Wikipedia talk:Deletion process

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contradiction between WP:NACD and WP:RMNAC[edit]

I have noticed this issue for a while, so I'd like to propose an update to the section at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions (WP:NACD) to match the non-admin deletion process stated at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure (WP:RMNAC). I propose that this page be updated to state that non-admin closures at Wikipedia:Requested moves that require the page be moved over a redirect that needs to be deleted be allowed. This is how WP:RMNAC is essentially worded, so here is the text I propose be added to the section WP:NACD redirects:

Exception: A non-administrator may close a Requested move discussion to "move" if the move requires that a redirect be deleted in order to perform the move. (See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closures.)

--Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It would probably be better just to say "there are exceptions; please see these pages". That avoids duplication. --Izno (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
See the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Amakuru#Neutral for the context of this request. WP:NACD and WP:RMNAC both seem straightforward. It's WP:BADNAC that needs to be edited, as it conflicts with the instructions given at WP:RMNAC. Note that a move is not a deletion, and the two processes have different rules. WP:BADNAC conflates the two, which is causing a contradiction. Bradv 20:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
A deletion is a deletion (the scope of this page), regardless if the discussion is actually about deleting the nomimated page, but rather a different page that needs to be deleted to complete the close's result. So, Izno's idea seems feasible. As a result, WP:BADNAC could be updated as well. The goal is to remove all contradictions, and the one here is a major one of the bunch. Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
This page is about deletion discussions, not just deletions in general. Bradv 20:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The first sentence on this page, The deletion process encompasses the processes involved in implementing and recording the community's decisions to delete or keep pages and media., doesn't clarify that this doesn't apply to WP:RM. In a move request, the community may form a decision to delete a page to move another page to it. It's in scope of this page, and saying that this information proposed above should not be included because the scope of this page clearly doesn't include RM is a bit misleading, especially to those who do not completely understand Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed with the "there are exceptions; please see these pages" approach. Way too many policypages already contain duplicate information, and it has a pesky tendency to POVFORK over time. This can create very nasty messes.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge closes[edit]

I have been working through the merge backlog (over 240 when I started, some over 2 years old). The last few I have done I have basically ended up just redirecting. Generally these are poorly sourced articles that have been closed as merge (most with no indication of what should be merged) into a well developed and sourced article that either covers the topic already or has no obvious place to put it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AliEn (ALICE Environment), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient & Honorable Order of Turtles Inc., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Blackness in the U.S., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Hitchcock Edition Clue for ones that ended up basically being redirected (I did merge information from the turtle article, but with some reservations).

Even if the majority !vote merge the best outcome might still be redirect. I think that when closing a AFD, closers should consider weighting a merge !vote that doesn't indicate what should be merged closer to a redirect !vote (see Wikipedia:Merge what? for an essay on the issue). What do editors think off adding something to this effect at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Other outcomes or another appropriate place? AIRcorn (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

This could potentially create a slippery slope, whereby articles that actually have mergeable content end up just being redirected, with the potential of nobody ever actually merging the content per a lack of tags directing such activity ({{Afd-merge from}}, {{Afd-merge to}}). I have merged many articles that were closed at AfD as merge but ended up just being redirected, per WP:PRESERVE. I sometimes wonder if the merges would have ever occurred if I had not performed them. Chances are that many would not have. Also, sometimes people who opine for deletion will then just redirect after an AfD discussion has been closed as merge, stating that there's nothing mergeable, when actually this is sometimes not the case, sometimes even blatantly so. This may occur at times as a sort of consolation when a desired delete result does not occur at deletion discussions. North America1000 08:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Slippery slope fallacies aside, if articles have mergeable content then editors should be able to say what is mergeable. If someone says keep (or delete) without a reason then those are giving (or so we are told) low weight, so I feel merge !vote without specifying what is to be merged is should be given the same. AIRcorn (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps, if there is a lack of clarity, a relist with an invitation to participants to specify what is to be merge would help things along? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Here's an example from today: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KT Kumho Rent A Car, closed by Yamamoto Ichiro. Consensus is clearly for a merge, but it was closed as redirect for whatever reasons. I think this should have been closed with a merge result. That said, I could have been more specific in my !vote. North America1000 13:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The only reason why I've closed that as a redirect is because in my interpretation, merge and redirect are simply the same thing. If there's anything to be merged, an editor familiar with the subject at hand can go through the page history and do the merge from the article that was changed to a redirect. Most of the time, a closing admin will not be familiar with the subject matter to do the merge correctly. I guess next time I could add, consensus is redirect and merge if applicable to make it clear Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to put you on the spot, but the close does come across as a WP:SUPERVOTE in some manners, and also per your comment above. North America1000 13:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
One would think leaving the important decision of what to merge up to the editors rather than the closing admin would be anything but WP:SUPERVOTE Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:MERGE and WP:REDIRECT are actually quite distinct on Wikipedia; certainly not the same thing. North America1000 14:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea why it was closed as Redirect and even more lost with the "Redirect and Merge" ... anywho obvious consensus is to Merge so ... If you cannot understand the difference between Merge and Redirect then you shouldn't be an admin. –Davey2010Talk 15:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I think at this point we're just arguing semantics. In the context of a deletion discussion, merge and redirect is the same thing, as in the article is not deleted. AfD is not a suitable way to discuss redirect/merge details because, AfD is where we discuss deletions, not editorial stuff like merges. One could argue all merge/redirect votes should just be considered to be the same thing, and be closed as such. There is no reason for AfD closing admin to do merges personally, unless they know how to merge the content at hand. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Disagree - Merge and Redirect are completely different, When It's being discussed at AFD then every option can be discussed and should be discussed ...., AFD closers don't physically Merge the content - That's up to the nominators/!voters - You close the AFD, Mergeto templates get added - Job done, If you are lost with the whole AFD thing then why are you closing AFDs ?, As I said on your talkpage you need to take a step back otherwise you could end up blocked, desysoped or whatever, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
This has gone on a bit off a tangent, but I think this is something that needs to be discussed more as a general principle. Yamamoto Ichiro's action resemble a proposal I wanted to test the waters at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge/Archive 2#AFDs closed as merge. No response there, which is a shame as it would be good to hear from others that actually do the merges. Judging by the activity, backlogs and previous discussions that project is not very active so I may start a new similar discussion below this one. AIRcorn (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Aircorn - We could just hat most of the above ? (I know my comments here haven't helped whatsoever so I don't really have an issue with mine being hatted), That aside Personally I think if an AFD's closed as Merge and the article seems relevent and helpful to a normal reader then I do agree tt should be Merged but if contains useless crap like for instance one liners or whatever then Redirect is IMHO better, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I would rather this not be hatted. I think it would be useful in the proposal I am developing, not in a bad way, just as evidence that this is an issue worth discussion. As far as merges go I have my own set of personal criteria, that I don't think are codified anywhere, but seem like common sense to me. Basically, I avoid merging anything that is unsourced or IMO poorly sourced, I avoid merging anything into well developed articles (especially any good or featured ones) and I avoid merging anything that I poorly understand. I will sometimes leave a talk page note on the target article if I am just redirecting. I have to shoot off to work now, but will research and write up more later today. AIRcorn (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
We do already have a comment at the "merge" common outcome to the tune of "Merge votes should be specific and clear." I think this would support the general rule for merges without specifics to be considered as plain redirects. Alternatively, we can add something like "If no merge !votes are specific enough to execute a merge quickly, then the closer should consider pinging those !voters who !voted to merge to provide specifics." This may be getting too much into the nitty gritty of the "Closing XFD discussions" pages. --Izno (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed wording change[edit]

After reading the above I thought I would make a specific proposal for a word change. I think we should keep it relatively short and the aim should ultimately be to encourage better !votes and closes. Maybe more specifics about relisting, pinging etc should be at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions#Relisting AfDs

Current wording:

This combines two separate pages into a single page. Merge votes should be specific and clear. If you wish to merge templates or categories, use the deletion discussions. If you wish to merge articles, do not use a deletion discussion, but instead discuss it on the talk page.

Proposed wording (changed sentence highlighted her but would not be in the final version):

This combines two separate pages into a single page. Non-specific and unclear merge votes may be weighted towards redirect votes by the closer. If you wish to merge templates or categories, use the deletion discussions. If you wish to merge articles, do not use a deletion discussion, but instead discuss it on the talk page.

AIRcorn (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: No one has responded against my specific proposal for over 10 days. Would you like to propose some different wording or a reason why we should not be encouraging merge voters to clarify their position. AIRcorn (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the change (diff) because it came across as unilateral, particularly per the discussion above. Pinging users who have contributed to this discussion: @Malcolmxl5, Yamamoto Ichiro, Davey2010, and Izno:. For starters, sometimes users in AfD discussions will provide very explicit merge rationales, and then others will then provide simple concurring !votes (e.g. "merge per ___". While detailed rationales are preferred, sometimes people do not provide them, deferring to a detailed rationale already provided. I'm also concerned about the notion of consensus in AfD discussions being trumped by the addition of a few extra words to the Deletion process page. As I stated above, I've come across (and merged) many articles that closed at AfD with a clear merge result, but were then only redirected, sometimes by the nominator, perhaps as a "consolation prize" when the nomination failed. Ultimately, your addition of "Non-specific and unclear merge votes may be weighted towards redirect votes by the closer" is not backed with any consensus here, appears to be based upon your opinion on how closers may assess discussions, and creates a slippery slope. North America1000 11:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I always understood the per votes to be basically duplications of the vote that they are referring to (obviously with any caveats or additions they might add), be they keep, merge, delete or other. So if the original vote has a strong (or even decent) rational then so do the per votes. If it doesn't then they don't either.
I am not trying to trump anything, I am just trying to encourage voters to make the job of the editors making the merges easier. I have come across many selectively merge any relevant content type votes where a reading of both articles shows that there is none. It tends to suggest that some editors vote merge without actually looking at the target article.
I did not read any consensus against this change and as no one responded to my specific proposal, despite this being a well watched page, I was well within my rights to make the change. Also without going too far off track I find arguments based on slippery slopes are very weak indeed. They basically mean nothing should ever be changed as everything can lead to everything and are a well known fallacy. AIRcorn (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I should note that I have made some major changes at the WP:Merge What? essay, including the pinging and relisting advice above. AIRcorn (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The notion of wanting to just encourage !voters to be make the job easier for users that perform merges is fine, but doing so by stating that inspecific merge !votes may be disqualified in favor of a redirect WP:SUPERVOTE per the closer's preference is not the way of going about it, in my opinion. One slippery slope example is illustrated below:

Closed as redirect. Closer.

  • Delete – Does not meet WP:N. Nominator.
  • Merge to foo
  • Merge per above
  • Merge per above
  • Merge per above
  • Merge per above... etc.
The potential slippery slope is ignoring consensus even when inspecific merge !votes are present. To close this with a redirect result would go against consensus, constituting a supervote. Another slippery slope is that if such a discussion was closed as redirect, and a user later came along and performed a merge, they could be reverted because the supervote closed the discussion as redirect, despite consensus for a merge. Yet another problem is the potential for edit warring per such outcomes; "consensus was for a merge!", countered by reversions stating "the discussion was closed as redirect", ad infinitum. Also, guideline pages were developed through the process of discussion and consensus, and I feel that this unilateral change is debatable from the start, and even more so because nobody has provided any input after your new proposal was stated above. As per WP:BRD, I reverted your bold edit and am discussing the matter here. Per all of this and even more problems that can occur as a result of this change, I oppose this change to the page North America1000 15:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I will talk more about slippery slopes at your talk page as that is becoming a bit off tangent. I am confident most wikipedians know the issues with using this argument. My own thinking is that a redirect is in many cases a bold merge, just one where there is no new information worth merging in. I have run across many cases where the article to be merged contains no sourced information,[1][2] consisted of just tables[3] or information that when merged creates undue problems,[4][5][6] articles where the information does not fit at all,[7] or makes the article worse,[8] articles that I can not even fathom how to complete the merge[9][10][11] and articles where the information is already present sufficiently that no merging is necessary.[12]
Anyway my main aim in this area is to change the culture of !voting merge without considering the consequences and this discussion is at least doing that. Even if only a few closers who watch this page think twice before closing a discussion as merge then I would be happy. I believe many of these above problems would be avoided if editors just looked at the target article and thought:
  • How would this information fit?
  • Will it make this article better?
Your above example is a pretty common pattern of voting. However, I would consider a redirect outcome as perfectly valid from that discussion, but the closer should have explained their decision better. For example "Subject does not meet our notability criteria for a standalone article and the merge votes have not provided any specific information about what should be merged. Closing as redirect". From the discussions above a better response would have been the closer relisting and then leaving a comment asking for more information on what needs to be merged[13] or pinging the mergers.[14] It is also conceivable that a closer could close that as delete since all the merge !votes are simply just votes and closers are meant to weigh arguments, not count votes. It would probably require a better opening statement from the nominator, but it is a possibility. AIRcorn (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per my rationales above; this opens the door to ambiguous and problematic WP:SUPERVOTE discussion closures, which can create several problems. North America1000 15:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it inadvisable to relist and at the same time participate in an AfD?[edit]

Previous discussions: Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 9#Relisting process – Should relisting discussions automatically exclude users from any !voting in the discussion? and Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 28#Can we formally ban relisters from subsequently !voting

Is it inadvisable to relist and at the same time participate in an AfD? See the discussion here with SwisterTwister.

SwisterTwister relisted here for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Freeman and voted "delete", here for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Greater Noida Rape Case and voted "delete", and here for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ingrid Lyne and voted "delete".

I think relisting and at the same time voting is problematic because it could give the appearance of impropriety. For example, in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Greater Noida Rape Case SwisterTwister said that it could be closed as keep, "but I'm still not confident about this being comfortable Kept thus I'm relisting for better attention". SwisterTwister was uncomfortable with the "keep" consensus in the discussion, so he relisted the discussion and voted "delete".

As Protonk (talk · contribs) wrote at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 9#Relisting process – Should relisting discussions automatically exclude users from any !voting in the discussion?: "Someone relisting a discussion going the 'wrong' way and then voting in the hopes that it will stay open long enough to attract votes to their position? That may be a problem but I don't know if it rises to the level of needing a policy to proscribe it."

SwisterTwister replied: "I kindly suggest we both drop this and continue with our own path and tasks as I was completely open to closing as Keep but the AfD was not explicitly clear regardless so if I had closed as Keep, it would've been fingered as closing too early thus the Relist. My vote afterwards was not at all affecting the AfD, whether or not what you may think. I will not continue to entertain this thread as I know what my beneficial intentions are and were."

What are other editors' thoughts about relisting and at the same time participating in an AfD? Cunard (talk) 07:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

  • When I used to relist I used to !vote in the same AFD aswell but was told to stop as it could be seen as me wanting a discussion to go in my favour - My only reason for it was to get more eyes on the discussion (Some AFDs I obviously !voted Keep & some delete) - At the time It never even entered my mind that It could be seen as me trying to get something deleted or kept, Although I believe many here !vote and relist in completely Good Faith and like me back then are completely unaware of how it may look it has been an issue for quite sometime so maybe it's a better idea to just either !vote or relist but not bpth in one AFD, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I endorse both Protonk's and the closer's remarks on the prev. ' I don't know if it rises to the level of needing a policy to proscribe it' and 'in some circumstances it's not a good idea, and that some caution is advisable when doing so'. I don't understand what problem this is trying to fix. I repeat what I said prev 'some clarification of 'inappropriate' re-listings might be useful', but a blanket ban seems inapt. Pincrete (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Cunard: I'm unclear as to what your intention is here. Are you reopening the old thread, or are you introducing new variables/perspectives that we should take into account and reconsider? That discussion wasn't too long ago, so for my part, I don't feel like there's been any cause for my opinion to change. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Rhododendrites (talk · contribs), the earlier discussion asked a broad question: "Should relisting discussions automatically exclude users from any !voting in the discussion?" The closer wrote that "there is also general agreement that in some circumstances it's not a good idea, and that some caution is advisable when doing so".

    This discussion narrows the question, asking whether the circumstances I presented above—relisting at the same time as participating in an AfD—is a "good idea" or not.

    At Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 28#Can we formally ban relisters from subsequently !voting, Jenks24 (talk · contribs) wrote:

    I'm not sure. Relisting and then voting straight after is obviously poor form, as is relisting a discussion where you're already a participant. But something I occasionally do is relist a discussion and then when it reaches the backlog again, rather than just relist indefinitely, I'll add a vote so that we try and reach a consensus. I'm interested in whether people think that is wrong, or has the perception of impropriety. Obviously if there's a consensus here to institute a blanket rule against relisters voting then I will abide by it.

    I'm not categorically against relisting and participating in an AfD. For example, I'm fine with the case Jenks24 mentioned in which Jenks24 relists a discussion and when it reaches the backlog again a week later, adds a vote to try to reach a consensus. But I do think relisting and voting immediately afterwards is "poor form".

    Cunard (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Relisting effectively extends the period for discussion, which itself is not harmful, but I think it would be advisable to avoid both relisting and !voting in the same discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • While I have never !voted and relisted in the same click, I have !voted and then relisted (or vice versa), but only in specific circumstances. For example, if I'm !voting on the 8th day, and there is one keep !vote, one ambiguous comment, and then I !vote delete, I might then relist. Another example would be if I am the only !vote on day 7 or day 8. If a clear consensus hasn't been reached by at least 4 editors, I see no harm in relisting. Regarding Cunard's specific suggestion, this appears to be a question of temporal displacement, rather than policy. I understand the perception issue, but one of the over-riding tenets of Wikipedia is WP:AGF, so if we go by that, than what difference does it make if a person !votes on Sunday, then relists on Friday, or does both on Sunday? Whatever the consensus is, I'll certainly abide by it, but it should either be you can either !vote or relist, but not both, or you can do either, regardless of timing. If you start to get into the timing issue, than where is the cutoff? On the same click? Within a minute of each other? An hour? Without any other intervening !votes/comments (which could be days)? Personally, I've pretty much eliminated relisting and !voting within that same relisting (in other words, if I'm the first relister, and NorthAmerica relists a second time, I might vote after someone else has relisted). But that's a personal preference to avoid the drama of folks questioning my motives - which are solely to attempt to follow the guidelines. Onel5969 TT me 20:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I generally try to avoid !voting and relisting at the same AFD. I feel that it would be similar to closing a discussion you've voted at, it's unfairly swaying the outcome of the discussion. However, I believe that there could be some legitimate reasons for doing so, such as trying to achieve a better consensus in the discussion. Omni Flames let's talk about it 21:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I view relisting as a procedural matter, and as people have probably noticed, I perform a great deal of relists. A problem is that AfD simply does not reach the participation levels it was at a couple of years ago, which necessitates relisting. I don't think having relisted a discussion should preclude users from further participation. Precluding later participation places a user who relists in a situation of having to think ahead of time about whether or not they want to participate in the discussion; e.g. "If I relist this, then I can't participate". This could have chilling effects upon both AfD participation and relisting; e.g. "I relisted it so I won't participate, oh well", "I may want to participate, so I just won't relist". North America1000 00:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree - this may have been a problem when we had enough participation at AfD and other deletion related processes, but now that every comment counts, I think a neutral procedural relist should not preclude one from participation. Of course, if it's a bad-faith supervote relist, then that shouldn't be allowed either way, but in general it should not be an issue. ansh666 01:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It depends. I would say for sure that it's inappropriate to take into account your vote when relisting. i.e. If there appears to be some form of consensus but you disagree with it and make policy-based arguments for a different outcome, you should not then relist on the assumption that your vote will change things. Relisting discussions that you've participated at should be reserved for true procedural relistings where it is obvious that no reasonable closer would find a consensus. ~ RobTalk 02:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    • BU Rob13 (talk · contribs), I strongly agree with "I would say for sure that it's inappropriate to take into account your vote when relisting. i.e. If there appears to be some form of consensus but you disagree with it and make policy-based arguments for a different outcome, you should not then relist on the assumption that your vote will change things." This would be a good guideline to follow. Well stated. I think the relist and "delete" vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Greater Noida Rape Case would fall under this because the relister noted, "I'm still not confident about this being comfortable Kept thus I'm relisting for better attention".

      However, I disagree with "Relisting discussions that you've participated at should be reserved for true procedural relistings where it is obvious that no reasonable closer would find a consensus." Per Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions, "That said, relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable."

      Cunard (talk) 05:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

      • That's true, of course. If the XfD has gotten a lot of attention and had a full debate, then it could just be closed "no consensus" (a close which the type of editor we're discussing should not make, since they'd be WP:INVOLVED). Unfortunately, that type of XfD is fairly rare these days. At TfD, where I do most of my closing, we're lucky if we get three total editors in a discussion lately. ~ RobTalk 05:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
        • While there are many AfDs with low participation, there are also many AfDs with high participation that get relisted when they should be closed as "no consensus" (or some other result). One example AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ingrid Lyne, which an editor relisted and voted "delete" on. An admin overrode the relist and closed as "no consensus" because the AfD had plenty of attention and policy-based discussion. Cunard (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I was pinged on this, as one of the archived discussions was one I started. It is my opinion that an administrative action on Wikipedia should be neutral in all respects, no matter who executes it (admin or non). Voting and relisting are two separate processes. If an AfD is open, anyone can vote as he or she sees fit. However, if that vote changes the prior consensus such that it causes a relist, and the voter then immediately does the relist, it has the appearance of not being a neutral action. AfD voting is predicated not on quantity alone, but on the quality of the vote rationale. This means that a well-supported single vote in favor of deletion could close a discussion. So it is a question of what the appearance of the action is rather than the nature of the action itself. MSJapan (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

  • I would personally avoid it; if I come across a debate whilst closing/relisting and would prefer to participate it, I would participate and leave to someone else to close/relist. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I would generally avoid it, too, but I don't see how it could materially sway a deletion process without violations of other guidelines as well (WP:CANVASS comes to mind) - perhaps I'm missing something? I don't see any problem with it, really. I am concerned at the focus specifically on SwisterTwister's relist/votes and I'm curious if there are other examples of this relisting/voting behavior that you ((Cunard) or anyone else is specifically concerned about. I'm also concerned that we're reopening a discussion that's was already completed less than a year ago. I don't think it's really any narrower than the previous discussion, a slightly different focus but in essence the same and I can't forsee any different result than the last one, especially given the discussion so far. To take one of the examples given above, the Noida article, it was not a clear consensus for keep before relisting - while the explicit votes were 'keep' at that point (a grand total of two votes) there were still differing opinions/comments regarding the disposition of the article. As you are no doubt aware, no process at Wikipedia is supposed to be a straight count of the votes. Anyway, that's my two cents here. Chrisw80 (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
As you point out, people generally avoid it. However, there's nothing in policy or guidelines that explicitly stops SwisterTwister from doing what he did, and it was not (that I can see) to the detriment of the deletion process in the case you pointed out. The other examples appear to be long since over with (and discussed ad nauseum in the other discussions. I should also point out that the quotes are specifically talking about admins, of which SwisterTwister is not. He marks his actions as non-admin. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I disagree that relisting and voting is permitted by the guidelines. The guideline Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions says:

However, if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to solicit further discussion to determine consensus. A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days.

An AfD participant cannot be the closer. An AfD participant is expressly prohibited from being the closer at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How an AfD discussion is closed:

An admin who is uninvolved and has not participated in the deletion discussion will assess the discussion for consensus to Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki the article. For how to perform this, see WP:AFD/AI.

An editor in good standing who is not an administrator, and is also uninvolved, may close AfDs in certain circumstances; appropriate closures that non-admins may make are detailed at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure § Appropriate closures. For how to perform this, see below, subsection Procedure for non-administrator close (other)

You asked for other examples of relisting and voting so I listed them with an explanation about how they prompted accusations of impropriety at the time, which is why relisting and voting is detrimental to the process.

I am invoking the general principle and spirit of WP:INVOLVED to explain why it is inadvisable to relist and vote in AfDs.

Cunard (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

A closer is not the same as someone who is relisting - the terminology used is ambiguous, but I think that the prior discussion clarified adequately. Regardless, if we're talking about relisting and voting, we're rehashing a discussion that took place less than a year ago. I see no pressing need to change it's outcome. If you believe that SwisterTwister did not exercise good judgement per the discussion that we are apparently rehashing, then this probably isn't the right forum for it. Either way, I've said my piece. Best wishes to you. Chrisw80 (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Relisting and voting is rarely a good idea, but sometimes, it is good. An example of a good relist and close would be where a borderline consensus discussion is relisted with a neutral comment on focusing on a pertinent point, followed by new comments directed at that point, followed by a pause, followed by a close by the relister. Ideally, the corps of closer is large enough that the relister and closer are different people, but on a quiet week, better for the relister to closer per a clarified consensus than to let it drag on. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The vast majority of relists serve no purpose. If they are nothing more than week markers in a standard three-week listing, just redefine AfD as a three week process that may be closed from one week if consensus is clear. A meaningful relist points to new information, or makes a refocusing statement, and is especially useful to previous !voters. These meaningful relists are the minority, but due to their impression of administrative oversight, they should only be done by someone qualified to close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I would favor relists of well-attended discussions if new information has come to light. (The decision on whether the new information is substantial enough to warrant a relist should be made by someone who hasn't participated in the discussion.) However, in many cases I see numerous unnecessary relists of well-attended discussions that have had no new information that should just be closed. Cunard (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle died[edit]

I've used Twinkle to AfD Mind Blowing World, and it seems to have died half-way through the process. Here's a link to the log, but it then died with the following error message:

Notifying initial contributor (Eringroovy): Failed to save edit: error "Internal Server Error" occurred while contacting the API.

What needs doing to fix that up? Schwede66 04:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

  • @Schwede66:Please post about this at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle, where the people who wrote it will see the message. People there also are gonna be better with tech stuff and knowing how to fix it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry for being vague. The question is: what AfD steps will have to be done manually now that Twinkle has died? As outlined above, the log entry has been created, and I have now manually notified the page creator. Is there anything else that needs doing? Schwede66 04:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
@Schwede66: Everything is in order. The notification you did manually was the only part that Twinkle didn't do. — JJMC89(T·C) 04:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Good. Thanks! Schwede66 04:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Anchor in heading[edit]

@JJMC89: Hello. In revision 730386650, you've written "{{anchor}} shouldn't be used in headings".

Why? And says who?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: From Template:Anchor#Limitations: If the template is added to a section title then the code will appear in the edit summary window when that section is edited, as in "/* {{anchor|Issues}}Limitations */ New issue". Also, when the section is saved, browsers may not return to the section. Consider using <span id="..."></span> directly, rather than using the anchor template, when in a section title. — JJMC89(T·C) 19:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Codename Lisa (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Search broken[edit]

The Search all deletion discussions function just keeps saying "An error has occurred while searching: Search request is longer than the maximum allowed length." Oktalist (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

DREADFULLY unclear and unhelpful article[edit]

I want to nominate an article for speedy deletion. I am looking for the procedure for this. I don't have time to become an expert on Wikipedia. I have commented on the article's Talk page of my intention. Grounds for the dfeletion are Wikipedia's standing as a reliable resource. Please see Talk page for details: Over to you cogniscenti out there. LookingGlass (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

AfD voting templates[edit]

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#AfD voting templates. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)