Wikipedia talk:Undeletion policy/Archive 1

message: Recent experience has illustrated to me that the Exception rule is flawed.  In particular,  it appears that there is an expectation that the VfU must last five days, even if the deleting sysop states that the deletion was not in accordance with policy.  The policy as it currently stands states:
:If the page was obviously deleted "out of process" (i.e. not in accordance with current deletion policy), then a sysop may choose to undelete immediately. In such a case, the sysop who deleted the page should be informed of the undeletion and the reason for it. The page then should be listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. If you are unclear as to whether it was out of process or not, the normal undeletion procedure should apply.
I would propose the following revision to the policy of exceptions.  
:If the page was obviously deleted "out of process" (i.e. not in accordance with current deletion policy) and  a Vote for Undeletion has not been started, then a sysop may choose to undelete immediately. In such a case, the sysop who deleted the page should be informed of the undeletion and the reason for it. The page then should be listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. 
:If you are unclear as to whether it was out of process or not, the normal undeletion procedure should apply.  All articles being voted on at VfU must remain for the whole five days, regardless of the apparent merits of the case.
Support
#Sjakkalle 09:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that this proposal actually says the opposite: that an article may be immediately undeleted, but the discussion must remain for the full duration.
Comment
* Looking at this now, I was surprised to see that the proposal was made as long ago as April! I think the current policy is correctly stated.  There is a situation where an article is deleted out-of-process by a sysop in "bold" mode because he disputes  a non-delete VfD close, and then the deleting sysop (not the original closer) has listed the article on VFU.  Undeletion followed by relisting of the article on VfD permits the discussion to remain in-process, and prevents a double-jeopardy situation where an article is legitimately kept according to a validly closed VfD, but then deleted and kept deleted by discussion on VfU.  A close no-consensus keep would not necessarily be able to command a majority to undelete. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed revision to "Exceptions" clause 

message: I was wondering why VFU has a formal suffrage policy of 25 edits, where any other voting page (e.g. *FD, RFA, etc) has an informal suffrage policy that allows anyone to vote, but allows for some votes to be discounted (per common sense) if they have a lack of edit history. The specific rule for VFU sounds rather like instruction creep, and it also means that we must allow anyone to vote here if they follow the specifics of the rule, even if common sense would indicate otherwise (e.g. 25 major edits to a single article related to the VFU matter, or 25 major edits most of which were reverted, etc). If we're going to rely on common sense anyway, we could probably do without this strict line. Radiant_>|< 08:22, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
:Well I agree with you, but you might have guessed that from my comments on the suffrage page!
:On another note, the board member vote has to have strict suffrage requirements because it is a secret ballot... which begs the question... why is it a secret ballot? I think we debated this a bit but can't find the chit-chat in question. Pcb21| Pete 15:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formal suffrage 

message: Hey, that's interesting, VFU has an exception to how a situation is decided which is contrary to every other page on wikipedia. Namely, it requires a majority, not a consensus.  I'm trying to figure when it crept in. Kim Bruning 15:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, spotted it. It crept in due to an effort to make quick undeletions possible. Kim Bruning 15:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken the liberty of changing the wording slightly since under WP:NOT it clearly states that wikipedia is not a democracy and unless the arbcom or Jimbo rules otherwise there shouldn't be some random exception for VFU rules. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 21:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Jtkeifer, I must have missed the discussion on that. Changing a part of policy in a vacuum of discussion seems odd. And no, I don't think it's such a great idea, especially considering the running discussion on VfU's scope and operation. -Splashtalk 22:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

text: And the reason it's a bad idea is much what Tony's later amendment pointed out: it makes it much harder to reverse an out of process deletion. My reply from a while back just up there explains why a lower threshold here makes sense. But do go to Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion where the kind of change you just made is being discussed. -Splashtalk 22:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally of course I'd take it up for discussion, however I decided that it was uneeded this time due to the fact that I was making changes to put the page in line with existing Wikipedia policy. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 22:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was changing one policy in line with another. Why not change the other policy? Obviously not, I know, but it shows why you should discuss first. -Splashtalk 22:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just forget it, the system is broken and you know as well as I do that hell will freeze over before they get any kind of consensus on the issue so what's the fucking point. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 22:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that was at all necessary. But anyway, Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU is currently proceeding reasonably constructively. -Splashtalk 22:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  EH? Majority?

message: The latest change attempt does not merely replace "majority" with "consensus" but instead reverses "undelete" to "keep deleted" as requiring more votes. - Tεxτurε 20:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tony Sidaway's proposed policy change 

message: In light of Snowspinner's comments above, I am revising my proposal as follows:
I propose that this bullet be reeplaced by the following two bullets: 
*"Article wrongly deleted in that the deletion process was not properly followed. This could include relevant issues raised during the deletion discussion being ignored when they ought to have been responded to, or the articel not being properly listed for discusion. it does not include people in the undeletion discussion simply disagreeing with the conclusions of those editors who participated in the deletion discussion." 
*"Significant objections to deletion were not raised during the deletion discussion because the users were not aware that the discussioon was taking place. If undeleted for this reason, a new deletion discusion will genrally be held on the appropriate page, where these objections can be raised and assesed."
That will keep VfU focused on process, but not allow deletion of good articles merely because soemone was not watching AfD, and allow a proper consensus to be formed, one way or the other, when people are watching. Obviously the "I dodn't notice" reason coudln't be invokled by people who participated in the XfD discussion, biut otherwise we would normally assume good faith if someone says that s/he didn't notice a deletion discussion. 
Snowspinner, does that deal with your point satisfactorially? DES (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You know this is almost exactly the proposal you already supported over at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU, up to a couple of points about when things can be ignored? -Splashtalk 22:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The two are certianly intended to be not inconsistant, and indeed compelementary. This proposal is IMO less radical in that it does not empower VfU to consider or reverse non-delete outcomes, nor does it explicitly sanction results other than "undelete" as the other proposal does, IIRC. This proposal grew out of the specific claim that the wording about wrongly deleted articles being those whose undeletion would improve wikipeia implied that VfD debates should normally review content, and be basically reruns of AfD (or so the claims seemed to me, perahaps i am misrepresnting them, as i oppose them). IMO this proposal could pass and would be worthwhile even if the Deletion Review proposal does not, but that proposal might be a bit handicapped unless it includes this or something like it. DES (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that 'radical' proposal would certainly alter the mechanics of the undeletion policy more broadly than this one would. But still, the phrasing here could be incorporated there very easily; that proposal needs a preamble anyway. It strikes me that there are two very similar discussions taking place in two seperate places and that the end result is a stalemate between the two just because they're not in the same place. That would be unfortunate for both suggestions. -Splashtalk 23:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Siunce this proposal was specifically to cahnge the wording (although as I see it not the intent) of the policy page, i didn't think discussion of it belonged on Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion. If there were a separat proposal page that would be a different matter. I was careful to give cross-links in both places. DES (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  You're proposing that we remove all reference to whether Wikipedia would be better off with the article than without.  That's a very radical change in intent, don't try to sweep that under the rug. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: there is substantial agreement that the deletion policy was wrongly ignored during the AfD.
For a recent arguable example of this, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of power ballads and, with reference to that this wikien-l email. While we'd have to consider the merits and arrive at a consensus, I think a good case can be made that the article was not a deletion candidate according to the deletion policy.
AfD isn't a United States court, and the deliberations of AfD participants are not unchallengable.  An article is always deleted if it's a copyvio, no matter how many keep votes there are.  An article may be kept if the conditions raised in the nomination are satisfied, no matter how many delete votes there are.  it should be possible for VFU to restore an article if it is convinced that AfD got it wrong, even if the deletion process was followed. Let's not get hung up on process--an encyclopedia is about content and we must address situations where good content is deleted because the process is not perfect. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Tony Sidaway that the VfU process is crazy if content is taken out of the picture.  That is afterall what we're here to create, content — not process — so that's part of what we should be judging on.  I've seen enough highly uninformed votes on AfD to not fully trust that process.  — Laura Scudder | Talk 17:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I strongly disagree with this. If VfU si to reverse bad judgement calls at AfD, why shouldn't bad judgemetn calls at VfU also be subject to reexamination. Where is there any fianlity in this process? DES (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not paper so we shouldn't expect any sort of finality in this process.  We rely on the fact that issues can be brought up and reexamined.  — Laura Scudder | Talk 23:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You seem to want VfU to be a second vote for keep or delete.  If that's all you want just extend the AfD to two weeks or schedule a second vote for each AfD - because if VfU can be started by content each and every person who loses an AfD will begin at VfU.  Why not?  Free second chance.  Is this proposal of yours really just an effort to kill deletions for good? Because that's the effect I see out of this. - Tεxτurε 15:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: #1 is certainly very true. I think VfU averages less than an article a day. On the other hand, a reasonable proportion of articles brought there are editors who want their forum listing undeleted on the basis of a thousand socks, or in a more recent example, a vanity page because he had been denied his "human right to an article" (I kid you not). #2 - you will want to go and oppose the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion which has just produced a wide consensus that flawed 'keeps' should also be taken to a newly-named VfU, as a means for cutting off wheel wars before they even break out. At the very least, instead of an admin simply reversing another admin's closure, surely you would suggest they discuss it among themselves first? -Splashtalk 18:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will, in fact, oppose, because of the simple reason that administrator calls are not democratically overturned. Yes - administrators should talk it out amongst themselves. (And my objection to the Airplane! VfD is specifically taking it to VfU, as though there's anything to democratically determine. In truth, the issue is that one of us is wrong - either I'm wrong, and 60% is a threshold, or you are, and it's not. But this should not be determined on a case by case vote, which is what the Deletion Review proposal leads to. Either 60% is a consensus or it's not. It's not a consensus depending on the vote. Snowspinner 18:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I already answered the part of that comment relating to Airplane! on AN/I, so we should probably contain the discussion to there. -Splashtalk 18:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I used it mainly because it was clearly the example on both of our minds. Because I still don't think the VfU is relevent to the discussion in that case. :) Snowspinner 18:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revised proposal

message: I have changed
 If, after five days have passed, at least 3 people (including the person who proposed it) currently want to undelete and a majority are currently in favor of undeletion, the page may be undeleted by a sysop. If ten days elapse and the proposed undeletion lacks 3 supporters and a majority, then the page remains deleted (to avoid rapid re-deletion since deletion requires a two-thirds majority).
to
If, after five days have passed, at least 3 people (including the person who proposed it) currently want to undelete and there is a consensus in favor of undeletion, the page may be undeleted by a sysop. If ten days elapse and the proposed undeletion lacks 3 supporters and there is no consensus to undelete, then the page remains deleted (to avoid rapid re-deletion since deletion requires a two-thirds majority).
This being in line with other wikipedia voting mechanisms and not in compliance with WP:NOT Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 17:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know people prefer discussion on this and ironically would like consensus, however this is only to bring it in line with existing policies so there is no real need for discussion before hand. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 17:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason people prefer discussion is because some disagree with you. Note that other changes are actually being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion and Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal. You could join in there rather than summarily rewriting policy. -Splashtalk 17:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would if I were rewriting policy, I am just bringing this in line with existing policy. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 17:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not rewrite the other one and bring that in line with this? Anyway, Wikipedia is inherently inconsistent, and VfU on a majority works very well. Changing to consensus as written by you makes undeletion adn repair of mistakes much harder. VfU is procedural, and so there is a lower bar to undeleting an article and returning it to community discussion than there was for deleting in the first place. -Splashtalk 17:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: While I think this should properly read "consensus", I don't see much point in getting overly bothered over it.  VfU is, like the entire deletion mechanism on Wikipedia, broken, and this tweak won't fix it.  As to the assertion that VfU is "entirely procedural", that's a load of donkey doodle; reconsideration of the substantial question is definitely germane here.  Of course, factionalization is going to exist here just as it does on AfD, and as long as the factions exist there is not going to be consensus to fix it.  I think it's going to take a technological change to resolve this impasse. Kelly Martin 17:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't donkey doodle at all. In fact, the process works quite well; look at the recent clutch of school undeletions that were unanimous. That'd never happen on AfD. The factions on VfU are far less severe than on AfD. The 'substantial question' is only germane insofar as the admin needs to look at the article to see if the comments are actually 'true' or not and in that sense the article is part of the VfU discussion determining if the admin got it right or not. Plus, by way of repeated advertisement, you might see the so-far widely supported changes proposed on VfU talk and the proposal page as I linked to above; they are a sharp move in the direction of a consensus-based process. -Splashtalk 17:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if VFU was even needed for those school undeletions.  Correct me if I'm wrong but if I remember correctly they were all incorrectly closed by an admitted rabid school deletionist. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 17:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be about right, I think. But the school-deletionists could have opted to keep them all deleted: they didn't, and unanimously so. When people see a blatant violation of the process turn up on VfU they move to correct it, largely regardless of the content. The current debate on Knunder is a good example of a terrible article about to be undeleted: but which would stay deleted despite a fairly clear error in process (imo, anyway) if we had a consensus system rather than a majoritarian one. -Splashtalk 17:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  wording change