Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal

message: Just to repeat the intent part:
The intent is to, without reducing Wikipedia to a simple democracy, provide a route for some action if most people are concerned about process, and a route for correctional action if a significant proportion of people mandate it. The clarity in the numbers is intended to prevent Deletion Review having the same interpretation disputes that will bring debates to the process in the first place. It is anticiapted that WP:AN/I be used to claim that someone has counted incorrectly; hopefully that will happen only extremely rarely.
So we should talk about whether people think the suggestion for how we would work deletion review will be satisfactory or not. Hopefully we can formulate something that will allow us to create the Deletion Review mechanism as soon as possible.
Note that we still have the alternative of retaining the simple majoritarian system on VfU at present, but there were/are fears about this providing an "end run" around a keep result for those who would delete.
Additionally, several editors suggested taking speedies out of scope, and having them dealt with as they are at present on an ad-hoc basis. Should they be in scope to DR? -Splashtalk 00:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory remarks

message: *Note the section of the undeletion policy which says "...This may happen because they were not aware of the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (AFD) or Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion (MD)...". Would this case still be included in DR (note that there is an example currently on VfU)? If so, where in the new purpose is this accomatated? do we need to edit to handle this case? DES (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Caveat: Unaware of discussion

message: *Note that the curent procedure for temporary undeletion and history-only undeletion probably need not change. I think the proposal should make this clearer. DES (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other types of restoration

message: #In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to
#*Endorse the original closing decision; or
#*Relist on the relevant deletion process (usually Articles for deletion); or
#*Overturn the original decision and, optionally an (action) per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. In the case of a kept article, the default (action) associated with overturning is clearly delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than a default they should make this clear.
#The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum.
#If there is a simple majority to endorse a decision, then no further action is taken — the decision stands. If there is a three-quarters supermajority to overturn a decision and apply some other result to the debate, it is applied. If there is neither a majority to endorse the decision nor a three-quarters supermajority to overturn and apply some other result, the article is relisted on the relevant deletion process.
:Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the (action) specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.
I find two illogicalities about the proposal. 
*Presumably the closer took some specific action. Therefore any support of any other action supports Overturning, although I agree that "Overturn and (action)" should be encouraged.
**Note that the default action associated with an Overturn is to relist on xFD rather than to reverse. If someone wants to overturn and delete or overturn and keep, they should so specify. This could perhaps be better phrased, I  agree. -Splashtalk 02:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. My idea when i suggeste those terms was that we should endorse or overturn the closer's action. If the nom includes an explicit overturn vote (as would be ususl), it will be clear that endorse does not mean endorse the nom. Once people start using this terminaology i think it will be clear. Close seems to mean to clsoe the current debate, adn relist is one of the possibe actions followign an overtunr (the default action) so for example "Overturn and merge" could not be expressed as "relist and merge". I am open to other suggested wording, however. DES (talk) 02:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, those are good points. One of the reasons votes are evil is because they constrain the way people can express themselves, so we should look for as flexible a jargon as possible. How about we make it explicit: overturn closure [and (action)], or endorse closure, with relist simply understood to be, well, relist. And yes, we should patch that other gap, too, I'll go an relax the phrasing. -Splashtalk 02:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Endorse decision or Endorse result then. I think that is clearer. Furthermore if speedies are in scope, they have a "decision", but not a "closure". DES (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but as stated above, there's a risk of some users wanting votes that don't read overturn and delete but just delete to be disqualified, even when overturn was implicitly stated within the delete. (Again, I'm playing devil's advocate.) Titoxd 04:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The rule should be stated clarly one way or the other, to prvert arguments about it. Personally I would have no problems with a rule that says "you must use this exact word, or you are not counted in the numerical totals" nor with a rule that says "as long as the intent is clear, everyone is counted". Whichever it is to be, make it clear in advance, and clear to anyone who reads the page instructions. In any case, I don't see that this question has much to do with the words suggested as model exprtessions of choice. They can be whatever will be celarest, and then we either do or do not allow alternative phrasing if the intent is clear. DES (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think so. Which part of it is unclear? I changed it more to deal with the concerns below than above. I really don't like the business of default actions associated with Overturning, because it will lead to newbie (and lawyer) confusion such as Encephalon illustrated below. We need either to say relist or overturn and relist. But relisting isn't necessarily overturning - if the article was kept, it's just a relist, there is no current change to the decision. Even if it has to be restored before relisting, we're not really overturning anything yet. -Splashtalk 01:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree with what you're saying without liking the new version, can't I? ^_^ I'll try and knock up a re-word that I think meets in the middle.  Quickly though, I'd still like to dictate the "vote" wording (e.g. must not should), and think that we could change to plainer speaking (e.g. Agree or Disagree). - brenneman(t)(c) 01:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, see what you come up with, but do remember to allow for the 3rd way: relisting needs to be explicitly or not-very-implicitly available. I think that using words such as "must" is too dangerous on Wiki. It's one of the reasons votes are evil usually: they constrain the process to the options available when there may be other, better, options in a particular case. -Splashtalk 01:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An example of where a "must" wording would fail is the Ar15.com example currently on VfU. Clearly, the article should be kept deleted, but it is entirely within scope to bring it here on the nominator's grounds and for the result to be keep deleted, but unprotect — an option unavailable with the endorse/overturn phrasing when made compulsory. -Splashtalk 02:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording

message: Regarding the problem of the ambiguity of the word "endorse" (does this endorse the dispute or the original decision), I wonder if "maintain" might be a better word. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. Which part of it is unclear? I changed it more to deal with the concerns below than above. I really don't like the business of default actions associated with Overturning, because it will lead to newbie (and lawyer) confusion such as Encephalon illustrated below. We need either to say relist or overturn and relist. But relisting isn't necessarily overturning - if the article was kept, it's just a relist, there is no current change to the decision. Even if it has to be restored before relisting, we're not really overturning anything yet. -Splashtalk 01:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree with what you're saying without liking the new version, can't I? ^_^ I'll try and knock up a re-word that I think meets in the middle.  Quickly though, I'd still like to dictate the "vote" wording (e.g. must not should), and think that we could change to plainer speaking (e.g. Agree or Disagree). - brenneman(t)(c) 01:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, see what you come up with, but do remember to allow for the 3rd way: relisting needs to be explicitly or not-very-implicitly available. I think that using words such as "must" is too dangerous on Wiki. It's one of the reasons votes are evil usually: they constrain the process to the options available when there may be other, better, options in a particular case. -Splashtalk 01:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An example of where a "must" wording would fail is the Ar15.com example currently on VfU. Clearly, the article should be kept deleted, but it is entirely within scope to bring it here on the nominator's grounds and for the result to be keep deleted, but unprotect — an option unavailable with the endorse/overturn phrasing when made compulsory. -Splashtalk 02:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Re''wording 

message: There is no reason speedies should not be subject to deletion review.
*Pseudo-speedies  {e.g. Deleted "Fred Flinstone" Content was: Fred's band The Rockboys have sold a lot of albums.) should come to DR.
*Borderline speedies {e.g. Deleted "Fred Flinstone" as . Content was: Fred's band The Rockboys have sold a lot of albums.) should come to DR.
*Clearly out-of-process speedies {e.g. Deleted "Fred Flinstone" as . Content was: Fred's band The Rockboys have three gold albums.) can still be restored, placed on AfD and a note placed on deleting party's talk page.  No need for DR at all.brenneman(t)(c) 02:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, the main point of speedy deletion is to reduce the size of AfD. If you are suggesting that all speedy deletions should be automatically listed on AfD, I would object for this reason. If you are suggesting that speedies that someone considers invalid be listed on Afd instead of on DR, that is IMO more reasonable. I think it is asking AfD to do two rather different things, but that is possible. (Note that templates, categories, and images can bee speedied, as well as articles, but most problem speedies are articles). I don't see why this is an improvement over havign such come to DR, but if that is what people want, so be it. I note that they now come to VfU with some frequencey, and seem to be handled well enough there. DES (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedies

message: There are a few limited cases where admins can delete Wikipedia pages or media "on sight" and without the consensus-seeking processes of WP:AFD or WP:MD.  If a speedy-deletion is contested in good faith, the article should be speedy-restored by any admin, and a full deletion discussion (AFD, MD, etc.)  immediately opened.  Non-admins may request speedy-restoration below:
* Please restore foo.  user:me
I've edited this, because, unless bad faith can be proved, speedy restoration and XFD listing should be routine. If the only text ever in the speedied article obviously meets the speedy condition (the text of foo is foobar foobar foobar....) a comment to the effect can be appended to the request. Septentrionalis 21:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy undeletion

message: Has all work stopped on this proposal? Do we have any significant objections to it? Do we subject it to a vote (no, they're not evil, if consensus is acquired first and then a vote is done to validate it)?
On another subject, if we do the change, are we going to use subpages a la TFD? Because looking through the history is awful... Titoxd(?!?) 01:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I've just been elsewhere. I mean to ping the talk pages of the originally involved users and ask them for their input here but it's a tedious job... -Splashtalk 01:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we put the mechcnics as they are now up, call it a "test case" and only use it for two days before moving the whole lot here for dissection?  At the end, all articles discussed get replaced on the main page as per usual.  Downsides are having to (potentially) state opinions twice and having tow run two systems for the last three days of the test. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: We don't need to do that: we can just analyse the presently running cases, I think? It'd be annoying to send people round the block twice.  Plus, short of actually instituting the new procedure wholesale, we'd be unlikely to attract any keep-challenges which are the really interesting ones. -Splashtalk 02:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or we could just use the new mechanics, and keep their results as binding instead of relisting. Titoxd(?!?) 02:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I always seem to swim against the tide.  First I'm too bold, now I'm too timid! ^_^  I'm happy to have mechanics kick in, I put them on the main page ages ago.  brenneman(t)(c) 02:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, where are we? 

message: I like this proposal. But, it's rediculous (and has been already) to restrict it to process. Tony Sidaway has pointed out several times that the undeletion policy already says that it's not just about process. Additionally, I don't think we should put undeleted articles back on AFD. I feel this is unneccessary, unless there is a simple majority to undelete. If there's a rough consensus to undelete, just undelete it. --Phroziac(talk) 02:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The direct undelete would happen if a supermajority voted to undelete (which is the case for most articles that come here anyway). Titoxd(?!?) 02:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Sounds good to me. I will have to support this proposal. ;) --Phroziac(talk) 15:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok. How would you handle decisions to delete a kept article by a simple majority? VfU works pretty well on process mainly. Of course, the article has to be considered to make sure the arguments have some substance, so it's not a completely bureaucratic process by any means. -Splashtalk 02:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the system should always be biased to keep an article, unless there is significant consensus to delete it. --Phroziac(talk) 15:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what I thought you'd say. I think Titoxd has basically dealt with your question already, much better than I did. The overturning to deletion wouldn't happen unless at least three-quarters of people were behind it — and as Titoxd observes most present VfU debates are pretty clear cut one way or the other. -Splashtalk 15:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phroziac's concerns 

message: Here I go again, but we need to figure out what we're going to do with the templates for VFU/DR. I'm picking on this because I got into a small revert war with Mysidia over templates and CSD pages with just templates...
*Ok, we have ,  and . So what I propose is to use  for speedies under review,  for pages with significant recreation/redeletion histories, and  for deletion discussions that are revisited. 
*On a separate point, we need subpages. The TFD method seems to work best for us, since we don't need to do so many archivals (hopefully) as AFD does. So, a hierarchical system is best: /log/overturn/kept, /log/overturn/deleted, /log/relist, /log/endorse/kept, /log/endorse/deleted and /log/others (in case any other permutation escapes my mind) would be a decent approach. Any thoughts? Because if we're going to do a massive change (when are we going to do it anyways?) then we might as well do it all at once. Titoxd(?!?) 05:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates