The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.
Gaming the 3 panel admin selection process for controversial AfD closures
Hello, I'm very new to Wikipedia, and I'm trying to follow WP:BOLD by writing here. As I understand it the process for choosing admins when a panel is required for a controversial AfD closure is that a concerned user lists the AfD as controversial on the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard, then the first 3 uninvolved admins to come along put their hands up for the panel (then go off and follow standard operating procedure on the AfD). It occurs to me that this leaves room for gaming the system. Namely that a biased user involved in the AfD (whose made friends with a couple of admins) might come along and message those admins (via whatever means necessary) to let them know the notice is going up (and hence let them put their hands up the quickest), allowing the panel to be rigged. I wouldn't cast any aspersions on Wikipedia's admin approval process (or on WP:UNINVOLVED, but I do accept that everyone is human and that humans can have strong views on controversial subjects (and that those views are sometimes apparent in edits/discussions). I was just looking for there to be some discussion on other possible methods of selection (perhaps a minimum number of admins putting their hands up, then the selection being randomized algorithmically?). It just seems like that would put another (better) layer on the swiss cheese model - and a layer that might be needed considering panels tend to result from already controversial/publicity prone subjects. Thank you for your time, and if I've put this in the wrong place, feel free to delete it and let me know what I'm doing wrong. --Jobrot (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed.
If nobody opposes deletion, then an article is to be deleted, BLP or not. What is the purpose of this extra rule? I.e., which hole does it cover? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not true that deletion discussions where nobody opposes deletion are closed as Delete. At AfD you do normally need an active consensus in favour of deletion for something to be deleted. Hut 8.5 22:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A few years ago my wife started an article on Calton weavers which was speedily deleted. She started again, but it soured her on Wikipedia. Today she pointed out a Huffington Post article that discussed a speedy deletion nomination for Natalie Smith Henry submitted one minute after the article was first saved. The incident was also picked up by the New York Times and the BBC in discussions on why there are so few women editors. If a new editor's first experience with WP is a speedy deletion nomination, we are likely to lose them even if the nomination is rejected. If potential new editors hear WP is a hostile place, they may never consider contributing. The publicity about the Natalie Smith Henry nomination may have caused significant and lasting damage.
Some new articles must be deleted fast because they are clear copyright violations, vicious personal attacks and so on. But if an article by a new editor is harmless there is no urgency to delete. There is no reason for a huge, angry pink notice that seems to tell the new editor they have committed a crime. There should be a process to politely tell the editor that there are issues with the article, explain what they are, and offer to help. If nothing happens for a week, then the article can be deleted. Once the new process, let's call it Newby help, is in place, editors who repeatedly submit speedy or proposed deletion nominations for harmless articles by new editors should be subject to admin action. The potential losses greatly outweigh the benefits. Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Scenario. The "Apsley Eagles" are a successful amateur sports team that merits a Wikipedia article. A high school teacher gives her class an assignment to write a Wikipedia article on the team. An enthusiastic student registers for a userid, then starts a first version of the article that reads, in its entirety, "The Apsely Eagles are the best team in the state." Two minutes later the article is nominated for speedy deletion. The class sees the huge pink warning message. While they are discussing it, the article is deleted. 30 potential editors are lost.
I am thinking of three templates. The first, for harmless new articles that may evolve into something useful but perhaps lack sourcing or evidence of notability, would be something like:
Welcome! ... Please see talk:yourarticle for some helpful hints on ways this article could be improved.
The second template, for insertion on the new article's talk page, would be a basic introduction to the idea of notability and how to write an article. The third, for the talk page of editors who repeatedly flag harmless articles for speedy deletion using the standard angry pink notice, would be something like:
Warning! ... Please stop nominating harmless articles for speedy deletion, as you did with thisarticle. Your behavior may be discouraging new editors from contributing, and thus seriously damaging Wikipedia. Please read the policy on harmless new articles before nominating any more articles for deletion.
If you persist in nominating harmless new articles for deletion you may be banned from editing. Thanks, and have a nice day.
Is it practical to implement a change in process like this? Aymatth2 (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I nominated it for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising. I also deduced form the alleged references in the article that you have a WP:COI. Had you kept this as a draft and submitted it for review you might have stood a chance of getting it published. The WP:AFC route is not closed to you on this.
Our deletion process is designed so that an admin verifies requests for speedy deletion. It seems that they agreed with me. You should now relocate this discussion to that admin's talk page, please. FiddleFaddle 15:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)