (talk · contribs) who participated in the ARCA since you are more familiar with the arbitration process. Is this permitted and where should the RfC be held? Should the petition signing process start only after the ARCA is closed?

Here is my proposed wording for the RfC:

RfC about deletion under discretionary sanctions enforcement

Are admins permitted to delete pages as part of the discretionary sanctions enforcement process?

A) No

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions is amended to say (inserted text underlined):

Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. Discretionary sanctions enforcement does not cover deletion of pages. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.

B) Yes

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions is amended to say (inserted text underlined):

Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, page deletion, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.

C) Yes, but only per deletion policy

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions is amended to say (inserted text underlined):

Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, page deletion (only when pages are eligible for deletion under the deletion policy), revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.

The RfC's proposed wording can be improved. Pinging Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 24#User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles participants and closer: SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), Sandstein (talk · contribs), Rhododendrites (talk · contribs), RoySmith (talk · contribs), Hobit (talk · contribs), Pudeo (talk · contribs), GoldenRing (talk · contribs), Godsy (talk · contribs), S Marshall (talk · contribs), Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs), Simonm223 (talk · contribs), Ivanvector (talk · contribs), SportingFlyer (talk · contribs), A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs), Levivich (talk · contribs), and Spartaz (talk · contribs) and ARCA participants Bishonen (talk · contribs), Black Kite (talk · contribs), RexxS (talk · contribs), Cryptic (talk · contribs), GreenMeansGo (talk · contribs), Xymmax (talk · contribs), and Wnt (talk · contribs) in case you have any thoughts about improving the wording or how to formulate the RfC.

Cunard (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Cunard, yes, something like that. I think ArbCom should be left to make their resolution at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Gun control. Ideally, User:Jimbo Wales will comment too, as it is his reserve powers delegated to ArbCom that they are delegating to "AE Admins" to override policy and community practice. We can give them some time, because this is not an emergency. Indeed, it is the exaggeration of emergency that leads to hasty power grabs at the expense of a collegiate community working towards WP:PPP.

A follow up RfC is probably needed. As things are looking now, ArbCom is divided and is voting on whether ArbCom is claiming the power to ignore deletion policy with no external accountability. What is the limit of scope of ArbCom? Previously, ArbCom was very clear about steering clear of content and community policy. Recently, WP:ACDS has appeared as a wholesale rewriting of policy and practice on blocking, banning, page protection, etc. WP:ACDS is unashamed ArbCom written policy. ArbCom should not even have power to vote on its scope. A well participated RfC is needed. The answers may be complicated. ArbCom's ability to write policy to allow any admin to delete articles across a broad range of topics is obviously too far. The ability to delegate "AE admins" to protect pages, regardless of consensus at WP:RFPP, is offensive, though less so. The practice of thoroughness and transparency before declaring a WP:BAN on edge cases, that seems pretty reasonable. Does ArbCom has any responsibility to ensure that their practice is in harmony with Wikipedia:Banning policy, or is ArbCom sacrosanct regardless? Are we going to have to vet future ArbCom candidates on their interpretation of content policy in contentious areas? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• There is no functional difference between A and C. If deletion can be otherwise done under existing policy, then there is no need to tie a ribbon around the thing and call it an AE action, that is, unless you want to add that the appropriate venue for appeal is AE. Now that comes off as unnecessarily bureaucratic and at least slightly stupid, and in the current case, it seems there is general agreement that DRV was the appropriate venue for appeal. Beyond that, carving out some "super special" function of AE as a venue for review of a "super special" type of deletion functionally elevates the opinions of admins in a deletion discussion, which is to say a content issue, rather than a behavioral issue. (Rather than just casting one supervote, we'll get everyone together and cast a bunch of them and tally up which supervotes win.)

Of course we also could consider dropping the whole act as a community, maybe some time in the near future, and admit that the fact we have to debate whether AE can be used as an exception to policy indicates that in every possibly meaningful sense, that AE is a policy, and one that substantially rewrites actual policy based on community consensus, rather than carrying on with this whole bit about the transitive property of the divine right of ArbCom to unilaterally empower certain members of the community to do what they wan't and to hell with community consensus. GMG^talk 13:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• An RfC would not be an appropriate venue for a change to the arbitration policy, because such a change wouldn't be based on traditional consensus. You would need a "petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing" if you wanted to go the non-ArbCom route. You could start that petition here and advertise it wherever you care to. I would not label it an RfC, because opposition essentially doesn't matter: If you got 100 supports and 5000 opposes, it would still be submitted for ratification, by way of an extreme example. Having said all that, I heavily discourage a modification of the arbitration policy to restrict the Arbitration Committee from deleting pages or delegating the authority to delete pages to others. I think that is potentially harmful when you consider some very fringe things we occasionally come in contact with (child protection, for one). I'd recommend letting the ARCA run its course for now. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, I just read your wording for the RfC, Cunard. That would not be a valid RfC at all, per WP:CONEXCEPT. In particular, you cannot directly amend Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, since it is an arbitration decision. You can only limit the scope of ArbCom by adding to or changing WP:ARBPOL. The change you're looking for is probably an addition to the section prohibiting creating policy by fiat, explicitly noting that ArbCom may not delete pages contrary to the deletion policy or authorize others to do so. I have a feeling you're about to get that result at ARCA in a much more organic way without setting a potentially dangerous precedent that would prevent us from acting efficiently in emergency situations, though, so I still encourage you to wait for that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)