Wikipedia talk:Deletion review

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:COP-related CfD closure review

I think Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:COP-related CfD closure review belongs at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Would an uninvolved admin review the discussion (initiated 10 August 2015) and either close it or move it to DRV? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I have published this comment in different places before. Hopefully this is finally the right one:

Unfortunately I've seen this too late, when you started merging, but it affects a lot of pages I use. I had already written a comment in August, but probably in the wrong place. That's why I recopy it here:

In my daily research Wikipedia Categories are one of the instruments I use most and I have to say that I really do not appreciate the changes decided on this one. The new config makes it much more complicated to find specific persons. Previously it was easy to find a person who died for instance in 333 BC and if my search was for someone who died in the 330s I had to click only a maximum of ten pages. But now, to understand who died in a specific year, I have to click many dozens of pages. This makes my work much more difficult.

Actually, it is my impression that people discuss and decide these changes who have rarely used the instrument at all. I would therefore prefer a return to the previous situation. And if that is not possible, I'd invite everyone to reflect and and try to understand the function of a useful instrument before you "simplify" it to something much less useful. Unfortunately I have noticed this not only here, but even in other places, where guidelines were forced to "simplify" or "unify" things and the result was the exact opposite. Most features on Wikipedia were introduced for a reason, and the fact that someone doesn't get it on the fly should not be enough for abolishing them. --Lamassus (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)--Lamassus (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)--Lamassus (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)--Lamassus (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Can deletion reviews only be closed by admins?

Can deletion reviews only be closed by admins? The instructions would seem to say so, but that conflicts with the instructions at WP:ANRFC. I ask because I'm prepared to close a DR discussion that has been open for more than 30 days.- MrX 16:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• One thing deletion review teaches you is that admins don't have the wisdom of Solomon. No: non-admins can and do close deletion reviews (particularly Armbrust, but I've done it as well). You need to be 100% sure your close is right because a bad DRV close is unwelcome.—S Marshall T/C 16:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification S Marshall.- MrX 16:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

  Err, and if this is Knights of the Order of the Netherlands Lion, then I'd tend to suggest that might not be a good one for a novice.—S Marshall T/C 17:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

  Too late. I guess we'll see.- MrX 17:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

  Mmmm the basic rule is that non-admins shouldn't close DRVs because the final step of the deletion process should be done properly with the closer not being constrained in their decision by the toolset they have access too. In practise, the regular non-admins know enough about the ethos and expected outcomes here to get away with NACs. I wouldn't recommend it to a non-regular because most reviews are closed on time (we have 3-4 admins who are here enough to routinely close completed discussions) and being left is a really good sign that the discussion is hard or the regular admins don't fancy doing it for whatever reason. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

  Interesting. If we want only admins to close DRs then we should probably make change WP:ANRFC to reflect that. In any case, the DR was open for 47 days, with the last comment 16 days ago. It was probably time to close it per perfect is the enemy of good.- MrX 20:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

MrX, where were the categories relisted? Kraxler (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Considering how long it's overrun and considering that at the time of closure this was the longest-listed discussion at WP:ANRFC, and also considering that that was probably the best available close in the circumstances, I'm grateful to MrX for stepping up.—S Marshall T/C 20:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#RFC: delete and redirect

There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#RFC: delete and redirect that asks: "Should our default practice be to delete article histories and contributions when a small article is converted into a redirect to a larger article?" Cunard (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

My sandbox

I don't need it up for long. I just need it up long enough to copy the data (mainly, it's the Honest Trailers link's info, which might have the name sandbox1. Then I don't care what happens to it. I had the page up for several months after being told by admins it was fine to do so, then someone (ponyo (Jezebel's ponyo)) found mine due to an unrelated page and speedily deleted it without warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewjshick (talk • contribs) 04:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Andrewjshick: I see that you're currently talking to @Ponyo: here. You were also warned about restoring the content here. This is a "not done and will not be done" situation for myself and likely for any other admin. Ponyo offered to e-mail you the content to use elsewhere, but rather than take his olive branch you just tried to re-create the info on Wikipedia. Basically, how can we trust that this isn't your way of trying to re-create the material elsewhere on Wikipedia and sneak under the radar? I must warn you - if this is re-created anywhere else on Wikipedia you run a very strong risk of getting blocked from editing for being disruptive. I hate to sound harsh, but you need to understand that you're really going the wrong way about all of this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
• OK, I see some of the confusion now. Here's the general gist of everything:

Back in June @SamWalton: asked you to stop adding information to the main Screen Junkies article because it was disruptive. He suggested that you make a draft in your userspace, likely with this would give you more time to work on things and finesse them. It was not meant to mean that you could use it as an indefinite storage space and only meant to be a temporary holding facility for data that would be placed on Wikipedia. Eventually you and the other account (which I've blocked as a promotional username) posted the content to the mainspace, where it was deleted at AfD as miscellaneous information that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. This occurred on December 6, 2015.

On December 11 you and the other account created the draft article at User:ScreenJunkiesMovieFightsandTVFights/sandbox, after the AfD closed. This was actually the first sandbox that was deleted, as Ponyo didn't delete User:Andrewjshick/sandbox until 22:52 on December 11, a few minutes after the first deletion at 22:49. Shortly after the deletion of the first page, it was quickly re-created by ScreenJunkiesMovieFightsandTVFights.

The problem here is ultimately that as soon as the AfD was closed, the content became unusable on Wikipedia. It was seen as listcruft, information that would pretty much never be usable on Wikipedia. Could all of this have been handled better? Yes. But were the deletions still correct? Yes. At this point all that we can ultimately offer you is an e-mail with this information, which should be e-mailed out by Ponyo. I believe that you didn't really know any better, but it really wasn't a good idea for the other account to try to re-create the data so swiftly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Something else I noted was that a new account was created around the same time as the new sandbox article was created, which kind of gives off the impression that this was created solely to hold this information. Someone did ask what the relationship was between the two accounts, which I don't think that you ever really answered. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

As an FYI, the accounts were  Technically indistinguishable. I emailed the content of the sandboxes to Andrewjshick and provided them with the links to alternative websites to post the material as well as instructions for setting up their own wiki. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Are unregistered users entitled to bring deletion reviews?

A series of DRVs have been speedy-closed recently (1 2 & 3 4 5 6) which were listed by editors editing whilst not logged in. The closure was generally expressed as being because the non-logged in editor was in fact registered but choosing to hide his/her identity.

Mentioning main closers User:Spartaz User:RoySmith User:Sandstein (Yes, I'm self-reporting as well.)

Is this a de-facto policy that users must use a registered account to list at DRV? Stifle (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

In the one case in which I speedily closed the DRV that was because I considered that the request was likely in violation of our sockpuppet policy. No opinion about the other cases, although it appears that the requests were mainly considered disruptive for reasons other than having been made by an IP. In principle, as far as I know, IPs editing in good faith are allowed to make deletion review requests.  Sandstein  11:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• The one I closed yesterday wa s aclear case (on the balance of probability) of being a registered user or otherwise experienced user using an IP to avoid scrutiny. The only two edits were related to longevity situations (DRV and AE case). In good faith we should know who we are dealing with. That said, good faith IP editors with a bit of history are more than welcome. One of the most sensible reviewers at DRV is an IP and I consider their view as valid as anyone elses. The difference being that they have a history and are not using DRV as a platform to pursue a wider grudge. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Good day... I want to recreate a page called Chimsnero Goldsmith that was previously deleted, as new source are available now. I will be glad if this issue is solved thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realonehqsource (talk • contribs) 11:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• On 2nd January I speedy-closed one where the nominator only registered his account that morning. The subject was Donald Trump and fascism, and AGF isn't a suicide pact. I think the true situation is that anyone including an IP editor is welcome to raise a deletion review but nominations about highly controversial subjects, when made by IP editors or brand new accounts, are subject to speedy closure.—S Marshall T/C 12:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• I certainly wouldn't want a blanket policy which says IPs are forbidden to use DRV. On the other hand, my bullshit meter has a very low threshold. I have absolutely no problem with speedy-closing a DRV if it looks like the poster is trying to game the system. That includes pretending to be a newbie (either IP or new account) when their actions demonstrate that they in fact have been around for a while. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Echoing the above, there shouldn't be any general rule against IPs starting DRVs, but requests which are disruptive, trolling or made by obvious sockpuppets can be speedily closed. That seems to be the reason for closing the linked requests, not just the fact that they were made by IPs. Hut 8.5 23:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yes unregistered users are entitled to bring DRVs. There is no reason that they shouldn't be subject to speedy closure if they have clearly failed to understand what DRV is - specifically that it is not "requests for undeletion" (which we probably should have, despite the obvious problems).

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC).

• Absolutely yes, and this applies to all forums, not just DRV. If an invalid or disruptive DRV is opened, it should be closed, no matter who opened it. If it is not invalid or disruptive, then the sole fact of the nominator being an IP editor or a new account is not a valid reason to close it. Conversely, if the closer is certain the DRV has been opened by a sockpuppet, then it should be closed. But merely being an IP account or newly registered user doesn't mean they're a sockpuppet.--Aervanath (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I need multiple third-party reliable sources and i will be glad if my article is restored. As i have contacted the administrator that closed it. Thanks