Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 10

message: This is both a reminder that we currently still have to manually archive finished days into Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February (soon Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March) and a plea for anyone with bot/script knowledge to get in touch with me if you're willing to help in automatizing the process. Thanks. ~ trialsanderrors 07:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't do it myself, but I've made a request for it at the bot requests page.  GRBerry 23:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: One thing that I've noticed that has been a concern is community involvement. With the closings of several Wiki-orgs such as esperanza and concordia, and from what I've seen many WikiProjects that have become fairly inactive, it should be no surprise that the XfD system (of which DRV is a part) has issues of lack of community involvement.
Perhaps we should start a new discussion about how to "advertise" the processes in some way. It just seems that those involved are typically only those who are directly involved with the article/template/category/etc in question, and a few of those then leave a few other votes on other discussions on the page. The Cent template is nice, but I think if we don't have an XfD template, we should. Awhile back we were discussing some changes to the sidebar. Perhaps a link to a page like: "Content for discussion" - which would act as a page with some links to the various XfD discussions. One thing is fairly certain, Something needs to happen, and soon. - jc37 09:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We reached the point long ago when the community is simply too large; you're still only going to get the people who are marginally involved, because nobody else sees anything related. We're going to have to trust that XfD regulars combined with people involved with the subject can determine the coorect answer, because if they can't, then there's nothing we can do about it. -Amarkov moo! 23:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A momentary aside

message: As part of turning the archiving over to a bot I'm also trying to strip the discussions fom the transclusions of the daily logs. This has become necessary because the monthly logs (which serve as archives beyond the eleven days we have on the WP:DRV frontpage) are becoming monstrously large with the increased number of nominations, and shed the first couple of days towards the end of the month (I believe this is because the amount of text that can be transcluded is limited by the software). This is mostly for Xoloz and GRBerry, since they're the ones most likely to delve into the archives, but all community input is welcome:
# Should we strip the discussions from the transclusions as soon as the daily log is closed, or when it drops off the front page? The latter alternative makes for slower load times but quicker access to fairly recent discussions.
# I created two different ways of creating those archives, one retains the beige box while the other one turns the log into a simple bulleted list, see March 1 and March 2 at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March.
Happy to indulge any proposals as long as a bot can perform them... ~ trialsanderrors 19:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving redux

message: If there is no concensus after 5 days, can deletion review be reopened at a later date despite no new information having come to light? --Oldak Quill 00:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussions above.  A deletion review discussion can't close as a "no consensus".  Any such decision would default to "relist to AFD" (or RfD, etc.).  Rossami (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No concensus 

message: Hi,
The article is similar to other articles which my friends made . I tried to add references and some sources. everyday I studied the wiki and beforehand I tried on sandbox.
Now when I was getting successful to put some photos with correct copyright way , you've just deleted my page.
there are several websites about Pooya Mirzaee Rad . and I was trying to make a integrated link referenced to each claim on the page.
anyway I don't believe that this article should be deleted. Even I don't have the content to make it better...
what you are doing is not HELP! it's destroying and I'm so unhappy about it.
in the article pooya mirzaee rad there was no advertisement. a user introducing web page or something like that.
it was all about kharizmi festival which is an important event and winners are most important topics to follow.
please advice... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pooyarad (talk • contribs) 05:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should follow the steps for nomination at WP:DRV. I can't even guess from this what article is supposed to be undeleted. ~ trialsanderrors 05:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection on deletion of  pooya mirzaee rad 

message: I was wondering if an administrator can let me see the text that was deleted from Lengths of fantasy film and television series.  I would like to merge its material into Lengths of science fiction film and television series, which survived the AFD nomination.  Thanks.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not with that reasoning. You can't copy content from a deleted article into another article, because according to gfdl you have to attribute edits to those people who actually made them. Furthermore, if the afd result is a delete, that means the content will be deleted, not put into another place. If you think the afd should've been closed as a merge instead of a delete (which actually would've made a lot more sense than deleting this one and keeping another just like it), you'll have to ask the afd closer (User:TigerShark) or propose this article for undeletion on the project page. - Bobet 10:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My I please see a copy of [[Lengths of fantasy film and television series]] 

message: one quick question. I forgot to save the content on the article called "RadioGreen" that has been removed today. I wanted to place it on the "about" page on the RadioGreen site. I was wondering if i can get the content of the article. Thank You.
--Josh Hubi 16:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken care of this. TomTheHand 20:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Article 

message: As close to a perennial proposal as DRV gets, but seeing how we're kind of up in the air regarding what DRV is, I think it's time to trot the idea out again.
We should be undeleting the history of DRVs in most cases.
I recognize that copyvios have no need, want, or desire to have their histories exposed, and I grudgingly understand the desire for allegedly defamatory material unavailable for review, but for the rest, what's the logic behind holding it back?  It's very difficult to accurately judge many deletions, including A7s/G11s/A1s/A3s in particular, without that necessary context, so why shouldn't this be automatic? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From my pre-admin times I'd say for 80% of the reviews restoring is unnecessary. But if there's a reasoned request I usually restore behind the DRV screen, as long as the number of requests by the same editor is within reason. You can contact me on my talk page or e-mail me if I don't see it. ~ trialsanderrors 23:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... why not restore everything under a DRV screen by default, like he suggested? The problem with only restoring when it's necessary is that it's hard after having the information to judge if you needed it to come to an opinion. -Amarkov moo! 00:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What he said. I mean, I could simply request history undeletion on everything, but if it were simply understood that it should occur for most of these, it would cut out the middle man. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And usually the request and sometimes discussion are much more trouble, because once it is simply visible everyone generally just agrees. DGG 00:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice to have some more clarity in the system, no? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It also often depends on the reason for the deletion. If it's simply alleged non-notability of a local band or a high school or a webcomic, there's often no harm at all to allowing the article to be visible again for 5 days. If the deletion reason is a more serious problem that is often different. Newyorkbrad 00:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said in my initial statement... --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If the burden were spread equally I wouldn't have a problem with it, but as it is, User:Mangojuice/Slave applies. When I was still the sole regular closer keeping up with formatting fixes and other was a fulltime job. I already made 8 edits to today's log and only one of them was an editorial comment. I can see that a restoration be necessary for a number of contested cases, but I have little interst to add this to my diet for all the cases where the outcome is clear anyway. ~ trialsanderrors 00:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fair criticism, I suppose.  Of course, trying to get one or two admins who only do the history undeletions shouldn't be that much of a problem either, I'd hope.  Makes me wish I was a palatable enough candidate for promotion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *mumbles a complaint about needing more admins* -Amarkov moo! 00:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm bad with templates and stuff, but I help out with the malformed noms when I can, and try to put up the new day headers if it's getting close.  I think most of us who are big on the DRV thing can certainly step up better if that's a need. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google cache added to the template, by the way. -Amarkov moo! 01:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone should contact them to make sure it's okay, I suppose, but I can't figure it out, so if someone else could it would be nice. I'm not sure whether or not their terms of use would prohibit this. -Amarkov moo! 01:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why? Good idea btw. ~ trialsanderrors 01:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I oppose automatic history-restores.  I understand the logic behind the request but it is unnecessary and inappropriate in the majority of reviews.  Where it would be helpful, it can be requested by the editors in the discussion.  But where there is not a good-faith need, we should not be feeding the trolls and other abusive editors who are petitioning for their patently inappropriate page to have a few more days of life.  Rossami (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So we need to buckle to the occasional troll and keep well-meaning editors from making sound decisions?  I really can't get behind that line of thought. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My informal count of recent review requests shows more where it would be inappropriate or unnecessary (76%) than where it could be appropriate or helpful (24%).  That more than "the occasional troll".  Rossami (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What definitions are you using here?  --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History undeletions 

message: This page claims it "considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions". It makes no sense to have the page handle deletions where someone wants to overturn the deletion, Keep decisions where someone wants the article to have been deleted, but then NOT to handle redirect decisions, especially as redirection is essentially a form of deletion.  If this page is supposed to handle potential improper deletion discussion results, then all of them should be handled, including redirects.  If anyone attempts to remove a redirect which was following the conclusion of an AfD debate, someone who notices will put it back and claim that the will of the AfD partipants/closing admin should be followed.
If, on the other hand, the purpose of this page is merely to allow non-admins to get deleted pages back, if such a thing is appropriate, then there is no purpose behind having this page be used to get Keep decisions overturned.  Anyone who wants to overturn a Keep decision can simply AfD the article a second time.
So, what is the purpose of this page?  --Xyzzyplugh 07:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirects, unless they're performed as "delete and redirect", don't delete the page history. If you get consensus on the talk page or if you have substantial new informetion that fixes the problems brought up in the AfD discussion, you can revert the redirect yourself. You don't need admin help for it. ~ trialsanderrors 08:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes, and Keep results from an AfD don't require this page either, as anyone who disagrees can simply run the article through AfD again.  (and, heh, getting consensus on a redirect's talk page wouldn't be too hard, who ever reads talk pages for redirects?  A group of 1 can always reach a consensus)  --Xyzzyplugh 13:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Trials is correct.  Redirect decisions are solved on the respective article Talk pages.  They do not need to be discussed here since the page's history was never deleted.  New consensus can be found and carried out without the use of special admin powers.  Undeleting a page or re-deciding a Keep decision and then deleting the page both do require admin intervention.  Could you ask for a reconsideration of a Keep decision by simply nominating the article again?  Yes.  And that's how it works out in most cases.  The keep decisions nominated here are by far the exception, not the rule.   By the way, the place to get consensus on the redirect is generally not the redirect's Talk page.  That discussion is normally held on the target article's Talk page for just the reason you describe - to find enough interested editors to actually reach a meaningful consensus.  Rossami (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, what you're implying is that AfD's which result in redirect decisions essentially carry no weight whatsoever.  The vast majority of the edits I make on Wikipedia, probably 99%, I don't discuss them on the talk page before I make them, and almost all of them "stick" and aren't immediately reverted.  From Wikipedia:Consensus: " "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it".  If I come across a redirect which looks to me like it should be restored, or a low traffic stub of an article which I think should be redirected, I do it without discussing it with anyone first every time.  The fact that I am rarely reverted means I end up having consensus.  If I undo a redirect, and leave a note on the redirect target's talk page saying I have done so, I guarantee you there is a 98% chance no one will object, rarely will anyone care what redirects to some article they're interested in, unless it's a massively high traffic page with thousands of editors paying attention to it and interfering in every decision everyone tries to make.  So I can pretty much alone undo any deletion debate decision resulting in redirect.  --Xyzzyplugh 21:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a general rule of thumb, if an AfD gets closed as "redirect" and an edit war breaks out over it, and you believe the closure was out of process it's ok to have it reviewed here (make note of the edit war). Just to get the ok to revert the redirect you don't have to bring it here. I generally agree that AfD decisions carry some weight even if they don't involve deletions, but DRV should be the last resort if editors can't come to an agreement otherwise. ~ trialsanderrors 21:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  I did not mean to imply that the AFD discussion carries no weight.  It was, after all, a discussion among editors who presumably took the time to educate themselves on the issues and to offer thoughtful opinions.  But that part of the decision is no more decisive than an equally thoughtful discussion held on the article's Talk page.  Subsequent editors simply have to be ready to defend their assessment that consensus has changed (or stand ready to be reverted when someone finds it in the Recent Changes patrol).   The only time you'd bring a "redirect closure" here is if you think the closure itself was out-of-process.  Rossami (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As I understand the general principles of cooperative editing, and particularly the WP:BOLD guidelines, major changes are absolutely to be discussed on the talk page before making them. Except  in trivial cases, I think changing an article to a  redirect or back should not be done without prior discussion on the talk page. If after a week or so nobody objects, then I think the right to use the argument from silence.  When I first came here, I did make a few bold deletions of sections on some pages, though never amounting to redirecting an entire article, and the reaction made it clear to me the utter inadvisability of doing so again on an actively worked on article. I think there is one good place to do it, and that is on an article which seems to be entirely ignored--usually someone wakes up, but if not, then its reasonable to go ahead as best one can. DGG 05:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to look at (assuming you haven't, before), Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.  An essay only, but one which has had strong support.  See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for a bit of discussion on it when someone tried to delete it.  Although, yes, changing a major popular page into a redirect without discussion first is not likely something I would do.  --Xyzzyplugh 07:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The practice of how this page is used makes no sense

message: Just a heads-up that I made a small change in the  (or ) template: the level 4 header, with a (closed) marker, is now part of the template. So any discussion can now be closed by simply replacing the four equal signs on each side of the title into the the template text:
  ====Title====
is changed to
  
which turns into
====Title (closed)====
* Title – Decision – trialsanderrors 08:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *DISCUSSION
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hope that makes closures a bit easier. ~ trialsanderrors 08:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Change in [[Template:DRV top]]

message: * Title – Decision – trialsanderrors 08:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *DISCUSSION
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hope that makes closures a bit easier. ~ trialsanderrors 08:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Title]] (closed)

message: On this passage in section 5.1: "Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion."
Just wondering what actions at the WP:Guide to Deletion page this is referring to? I see no section called 'actions', and no list of obvious actions at that page. I see examples of shorthand, discussion guidelines and the like. Any assistance in directing to a list of common actions is appreciated. Thanks. --Keefer4 | Talk 03:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Osomosis and time at the page have answered this.--Keefer4 | Talk 02:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question re: 5.1

message: I asked for a subpage of mine to be deleted, but now I want it back. I'm guessing that this is the incorrect place to do so.. Where would I bring my request? Zachary talk 19:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably on the front page under the Content Review section.  Or you could just drop a note to any admin who's on line at the time.  As long as it's a good-faith request, it sounds pretty straight-forward.  Rossami (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undeletion of user subpage? 

message: I was under the impression that if an AfD closure is overturned at DRV and sent back to DRVAfD, the ("nth nomination") number does not increment. Is that correct? I ask because if it is, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (third nomination) should be considered a second nomination. Kla'quot 04:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's any rule on that, but why does it matter anyway? -Amarkov moo! 04:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually it does increment. Not sure how we would implement it without incrementing. Erase the prior discussion? ~ trialsanderrors 04:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, I see now. The cases I saw where we didn't increment were probably ones where the title changed between nominations. I do think it matters though, because having a high nomination number tends to  bias the discussion towards keep. Kla'quot 05:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The system is a complete mess, and I can see that AfD's that already went through (third nomination) are later listed as (2nd nomination). On bias, people are more likely to vote for candidates who appear first on the ballot, I don't think we have a chance to remove bias from the process. ~ trialsanderrors 05:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD nomination numbers 

message: And, once again, DRV shows how it's generally becoming useless.  Darvon cocktail was an obviously improper speedy deletion.  There's no denying this.  Unfortunately, since I didn't think to canvass anyone or draw attention to the problem, a simple majority vote upheld an abusive deletion.
How the hell do we fix DRV? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the meantime, I've listed it as a review of the deletion review as a test at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_15. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I see Sam has decided to go the route of abuse again and close it.  So, while I consider reversing him, how do we fix DRV? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue here isn't DRV. It's that, despite the fact that any efforts to actually make it policy are defeated, many people seem to think that unsourced articles should be speedily deleted if there is any concievable way in which they could be harmful to anyone or anything. You can't only fix it in one spot. -Amarkov moo! 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, nor do I think it's only one issue, there's a wider-scale issue.  However, that doesn't excuse the point that DRV does this more often than it should - endorsing poor decisions, wrong decisions, or abusive decisions.  Any fixing of the greater culture still needs a fix here if it's meant to be a proper appeals process. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I think about it, any fix here must involve either changing the opinions of those who participate, or changing who participates; the process fixes that get constantly suggested to solve problems like this don't work. And I'm not entirely convinced either of those things are possible to do. -Amarkov moo! 21:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there's a way to hold them accoutnable.  Blanning has disruptively closed it again, and non one's going to hold him accountable, so it's impossible to get traction. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shoudl I RfC Blanning? --MalcolmGin 23:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It'll be worthless. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Gah, is every single problem on Wikipedia going to end up somehow linked to our horribly unscalable final step in dispute resolution? -Amarkov moo! 21:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, if Blanning gets blocked, so too will Jeff for the same sorts of WP:POINTy disruptive edits and quasi-personal attacks... I would say tread very carefully here. The last thing I think we all want to see is two editors who, arguably, have contributed positively to Wikipedia, get blocked. I sure don't. Rockstar (T/C) 22:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not.  I've, after all, shown no continual abuse of process and policy.  But that's beside the point - at this stage, let's figure out a) how to fix DRV so these issues don't crop up, and b) how to hold administrators accountable for poor decisions when it comes to figuring out the appeals. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm hoping to not bring it to that point, although the option has to be on the table.  Given that there is no possible place to appeal the appeal... --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is, unfortunately, the place to appeal the appeal. But I just don't think it's worth it. You might. But I don't, and I'd bet that the ArbCom won't either. Rockstar (T/C) 22:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thus the reason why it's time to figure out the next step so we don't have to go that far. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like you're inferring that there should be some sort of community arbitration, no? I can see why, assuming we want to strengthen Wikipedia's bureaucracy, you would want that. But don't think we need it -- I think the process works fine here. Plus, we're too bogged down in processes as is. Why create more? Rockstar (T/C) 23:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what the answer is, perhaps a larger-scale community arbitration is in order.  But the process isn't working fine if we're seeing errors like what we saw today, that's the problem.  I'm working on a larger-scale DRV project to try and see exactly how broken it is, but it's not good. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a reason that conflict resolution and policy design/writing are both professions. Folks in the world in those fields know/agree that large organizations, volunteer or not, require consistent, reliable policy and enforcement in order to continue to function in a consensus-driven way. This is how non-profits in the world work, especially those that have existed in civil rights social reform and other extremely liberal political causes. Without reliable policy and enforcement of policy, what you instead get is faction-driven progress, which can be a whole lot less unified, but, yes, quicker. My suggestion for you who want to have less process is to redesign the policy to fit the kind of process you want to utilize, but for the love of G-d and man, please, please, please don't practice process in contravention of standing policy, because then every decision will seem to be and actually be prurient and random. --MalcolmGin 23:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still have yet to be convinced that the current process is either broken, prurient or random. I think it works just fine, and furthermore, I think the Darvon cocktail ordeal shows that Wikipedians have their heads in the right places, namely to remove unsourced, unverifiable, and potentially dangerous articles from Wikipedia. Maybe the process was bent in this case (but not without good reason), but it sure wasn't broken as the correct decision was made in the end. Rockstar (T/C) 00:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly. FCYTravis 00:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Because it's just as much about the content as the improper use of the tools and the improper deletion.  I don't care to run an AfD at DRV, nor should I have to. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still not getting this. The article was deleted without prejudice to a properly sourced and written recreation. Can that be done? If it can, there's no need for a DRV at all - just do it and ask anyone to unsalt. If it can't then there's no need for a DRV (AfD) or anything. I don't see the need for any debate here. Why did this ever come to DRV? What's the point? There is no honest dispute to ask the community to resolve. Seems to be a waste of everyone's time.--Docg 08:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is an reason to get to the bottom of this, and this is the perfect article for it: 1) It was apparently speedied on censorship grounds (it was "dangerous"), which is a really firm no-no among the community, 2) It was upheld due to lack of sources (which was a proposal not too long ago and soundly rejected, 3) the same group of editors who think the rules don't apply were some of the most vocal in terms of keeping (an ongoing problem), and 4) It outlined in a perfect way how broken DRV is. I can't think of another article that can intersect so many of the issues this project is facing than this one.  If you think making sure our basic process works and that community consensus is upheld is a waste of time, I'm not sure what to tell you - I reject that completely. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reject what? It was a simple question both germane and genuine - can a decent well-sourced article be written here or not? If it can, then let's sort it. If not, then.....--Docg 12:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reject your assertion that an article that highlights so many of our problems can be considered a waste of time.  I bet a well-sourced article could be written - that's not what the DRV was for. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a bit pointless saying 'process is broken' when you have an obvious remedy. ! Write the well-sourced article - I'll be happy to unsalt and move it into place. Then if anyone wants it deleted they can go to afd. The DRV didn't rule out a properly written recreation. Why plonk the process when you can fix the content?--Docg 12:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that doesn't address the issue.  If the process is broken, we need to fix it - it's not like Darvon cocktail is the first article to be closed incorrectly at DRV, it just demonstrates a larger amount of our problems. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But process is only broken where it ends up with the wrong result in terms of improving the encyclopedia. If this is the wrong result, then the remedy to right it lies open. I see no fundamental problem in terms of content improvement.--Docg 12:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At no point does the allowance of individual administrators to buck the widely supported consensus on a) what can be speedily deleted, and b) censorship, both of which are policies, improve the project. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Regardless of if that's a good idea, there has to be some point where we just say "this is FINAL, no more discussion", because courts of infinite appeals do not work. -Amarkov moo! 05:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, absolutely; that's why I said that the threshold for speedy-close should be very low.  For instance, Jeff argued that the first review should have come to a different conclusion because of improper process, but everyone at that review was aware of the improper process and took it into consideration when forming their opinions, so I think the speedy-close of Jeff's review review was completely justified.  We could also limit it to one level (no review review reviews), because if you get two reviews closed against you in a row, it should be obvious that there's an evil cabal of mascaraed rouge admins plotting against you, and it's time to email Jimbo take your complaints elsewhere.  :)  Xtifr tälk 12:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, and I wouldn't have tried to review the review of the review anyway, because I would have figured out that it wasn't going to change at that stage here.  But just because people endorsed using improper rationales does not mean they should have been weighted more heavily than those with proper rationales.  We generally wouldn't keep an article that fails policy at AfD if 5 people said keep and two said delete, yet we do that here.  It's nonsensical. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And I'm very willing to stand up against censorship of that type. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The stupid thing is that Suicide method has been up for deletion three times with a Keep result (I voted Delete). It has the same problems Darvon cocktail had, and in some ways it's worse. Sometimes an article barely squeaks by at DRV only to get a solid Keep consensus at AfD, and having seen this a few times I believe that the crowd at AfD is more sympathetic to inclusion, less sympathetic to IAR, and less likely to run the debate as an admin popularity contest. I've seen it argued (especially in the Brandt fiasco) that having AfD debates here is a shortcut to the same result; it isn't because the participant list at AfD is a wider cross-section of the community. Kla'quot 14:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never noted that article before and am extremely troubled by it as well, although most of the information in it is common knowledge. I've never been closer to a sua sponte IAR deletion: "article creates an imminent danger to human life". At a minimum, I would certainly suggest that some drastic pruning, with deletion of prior revisions, is in order, although I am probably not the right person to do it.  Newyorkbrad 15:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the particular issue of descriptions of suicide methods, I would be in favour of having deletion policy (but not speedy deletion policy) specifically advocate deletion. Kla'quot 15:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I would say that the Wikipedia editors' irrationalities and superstitions about death, euthanasia, free will, and censorship completely disabled their ability to deal with the situation intelligently.  However, that so many good intellects on Wikipedia have that difficulty in dealing with reality is a good indication that the average reader would have even more problems in dealing with reality.  So therefore the page should probably stay deleted--simply because civilized people generally have not progressed to where they are able to deal intelligently with death, euthanasia, free will, and censorship.  Hence, I am not sure it would be a good idea for Wikipedia to have even a well cited page on Darvon cocktail, notwithstanding its ready availability on the mirror sites with an advertisement for enough pills to do the job for under $25 USD.  And I think your campaign against censorship, irrationality, and superstition is admirable, even though I think you should lose your battle in this case over this particular page.  --Rednblu 14:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Rednblu on this one. If the process is broken and there have been numerous cases like the Daron cocktail (or so it has been implied), then there must be a better example than the Darvon cocktail, right? Because I guarantee it's not gonna win at ArbCom or anywhere else. If, however, there aren't any better examples, then I very much doubt that the process is indeed broken. Rockstar (T/C) 16:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Darvon cocktail is hardly the only mistake made, but it has more facets to it than most.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There are plenty, I'm slowly working on a more recent list.  Of course, the question remains - as closers, why do you close discussions that come to completely improper conclusions? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One, because I am human, and when I judge that an error has occurred the error might be mine in reaching that judgement!  Two, because many of the issues require judgment instead of an objective checklist approach, and as a servant of the participating community, I decline to substitute my judgment for theirs.  If I feel strongly about a particular case, I'll opine rather than close.  GRBerry 16:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So how do you feel we should deal with these errors? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on the type of the error.  Because there is no deadline and consensus can change especially when there is new information to consider (or standards have changed over time), it is almost never worth trying to do something right now.  (Counter examples are hypothetical cases where under current policies we deleted Tony Blair or George Bush and endorsed the deletion, where I'd use WP:IAR to overturn, and damn the torpedos.)  Generally speaking, the best thing to do is create the new information over a little time.  If an article was kept to be cleaned up, and I think shouldn't have been, then either a successful clean-up effort will prove I was wrong or the failure to clean up will be new information for a later AFD.  If an article was deleted, a rewrite that addresses at least some of the old problems would be new information, or finding information that was not mentioned in the prior discussion would be new information.  GRBerry 18:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Allow me to restate - if the closer makes an error in judgement such as what occurred yesterday, what do you suggest to rectify it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and recreate the article to conform with WP standards. Rockstar (T/C) 20:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and solve nothing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Create a good well-referenced article and re-creating it will not be prohibited. I'd say the means of 'rectifying' this are pretty obvious.--Docg 21:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're still misunderstanding - recreation of the article does not address long-term trust in the review process. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Endless nitpicking and namecalling doesn't address long-term trust in the review process either.  Friday (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure where the nitpicking comes in, but if it quacks like a duck in this case... --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only case I saw where someone clearly "endorsed using (an) improper rationale" was the guy who was afraid of potential lawsuits.   WP:IAR is an official policy on Wikipedia, widely abused or not, and whether you think it should be or not, and thus arguments based on it are not inherently "improper".  Note that I initially argued (fairly vehemently) to overturn,  but once UncleG addressed my final major concerns, I withdrew to a neutral position.  I remain strongly concerned about the censorship issues, but I thought (and think) that further debate about darvon cocktail just to make that WP:POINT would be inappropriate.  Xtifr tälk 22:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:NOT#CENSORED -- "...obviously inappropriate content... is usually removed immediately..." I don't think that the article was censored -- an admin made a judgment call (probably using common sense) about what is arguably inappropriate content. Rockstar (T/C) 23:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was as obvious as all that, the DRV wouldn't have turned into a de-facto AfD, which is effectively what happened.  Nor do I agree that the content was "inappropriate".  It was unsourced and it ultimately proved unsourceable and non-notable, but it was a long, long way from being the usual "CRIS SUX MUNKY BALLZ!!1!" vandalism which is indisputably inappropriate.  Xtifr tälk 00:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Rockstar, the way you edited that particular quote from WP:NOT#CENSORED seems to me to be particularly misleading. You left out the parenthetical clarification and a clarifying sentence that, for me, make the context read particularly differently from how you present it. To me, the same quote you made, if provided with the context you chose to leave out, reads in a way that leaves reasonable doubt as to the inappropriateness of the content of Darvon cocktail --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point was that an admin made a judgment call when deleting the article as inappropriate. Then there was a DRV, and the community made a judgment call to keep the article deleted. The judgment calls just happened to align. I was just explaining why the article was deleted in the first place. Rockstar (T/C) 20:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I misunderstood your intent. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 15:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My intent was to show that the original speedy could have been construed as appropriate. The DRV confirmed that. Rockstar (T/C) 18:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completely moronic 

message: I've just noticed the language under the Purpose that explains that this process is to be used only after discussions with the closing editor/administrator to try and overturn their decision have failed. I completely missed it; I looked at the Contents and immediately clicked on Steps to list a new deletion review. Mea culpa.
So, I'd suggest that the first line of that section be something along the lines of: 
"Please do not list a new deletion review without first discussing the outcome with the closing administrator or editor. (See Purpose, above.)"
Have good days.—Chidom talk  00:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder / notice needed 

message: i would like Tiffany Adler reviewed and possibly undeleted but i dont understand how, i have a learning disability and in previous tryings to do things like this i have gotten yelled at and others have removed my attempts can someone do this for me or halp me?T ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 06:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  review 

message: So following the discussions in this section of AfD's talk page, I came by here, but still see nothing in regards to repetitive AfDs.  Is there any process by which to challenge an AfD (Allegations of Israeli apartheid) that was created a mere 2 weeks since the previous one ? Tarc 16:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have reason to believe that it was closed incorrectly, then you can bring it here after it's closed. If the only issue you have is that it's two weeks after the last AfD, it doesn't need to be challenged. Comment in the AfD if you want. -Amarkov moo! 01:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and if you think we ought to have a rule about this sort of thing (as I do), bring it up at the Village Pump, because the community has rejected it in the past. maybe this time around the community will see some sense in the proposal. consensus can be gradually changed. people do learn.DGG 10:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetitive AfDs 

message: There is a discussion in WT:LIVING about speedily deleting AfD and DRV pages. See Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Blanked_or_deleted. Kla'quot 15:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting AfD and DRV pages