Wikipedia talk:Normal deletion processes do not apply to policy violations

message: * This "policy" doesn't work. To start with, it's precisely the point of the deletion process to find out whether there has been a policy violation, which is often debatable. And if the deletion process doesn't apply, then what happens to policy violations, and who decides about it? Please discuss such stuff on Wikipedia:Deletion reform, not here. Sandstein 11:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Concur that the policy won't work.  I am a new Wikipedian but I have already dealt with one issue (c.f. Talk: Big Spring, Texas) in which a WP:NPOV- and WP:V-violator accused me and other editors of these same violations.  Some kind of arbitration is needed to determine who's right.  Imagine if somebody summarily deleted YOUR article because they claimed it violated NPOV. Applejuicefool 15:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Note also that the proposal simply amounts to "Normal deletion processes are  abolished", since of course, only pages in violation of policies are eligible for deletion in the first place. The proposal appears to be itself in violation of WP:POINT and WP:POVFORK (of Wikipedia:Deletion reform). I'm considering submitting this pointless "policy" for deletion and have so notified the author, User:Ral315. -- Sandstein 17:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was written to combat things that get overwhelming Keep votes on *fD, but violate policy.  Consensus doesn't always dictate the right thing.  This was written to apply to that.  Feel free to do what you wish with it, though I believe it should be kept.  Ral315 (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When a slew of newbie-type keeps spoil an AfD in this view, the matter goes usually goes to DRV (often after an admin closes as delete anyway, sometimes not.)  There, cooler heads prevail.  Note, of course, that what constitutes a policy violation is still determined by consensus; in the case of DRV, it is typically a consensus of more seasoned editors.  If that consensus finds no violation, the parties who believe a violation exists need to accept that they are incorrect.  No page on wiki-space should serve as "anti-consensus shield" for upset "losers" in a debate (Term "loser" used very loosely, since consensus is really a victory for all.)  I have voted to keep at the MfD, but this thing is vague and mis-conceived. Xoloz 16:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That is already policy, and is carried out by good admins every day, and enforced at DRV. Xoloz 17:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And those admins get abused for ignoring consensus. I may have to go back and study the policy again, but my impression has been that the emphasis was on consensus. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 17:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who does the abusing.  What an admin should do is: explain the rationale for the closing when closing, clearly suggesting what votes she/he discounted/disqualified for obvious POV-pushing or other flaws (eg. defectively-signed votes.)  I have never seen any admin who does this get rejected at DRV.  He may face some criticism from those POV-pushers who were the problem, but that is to be expected, and should be easy to ignore. "Consensus" is not, and has never been, strickly about vote-counting, and anyone so arguing should be referred to the policy. Xoloz 18:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe practice has improved in the last couple of months. I just don't remember seeing much of that, other than the discounting of brand-new editors and obvious sock-puppets. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 18:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I confess that I don't have enough time for AfD lately either.  I've only seen the results through daily DRV visits, and things on that end have been going swimmingly. Xoloz 18:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)