Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 1

message: I've taken the liberty of moving your question into a similar discussion already occurring at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#Time Limit Policy on relisted VfD's ?  Rossami 22:30, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy on Re-listing?

message: (William M. Connolley 13:23, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion re deleted pages 

message: Under the "Voted for Deletion page" section, between points 5 and 6, I need an entry that starts "If the decision is TRANSWIKI ..."  What does one do in this case?  dbenbenn | talk 23:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The best (and only) instructions I know about are at m:Transwiki.  I don't believe they've been updated in a while, though.  Rossami (talk) 04:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transwiki? 

message: Korath just showed me how to suppress the display of discussions which have already been closed (that is, those which have the blue box behind them).  See Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Old#Suppressing closed discussions for now.  Rossami (talk) 18:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suppressing closed discussions 

message: I was bold and changed:
 to 
since substitution is recommended when using templates to make page loads faster and use up less of a load. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 20:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  subst: 

message: Could we have some guidelines on "speedy keeps", i.e. nominations that were clearly either mistakes or made in bad faith? I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jascha Heifetz as a speedy keep, as it was clear there was no possible justification to delete the article. It seems a bit ugly to have the  tag on the talk page of an article that was never seriously being considered for deletion, but I put it on Talk:Jascha Heifetz anyway, because that's the procedure in the case of keeps. Could we please either:
# make an exception for speedy keeps, that they don't have to have the  tag, or
# modify the text of this page to say explicitly "4. If the decision is KEEP (including any variant such as SPEEDY KEEP, REDIRECT, or MERGE)" so there's no ambiguity about it?
Thanks! --Angr/ 21:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a guideline at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maintenance#Abusive, invalid or other nominations which are not in good faith.  Several people have proposed updating it but no one yet has proposed a specific change on it's Talk page.  Would you like to make a suggestion there?  Rossami (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out to me. That's not the procedure I followed, obviously, but somehow I doubt that my closing the discussion early will prolong the controversy in this case. We'll see. --Angr/ 06:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy keeps 

message: This is a pretty strong statement: Non-administrators may only close decisions which are unambiguous "keep" decisions. They should be near unanimous before a non-administrator should close the discussion.  Added 13 June 2005 by Rossami, for whom I have tremendous respect. We've got lots and lots of people who are good on the ground who aren't admins, and enough eyes on AfD that any funny business would be quickly reversed, not even to get started on DRV's ability to take up any slack.  What's the general feeling on this? - brenneman(t)(c) 13:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question there, Aaron.  I have one of my own; the "decision close by admin only" policy verbiage refers to article deletes, but does it or does it not also apply to category deletes?  Would be good to see this clarified. — JonRoma 09:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "Unambiguous keep" does not mean "speedy-keep".  No non-admin should attempt to close a discussion prior to the full run of the AFD period.  And no non-admin should ever close a debate citing either WP:IAR or WP:SNOW.  Anyone seeing such an out-of-process closure should immediately revert it and reopen the discussion.  "Unambiguous keep" means that at the end of 5 days, there is an overwhelming majority and an overwhelming weight of arguments.  Unanimity or near-unanimity is required.  Rossami (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I endorse that fully. I'm thinking that it should be point 4. Comments? Also, although I think the user got it right, you probably won't like this, then. 60.226.224.25 00:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you.  That debate is now reopened.  Rossami (talk) 01:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non admins and no consensus 

message: I see it (and do it) quite a bit in practice but it doesn't officially seem to be listed here. If a page is speedy deleted during its AFD run, I think that should also be a reason for non-admins to close discussions. Seems like close to 5-10% of each day's AFD'd pages are speedied (most of those under A7) so I feel like we're knocking out the work of at least 1-2 admins there... (ESkog)(Talk) 17:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I often close these, but always place a reminder on the deleting admin's talk.  If they are going to speedy delete, they should do the legwork.  (Unless they are unaware, per above.)  Since there is no "afdold" template to place on a talk page, nor any need to edit the page to remove the "subst:afd", it takes all of thirty second to put  speedy delete - ~~~~  in. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More about non-admins 

message: Your opinion please in Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#"Redirect" option. Mukadderat 23:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Redirect" option

message: On Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Blanking old AfDs, someone raised the concern that some of our old AFD discussions are showing up in Google - and that in some cases they definitely shouldn't be.  A recommendation was made to change the way we close discussions in order to "hide" the discussions a bit better.  I propose to change step 2 of the closing procedures to:
2.  Edit the AFD discussion sub-page by selecting all text except the header line.  Replace the discussion with 
:  RESULT. ~~~~
and to change the template to use a new template which reads:
:This is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article above.  This debate has been closed.  Please do not modify this page.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  The contents of the debate can be reviewed by opening the History page and clicking one version back.
: The result of the debate was
It does move both the header and the result outside the box.  Does that create any problems?
Note:  We might also be able to amend the instructions for second nominations since we could now allow the renomination on this page as long as we clearly insisted on a link being provided to the old version in history.  It might simplify a number of steps in addition to helping solve the Google problem.
Thoughts or changes?  Rossami (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this overwrites the current template, it'll create lots of problems on the old log pages wherever someone just transcluded it or one of its redirects instead of just substing it.  There are a fair number of these, and they're hard to find with whatlinkshere since 1)  used to have a backlink, and 2) whatlinkshere recently broke for pre-existing template links.  Should be done with a different template instead. —Cryptic (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal from [[WT:AFD]] 

message: I'm being bold in the same spirit as Jtkiefer above and removing the instruction to use subst: when placing the result template on the talk page of the affected article.
As per recent discussion at WT:AUM the use of a template does not impose a huge amount of extra strain on the server, and I believe that the extra obfuscated wikicode at the top of the talk page is sufficiently awful to outweigh the benefits.
Templates were created to enable frequently-used code to be encapsulated to make wikicode simpler and easier to edit, and I believe that this is suitable justification.
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention all the old substed 's and the like that have that god-awful "The CSS for this template should be changed. See Wikipedia:Template Standardisation." spam stuck to them (as in this and previous revisions) that are now impossible to clean up.  I had no idea this page said to subst them. —Cryptic (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an old debate, but I agree with the general thrust of the argument. In many cases the guidance to subst: just defeats the purpose of templates. We're trying to overcome capacity problems but the result is we defeat the purpose of templates and set ourselves up for problems down the road (more so in some other cases than in this particular one I have to admit). --kingboyk 14:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing SUBST instruction for result templates 

message: One concern I would like to express is what I call "drive-bys," being those persons who propose or vote on an AfD without actually looking at the involved page or doing any sort of checking on the topic at hand.  I have seen a few of these and it is often a Herculean effort to get someone to set aside the ego blow and undo the vote they cast.  Often, I write to a person and let them know how something was missed in the process and ask them to review their vote.  Many times, the person hasn't even bothered to look at the item.  And then I hear nothing.  Yet I find the same people then voting to delete on other items.  I know many are voting on AfDs to try to get their names out there, but this has the effect of leaving some discussions with a "delete per nom" and little else.
May I propose a rule that a person's ability to vote or propose an AfD be capped at, for example, 40 per day.  In this way, the focus would be on the quality of the proposed deletion rather on the quantity of votes secured.  Of couse, the person can add to an on-going discussion within the same topic, but once you picked your 40, that's it.  Jtmichcock 20:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this general idea, and think that the larger problem stems from editors presuming bad faith, which many seem to be doing.  Many people seem to have an itchy trigger finger and are using AfD as a first resort, whenever there is any ambiguity as to an article's encyclopaedic value.  It would benefit the AfD process and Wikipedia generally if everyone were encouraged to discuss issues before nominating them for deletion.  I think something like this might help to accomplish that.  --Cheapestcostavoider 05:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drive-by deletions 

message: The CfD and TfD pages were gradually diverging from this page.  I changed those sections to transclude the process, now used in both places. Hopefully, everybody will find this helpful for the future.
I'd have done the same for the others, but I'm not as familiar with them.
:--William Allen Simpson 19:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: --William Allen Simpson 14:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  transclusion 

message: I've been trying to copyedit and slim down a few of the deletion-related pages, including WP:AFD and the Guide to deletion.  There are a dizzying array of these pages.  I think this page is misnamed - it's really about the deletion procedure, not the deletion process.  The process is how we decide about deleting an article.  The procedure, for administrators, is (1) close discussion (2) click "delete," etc.  I actually found myself here after thinking Wikipedia:Deletion process would explain the difference between AfD and Speedy, etc.  So am I nuts or could we consider renaming?  Kaisershatner 17:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming

message: In case the category has a large introductory text that could be copyrightable, the history of the text has to be preserved for GFDL requirements. In these cases the history can be pasted into the talk page as is done for Transwiki. 
Can this be added to Wikipedia:Deletion process#Categories for Deletion page?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paddu (talk • contribs) .
:Of course.  I've just added it (you could have added it yourself). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for adding it. I wasn't sure whether I should wait for some consensus. (And thanks for signing my gazillionth unsigned comment (but the first that I didn't notice) :-P .) -- Paddu 20:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category renaming through cut & paste moves 

message: How do I nominate a disambiguation page for deletion? Foxjwill 18:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question.  Depending the the amount of content it contains, a disambiguation page could qualify either under "Articles for deletion", "Redirects for deletion" or "Miscellany for deletion".  Without knowing what page you have in mind, I'd probably go for "Miscellany" myself.  But if there's a better forum, someone will recommend moving the nomination.  You can find the instructions for nomination here.  Bear in mind that you will have to have a strong case for deletion.  Most disambiguation pages are kept on the "redirects are cheap" argument.  They have to be actively damaging to the encyclopedia before we generally get rid of them.  Rossami (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting Disambiguation pages 

message: Rossami seems to think that templates such as  and  shouldn't be substituted on this page.  I disagree.  The instructions very clearly state that the templates should always be substituted upon use, and it's not unlikely that someone is going to check on this page's source to see how the examples are done.  But lo and behold, the examples are done without substitution!  The instructions and the examples are saying two different things, and that's just bad.  The only reason Rossami has for keeping them un-substituted is that this way the examples displayed on this page will update as the templates themselves change - but let's be realistic, these templates don't change very much over time at all.  It's more important to show a proper example than worry about possibly having to come through and update the template a year down the line.  --Cyde↔Weys 14:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substituting templates on this page 

message: When an administrator deletes an article that is currently undergoing an AfD, but doesn't close the discussion (perhaps they felt it was appropriate to delete it on sight, and didn't notice the AfD), and the consensus of the debate so far seems to be more or less "delete", doesn't it make sense for a non-admin to formally close the debate? I've seen this happen more than once, but it doesn't seem to be listed on Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-Administrators closing discussions. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 14:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article deleted but AfD still open 

message: I would like to propose that when closing deletion discussions with consensus to delete, a distinction should be made between the following sub-cases:
# Consensus that another page may be recreated with the same title, provided that the content is substantially different from the deleted page.
# Consensus that no other page should be recreated with the same title, even if the content is substantially different, except via undeletion process.
The closing admin should state which of these apply, as part of the admin's task of judging the consensus of the delete debate.  If there are later attempts to recreate the page, their validity should be judged accordingly.
Arbitrary username 21:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What evidence do you have that the current process is not working?  Your explicit addition sounds like an example of instruction creep.  Why wouldn't we simply expect future users to read the discussion themselves?  Rossami (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  recording consensus re undeletion when deleting articles 

message: It strikes me that the collection of edits here to this section were highly editorial and turned a long-standing part of the page eseentially (and rather clumsily) on its head without any kind of discussion. It's clumsiness is amplified by all the flurble about advertising for RfA. There was also much rabbitting about admins and "people" in a section designed specifically to guide non-admins in how/what to do (which I at least found useful at the time I wasn't an admin). So I got rid of it in preference for the much older, perfectly functional, text that's been around for ages. -Splash - tk 12:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Tyrenius 20:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Some of that stuff, like not closing decisions you've taken part in, applies to all closers however. I retrimmed some of the language, without the advertising and doublespeak (I hope). -- nae'blis 22:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I'd also messed with the page a bit earlier. Note that there's a perfectly good template available by way of CSD with which non-admins can actually close descisions to delete even. :-) No reason to limit closing to admins at all (or even make much of a distinction anymore), though a closer does need to know what they're doing, of course. Kim Bruning 23:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is, in the case of decisions to delete in particular. I replied further down the page. -Splash - tk 23:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, but on the other hand I wish more admins would either a) post a note for people to delink the new redlink, or b) do it themselves. Seems like I see a lot of orphaned links out there, and I don't know if it's workload or an oversight or what... -- nae'blis 18:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sociologically, deciding on debates by anons is poor; we can't get hold of them usually to have a word about why they closed it the way they did, for example. There is minimal accountability without a username and stable location of a talk page. Non-admins are lousy at deletion: they can't do it! But having them tag debates as speedies is not good for two main reasons i)that the deleting admin remains responsible in the community's eyes for what they do with their delete button. I can't very well say "but 123.456.7.8 said it was a delete and I didn't bother to check"! Given that, they're wasting their time since the deleting admin needs to do the work anyway, and in doing so remains free to reach an entirely alternative conclusion (thus the bit about them being reviewed by admins). ii)Some admins won't bother to check what they're deleting, particularly those with un-burned fingers and we'll wind up with sloppy behaviour which results in bruised feelings when the sloppy admins gets told about it. That these classes of editor can 'help' with 'deletion' is true: it's just really very little help when they do. Closing keeptions is a different matter as the text says. Drastic? It's been like that for ages. No consensus closes are different; if a non-admin isn't challenged over it, then fine, but the wide feeling (which I'm sure you'll tell me is wrong) is that part of the reason for sending people through RfA (which you'll tell me is broken) is to test their judgement on matters such as this. Non-admins haven't had that evaluation and proceed at their peril. As do admins, of course, who are far from infallible. -Splash - tk 23:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'd prefer to promote someone who has done some of these closes. I don't mind that it's a little more work now, it means people get non-destructive practice at closing deletion debates, and that makes for better admins later.  Kim Bruning 15:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That would depend strongly on which policies you would be advocating :-) Kim Bruning 05:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non admins closing discussions 

message: I changed the template to include substitution. The template works both ways, and I thought it would be better to have it subst'd. If anyone dissagrees revert my edit, and we can talk. One reason for the change is that subst reduces server load and ensures no problems with back compatability with changes to the template parameters. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 16:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subst'ing the oldafdfull template 

message: Due to a number of AfD's that have been closed as keep or speedy keep by non admins, a WikiProject has been created in an effort to help reduce the number of resubmissions by placing the oldafd tag on article talk pages. For more information, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject AfD closing. SynergeticMaggot 16:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Project 

message: I have been working with the new category template in the AfDs.  The "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD" template needs to be removed, but the instructions here do not explicitly include this action.  As I have never closed an AfD, I do not feel comfortable about adding this new instruction into the directions.  I have advised a couple of closers about it, but perhaps the instructions for this new feature also need to be added.  Thanks.  --Gay Cdn  (talk) (email) (Contr.) 12:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually really pretty annoying because it adds yet another thing to do when closing an AfD; already a multi-stage process of box-ticking. And I don't know how to change my javascript to automate it. Until someone writes me that Javascript, in closings I do (few these days), I plan to usually leave the template and whoever put it there can take the responsibility for cleaning up after it. It's not really fair to add additional work onto every closing admin. -Splash - tk 13:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the above is that "whoever put it there" is not a person, it is a new part of the AfD nomination process and it automatically appears in the discussion.  Someone would have to come along after you close the Afd and remove it themselves (something I have been doing myself).--Gay Cdn  (talk) (email) (Contr.) 13:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone added it to the AfD process, then, and I can't find any warning of that here. (Apparently it was endorsed by Jimbo, but he doesn't have to close AfDs terribly often.) -Splash - tk 13:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: My point, anyway, is that it's a time sink for whichever user is expected to clean it up. It's thus not a great solution to a hard to pin down problem. Presumably, there is someone somewhere with the time to sink into doing the pointless work it entails, so we can leave it to them. Of course, if someone can write a line to javascript that chops the first line off the edit box (Which I guess can't be hard with a search for \r\n or \r or \n whichever) then it becomes zero-effort. -Splash - tk 13:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree with Splash.  The categorization process was installed as a test.  Many people argued that it was unnecessary and just created extra work in an already-complex process.  Those who advocated strongly for categorization won the right to implement their test but now they have to take responsibility for working through all it's bugs.  If they can't come up with an efficient way to handle the problem, then we may have to carefully evaluate the results of the test and decide if this was a workable solution in the first place.  Rossami (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Throwing my two cents in (I've left a similar message at WT:AFDC), as it stands now, this template has the "feature" that if one clicks the edit button off of the main AfD page (say Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 4) the tag doesn't show up at all, since it is above the link to the article and is thus in "Section 0".  In short, unless the closing admin does a little extra work, he'll never even see the tag. --- Deville (Talk) 17:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD closings and new category template 

message: All the "Move to Wikibooks" type templates have been changed to Copy to Wikibooks, Copy to Wikisource, etc.  See the talk pages for these templates for the reason for this.  To summarize, "Copy to x" is more accurate than "Move to x", since the transwiki process only actually involves copying, the original is not necessarily deleted and frequently is not deleted.  (although in the case of administrators transwikiing after an AfD debate, the original would be deleted). --Xyzzyplugh 13:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transwiki section changed

message: Unfortunately, as thousands of articles, categories, photos, lists etc are being deleted or renamed, it is becoming increasingly rare to find editors (who make the nominations to delete or rename) follow the normal courtesy of contacting the original creators of articles and categories, and often articles and categories are deleted or renamed without the input of their creators or from those editors who know more about the subject and contents of the articles and categories. I speak from experience because these acts breed uncalled for enmity between otherwise well-meaning editors. Somehow, a way has to be found to stress and publicize the Wikipedia guidelines which is clearly stated below in a few places:
#Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Nominating a proposed deletion point number 3: Consider adding the article to your watchlist and letting the article's creator know that you have tagged it. You can use  
#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion: It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the article that you are nominating the article. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter. For your convenience, you may use  (for creators who are totally new users),  (for creators), or  (for contributors or established users).
#Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Special notes: When nominating a category, it's helpful to add a notice on the talk page of the most-closely related article. Doing so would not only extend an additional courtesy, but possibly also bring in editors who know more about the subject at hand. You can use  for this.
All suggestions as to how to improve the present situation should be welcomed and popularized. Thank you for your attention to this matter. IZAK 16:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While interesting, this comment has nothing to do with the topic of this page.  This page discusses the mechanics of closing deletion discussions.  It has nothing to do with the nomination process.  Please stop spamming your complaint all over Wikipedia.  Rossami (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informing the creators is being ignored 

message: In the AfD section, point 6.3 on closing out a completed date ("Edit the Old discussions section of the main AFD page by deleting the link for the day, which looks something like Day of week, Day Month.") appears to have been obsoleted by using code for the same effect. I'm not sure of what's going on there, so I'm not changing the text here, but if someone knows better, the text should be changed (or, I guess, just deleted) to reflect this shiny to bit of code.Herostratus 21:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  re procedure change for closing out a date of AfD's 

message: I propose the following change to clear up statements.  I believe this would be a better wording.  Just moving the statment to a more appropiate bullet  Navou talk 16:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Good point, however I think this re-wording would open up the policy to allow more liberal non-admin closing.  What are your thoughts? Navou talk 19:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Change to Non-administrators closing discussions 

message: Is is suitable if there's an error in the original xfD that render the nomination moot? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sail indonesia is an example that I'm thinking (it should have been a page redirect and doesn't belong on AfD). -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 21:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While it's not called out in the instructions, that would be a legit use of WP:IAR. However, I'd recommend actually moving the debate to the correct xFD page vs. just closing. In this case, I've gone ahead a deleted it as  and closed the nomination. -- JLaTondre 21:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Non-admins closing xfD: 

message: Please could someone add Great_Britain_and_Ireland to the deletion log.  I have tried to but have had no luck....--Triglyph 00:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like this has been fixed.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 17:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for help

message: The current lead of this page reads:
Is the paragraph break intentional, meaning, I was under the impressions that administrators may close debates that they were involved in, with the caveat that it's preferable that they only do if the consensus is clear, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. So, is the "People" in the second paragraph specifically non-admins, or is current policy that even admins may not close discussions that they were involved in, regardless of consensus clarity? Thanks. -- Avi 00:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless by "unambiguous" you mean "unanimous", I would not recommend closing a discussion you have been involved in unless it is something that should have been closed a week ago.  It's not that, in unambiguous situations, there is really a chance of you making a wrong decision; however, someone might get upset and use it against you.  You could try asking another administrator on irc://freenode/#wikipedia to do it for you.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest ambiguity 

message: I am interested in what others think about the relationship between WP:SNOW and the clause "Non-administrators may not 'speedy-close' deletion discussions." Are snowy closes inappropriate per this clause? If others consider it so, we may wish to consider adding a statement clarifying that as well. --Iamunknown 07:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposed change: Non-admins may not close an XfD discussion early using WP:SNOW. -- Jreferee 20:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:SNOW