Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Multiple relists

This came up at WT:AFD and it makes quite a bit of sense. We owe articles a "speedy trial", as it were, and leaving them sitting on AFD for weeks on end helps nobody. I therefore propose that no AFD may be relisted more than twice, i.e. there is an upper limit of three weeks on how long an article may be at AFD (continuously).

If, after three weeks, there are insufficient contributors to come to a consensus, the debate should be closed as no consensus with no prejudice against immediate relisting. If there are sufficient contributors, but neither side has sufficient support, then there is clearly no consensus and the debate should be closed as such, rather than just relisting again in the hope that something might change. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support and I'd go one farther: A second relisting should be eliminated as an option, too. If we get a full seven days, and a full second seven days, that's almost as much time as an old 5-day listing with two relistings. Seven day AfDs were supposed to cut down on relistings, but I haven't seen this in practice. Jclemens (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• I've been closing some AFDs after 14 days and one relist as "no consensus with leave to speedy renominate" (minor IAR with regards to WP:NAC) if they've been sorted and/or have at least one comment, and relisting twice only if there is no participation aside from the nominator and the debate hasn't been sorted. Aside from that, almost all AFD discussions should be closed one way or another after 14 days. If it's necessary to relist a second time, the relister should follow up with a "relisting comment" and a damn good reason.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, changed. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "relisting a debate should not be a substitute for a no-consensus closure", but I also believe the opposite is also true (namely that a no-consensus closure is not a substitute for further discussion). Perhaps this should be mentioned in there too? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

On a separate note, I'm thinking it should also be mentioned that relisting is also not an excuse for not closing a discussion in any manner. I've seen AfDs which present clear justifications for deletion, with a few users supporting it, and no comments opposing it. I've also seen AfDs which present poor justifications for deletion, with a few users opposing it and no comments supporting it. A good number of this sort of nomination ends up relisted while I'm not convinced that it's necessary to relist debates that aren't likely to change course. Administrators shouldn't be quite so timid. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment here about why I removed the "must provide an explanatory comment" part.

1. A discussion involving 3 users is an absolutely terrible way to force a change to existing practice that affects far more users.
2. Its pointless process wonkery. Most of the time the reason is plainly obvious (lack of comments). If people really want to know, they can ask.
3. The purpose is not explained. What if someone gives a bad reason? Should they just be reverted by whomever disagrees? Do we need to establish WP:Relist review?

-- Mr.Z-man 16:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well,

1. What would you have suggested? It's standard practice to propose changes on a talk page, and anyone who wanted to be heard was heard.
2. I don't think reality matches that assessment.
3. My plan would be to point it out to the relister and ask him/her to do it next time.

I'm open to suggestions on how best to implement this. Stifle (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

1. You could have posted to a place where users who would be affected by a forced change to standard practice could opine, like WT:AFD or WP:AN
2. Based on what? Do you have any examples of AFDs being re-relisted for no apparent reason?
3. That doesn't explain the purpose.

My suggestion would be "don't." Mr.Z-man 17:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've re-added the request for an explanation of second or subsequent relists saying that it's "encouraged" rather than required. I do remember several days where AFDs had been relisted ad nauseam because the votes were tied at the time of each relist. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Closing rationales - optional or not?

The deletion process guidelines for AfD say: "Following the result, the closer is recommended, but not required, to give a rationale as to how he/she weighed the arguments." I propose changing this to "Following the result the closer is required to give a rationale as to how he/she weighed the arguments."
An AfD closer is the equivalent of a magistrate, who listens to the evidence and passes judgment. We'd be a bit surprised were a magistrate to not justify their verdict, and I feel the same should apply in deletion discussions.This is an analogy, not an invitation to discuss comparisons of Wikipedia processes to legal systems As my science and maths teachers said at school, "Show your working!".
Without a rationale being given it isn't possible to tell on what basis they reached their decision. Closers aren't infallible and haven't had any training in summarising debates. Despite the many warnings to the contrary, they may be treating AfD as a vote. A closer may have their own biases, they may have missed an important point, or they may have had the wool pulled over their eyes by some expert Wikilawyering.
Requiring a rationale would be a small step in increasing reasoned debate in Wikipedia and increasing admin accountability. It should not be onerous, as if the closer has reasoned their way to a decision all it takes is to type out that reasoning. Fences&Windows 02:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This adds needless bureaucracy. If you wish to have an closure clarified or disagree with the closure, then simply ask the closing administrator. There is not a need to demand a rationale for all AfDs, 90% of which are completely uncontroversial. NW (Talk) 23:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not "bureaucracy", it would just be expecting closers to provide a justification. No forms to fill in or complicated processes to follow. The point is that many closers don't give rationales when closing split debates and editors shouldn't need to go cap in hand to ask for one. Fences&Windows 00:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You may always approach the closer individually to request a further explanation, if you have significant concerns about the closure or how it was implemented. Should they fail to respond, this would seem to me a reasonable basis for a deletion review. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the idea. Ikip (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Opppose, per previous discussion - this is instruction creep, the great majority of AfDs are clear-cut and nothing is gained by making the closing admin type "Clear consensus" or similar each time. I think request to closer and DRV are adequate to deal with cases where the closing rationale is not clear but is not explained. JohnCD (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's instruction creep. In too many venues, people are doing head-counts, and weighing all arguments equally, when in reality they are not equal. It should be common sense that 50 "I like it" comments should not outweigh one single "unverifiable nonsense". Force of numbers should not be allowed to overrule reasoned argument. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Previous discussion at WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 53#Proposal: Requiring the closing admin to say more than "The result was . . .". Flatscan (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, pointless instruction creep. 80%+ of AFDs are clear-cut and have no need for making the closer type in extra words that'll just become a box-ticking exercise. As NW says, anyone wanting more details of a closure can contact the closer. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Giving a rationale isn't box-ticking: it helps stop closers treating AfD as a vote - which is anathema - or imposing their own view. It also makes them explain themselves, which is surely one of the principles of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. If some editors argue to keep and others to delete, the community is obviously divided and the closer owes it to the editors whose arguments they are disregarding to explain why. Remember that one editor's "obvious" decision is another editor's unreasonable decision; closers are not trained in assessing how to reach a fair and policy-based decision and may make mistakes. Closers should give rationales upfront on complicated decisions without needing to be pushed into it; editors may not realise they can ask for an explanation, others may not like to individually confront a closer (due to the informal hierarchies of Wikipedia, admins are seen as 'special' by many editors) and some closers decline to give rationales when asked. If closers are indeed so ready to provide explanations when asked, why not just give the explanation in the first place? If the decision seems to be obvious to the closer, quickly typing out "Uncontroversial, no sources found, fails WP:GNG" or similar takes about a second. If someone can't or won't give a rationale, they shouldn't be closing discussions. New rules aren't forbidden on Wikipedia. "Instruction creep" refers to gratuitous requirements, those that don't actually solve the problem they set out to, or those that have bad side effects. That doesn't apply here. Fences&Windows 18:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

To answer the point that decisions are often 'obvious', I would concede that when we have unanimity - excepting the nominator for keeps and article creator for deletes - the lack of a rationale may not be an issue. The principle still stands. Fences&Windows 21:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Require it. True, it depend on the closing. When everybody is unanimous or almost unanimous, it doesn't add much, but it's very easy just to say that. In a disputed AfD I think it does very much matter. AfD is not a vote here, though I believe it is at some other good WP's, but neither is it's a matter of an admin making a judgment about whether an article should be kept: it's a determination of consensus. When admins chooses to overrule an apparent consensus, for example because some of the comments are from SPAs or reasons unsupported by policy such as ITEXISTS, they need to say why. It helps relations with editors, and also would facilitate deletion review: we can avoid many challenges by at least saying what we are doing. It doesn't need to be elaborate. "simply ask the closing admin" is unrealistic: first, many newcomers are scared of us. I know this sounds strange: like the rest of us, I see no reason why anyone ought to be scared of me. Yet people are, and they sometimes say that. Worded more tactfully, it may just be reluctance to appear ignorant of our processes--that makes sense, for it takes quite a while to learn them. We know them, or we wouldn't have passed RfA, but beginners can't be expected to (in fact if they do, we tend to treat them as likely sockpuppets) . Second, some of the closing admins either ignore the question or just say unhelpfully , if you disagree, take it to deletion review. They are sometimes the same ones who don't explain closings, and the impression this gives of our objectivity and care in doing our work is very unfortunate. Like it or not, we're a major international information resource and we need to act more openly and more responsibly. DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose While I think closing admins SHOULD provide rationales, you are going to end up getting entirely meaningless closing rationales. "Closed, I found the X's more meaninful." Requiring it won't add much if anything except instruction creep.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Meaningless and weak closing rationales being given is one of the intended benefits of requiring them. We'll know immediately that the closer has no good rationale for their decision! How can that be a bad thing? Fences&Windows 01:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you're missing the point... if we start requiring them, then people are going to get into the habit of using meaningless rationales are the majority where such rationales are not required. They will then take those meaningless rationales and cut and past them where they should provide real rationales. This is legislation for the sake of beaucracy that will turn counter productive.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Oppose Just because you require a rationale doesn't mean you'll get anything helpful. All you'll do is irritate the conscientious closers when the result is so blindingly obvious that no rationale is needed (12 delete !votes that quote policy and not a single keep !vote, etc.). If a closer isn't providing a good rationale, then ask him/her on their talk page in a non-confrontational way. Eventually they'll get so sick of being asked that they'll shape up or quit closing. Ask even when you think you know the reason why, because there will be someone else who is afraid to ask. But if someone can't be bothered to put anything helpful now, if you require something be there, that's all you get -- something.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I had just conceded the point about unanimity when you commented. Fences&Windows 01:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree with NuclearWarfare and Fabrictramp. The majority of AFDs are uncontroversial and no rationale is needed. If an admin doesn't give rationales when they should and is dismissive of requests for one, that is a problem with that admin that should be solved using existing mechanisms like RFC, not something that should result in extra requirements for all admins working at AFD. Yes, its easier to go to ANI and say "Admin X is violating policy!" than it is to have a one-on-one discussion or an RFC to tell the admin that he needs to act more responsibly, but we shouldn't encourage the former. Mr.Z-man 00:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Rephrase to "strongly encouraged" "especially for contentious debates" or some such. Abductive (reasoning) 07:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• I Oppose this change for the reasons outlined by many editors above, especially Balloonman. Closers should be required to have a rationale and to produce it when asked, but having to put one on every AfD will lead to the use and then overuse of pat ones that add nothing to a simple close. Remember that "Delete because the cogent arguments expressed below by editors so opining rise to the level of consensus," is what "Delete" means with no more than ordinary WP:AGF. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The intention is to make a closer think about what they're doing. If a discussion is unanimous, is it that hard to add the word "unanimous" before "keep" or "delete" in the closure? In a significant number of cases, the reasoning is non-trivial, and editors should not have to approach the admin afterwards to find out why things turned out the way they did. Explain the close, then we don't have to pester you unless something's wrong. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, the great majority of debates are entirely uncontroversial, and the closer can easily keep or delete without treating AfD as a vote or imposing their own view. If it needs an explanation, provide one. If it needed one and one wasn't provided, ask the closing admin. --Stormie (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Sounds a good idea to me, but maybe not until the active admin Corps has been exspanded and their work queues reduced. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• relocating comments to Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#RfC: Should closing rationales remain optional at AfD? Geo Swan (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support -- When I don't understand an administrator's concluding statement, or their reasoning is absent, I ask them for a fuller explanation. And, I am sorry to report, some administrators' fuller explanations are disappointing. Occasionally their deletion decision turns out to be based on a new argument -- not one advanced by anyone during the {{afd}}. That's wrong -- unless the new argument is unambigously a CSD criteria that no-one mentioned during the {{afd}}. And in that case that should have been spelled out, in the closing statement. It seems to me that administrators who close an {{afd}} based on a new argument should have chosen one of two alternatives instead. In both alternatives they should have let another administrator make the closure. It seems to me they could have taken off their administrator hat, and weighed in with that novel argument themselves, as just another respondent. Alternatively they could have waited for someone else to close the {{afd}}, and then have initiated a new {{afd}}, using their new justification for deletion. I think we need to recognize that any time an administrator closes an {{afd}} without explaining their closure it is going to be natural for those who disagree with their closure to wonder about a lack of impartiality. Geo Swan (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -- The closing statement is a potentially powerful teaching tool. The wikipedia has accreted a baroque agglomeration of policies and guidelines some of which are ambiguous or contradict other policies and guidelines. In addition there are a bunch of essays, in the wikipedia namespace, that one can routinely see being called upon as if they had the authority of policy. In another discussion on this page someone mentions that "me too" arguments should be discounted. When I participate in an {{afd}}, and I think I have marshalled strong counter-arguments to any of the substantive arguments, I'd like to see the closing administrator acknowledge that they discounted the "me too" arguments. I'd like to know why they discounted my counter-arguments. In those instances where the closing administrator is closing the {{afd}} properly, but their explanation is missing or inadequate, this provides exactly zero help in teaching me whatever twist of policy I haven't mastered. And then there are going to be instances where the closing administrator closure is based on a misunderstanding -- of the arguments in the {{afd}}, or the policies in question. In those cases too it is best for the administrator to "show their work". We don't expect administrators to be perfect. Geo Swan (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -- Some of those arguing against this proposal seem to be saying that in most cases the closing administrator's reasoning is obvious. Claims that something is "too obvious to merit explanation" trouble me. In my experience (User:Geo Swan/nothing is obvious) when pressed, those who have claimed that something is too obvious to merit explanation, prove incapable of explaining themselves. I suggest, if you can't explain something you thought was obvious, then it wasn't really obvious. Rather it is likely to be one of those deep issues that really requires further exploration. Geo Swan (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should closing rationales remain optional at AfD?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See above for the recent debate on this. I'm opening an RfC to widen participation. The proposal is now that all but unanimous decisions - with unanimity excluding the nominator for Keeps and article creator for Deletes - should be closed with a rationale explaining the decision, rather than just "The result was Keep" etc. Fences&Windows 01:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This feels a bit like policy creep - if the debate is short (fewer than, say, a dozen contributors) and the policy-based arguments have been adequately rebutted, it will generally take more volunteer effort for the closer to compose a summary than for the few people who ever see it to glance over the entire debate. These conditions obtain in most deletion debates. For more complex cases (for instance, when the policy does not match the headcount; the above definition is far too restrictive, as it would require a detailed rationale for an obvious result with only one dissenter and a meatpuppet), sure, it is good practice to explain the process to avoid driving off editors. We do have talkpages and DRV to take care of any ambiguity, but these processes may not be apparent to inexperienced editors, and avoiding the appearance of an arbitrary decision is at least nice and potentially constructive (if it gets us more editors WP:HERE). Perhaps step 6 could be expanded to say Following the result, the closer is recommended, but not required, to give a rationale as to how he/she weighed the arguments. Particularly in debates where tensions ran high, non-policy-based rationales were offered, or the opening statement was inadequate, providing a clear but concise analysis of the debate is encouraged. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Jclemens (talk · contribs) put it well in the archive: "Closing admins are encouraged to provide detailed reasoning and analysis of policy-based arguments in AfD's that have a high level of interest, contention, and/or disagreement about appropriate policies." - 2/0 (cont.) 05:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, 2/0. My general sentiment on the matter remains unchanged--admins should be able to tell when commenting is appropriate, without resorting to mandating it for every blatantly obvious close. Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the goal should be for closures to be satisfactorily obvious to other administrators. Most wikipedia contributors aren't administrators. A whole different criteria for what is or isn't obvious applies here. Some are newbies, some are not native speakers of English. I don't understand the reluctance to offer explanations. The community entrusts administrators with their authority. And surely it is the broader community the explanation needs to be clear to -- not fellow administrators? Geo Swan (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• In my experience, the majority of bad closures (i.e. the ones that get overturned at DRV) don't have a decent closure summary, and where the closer does provide a decent summary, the closure's much less likely to be overturned. But equally, it seems needless to demand the closer types out War and Peace when deleting a trivial piece of spam after a unanimous or near-unanimous !vote at AfD.

  There's a third way, though. We could require a closure summary in cases where:

  1) There is 70% support (by head count) for one outcome but the closer is going for another (or for no consensus);

  2) There is less than 70% support (by head count) for any particular outcome and the closer is not closing as no consensus.

  That still seems creepy to me, though, so I'm not overenthusiastic about requiring it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree with you both about WP:CREEP-y-nees and that if we ARE going to require rationales, a set of expectations to define a non-obvious situation where close rationale is expected is far more useful than just saying "always explain closes". Jclemens (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Of course then we would be explicitly saying that admins should consider vote count in their decision, which would somewhat contradict WP:NOTAVOTE#Deletion, moving and featuring. Mr.Z-man 15:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Seems like instruction creep. If an admin closes a borderline XfD in a peculiar way and doesn't offer a closing rationale, this might invite review of the deletion (in the status quo). It shouldn't invite wholesale reversion. Also I think unanimity is far too strong a condition to limit no-rationale closes. What about no consensus closes? Do those need rationales if they votes are anything but 50/50? Protonk (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that this looks like WP:CREEP. Summaries should be recommended, but not required. Irbisgreif (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• I fail to see how "explain your actions" amounts to instruction creep. If it's clear-cut, add something like "unanimous" or "unopposed" (or just apply common sense). Ultimately, the role of a closer is rather akin to a civil judge - rather than simply weighing up the numbers, it's a matter of weighing up the substance of the arguments and then how well-supported they are. A closer needs to be able to spot an irrelevant argument (even when coming from a long-standing editor), and correctly disregard it. They also need the rather more delicate skill of spotting among several different reasons for the same !vote whether the reasons insersect or are disjunct (6 "delete" for one reason and 6 "keep" for 6 entirely unrelated reasons is a "delete", not "no consensus"). Asking for an explanation both makes the admin think carefully about their close, but also makes other users think carefully about whether they want to submit it for review. It also exposes poor closers - if they don't know where they're weak, they can't be expected to improve. Benefits all round, and no real costs. Not "instruction creep" by any measure. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 09:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still with Jclemens here as I have been the several other times this has been discussed. Closing administrators should know to exercise common sense as far as closing a deletion discussion is concerned. That is, only comment if needed. That depends ultimately on the deletion discussion itself. If consensus clearly looks like a keep, delete, etc., then there's nothing much to be said. If, on the surface, it doesn't look like a rough consensus was formed, then an additional note by the closing admin helps. It may also help save some unnecessary talk page discussion or explanation at DRV, should the closure be challenged. We need to remember that administrators are supposed to be judging consensus in deletion discussions; they're not a "supervote" in the matter. Requiring administrators to do more than that does against that function in deletion discussions. MuZemike 20:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Still oppose as pointless instruction creep. As I said above, 80%+ of AFDs are clear-cut and have no need for making the closer type in extra words that'll just become a box-ticking exercise. No objection to any non-mandatory wording ("should", "are encouraged to", "not required"). Stifle (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• No Don't create more work for people where it's not necessary. Anybody who has serious issues with the result of a deletion discussion can ask the closing admin directly. This happens, I believe, in an insignificant minority of cases. Ray^Talk 20:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I fail to see how "flush after use" amounts to "creating more work for people". If the admin has done their job properly, they'll already have thought about the decision. Asking them to suitably document it is not "more work" than they already should be doing. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Should be required It always helps the contributor and other people who may want to improve the article--if only to discourage them from doing so if it is hopeless. Normally, it takes a few words-- I for example might write "Delete: no evidence of notability could be found." This focuses attention on the fact that the key problem was lack of demonstration of notability--usually during the discussion a few minor issues will have been raised also. MuZemike, Jclemens, I know your excellent work in closing--do you think you could take the effort to do that also? If it helps one contributor out of ten , it would still be worth it.

On a practical basis, it will diminish requests on your talk pages and Deletion Reviews. Many of our contributors are too shy or intimidated to do that--especially after negative comments from multiple people, as is the case at AfD--and any thing to show a degree of humanity rather than automation would help. I know its hard to put oneself in their place, because we who have worked here for months or years are not the least intimidated by such things, and are not shy about approaching an administrator, but that's not the case for at least some beginners. Stifle, the more clear-cut they are, the easier to write. When it's clear-cut, just say so. e.g. "Keep, no policy reasons for deletion were given" or "Delete, unsupported personal knowledge of the group is not an adequate reason" How hard is that? RayAYang, the number of non-clear cut AfD decision is at least 10 or 20%, and that is not an "insignificant minority" but 10 or 20 articles a day. And we all know that what the closing administrator finds obvious is not necessarily equally obvious to everyone else.As for instruction creep, instruction to clarify process is hardly instruction creep--they serve to make things clearer. The basis for closing afds is a complicated set of guidelines, and adding this is adding a very easy 1% to it. But S.Marshall, your proposed rules for when they are needed, that would be instruction keep--it would be much simpler to always add them, long or short as the situation requires. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that instructions on when it is required would be instruction creep, but saying that always requiring it is the solution to that is basically saying that we don't trust admins to use common sense or follow simple instructions. This is one of those discussions that just boggles my mind. On one hand, we have constantly increasing standards at RFA, but on the other, we seem to be trying to make adminship as idiot-proof as possible. Mr.Z-man 17:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

anyone who thinks all admins consistently show common sense is rather naïve about what happens here--as can be proven from any AfD where different admins take different sides of an issue, or in a more concentrated manner at any Deletion Review where the debate is whether a particular admin showed common sense, and again his brother admins take opposite positions on that. The standards of RfA do not rise to examining whether an admin can judge the relative importance of particular interpretations of policy, just whether he is roughly aware of some key accepted positions. Good thing they don't, or nobody would pass. I do not claim to always show common sense, and I will be glad to examine the record of anyone who claims that all their decisions are correct. I will say that I would be ashamed to do something as an admin without giving a reason at the time, and I think anyone of us who does not feel similarly is to some degree either arrogant or irresponsible. As an analogy, a policeman who arrest someone without saying just why, obvious though it may look, would rightly be thought to be making bad arrests-- such conduct is one of the characteristics of totalitarian governments. "They arrested him, so he must be an evil person." Am I saying all admins are idiots--no, but I am saying that any one of us can occasionally act like an idiot. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Mildly opposed. Opposed because I don't think that it's needed in every case, mild because, as has been mentioned, there really is not much additional burden placed on the closer. Practically speaking though, very shortly after imposing such a requirement we will see a template with a generic "Consensus was that the article lacked reliable sources showing notability" added over and over again. I just don't see that much benefit from a blanket requirement. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- When I don't understand an administrator's concluding statement, or their reasoning is absent, I ask them for a fuller explanation. And, I am sorry to report, some administrators' fuller explanations are disappointing. Occasionally their deletion decision turns out to be based on a new argument -- not one advanced by anyone during the {{afd}}. That's wrong -- unless the new argument is unambigously a CSD criteria that no-one mentioned during the {{afd}}. And in that case that should have been spelled out, in the closing statement. It seems to me that administrators who close an {{afd}} based on a new argument should have chosen one of two alternatives instead. In both alternatives they should have let another administrator make the closure. It seems to me they could have taken off their administrator hat, and weighed in with that novel argument themselves, as just another respondent. Alternatively they could have waited for someone else to close the {{afd}}, and then have initiated a new {{afd}}, using their new justification for deletion. I think we need to recognize that any time an administrator closes an {{afd}} without explaining their closure it is going to be natural for those who disagree with their closure to wonder about a lack of impartiality. Geo Swan (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -- The closing statement is a potentially powerful teaching tool. The wikipedia has accreted a baroque agglomeration of policies and guidelines some of which are ambiguous or contradict other policies and guidelines. In addition there are a bunch of essays, in the wikipedia namespace, that one can routinely see being called upon as if they had the authority of policy. In another discussion on this page someone mentions that "me too" arguments should be discounted. When I participate in an {{afd}}, and I think I have marshalled strong counter-arguments to any of the substantive arguments, I'd like to see the closing administrator acknowledge that they discounted the "me too" arguments. I'd like to know why they discounted my counter-arguments. In those instances where the closing administrator is closing the {{afd}} properly, but their explanation is missing or inadequate, this provides exactly zero help in teaching me whatever twist of policy I haven't mastered. And then there are going to be instances where the closing administrator closure is based on a misunderstanding -- of the arguments in the {{afd}}, or the policies in question. In those cases too it is best for the administrator to "show their work". We don't expect administrators to be perfect. Geo Swan (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -- Some of those arguing against this proposal seem to be saying that in most cases the closing administrator's reasoning is obvious. Claims that something is "too obvious to merit explanation" trouble me. In my experience (User:Geo Swan/nothing is obvious) when pressed, those who have claimed that something is too obvious to merit explanation, often prove incapable of explaining themselves. In my experience, when pressed for an explanation for something tehy have claimed is "obvious", many people end up getting not just frustrated, but angry at the person who exposed their inability to explain themselves. I regard this as a strong reason to require an explanation in every single case. I suggest, if you can't explain something you thought was obvious, then it wasn't really obvious. Rather it is likely to be one of those deep issues that really requires further exploration. Geo Swan (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support If the discussion was unanimous then it is easy to provide a pro forma nem con or similar. If the discussion was not unanimous then a statement is required so that justice is not only done but is seen to be done. If an admin is unable to quickly summarise his reasoning then he shouldn't be performing the close as he either doesn't have a clear understanding of the matter or is behaving in an improper way which he hopes to conceal by silence. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary. If consensus is clear, the rationale shouldn't be required. In my experience, admins are pretty good at explaining their deletions if they're discretionary, or against consensus for some reason, so there's no real need to change this. Regurgitating the arguments of an AfD with 8 deletes and no keeps seems rather pointless. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Your experience is that admins are good enough at explaining their closures? My experience is that some administrators do an excellent job at explaining their reasoning, and most administrators do either a good job or an adequate job, but that a significant fraction of the corps of administrators suck at leaving a meaningful concluding statement. Could you please respond to the point several respondents have made here -- that if the conclusion is truly clear-cut it should be a completely trivial matter to briefly lay out some reasoning. Geo Swan (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • WRT your example of the {{afd}} with 8 deletes and no keeps. May I remind you that some of the wikipedia's quality control volunteers routinely nominate articles for {{afd}} while ignoring the recommendation in the deletion policies that nominators should leave a courtesy heads-up on the talk pages of the major contributors to the article, and the individual who started it. Those individuals who contributed to the article, and would have responded with counter-arguments to whatever substantive arguments were advanced, if only they were aware of it would be best served if the closing administrator made a brief closing statement about which of the eight arguments they thought were meaningful, and which they were discounting. If you or I were to go through the last couple of months {{afd}} closures, looking for examples with 8 deletes and no keeps, what percentage of those do you think we would find where all 8 contributors voiced substantive, policy compliant arguments? My prediction is that only a small fraction would have 8 good arguments. Bad arguments are routine in {{afd}}s. Contributors routinely advance arguments for deletion that contradict our policies. Contributors routinely advance arguments that are based on mininterpreting our policies. Contributors routinely advance arguments that call upon essays as if they had the authority of actual policies. Contributors who go to edit an article, only to find that it was deleted out from under them, when they weren't looking, should be able to find a meaningful closing statement. Geo Swan (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Sympathetic to the proposal, though laying down rules like this tends to create more work unnecessarily. I would say that anyone closing ANY discussion where the reasons for the decision are not obvious from the discussion itself (leaving a certain amount of judgement room) should explain fully the reasoning behind it. Indeed, in particularly tricky cases, the closure should not have to be a single undiscussed act, but we should encourage closers to tell participants in advance what their reasoning and decision is going to be, to allow misunderstandings (which are frequent) to be corrected - or second opinions sought - before the wrong decision gets actioned.--Kotniski (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: PeterSymonds summed it up pretty well. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I understand and sympathize with the intent behind this proposal, but this won't solve the problems it is trying to address and will make admins less willing to close any non-unanimous AFD. Whether or not to leave a summary is a decision most admins make on a case-by-case basis, and I've never heard of an admin refusing to do so if specifically asked to (although I could just be out of the loop on that point). Beeblebrox (talk) 03:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose (again) as needless bureaucracy and pointless instruction creep. I too, like Beeblebrox, have never heard of an administrator be unwilling to explain a closure, and for most controversial AfDs, a closure is almost always provided anyway. NW (Talk) 03:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Really? -- I have had this happen more than once. In the worst instance I initiated a DRV when the closing administrator didn't see fit to answer the civil questions I posed. That closing admin did weigh in during the {{drv}}. And they did something else that, IMO, reflected very poorly on their concern as to whether their actions appeared professional and impartial. Less than ten minutes after weighing in on the DRV this administrator picked another similar article I started, and nominated it for deletion. So, while the corps of administrators includes impressive individuals, who are wise, tactful, and able to approach each question with an open mind, and able to openly acknowledge when they realized they made a mistake, frankly, it also includes a significant fraction who are tempermental unsuited to exercise the authority entrusted to them. Geo Swan (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
    • This doesn't account for the majority, who are usually very reasonable in discussing their closes with people who disagree. If there is a discrepancy in the close on the part of the closing admin, that should be pursued individually if needed. Enforcing this on everybody because of a few individuals isn't the best way to handle this. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

      • • Dealing with Individual bad admins is not the primary goal of this proposal -- it would still require watching their closures and challenging each bad one. The goal is to help guide admins into better communication, and thus assist people who contribute unsatisfactory articles to learn what is wanted better, and also to help those who unnecessarily challenge articles to learn what is acceptable. The first step in this is the admin closures that give no reason at all. Getting better closures after that will require additional steps. Peter, I remain confused by why you thing this is too great a burden to assume. It seems to be so trivial that I am truly at a loss to understand the opposition. Perhaps some admins want the ability to sound arbitrary, even though they in fact might be reasonable? DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

          • Not at all. But if I deleted a page at AfD, with 8 well-reasoned delete votes, closing the discussion as "the result of this debate is delete" seems perfectly acceptable to me. As I mentioned above, I do think admins have the ability to communicate, through their closures and after an AfD, if there is a close call, or if the decision appears to be against consensus for whatever reason. This has been displayed in the close rationale very frequently (recent examples include the Colorado balloon incident, and the David Shankbone AfD, even though it was overturned). "Standard" closures, by which I mean the run-of-the-mill easy calls, do not need a regurgitation of arguments already obvious in the discussion. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
            • Please read the proposal more carefully: it says "all but unanimous decisions", so your hypothetical example above would be fine. I'd already adapted the proposal following the discussion above the RfC. Fences&Windows 23:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
              • It was supposed to highlight an obvious consensus. It doesn't necessarily have to be unanimous for consensus to be clear. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
            • First, let me ask you again, do you really think you can find an {{afd}} with zero keeps and eight well-reasoned delete arguments? I don't doubt you can find multiple instances of {{afd}}s with many deletes and zero keeps. But {{afd}}s where all the participants offer well-reasoned arguments are extremely rare. Could you please address the point I made above, that if half of those deletes were bad arguments, why shouldn't the closing admin have an obligation to say something like, "Closing as "delete" because, as 4 people pointed out, the references don't actually back up the article's assertions. I discounted the 4 other people's arguments which were basically variations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT." Geo Swan (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
            • Second, it seems to me that you, and many of the other respondents here, are arguing from the position that the intended audience of an {{afd}} are the administrator's fellow administrators, and those who regularly hang out in the {{afd}} fora, and that if the administrators peers would regard the conclusion as "obvious" it doesn't require explanation. I suggest that is a serious mistake. Doesn't open and transparent decision-making require that the closing argument be meaningful and accessible to relative newcomers? Geo Swan (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
              • "Open and transparent decision making" is fine, but when anyone, newcomer or not, can see a clear consensus, why bother making this a requirement? Really, it's not something I care about, and I'm not going to kick up a fuss if such a process is implemented, but I have rarely seen a necessity to make this a requirement at all. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
                • On a project with participation from people from cultures around the world, some of whom are not native speakers of English, it is not safe to act as if it were obvious. No one should have to risk embarrassment for having to ask for this "obvious" thing to be spelled out for them. Sometimes assertions like, "I think it should be obvious to everyone who is paying attention" is explicitly intended to be a calculated insult to those the writer disagrees with. Other times it is not meant to be an insult, but it is interpreted as such by those who disagree, or those to whom it isn't "obvious". I am going to assume you didn't read my little parable, nothing is obvious..., the first time I mentioned it. I am going to encourage you to do so. Geo Swan (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• I'd propose You must provide a closing rational when requested and you should provide one when some degree admin discretion was required or somesuch. Hobit (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(Saw this at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion.) I'm leaning towards those that call it creep. There's one sentence in the essay WP:IAR? that seems to apply here: "A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be able to do that at all times." (This helps rationalize the whole edit summary thing.)

I don't think it should be required that an admin provide a rationale right away—especially with snowy or obvious situations—but if an admin can't explain (on request or challenge) why they closed a discussion a certain way, they probably shouldn't have closed it that way. As 2over0 says near the top of this section, it'll be needless work for short AfDs as well. If there must be an additional rule, I like Hobit's suggestion right above this comment. --an odd name 05:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• An example of a lack of a rationale: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood, which was renamed to "Jews and Hollywood", was closed by User:Coffee thus: "The result was delete". The debate is 131kb long. Does anyone wish to defend this admin action? Are we happy to allow admins to continue to act like this? Fences&Windows 14:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm willing to defend it; the closing admin decided consensus was clear enough that explaining the reasoning behind his action wasn't required. Personally I would have typed up a brief rationale, especially if requested, but that's not an inherently bad call. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Why should users bother to make arguments at AfD if admins will not deign to give any sign of having read, understood and considered their comments? Why do we have the pretence that AfD is decided by community discussion if admins can close in this manner? To sum up a lengthy debate in a single word is high-handed, and shows a lack of respect to the participants in the debate. If you're happy to defend such behaviour, no wonder you don't support requiring rationales. Fences&Windows 21:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I do indeed have an opinion on the matter, which is why I happen to oppose this proposal. As I said, I'd have personally provided a closing statement. However, we entrust admins not to follow every policy to a tee but to exercise their discretion and decide how to best implement the community consensus. We can't just assume the closing admin failed to read through the discussion because he chose not to provide a rationale. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The actual action of thinking of a sentence to write can be helpful to the closer in focusing on the issue; the comment will assist observers and those involved in the debate as to why the AFD was closed, and should aid toward reducing questions and WP:DRVs. This will be an all round net benefit. I tend to do it anyway, and it's really not much of an effort. This is not creep, this is simply common sense; and such a clause should have been included when AFD was set up. SilkTork *^YES! 15:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Peter et al. It might be reasonable to recommend that rationales be used when closing AfDs, but it would be rather ridiculous to make it a requirement in my opinion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. You can require people to do it, but you can't force them to give good explanations. People that aren't providing explanations when they should be are still not going to provide good ones, they'll probably just be cookie cutter ones. The problem as it is is pretty self-correcting: ask them on their talk page or bring it to DRV. delldot ∇. 22:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Excellent point: this won't even solve the problem, since the bad decisions people are currently worried about will simply become bad decisions backed up by lame boilerplate. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The admin has assessed the consensus; it is fresh in her mind; it shouldn't take her long to describe her thought process. One of the things that struck me when I opened my account was this very issue; the whole project is driven by consensus, yet in some areas, when you get right down to it, a single person makes the call. I was really surprised, and still am, that it isn't mandatory for that person to explain the thinking behind the call.

I don't think it works to say that explanations are not necessary when the result is obvious or clear-cut, because those terms are so subjective. If the closing admin thinks the result is obvious, then it shouldn't take long to say why she thinks that. MoreThings (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. A lot of times people propose stuff to legislate niceness/helpfulness and my question is "How do we enforce it?" It seems the only way to enforce mandatory-closing-statements would be to overturn decisions if the closer didn't provide one, which is obviously bureaucratic to the point that it would never happen on Wikipedia... it would mean deleting valid articles on the technicality that the closer didn't provide a rationale, and keeping bad articles for the same reason. So... making closing statements mandatory would be kind of pointless if there was no way to enforce it. Actually it would probably make the current situation worse... people would complain more often, but certain closers would still say "whatever, you can't make me", and it would be true... altogether making for a nasty exchange. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. This seems like it would just add extra bookkeeping for already-overworked admins. If the reason for the admin's close seems fairly obvious (e.g., five delete !votes and four keep !votes, with the "keep"s mainly being WP:ILIKEIT, shouldn't need an explanation. If all arguments are relatively well-based in policy or the discussion is long, an explanation of the close may be helpful, but certainly not needed). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Isn't XfD a big enough time sink, as it is? Certainly there are circumstances in which a closing statement should be expected, and an admin who fails to provide a rationale for a controversial closure should rightly be trouted, but I'd rather focus on those cases specifically instead of applying a blanket requirement. The amount of effort expended here should generally be proportional to the chances of reasonable objections. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose my reasons are as above, time waste and reason could be reasonably obvious from arguments. Rather than a policy we can have a guideline that where the result is controversial or appears to be against the majority, or there were numerous opposing arguments brought up ( ie complex) then a rationale is given. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support. It is not a matter of niceness. It is matter of explaining openly to the community why a certain decision has been taken. This should be an enforced duty of them: no matter AGF, a community cannot support admins doing something as serious as page deletion without a proper explanation of their decision and how the XfD outcome has been weighed. It would not be respectful of the community. We usually require edit summaries, why not rationales? It would also help editors understand how XfD work, how arguments are to be weighed and such. And it would be useful for admins, explaining themselves instead of waiting for delrev or talk page. --Cyclopia^talk 19:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Edit summaries are required? News to me! How much do edit summaries contribute to this conversation? In a situation where edit summaries matter little, they're often very abbreviated -- "typo", "rvv", "support", and so on -- or even skipped entirely, as many editors are opting to do on this very page. In a situation where edits are more likely to be challenged, many editors -- as if by magic! -- will use more verbose summaries as a matter of course. Suppose policy obliged you to post a verbose summary for every edit you made; do you think you'd get more or less done, as an editor? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I didn't explain myself well. I know that edit summaries are not required by policy. But they are a strongly encouraged good practice, even for something usually almost self-explanatory as an edit. For admin actions which influence the existence of an article and require the interpretation of community consensus in light of policy, a non-trivial summary should not be optional, but enforced. The burden on the admin closer would be minimal. --Cyclopia^talk 21:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Looking at recent selections from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 October 17, would a closing summary have done anything to improve Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlueBerry v2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betty Suarez and Gio Rossi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Bryant, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LISA MVC? Bear in mind that this proposal includes no tangible standards or enforcement mechanism for these rationales -- get ready for a slew of "per consensus below" closures -- and that a very large number of deletion decisions are never significantly revisited. When those discussions are revisited, then community discussion and consensus, not closing admin statement(s), should be the golden standard. I don't dispute in the least that some decisions need elaboration, but I don't see either how this "requirement" that doesn't actually require anything will bring about a net gain. Bad closures will still be just as bad, but now they'll come along with zombie-like boilerplate messages. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
        • No, "per consensus below" or such boilerplate trash is exactly what the proposal should not allow. What should be enforced is a rationale explicitly based on the current discussion. I don't see how this requirement will not bring a net gain -the community has the right to have an explanation from the current admin, and the admin has a duty to explain how he arrived to a conclusion and why. I don't see what's the problem in having the admin justifying it with a couple of sentences. --Cyclopia^talk 12:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
          • By my understanding, the component you describe is not an integral part of the proposal. While it seems to me that both you and I find this lack of proposed standards short-sighted at best, I don't think consensus here is ultimately going to support adding them. With that addition, I personally think it would likely create unnecessary paperwork in a very large number of cases, in an area that I already think wastes far too much work and time; absent that addition, I'd really rather not have a lip-service requirement on the books that doesn't actually require anything substantial. Either way, this discussion strikes me as all but meaningless unless actual, tangible standards are proposed. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not in favor of this proposal as it stands currently, ie. requiring a rationale in all but unanimous discussions. That would be a big change from current practice. A new policy should reflect the current practice, and I think the current practice is to give closing rationale that is proportional to the amount of disagreement in the discussion. Perhaps rationale could be required based on a loose ratio of delete votes to keep votes (or something like that). Equazcion (talk) 20:59, 27 Oct 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - The only possible benefit to the proposal is to create grounds for an appeal against the closure decision. We already have that processs - it's called relisting the discussion, and it wouldn't be enhanced by this proposal - so the rule would add nothing to our ability to effectively process AfDs while adding additional actual and potential administrative delay and complexity to an already cumbersome process. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The process is WP:DRV, not relisting. This proposal would create additional grounds for a DRV. One possible outcome of DRV is relisting, but that's neither here nor there. Equazcion (talk) 01:29, 28 Oct 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose If the admin has something to say, they should say it. If not, they shouldn't be forced to make something up. I think this will have the oppposite from the intended effect, and lazier admins will just start using a boilerplate closure like "consensus indicates that this should be kept", just to technically do the minimum. With the current system of no requirements, they need to actually consider whether something needs to be said or not. It should stay this way. Gigs (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not fully decided on this but I'm leaning towards oppose unless there is a set of criteria that an admin can basically use as a checklist to see if a rationale is required or not, and such cases should be rare. I would definitely oppose requiring a rationale in the majority of cases. One suggestion I will make is for those who are particularly hoping for this to be required is for you to start regularly asking a question related to this at RfA, maybe something like "Assume for a minute there is a long, heated XfD going on. You read the debate and, while those supporting keeping have some good arguments, those supporting deletion also have good arguments, and by a pure head count those supporting deletion number 75% of the participation while those supporting keeping amount to 25%. You are randomly asked to close the debate by a user you are unfamiliar with because they are in need of an uninvolved admin. Assuming you were persuaded equally by the points made by each side, what do you anticipate your closure would be? Will you provide a closing rationale? Under what circumstances would you feel a closing rationale is unnecessary?" (A little long, and I know there's a bunch of people out there who oppose a lot of RfA questions, but this is the easiest way I can think of for you to more likely get your desired result without this passing). VegaDark (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose all instruction creep. If you want a more detailed explanation, you can ask the admin directly, and he or she should be happy to provide one. This only creates more work in situations where it's not needed. causa sui× 18:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CREEP and WP:BURO. Some cases certainly warrant longer closes, and I have been known to write a few doozies in my time. I think, however, it should be left to the good judgment of the closing admin to determine when this might be. If an admin closes many extraordinarily contentious discussions without rationale, I might take that as evidence of poor judgment. Fences and Windows brings up the notion of Wikilawyering. I think the potential for wikilawyering and gaming could be higher if we require closing rationales. Gamers and lawyers may latch on to a slightly misstated rationale over an open-and-shut case and claim foul. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CREEP, WP:BURO, WP:GAME and just about any other guideline or essay that mentions needless bureaucracy, or instruction creep. There is never a need for a rationale to be provided, even though at times we do provide them. Requiring admins to constantly put forth a rationale to a clear cut consensus AFD, (the consensus is determined by the admin), is just making more "process" than is necessary, and would only help slow down the process of closing AFDs. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 10:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing the RfC - but discussion doesn't end there

I am closing the above RfC, thank you everyone for commenting. I can see that consensus is not going to be reached on requiring closers to give a rationale, even with the caveat of not requiring this for unanimous debates, though there is a significant amount of support.

Where I do see a potential for consensus is in the case of AfDs that are strongly contested. Most of the opposition to my previous proposal was due to it being a waste of time for obvious closures. In an ideal world we could ask an admin for their rationale and they would graciously provide it, but we do not live in an ideal world and some admins chose not to explain their reasoning. I get the sense that the community is not satisfied with a lack of a rationale for complicated and lengthy debates; I think most participants at AfD would expect to see a rationale in such cases.

A possibility is to codify when a rationale is required by length of the debate or the ratios of Keep vs Delete arguments, but I don't favour this idea. Instead, I propose a change to the current wording:

"Following the result, the closer is recommended, but not required, to give a rationale as to how he/she weighed the arguments"

to acknowledge the community expectation that contested debates be given a rationale thus:

"Following the result, the closer is recommended to give a rationale as to how he/she weighed the arguments. This is required if there is significant and substantial policy-based disagreement."

The wording is of course open to debate. Failure to give a rationale would result in the following: anyone could ask the admin to provide a rationale. If they decline to add one to the closed debate and there was significant and substantial disagreement, any admin could reopen the debate to be closed by another admin, including the initial closer providing they give a rationale. Alternatively, a deletion review may be opened. If this proposal or a similar one gains support, we can open another RfC. Fences&Windows 01:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I like everything but "policy-based". If we say only "policy-based" disagreements are worthy of rationale, we risk the excuse that "non of the arguments on one side were policy-based, so I didn't need to leave rationale" -- as occurred in the event that spurred this proposal. Any significant disagreement should require rationale, with the admin describing which arguments were valid and policy-based, and which were not. Equazcion (talk) 01:33, 30 Oct 2009 (UTC)

Situations where arguments not grounded in policy prevail is exactly the sort of situation where the closer needs to disregard those arguments and therefore document it. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It seemed to me that several people above were expressing the view that a closing administrator could ignore policy in favor of the apparent consensus in a discussion. Personally I think this is a terrible mistake, at least when the policy is reasonably clear. Consensii reached in discussion are local, and ephemeral. If policies conflict, are ambiguous, or when an issue is at the very boundary of a policy, then of course an administrator should exercise his or her best judgment. But administrators who ignore clear policies on the authority of their interpretation of the consensus of local and ephemeral discussions are charting a course for chaos and destruction.

We already have certain rogue wikiprojects that have taken WP:Ownership of certain topics, and privately plot to delete articles they don't like. They nominate the articles they have previously targeted -- without offering the good-faith heads-up to the good-faith article creators, or major contributors our deletion policies recommend. To an administrator their "votes" look like an overwhelming consensus to delete. In fact it is nothing of the sort, because those on the rogue wikiproject actively worked to preclude anyone who had a different view participating in the discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if any wording is just going to be instruction creep... it's not like admins closing AFDs aren't aware that people sometimes want closes explained, if an admin is choosing not to provide an explanation, it's a deliberate action, not one made purely because they didn't know it was a good idea to explain themselves. And again, the second wording is unenforceable... I don't see us ever overturning an AFD purely because the closer didn't provide a rationale. We'd have to disagree with the actual result anyway to overturn a close.

Which kind of brings me to my point... providing an closure explanation is good because it reduces confusion and frustration. Closers who are unwilling to do that, especially when asked, are basically engaging in anti-social behavior. Rather than trying to legislate them into being nicer/more helpful, which I don't think will ever work, the only real thing to do is call them out. If they are always getting asked to explain confusing, unexplained closes and getting dragged to DRV when they refuse, the handful of admins doing this will just give up and stop their behavior, and if they don't you'll have an ArbCom case eventually. Just changing a rule is a quick fix that won't really improve things... actually stopping this behavior is a longer process that involves dealing with problematic admins, rather than changing a rule on a website where we celebrate our right to ignore rules. But getting through to these admins can be done... it's just not as easy as adding a line of instruction somewhere.--Sancho Mandoval (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree it seems like needless instruction creep. Admins who regularly leave off explanations when one is generally called for receive appropriate trout-slapping as necessary; putting in a rule just so the trout-slappers have something concrete to point to is unnecessary. Powers ^T 15:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've put in an order for trout. If it depends on individual actions in each case, that's what there will be. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This is quite ridiculous, the idea to require a closing rationale in a vague "idea" of what the AFD might be about, is rather unhelpful. This not only would cause further bureaucracy than needed, it would also end up in more DRVs that aren't about the closing of the AFD being right or wrong, just about whether or not a rationale was given, which in my opinion leaves the door open for a whole lot more gaming of the system than we already have. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 10:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You refuse to explain your rationales. You're part of the problem, so I don't expect you to support the solution. Fences&Windows 04:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is possible to engage in this discussion without calling someone out as "part of the problem", that would be better. Protonk (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

And calling the proposal "quite ridiculous" is OK? Coffee is one admin who refuses to explain his AFD closures even on disputed debates, so of course he won't support this. Fences&Windows 20:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That may be true, but that doesn't mean his opinion is inherently worthless. You're the proposer, I don't expect you to oppose this, but your opinion isn't discarded simply because it won't change. Try discussing the reasoning rather than the person. Good arguments should be on the top 3 levels of the hierarchy, "you're part of the problem" is near the bottom. Mr.Z-man 21:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

@F&W - Yes I was quite aware that I was probably the reason that you started this whole debacle, which might I add I have every right to speak my opinion on. Last I checked there wasn't anything wrong for calling something as you see it, and this proposal is IMO "quite ridiculous". P.S. For the 50 billzillionth time, that AFD wasn't "disputed" --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"I was quite aware that I was probably the reason that you started this whole debacle". This is not a personal dispute with you, I am not so petty as to propose a change based on disliking the actions of one admin. It's not a 'debacle', it's a proposal. We are allowed to change things on Wikipedia. p.s. There was a deletion review, and most editors said you should have given a rationale. Fences&Windows 03:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Good grief, we're starting another discussion on this? Are we just going to continue this indefinitely until enough people get tired of arguing that they no longer care if the guideline is changed? Mr.Z-man 06:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Reasoned discussion of proposals is never a bad thing, unless preserving the status quo is paramount. The proposal is not the same as that above. The debate above became polarised into fully supporting or fully opposing requiring rationales on all closures and I've withdrawn that proposal. The debate didn't properly examine the views of editors on whether rationales should be required if the debate is strongly divided, which is a compromise position that I know wish I had proposed initially. I'd suggest that most editors already expect admins to give rationales in such cases and most admins do have the courtesy to give a rationale when there is substantial debate at AfD. The latest proposal isn't instruction creep but rather would make clear to the minority of admins who decline to explain their reasoning when closing contested debates that they are acting against consensus. Fences&Windows 20:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far to say "never," some variant of this has been in discussion for more than a month now, despite it being a rather trivial point. At this point the proposal is now just to augment a slightly vague recommendation, with a slightly less-vague requirement. Consider this: What is your plan if this proposal fails as well? Would you drop the issue, or propose yet another slight variation? Is there any result that you would accept that doesn't involve adding some requirement to the guideline? Mr.Z-man 21:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You think it's trivial, but plenty of other editors think that admins not explaining their decisions of contested closures isn't acceptable practice. The main opposition to the earlier proposal was that it was unnecessary for "obvious" closures, so the proposal as it stands is a compromise, not a "slight variation". As happens sometimes on these threads, the debate is becoming more about the proposer and the debate itself than the proposal, and subtleties are being lost, so it might be best to put this on hold for a while to be reproposed when some time has passed to make clear that it is not the same proposal as the one that didn't pass. Fences&Windows 03:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You're conflating 2 issues. One is the issue of admins not explaining controversial closures; the other is whether the current recommendation should be turned into a requirement. Chances are, if someone is ignoring the recommendation, they'll ignore the requirement too. And if you don't want the discussion focusing on you, I would suggest you not continue to use ad hominems ("you're part of the problem") and straw man arguments (suggesting that everyone who disagrees with your proposal believes not explaining a controversial close is "acceptable practice"). Mr.Z-man 15:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticising someone's actions isn't ad hominem. It would be ad hominem if I brought up something irrelevant about an editor to discredit them. I'm blunt about Coffee, I'm not going to make special efforts to be nice to an insulting, intransigent and sarcastic admin. My wording was not a 'straw man'; it's a fun phrase to bandy about, but it suggests I knowingly and in bad faith used a false statement of your position as a debating technique, whereas in my case I had missed any sign that you recognised there was a issue with how admins close deletion debates. If you don't agree with not explaining controversial closes, do you have another solution? Fences&Windows 20:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible contradiction in "Non-administrators closing discussions"

The often quoted bullet point 3 says Close calls and controversial decisions should be left to an administrator. However, bullet point 1 right above it says If you are not familiar with deletion policy or the workings of deletion discussions, only close those with unambiguous results which seems to suggest that non admins can close "close call" AFDs if they are "familiar with deletion policy etc.".

Is this a contradiction, or is bullet point 1 talking about a zone somewhere in between "Unanimous or nearly unanimous" (borrowing a phrase from WP:NAC) and "contentious and ambiguous"? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• should probably be changed to say that if you are unfamiliar w/ deletion policy you shouldn't undertake a NAC at all. I think there is room for close calls to be made by non-admins, but I respect that both policy and consensus are against me there. Protonk (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Protonk. Frankly I don't even trust admins to make the close calls, so I don't see any reason to trust us non-admins with them.--Kotniski (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Um, so who would that leave us with to make the tough calls? The stewards? Jimbo? Beeblebrox (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• He's saying the opposite. That the admin bit doesn't seem to reliably imbue the subject w/ serene detachment and/or the wisdom of Solomon. Consequently NAC ought to be broadened. At least that's how I read it. Protonk (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, confused everyone with my comments. I meant to agree with Protonk that "(it) should probably be changed to say that if you are unfamiliar w/ deletion policy you shouldn't undertake a NAC at all". --Kotniski (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think there's a gray area. Mine may be tighter than average, but it's there. I agree with Protonk's proposed change: it doesn't seem like there's any shortage of knowledgeable users closing obvious AfDs. Flatscan (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• I made the proposed change. I also think that WP:NAC should be made a guideline. Ruslik_Zero 15:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Making WP:NAC a guideline has been proposed in the past and was rejected and I would oppose if the issue is re introduced. As an essay, it's advice and damn good advice, especially for those who are new at closing deletion discussions. However, as a "guideline" I think it would be CREEPy and I don't want to see it quoted in DRV because a non admin closed an AFD with a few "per nom" delete !votes and/or 10 minutes early. The bit we have here should remain the "guideline" with WP:NAC as a common "interpretation" of that guideline.

Made change to relist policy: stay open for 7 days

Hi folks, I made a significant change to the relist policy, requiring that relisted discussions stay open for 7 days. I'm worried about situations where an admin who has strong known opinions on a subject is closing discussions after a relist the moment they tilt toward his direction and (thus) not allowing a response to those latest comments. Requiring the full 7-days after a relist would solve the problem (which is what I changed it to), though there may well be other good ways to handle this. Hobit (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If admins are gaming the system then call them on it, draw attention to it. Even if you force an exact time limit you could still have people lining up to close it on the second or even 4 minutes early to be the one to close it. If people are going to game the system then this edit will not prevent it, but drawing scrutiny towards such behavior will. The point of the 7 days is to give a full week for people to see the discussion, if more than 7 days are needed I see no reason to require 14 when 9 is all that is needed. Chillum 15:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the concern about opportunistic closers is legitimate, but concur with Chillum on how to deal with it. Suspect closes should be taken up with the closer, or to DRV if necessary.  Skomorokh, barbarian  15:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It involves the admins who are arguing for BLPs to default to delete. The closes are all within policy as it stands, but feels like gaming to me. Given the drama associated with the BLP issue at the moment, I'd rather fix it by policy than call out folks for admin actions. That way will, IMO, result in much heat and no light. Hobit (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Requiring relists to last seven days

Regarding this and subsequent changes, I don't think requiring discussions to stay open a further seven days after relisting is productive. In many cases, debates are relisted because of very little participation, and then attract decisive judgements or conclusive new information (e.g. "this article is certainly a hoax, as it contradicts authoritative sources x, y, and z", "yes, there are articles about [topic] in The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, it's definitely notable"). The initial seven day period is to accommodate editors of all weekly schedules; artificially prolonging relisted discussions is unhelpful dictating of process, I think.  Skomorokh, barbarian  15:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've modified it slightly to indicate that active discussions should not be closed early. This should specify that closing discussions immediately after it tilts in one way is not kosher, but not necessarily mandating a full 14 days. Mr.Z-man 17:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the right direction, though I'd prefer some definition of active (no comments for 24 hours?), but I can live with this and think it many ways it's better than what I wrote. Hobit (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree w/ Skomorokh. I can't imagine that mandating a further 7 days of discussion is productive. I've seen a few cases where relists are immediately closed (often because two admins had the same AfD open in a window at the same time or because the deletion log didn't refresh), but those seem to have been resolved amicably for the most part. Protonk (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The closes that prompted this involved a fairly reasonable relist (though technically a violation of WP:RELIST), two !votes to delete in quick succession followed by a quick close. There was no chance to respond and the closing admin in question has a very strong opinion about deleting BLPs. My rather ham-handed attempts to deal with similar problems with the same admin have gotten nowhere. Hobit (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That strikes me as a problem with that admin, not something which is best solved using a blunt instrument like legislated delays. Protonk (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

But there is no policy baring that quick close. They followed the letter of the rules. I'd rather close the abuseable loophole than just deal with the current abuse. In any case, I think the minor change made by Mr.Z-man will give a basis to contest such closes in the future without being CREEPy. Hobit (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't be shy Hobit, just put up the name and your examples. In all those cases that I assume you are talking about there was ample time and opportunity to voice opinions to keep, and the fact that no-one did so is not a problem with the process, or with the timing of the close. Kevin (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Relisting is far too prevalent already, and is widely used in cases of ambivalence, not just extended discussion. If not many people care after 7 full days, relisting itself is the disruptive (or at least unproductive) act. Jclemens (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Isn't closing a deletion debate soon after a relisting by another admin a version of wheel warring? I've seen this done, sometimes within hours of the relisting, but I can't remember examples off the top of my head. Fences&Windows 20:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Wheel warring is tool-specific. If there's no block or deletion involved, it might not be the most polite thing to do in the world, but it's not tools vs. tools. Jclemens (talk) 07:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have undone Mr.Z-man's change so that we are back to where we were before the change that started this thread. To the extent there is any consensus here, it is that the change is unnecessary. To the extent that there is no consensus, we should go back to before the change. Additionally, this isn't the way it's done on all XfDs. For example, {{relist}} is frequently used on TfD even though the closing instructions for TfD say that it is unnecessary and a TfD with no !votes can be closed as delete. The same is true at FFD. MfD doesn't discuss {{relist}} and talk page discussion there strongly discourages its use since it has a consolidated nomination page but when it is used it is common for admins to close the discussions at any time. It would seem the same thing would be true at AfD though I don't close there often and I realize they don't have a consolidated nomination page, but once the 7 days have run it should normally be acceptable for an admin to close at any time. Relisting just means "I don't see a consensus right this instant and I'm hoping one might develop if I give it a little longer." Closing while there is ongoing discussion, the original concern above, is rarely a good idea in any case and I don't have such a low opinion of other admins that I think that many would close "the moment discussion tilts in their favor". If you could consider one direction or the other "your favor" then you shouldn't be closing that discussion and most of us understand that, those that don't spend a lot of time on DRV, RfC, AN, etc.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't quite understand your revert, given that you seem to agree with what you removed. You say "Closing while there is ongoing discussion ... is rarely a good idea" but you reverted a change that said that almost exactly that. I find it difficult to believe that arbitrarily closing an active discussion outside of any time limits is an accepted practice anywhere. Mr.Z-man 01:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Added a change to make it clear it should only be closed before 7 days after the relist if there is "clear" consensus. And yes I believe admins are gaming this to some extent. Again, I realize this is a BOLD change so feel free to revert. Hobit (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I support this change; it guards against opportunism without introducing bureaucracy. Well done, Hobit.  Skomorokh  01:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous requirement. If there is a consensus either way then an AfD can be closed. Is "clear consensus" supposed to be some arbitrarily higher standard than "consensus" alone? Kevin (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Not so. My hope is to get people from closing AfDs soon after a relist when no consensus has formed. It's happened a lot. Heck, it's happened with no additional !votes or comments. So one person thinks there isn't consensus and another one does. There is no good reason for that 2nd person's opinion to dominate. Hobit (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In most relists I have seen the relist is happening soon after 00:00UTC on the day the close would have occurred, in many cases hours before the AfD can be legitimately closed. If we implement your proposal, anyone who does not like the way the AfD is going can relist and prevent or delay a closure. It seems to me that this is equally open to gaming. Kevin (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A good point, but as WP:RELIST is pretty clear about when to relist (very little contributions to the discussion) I think gaming this is pretty difficult. Hobit (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)r

Deletion stats

What percentage of all the articles created by: a. Non-autoconfirmed registered users b. Auto-confirmed registered users get deleted via: 1. speedy deletion, 2. proposed deletion and 3. articles for deletion? Thanks! Fences&Windows 20:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? Fences&Windows 16:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:RELIST wording: only one or two commenters

There's been a dispute over when admins can or should relist debates at AfD (I don't think the specifics need repeating here). The wording currently in place is quite restrictive ("However, if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only one or two commenters (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to get further discussion to determine consensus") and most admins aren't really following its requirement that there are only one or two commenters or the debate seems to be lacking arguments based on policy. A looser wording might match actual practice, e.g. "...if at the end of the initial seven-day period participation is limited...". Fences&Windows 16:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the current wording is restrictive...there's no suggestion that this is the only instance in which relisting may be used. I think the current practice matches the guideline as written. However, your suggested change may clarify this. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The suggested change would bring this guideline much closer to reality, so I support the change. I don't think there is much support for the idea that once at least three people have commented, a discussion can no longer be relisted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I just WP:IARed this wording for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joy J. Kaimaparamban; in addition to the reasons I gave there, I also felt it was not appropriate for the guideline to focus on the count of participants, when WP:DGFA#Rough consensus says we should not count heads.

But in the process, I was surprised to see that more than half of today's entries are relisted. So I agree with Jclemens above that relisting seems far too prevalent already, and making the wording less restrictive doesn't seem like a step in the right direction. A couple of years ago, I would have proposed a clearer wording, but I am now more concerned about instruction creep. I therefore propose the following:

1. Delete "has only one or two commenters (including the nominator), and/or it".
2. Add a warning and explanation like: "Please only use this when you are almost certain that it will lead to a resolution. Already,over x% of AfDs are relisted, and we want to reduce that percentage." — Sebastian 22:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with the first, but not the second. For one, admins cannot predict the future. How am I supposed to know whether or not people are going to comment on an AFD once I relist it? Relists are not inherently bad, I don't see why we need to reduce them. The proper say to reduce the number of relisted AFDs is to increase AFD participation, not to simply relist fewer. Mr.Z-man 23:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - relisting is a symptom of a lack of sufficient participation at AfD. Fences&Windows 03:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Another idea to make relisting less of a problem: default decision

As mentioned above here and here, some editors feel that relisting is far too prevalent. It seems to me that would be much less of a problem if it did not have to mean a huge increase of discussions. Maybe this would be mitigate if relisters made a default decision, which specifies how the discussion should be closed if there is no new discussion. An example is [[this, where the default was "delete". We could even encourage non-admin closures in those cases. — Sebastian 22:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

oldafdfull for redirects?

Is there a reason not add it to redirect talk pages? Currently there's no way to tell that a redirect has been decided at an AfD if the history is deleted, e.g. Licq, unless one searches the AfDs... Pcap ping 20:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Can't see why not. Fences&Windows 01:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD does this by default for redirect, I'm not sure about other scripts. I had noticed that some redirect talk pages were being speedied WP:CSD#G8. I asked about it at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 35#Does G8 apply to the Talk page of redirected articles?, which was weakly against deletion. I haven't seen it recently. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitely should be added to redirect talk pages.. especially for those that resulted in a merge/redirect, it's important to retain the history for proper attribution and compliance with the GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses (depending on what was merged anyway). The redirect page itself should be tagged with a {{R from merge}} template for categorization. There's also {{Oldrfd}} if the page was a redirect to begin with. -- œ^™ 10:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)