Meta talk:Requests for deletion

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is for discussions related to the Meta:Requests for deletion page.

  Please remember to:

  Archives: 1

Wikimedia Community Logo.svg




2012[edit]

What's a proper closure and how to deal with closures[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Please do not modify, add further discussion in a new section. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Section slightly refactored. Nemo 11:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I began a talk page discussion here that was deleted by User:Nemo. He seems to object that I did not link to the RfD. Meta:Requests for deletion#Requests for Comment Gwen Gale. He also seems to be trying to sweep his administrative abuse under the rug. I opened this discussion at the same time I undid a closure by a clearly involved user User:Micki, who closed it against consensus. Nemo who was also heavily involved then reverted me, with a nonsense explanation. No where does it say that such things cannot be undone by another user. In fact, it is allowed, as I did so. I then reverted asking him to explain himself. He then reverted. He then blocked me, which he had to quickly undo because there was and is no basis for it. The purpose of this discussion is to get the closed RfD reopened, as it should be. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Proofreader77 has now suggested on my talk page that Nemo's reason for deletion of my prior discussion is that you cannot discuss RfD's here. That makes no sense to me but is also something that needs to be discussed, as that's not what the header to this page says. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I too am a bit confused about how an admin who voted in an RfD, much less a controversial one, could close this discussion. Perhaps I'm simply unfamiliar, but if I did that at en.wiki my head would be severed and carried around on a pike as a warning to other admins. If I'm misunderstanding something, do tell me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the closure of the RfD; Meta does not codify the need for an uninvolved administrator. On the other hand, it certainly was not clear that there was no consensus, as there was a 2.5:1 ratio and the arguments were not weak. I personally think that someone with less connection should have made that decision, as it does open the door for claims of impropriety for an involved admin to effectively rule that a majority opinion of over 70% does not indicate a consensus in this issue. Whether it does or doesn't, impartiality and propriety would indicate, at least in my opinion, that someone neutral make the call. -- Avi (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Avi. Nemo and Micki don't seem to have the same regard for propriety and impartiality as you. Can you tell me if there is any codification of a rule against undoing a clearly involved, partial, and improper closure? Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I do not believe that wheel-warring is codified on Meta. However, even though I personally think it be better to have someone uninvolved close the RfD, it remains true that what the closer(s) did was not against written Meta policy, so it cannot be said it was technically improper. If you feel that there has been an on-Meta action that requires further review, that is certainly something that would be an acceptable use of a Meta RfC. -- Avi (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for telling me undoing the close was not against policy. Are there any limits on administrators? Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Just to be clear, what I said was that the close was not improper, even if it smells of impropriety. I don't think that there is a rule against undoing it either (ala wheel-warring), but that is a grayer area. There are very few limits on admins in Meta, for what it is worth; it is a much looser project than EnWikiP. -- Avi (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
What are the limits? Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Inactivity is grounds for removal of privileges. I presume a violation of the foundation's privacy laws would be met with a severe response. Other than that, not much I can think of. -- Avi (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Incivility, like making up things as you go along, being arbitrary and capricious. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Err... where is that reason for desysopping? Seb az86556 (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Its common sense, here, there are no rules. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I thought you were asking about the rules. Avi told you what they are. Seb az86556 (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
No. He said there are none. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The call for the stick and to desysop to me seems like an overreaction. Can we move from the "blame model" to a reasoned discussion about the closure. The admin made a decision that is open to review, and that is the process to follow. We can do that with good grace, and courtesy. billinghurst sDrewth 04:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
As this part of the discussion was hatted and now is not, I wish to make it clear that I never suggested anyone be desysoped. I was asking about what to do short of any stick, which Community members need to be informed about in order to hold administrators to the high standards expected of them, and scrutinize their decisions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Are we at the point where Jimbo or the WMF needs to come in and do a clean sweep of every administrator of Meta? How on earth can someone who voted in a deletion discussion close said discussion, and with the numbers heavily on the opposition side to boot? And then be upheld by another equally involved admin? Tarc (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Let's get this discussion back on track. I'm sorry others did that. So, what is the process for review of this improper closure? Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

For better or for worse, we are in Meta, and have to follow its rules. I agree that the closure has serious elements of impropriety, and perhaps Meta needs to take steps to prevent such issues in the future, but for now, we have to abide by the guidelines in force, as uncomfortable as it may be (and I agree, 70:30 is usually a consensus). Personally, there needs to be at least two discussions:
  1. Was the closure proper?
  2. Should Meta policy make it explicit that involved admins should not close any discussion where there may be claims of impropriety or conflict of interest?
If editors feel as if any admins, myself included (I am a native Meta admin FWIW), have acted improperly, I would recommend opening an RfC; it is pretty much the only formalized process we have to discuss things here. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I wish someone informed me about this discussion. But nevermind. Avi, no one has said something like that about you. I thought that some admin would do something about this by now, but obviously we have a lack of uninvolved admins who want to help. I can understand them. As Peter said on my talk page "in the interest of minimising the drama on all sides" I can reopen RfD, but we still need someone uninvolved to close it. Maybe RfH would be a better idea.--mickit 08:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Micki, thank you for understanding. I am not saying your decision was incorrect, but that the decision should be made by someone less involved. For example, were I to have closed it as delete, as Meta entitles me to, I would be certain that there are those who would say that I was incorrect and was too involved to see the matter clearly. I agree with that. This is not a case where it is 50/50 so there is clearly no consensus, and this is not a case which is 90/10 where there clearly is consensus. Personally, I would prefer the close to come from someone not a regular on EnWiki, in the interests of propriety as well. Also, my apologies for not informing you; I assumed you were informed, and did not check--that is an oversight that should not have happened. -- Avi (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has certainly revealed many flaws. I thank Micki for reopening, and I ask for reflection on his part in this "drama." The fact that no one seems to know what to do or can explain it, is a community failing but it is more particularly a failing of the administrators here. You simply cannot go around enforcing rules that only exist in your mind. And, if you do so, you must explain them fully and fairly before you do. And seek comments from others. I asked a simple process question above and I still have not gotten an answer (or maybe I got two different ones). I asked a related question on Babel and still have not gotten an answer, so you have all failed to be good administrators of this site. As administrators the most important part of your job is to be of service to users. You cannot do so, if you continue as you have. So, what is the review process, with respect to the project page, we are here to discuss? Please continue sharing your thoughts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Offtopic: RfD RfC/Gwen Gale: Request to restore (mistakenly) removed comment to the record
Preliminary note re this talk page

Until today, this talk page did not appear to be a customary page for discussion of specific RfD issues (no years after 2008; I added 2012 header only after discussion began on the topic above). And given the particularly contentious environment of the moment, discussing this anywhere except this talk page did not seem appropriate (other than a brief noting of an objection on a user talk.)

Related diffs
  1. Insertion of my Comment
  2. Reply to comment (with links to current ArbCom case as general rebuttal)
  3. My null edit acknowledgement of reply with ArbCom case link, indicating no comment/further discussion (so reply would not be considered as having been ignored by me, but declining a conversation about it.)
  4. Comment and reply removed as "entirely off topic" (Note: Perhaps due to previous null edit highlighting of ArbCom case linked to in reply -- but which I had acknowledged it, so as not to continue discussion of that reply)
  5. My null edit objection to removal
  6. Notice to my talk page of removal
  7. My reply to notice on my talk noting objection to removal (with link to null edit objection)
Rational for restoring (non-voting) Comment into the record
  • I have perhaps far more knowledge of the genesis of the contentious RfC than most. (Highlight: The leaking of the ArbCom mailing list would probably not come to most minds as a seed, but it is.)
  • A member of ArbCom has recently suggested I perhaps had had a duty to comment on the activity of the creation of the contentious RfC. (Although this Comment is unlikely what he was looking for, nor when, it is however, what I would say for the record regarding the creation of the RfC -- and while an unappealing description to many, that should in no way be a basis for exclusion of the comment.)
  • Yes the comment is long, however, I self-collapsed most of it as extended content to not impede scanning of votes, etc.
  • The comment was (mistakenly) removed -- I say, "mistakenly" because the removal appears to have been inspired by a reply with links to ArbCom case ... and my a null-edit highlighting to avoid an off-topic discussion (thereby making it appear that was the topic of the comment -- which it wasn't).
  • Why did I not revert the removal immediately? BECAUSE there was too much contentious doing-and-undoing in recent days to insist on a revert amidst contentious events. (A flood of activity which surely overloaded many -- to unfortunate effect.)
  • Why is a non-voting Comment of sufficient significance to restore to the record -- because speech should not be squelched without good reason. My comments are broad, but certainly not "off topic." This is not a typical RfD. There has been an influx of voices who participate little on meta -- I am one of them, and I have explicitly stated that I am, for that reason, refraining from asserting a vote for counting. That in itself is part of my comment. The (collapsed) perspective on larger issues suggests soem of the why the contentious RfC appeared on meta.
Will stop there for now, and ask if restoring the comment (w reply) is doable/contentious/undoable?

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Update - RfD re-opened

That removes a procedural hurdle (I think). Are there objections/etc to restoring my comment(w reply)? -- Proofreader77 (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Update - while RfD is re-opened/un-closed, I have restored ...

... my (I assert) mistakenly removed non-voting Comment of 7:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC) and one reply.

If there are objections, we will surely discuss (and if consensus does not support restoring the comment, it can obviously be removed from the record). Excuse so much ado ... events are a tempest. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The restoral seems proper to me. SJ talk   02:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Update - RfD re-opened -- Proofreader77 (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

And then re-closed. That was meant only as a clear way to ask another closure, not as reopening of the general discussion, by the way. Nemo 11:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Reclosed by you???!!!? You must be kidding. After having acted as a partisan in this debate for as long as it was running, posturing as an "uninvolved" admin in this situation is just incredible. Words fail me. Fut.Perf. 12:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Nemo is clearly involved. The closure is still improper. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I have requested that he undo it on his talk page and have pointed him to this discussion. He should also review the talk page of User Micki, to see the error. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I have also. I assume his intent was good, but the closure doesn't appear neutral, and so is failing to bring closure in practice. SJ talk   02:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Administrator closure

Nemo also maintains there is something at the top of the Project Page about administrative closure. However, the project page says nothing about administrator closure. This is another failure of this site, its administrators and Nemo, in particular. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That crossed my mind as well. What it actually says at the top of the page is ...an administrator will carry out the consensus or majority decision. That says nothing about determining the consensus, and it probably originates with the fact that deletion (if the decision is to delete) requires an admin to carry out the decision. However, I think it's possible to interpret "carry out" as including closure, so if that's what it has historically been interpreted as here, then that's what it means. Rd232 (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
That demonstrates the absurdity, it means something it doesn't say. Administrators should have the common sense and common decency to realize and acknowledge that, and fix it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm finding that one of Meta's most consistent flaws: it exists in some sort of ether (probably involving (spit!) IRC...), with much less written down properly than one would expect coming from a major wiki, especially en.wp. About the only upside is that it gives experienced Wikimedians a taste of what it's like to be a perplexed and frustrated newcomer... :) Rd232 (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Right. All the more reason why the judgement (or lack thereof) of its Administrators needs to be heavily scrutinized. As with this involved closure with its shoddy and unsupported reasoning, part of which you point out on the Project page. Perhaps a new section is in order here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
There's not much that happens on IRC, actually. Meta is very low-bureaucracy and averse to policy creep. Don't complain to make someone fix something, just fix it. You found imprecision in language about how consensus is determined? Propose new language here. SJ talk   02:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, very much for the sage advice. I have done so, let me know what you think. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


Closure message

Nemo's closure message, which he styles at the bottom of the discussion as a "recommendation" not to the community but to his fellow administrators is unsupported.

1) As Rd232 points out on the project page, the RfC is not within Meta:Inclusion policy, nor is it within Meta's deletion policy, list of purposes: Meta:Deletion policy#All users. More importantly this unsupported contention is irrelevent for at least two reasons: the page being sought to be deleted was determined by consensus to be not within the scope of the project (as seen in its closure message), and it is a dedicated attack page containing defamatory statements.

2) Nemo discounts users claiming they came here on an assumption that En:wiki was being attacked. He does not support this claim and it is untrue. I certainly did not come here for that reason. Did anyone?

3) Nemo claims he is uninvolved. Clearly any reading of the discussion shows his rank involvement. He disputed with several users in the support sections and even made snide comments. He also expressly ignored the wishes of his fellow administrators, that an uninvolved administrator close. Instead, he closed against consensus, while making false claims. In doing so, Nemo failed in the essential task of service to users: Meta:Deletion policy#Administrators

Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I can't understand how Nemo can close the discussion as "uninvolved" after this edit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Here's the problem. There's no existing policy on meta about involved admins.It is only being proposed.On the other hand there's such policy on en.wiki, but you and everybody else see nothing wrong that Night Ranger who voted to support my ban and actively participated in the discussion later closed the discussion--Mbz1 (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
And I just unhid the section above where Nemo hid the discussion of whether there were limits on Meta admins.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Mainly collective common sense. Involved closes are not generally supported, and a few people have asked Nemo to self-revert. SJ talk   02:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Review

A discussion with respect to this is at User talk:Barras#Review of RfD closure. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Involved

With respect to the impropriety of involved closers see, [[1]], [[2]] Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's the problem. There's no existing policy on meta about involved admins.It is only being proposed.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, as the talk at the proposal says, "it's common sense." Administrators here are already expected to act with common sense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
That is correct. Admin review of one another's non-urgent work just happens a bit more slowly here than on larger projects. SJ talk   02:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
This policy is a good policy, but it has never been enforced on English wiki. Just a few days ago Night Ranger who voted to support my ban and actively participated in the discussion later closed the discussion, and nobody, nobody said anything about this! Are you ready, to overturn this closure?
Also please see this section. Has somebody did anything to enforce it there? Are you ready to act on these? So basically, what I am saying, please enforce this policy on English wikipedia first, and then, we could talk about this on Meta.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
You'll have to take it up with them. I think you were already informed of that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that thread was closed under the w:WP:SNOW practice. The closer explicitly said: "Note: Non-Admin closure. Mbz1 community banned per near unanimous consensus after 24 hour discussion. If this closure is too controversial, feel free to revert me and ask an uninvolved admin to review and close." Pursuant to your complaint here, I have now requested on w:WP:AN that an uninvolved admin close that ban discussion. Cheers. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
And done now. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I LOLed at this. I guess you're now double-banned or something? Is it anything like double secret probation [3]? All kidding aside... Mbz1... you've made some nice contributions with your photographs. So what's this crusade all about? Life is too short to waste it trying to knock down walls with your head. As far as I know you're not blocked at commons, so why not continue sharing your photographs and forget about English Wikipedia? Or even better, why not improve your native language wiki? Night Ranger (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Because I would not be able to ever forgive myself, if because I stopped fighting bullying, somebody would get hurt.Also responded at your talk.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


Discussion of proposed change[edit]

Pursuant to the above discussion with SJ, above. I made this edit. [[4]] This was reverted without discussion by a user, who objected in his edit summary that things can't change. I reverted, again directing him here that things can change. This was then resolved at Requests for Help [5]. My improvement was then reverted by Guido den Broaden, without discussion, as "wrong info." I don't understand that message and it does not seem substantively responsive, so I bring it here for further discussion. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Comment Before addressing the specific case here, I am attempting to get clarification of the general issue at Requests ... Informal guideline question re policy adjustment (post 11 Feb). -- Proofreader77 (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for proposing a specific improvement, Alanscottwalker. Best to discuss here first since there is an active dispute over how the current RfD process was implemented recently. The heart of the proposed change:
After at least one week, any impartial and uninvolved user may close the discussion with a consensus-analysis recommendation and an administrator will carry out the consensus or majority decision.
This looks useful to me; Guido, do you have a problem with this new language? It is limited in terms of instruction creep: it does not prohibit admins from closing a discussion they took part in (for instance, if consensus is near-unanimous), and does not oblige them to carry out a recommendation whose analysis they disagree with. But it suggests the value of being uninvolved when analysing consensus, and clarifies how non-admins can take part in the process. SJ talk   14:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


Unfortunately, I can see it being "wikilawyered". By requiring an "impartial and uninvolved user" that can be spun to be said that a user who was involved cannot close the discussion, even if they are impartial. This is the specific issue I had with the originally proposed text of Meta:Proposal for a policy on involved administrators, and which is why I proposed the text in orange. I would prefer just the use of "impartial" with a caveat that involved users should not close discussions where the appearance of partiality may exist. In my opinion, that would serve us better by explicitly allowing "involved" users to effect the obvious, consensus-driven close without being open to procedural complaints. -- Avi (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sj, I see lots of problems because users will not agree on who is impartial or uninvolved. Also, it will not only be wikilawyered but gamed as well, e.g. one partial user will purposely not participate in the discussion only so they can close it later with the most favourable conclusion. Therefore, it is better to leave these task to a specific group of trusted users and not use words like impartial and uninvolved at all. By the way, note that we are talking about three actions: closing the discussion, analysing it, and making a recommendation. It is conceivable that more than one user makes an analysis or a recommendation. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I am fine with Avi's wording. So I endorse it but I would like for him to consider one more pass at it, if he could propose one based on this comment: I think, without going through all the murkey history, that "involved" evolved to capture the concepts of both actual impartaility and "appearance of bias." We can't climb in each other's head, we can only judge on what others say and do. Avi's right, we really want "impartaility;" nothing else matters. The issue is how to operationalize that in a consensus setting. Also, I chose to use both words because users from different projects might more quickly catch on to the more precise word of impartial, than the broader concept of involved. I take Guido's concerns seriously that anything can be gamed but I think this provides some safeguard, without being wordy about it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be subsumed in the proposal going on at Meta:Proposal for a policy on involved administrators. If that is passed, then there is no need to adjust this, is there? -- Avi (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, uninvoved admins would be clearer but that was already the comon sense rule. The directions either need to explicitly forbid or explicitly allow "any user" closure. Since that's where the confusion lay in addition to uninvolved. See, the discussion above, under "Administrator Closure," where SJ first suggested I clarify the policy. See, also this comment: [6] Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd think that if the "involved admin" policy becomes active, that would be explicit enough, since non-admin users are not supposed to close deletion discussions. -- Avi (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem; it's not clear. Other projects allow for non-admin closure. The current directions say nothing about closure. See also Guido's discussion of three steps, above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It's in the box at the very top. "After at least one week, an administrator will carry out the consensus or majority decision." -- Avi (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't explicitly mention closure. There are three steps, involved. What is the purpose of not being clear to everyone about the three steps? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Remember, Meta is much less bureaucratic than EnWiki or other large projects, and we would like to keep it that way. Until now, part or implementing consensus has always been to determine it, or, if it is indeterminable, close the discussion as "no consensus". I don't see a reason to change that for the time being, especially if "involved" people will be explicitly requested not to. But that's just my opinion. If we were on EnWiki, I'd likely argue for more explicit wording since so much more is open to wikilawyering there. -- Avi (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a project that many are invited to. It would be much better, if this project were clear in what to expect. Especially since it involves only a few words to make it clear. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and it is just as valid as mine or anyone else's. So I guess on this point we will have to agree to disagree for now, in that I think it is clear enough to the reasonable reader. If you decide to open more formal discussion on this, would you please drop a line on my talk page? Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean about a more formal discussion -- what more bureaucracy are you referring to? In the meantime, would you object if I insert "close and" in the directions sentence you quote above? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I meant an RfC. Would I mind personally? No. But I think we should get a few more opinions prior to making a change to a policy. Did you drop a line about this discussion on Babel or the WM Forum? -- Avi (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, several days ago on Babel. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I don't see why you can't make the change, but don't be surprised if someone reverts you :) -- Avi (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I will do so after seven days on Babel, unless anyone else expresses interest. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I personally do not agree with the proposed change. In fact, we do vote for administrators for doing this kind of things. Closing deletion debates has been always an administrator task here and I see no need to change it or make the wording more complicated. Regards. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 13:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe what Alan is suggesting is to make only the following change: from "After at least one week, an administrator will carry out the consensus or majority decision." to "After at least one week, an administrator will close and carry out the consensus or majority decision." That should not be an issue. Alan, if you mean to add the word "user" than I too would disagree. -- Avi (talk) 18:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is the change previously attempted. Noting:
any impartial and uninvolved user may close the discussion with a consensus-analysis recommendation and an administrator will carry out the consensus or majority decision.
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought Alan scaled back his suggestion to simply make closing by an administrator explicit instead of implicit. Anything more has no consensus on this page as of now, certainly. -- Avi (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. You are right Avi, as readers of this page will note. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

why canvassing took place[edit]

this post made at AN says: "However, given the self-righteous mission of meta admins to review en.wp ArbCom decisions". According to this policy it is Campaigning, which "is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent." Therefore en.wiki admins who showed up here were responding to canvassing, and therefore their votes should not be taken into account. And the same user continues its canvassing in at least two places. It is sad that such conduct is supported by en.wiki admins. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to explain why I believe you are incorrect one more time.
  1. When it comes to wiki- andd rules-lawyering, please do not cite EnWiki policies and guidelines for use on Meta; this is Meta, not EnWiki.
  2. As Meta exists to serve every project; by definition, informing members on a local project about a discussion on Meta cannot be considered canvassing. Canvassing would be more akin to discussing Meta issues on non-Wikimedia websites.
  3. As these discussions specifically relate to EnWiki, not only is it not canvassing, it would almost certainly invalidate the local discussion had EnWiki not been informed.
Regardless, consensus is pretty clear that there was no improper canvassing done on any Wikimedia project, and the closer of the discussions will, hopefully, be both intelligent and impartial enough to recognize which opinions deserve more or less merit, and close the discussions based on that merit. -- Avi (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
You say: "Regardless, consensus is pretty clear that there was no improper canvassing done on any Wikimedia project".What "consensus" you are talking about, if I may ask please? Is it a consensus of users who responded to canvassing that there was not canvassing? Interesting.
I do not say notification of meta discussions could be improper, but first of all such notifications should be done on all wikis, and second of all their tone should be neutral.
If one is to look at this request, one will see that the last 5 votes were "keep". It is the best indication of the consensus. These votes were imposed by uninvolved editors after complaining on English wiki was archived. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Besides votes made by admins from English wiki, I mean only the ones who came here because of this RFC, should be looked as the votes made by involved users. They do not want to create such precedent on Meta because they are concerned their own action could be discussed here one day.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Comment I will highlight/assert that the recent phase of extraordinary circumstances began with the creation of this WP:ANI topic which characterizes the RfC in question as "an attack page on Meta for the sole purpose of defaming a Wikipedia contributor".

As I have said previously, "documentation is not defamation." The framing of the RfC as a mortal sin/crime (note that the initiating AN/I topic also requests punishment for the asserted crime:I would like the community to confirm that the following indef blocked editors are community banned from en-Wikipedia. This will help put an end to their activities on Meta.

Metacomment: The fact that documentation of diffs of administrative behavior on en.wikipedia is declared "attack" and "defamation" illustrates something which I will not elaborate further upon, since I have already said it in a RfD {{Comment}} that was removed (and my objection to removal collapsed, above :-).

NOTE: But you do not see me go beyond null-edit objections and noting the matter on Nemo's page -- because under the current extraordinary circumstances meta admins have to have some leeway to deal with the situation CAUSED by teleportation from AN/I (and it's social dynamics issues) into meta to, what? Delete documentation.

BOTTOM LINE: It really doesn't matter whether the RfC is kept or removed — the reaction to it ... illustrates why it appeared.

[Excuse any and all perceived rhetorical excesses and flourishes above, if I doubled the length of this comment, it would be a more balanced presentation, but I think the other perspective is well covered by others.] [Disclaimer: I have had personal experience of the behavior of the subject of the RfC, but you may note I did not participate in the RfC in question (other to remove a NOINDEX tag which has no effect in "content" space).
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Could remove the "User: Discussion" that keeps my previous username? / ¿Podrian eliminar el "Usuario:Discusion" que mantiene mi anterior nombre de usuario?[edit]

Quisiera hacer una consulta. Pedí hace unas semanas que cambiaran mi anterior nombre de usuario porque ya existía alguien en la red que lo compartía conmigo, y así podríamos evitarnos malentendidos. Aunque cumplieron mi solicitud, existe una página de Usuario discusión https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Recortavidas con mi anterior nombre de usuario, a pesar de que se me creó una nueva con el nombre que tengo ahora. Mi pregunta es si esa página meta se eliminará en el transcurso del tiempo o si es posible que alguien, dentro de Wikipedia, la eliminase. Gracias.

I would like to make an inquiry here. I ordered a few weeks to change my previous username ago because there was already someone in the network who shared it with me, and we could avoid us misunderstandings. Although met my application, there is a page User https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Recortavidas discussion with my previous username, even though I created a new one with the name that I have now. My question is whether that goal page will be removed in the course of time if possible or someone within Wikipedia, the eliminated. Thank you.

You requested a rename on es.wikipedia, which was completed on 1 July. You did not request a rename on any other project which is why the page still exists here. You can either request a full rename (that is, across all projects), or as you have no contributions anywhere apart from es.wikipedia, have the old global account - and the userpage here - deleted. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)