Meta talk:Requests for deletion/Archive 1

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


It would be nice that everyone feeling in the mood on deleting articles use this page, as respect to the others. Deletion is not a "one person" decision, it is a community decision.

I beg again that the deletion (and mostly the restore) procedure be clarified. It is not normal only sysop can see a page that has been deleted, and be able to judge the deletion was a good choice or not. Everyone should be able to see deleted pages. In a situation where sysops are very quick on the delete button, it would sound normal too that the restore procedure be made easier.

But for now things are like the are. You can put things on the list. The stay a least 15 days on that list befor deletion. If you object you can remove them. And after deletion a sysop can still restore them. It is very clear. I think it is more clear then on the English wikipedia. Giskart 23:28 28 Apr 2003 (UTC)

It is clearly written If you object against the removal of a page, remove it from the list or leave an explanation., it should be changed to list the people who have the right to do so. Clearly, I do not. Denis

Yes, it is true; "If you object against the removal of a page, remove it from the list" but that does not mean that if I disagree whit that removal I can not put it back and ask for a reason why those pages should not be deleted. You have removed clearly useless pages (from my POV) whitout a reason.
I do not agree whit the reason you give for removing them on your talkpageI see no logical reason for removing them as well. These pages are empty, so not bothering anyone. The recent change list is also nearly empty, so these articles being edited are not bothering anyone. Why removing what is bothering no one ? Other users have personal essays as well
But if you remove them again form the list i will not put them back. It is not important enough to make a big deal about it i find. Giskart 08:05 29 Apr 2003 (UTC)
I think what MyRedDice is currently doing on en.wikipedia is an interesting option as well. Which consist partly in moving to talk pages, or specific pages, information and articles specific to a ban user, rather than deleting stuff, see [DissuadeReputation]. I think the approach is interesting. What about putting this in quarantine instead of showing a brutal approach ? anthere
In some situations moving stuff to a subpage can be a option. But moving empty pages? Giskart 07:46 3 May 2003 (UTC)
Well, why not. It is not "really empty", since it contains the history of the page. Another option would be to restore the content of these pages, then to put in quarantine somewhere, only linked to the banned-user page.
Moved in quarantine on User:Saprtacus banned ex-user.

Because of the few pages listed to be deleted I have made it now a deletion que every month. So every page listed to be deleted will be on the list at least 30 days, most will be listed more. Giskart 21:50 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Removed from the que for deletion of 2003/07/01

Removed from the que for deletion of 2003/09/01

  • Wikicide. As stated on en, this article is absolutely of no interest to anyone. Thus, it was moved here.
It's not true that it is of no absolutely interest to anyone, and I find it disturbing that a claque of wikipedians felt it so important that this stub article should be brushed under the carpet rather than moved to Wikipedia:Wikicide and developed into a sensible discursion on the subject. However, I do not object to it being deleted now. It's only a stub after all. GrahamN 16:58 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Removed form the que by Giskart Walter 17:22 8 Aug 2003 (UTC) / because;

  • Wikicide does not have or had the notice "Page out of service" on it.

If you think it must be deleted; put it on the list and a the notice on the article.

I strongly object to this "Page out of service" nonsense. We don't do this on en: and I see no reason to do it here. This page has been listed for more than a week, and as such, I have deleted it. Arguably it did not need to be listed anyway as it was entirely useless.—Eloquence 02:48 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Realise that this is not "en" but Meta. It is not because the do it so on "en" that you do not have to follow the procedure here. The "Requests for deletion" page here on meta exist from 2003-02-14 and in this from. Very late to object. I have done this because there was procedure to remove pages and no sysops for Meta. Now there is very clear procedure; on the page you like to be removed you put the notice so a reader of that page knows about the nomination for deletion en you put it on the list. It stays there until the next removel session. If you object to a deletion remove the page from the list. Giskart Walter 10:23 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I have been a sysop on Meta before RfD was added. I assumed that RfD was equivalent to VfD elsewhere and did not care to look much into the procedural details. I have formulated the basic content policy which now governs Meta, and I feel that I should have a say on the deletion process. I have no intention to follow this unnecessary rule but will simply wait for a week (30 days is insane, especially now that Meta has received some exposure) and delete pages at that point. That's the En: policy, and it has worked well for many months. People who wish to follow your procedure may add these notices to the pages I list here, but I certainly won't do it, and I strongly object to your removal of pages from the list that do not meet these rather arbitrary requirements.—Eloquence 11:37 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I object Erik, that first because you were one that initially formulated meta policy, you consider your opinion is more worth than Walter one. Walter has also been doing a lot of things for meta, and I am not aware his ideas were generally thought wrong. Second, I disagree with the fact we should necessarily apply en policy here, just because it has to be so. Meta is not en, meta is very different of en. It is not because a policy is good on en that it is good here. And en policy is not the one followed on other pedia necessary. For example, on fr, we do not practice time limit, one of the main reason being that our vfd is not as cluttered than en one. Similarly, we have rarely had more than 10 articles/images to delete in a month, so there is no need to be especially speedy. A month is perfectly ok, and may speed up in case it is pure vandalism or author request on specific matters;

I think the deletion notice is not absolutely necessary, but may be interesting to put sometimes. I do not routinely do so though.

I like the process of removing an article you do not agree with deletion. Given the little number of people interested, and the low level of vandalism around here, it is currently perfectly reasonable. Other wikis practice this type of deletion/undeletion process.


Service notice; i will not maintain the "Requests for deletion" from now anymore. (see above) Giskart Walter 14:32, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)


New proposition of policy[edit]

This new policy will go live on 16/04/2004 unless serious complain. As it is basically just expansion of the previous policy, I suppose it won't be a big issue.

This page is for the listing of pages that might be removed for the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. Pages are deleted by meta administrators. Add the page you like to be removed to the list.

If you object against the removal of a page, please add your reasons. To challenge a page which was deleted without respect of this process or per mistake, see Meta:Requests for undeletion.

Put a notice on the page listed for removal, like;

'''''Page listed for deletion''''' This page is waiting for removal from the system. If you object make something from this page and remove it from the list [[Meta:Requests for deletion|Requests for deletion]]. You can put a clarification on the Talk-page.

For the list of deleted files see Meta:Deletion log

List below all pages you think should be removed from the site. These are typically pages created by newbies, pages created by vandals, technical mistakes, administrative changes, personal pages, pages whose content was relevant to other projects (wikipedias or wikibooks likely) and moved there.

Candidates for speedy deletion :

  • Vandal pages
  • Crap pages (containing skfhsdjfkhdjkshfdk)
  • Offensive pages (containing insults, swear words)
  • Personal pages per request of the user himself

These are usually deleted without delay.

Regular handling :
Other pages (in particular irrelevant pages, copyright issues or regular clean up) are usually listed for at least 15 days.
The 15 days deadline is to be respected in particular since users do not come on meta as often as they do on local wikipedias.
Preferably, the user who listed the page will not be the one to delete it.
Pages created by banned users (after banning) are sometimes left alone, sometimes deleted on sight by some, sometimes restored by others (if they have been deleted). A user banned on one wikipedia is not necessarily automatically banned on all wikipedias, so the banning in one wikipedia does not imply necessarily automatic deletion on meta itself. However, any speedy deletion of a page created by a banned user will never be considered sysop abuse (this to protect sysop freedom to fight against banned users). Other users may choose though, to consider the interest and validity of the content of the page first and keep/restore the page in question. Pages created before the ban are not candidates for deletion.

Language issue
As a reminder, meta is not the english wikipedia, and it is likely pages in languages other than english will be added. Pages in languages other than english are not candidate to deletion. If it is obvious the page is crap or vandalism, the page may be deleted on sight. In case it is not obvious, the page should be listed on this page, and a person knowledgeable in the language be asked its opinion on the page content. No page should be deleted until some able in the language has seen it.

Meta deletion policy is not en.wikipedia deletion policy. It must be built by the community of meta editors, and take into account meta specificities. As a reminder, meta has the following roles 1. Discussion and formulation of the wikipedia project itself, and in particular policy discussion 2. A forum for personal essays that are not necessarily NPOV 3. A place to organise and prepare content, to discuss interlanguage co-ordination issues 4. A place to coordinate the development process

Respect of the policy
Lack of respect for this deletion policy may result in the sysop being listed on Meta:Request for deadminiship. It is very important that meta sysops are careful in handling deletion matters, this for the following reasons:

  • Meta is multilingual and multicultural, which means people may not communicate so easily together (compared than on a local wikipedia) and that pages may be in languages that sysops do not understand (which does not mean the pages are crap).
  • Meta rules in terms of content are not so clear that wikipedia rules, so it is less clear to define what is welcome from what is not.
  • Meta sysops can't know each other as well as if they were working together everyday on a local wikipedia. The ring of trust may not be so easy to establish, so following the rules is important to show good willingness and respect for the other work and opinion


  • Seems reasonable. -- Looxix 15:29, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Loo, J'ai ajouté un paragraphe depuis ton commentaire. ant
      • Well, it still look very reasonable and a bit clearer. -- Looxix

Policy for empty talk pages after page move[edit]

What is the policy here for deleting talk pages after a move? The content is only a redirect to the talk page of the moved article and that irritates some people. Talk:Why_Wikipedia_runs_slow is the example which causes this question. It's not clearly deleting in preparation for a page move, so it's not obviously deletable without notice. Jamesday 02:10, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

dunno. What are the arguments for both options ? ant
I thought it was useless, so deleted initially under the guideline at that time. Then I thought I should ask to see if anyone objects or agrees on the general case, so I undeleted it. The reason to delete is that they make people think there is talk when there is no talk. The reason not to delete immediately is a question of trust - sometimes it is worth keeping a redirect like this and judgement about when to keep a redirect is not always right. In this case, the talk is about a historical situation and I'd moved the page and its talk to an archive page to be kept forever, so it seems clear that there's no reason to keep the redirect. Jamesday 10:10, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Yesterday, I wrote this Delete: this page does not belong on meta. Did not have time to finish it. But I find it quite humorous that I wrote it just before Erik made this proposal for entirely definiting what meta is and who should have the right to edit which parts of meta. It is not entirely done, but I post it anyway, in particular for Angela.

Make use of talk and templates[edit]

A quick scan of this page (M:RFD) suggests that much of the activity here could be avoided simply by effective use of talk pages (to describe the purpose of potentially questionable articles) and templates (to tag test wikis and the like, warning people not to nominate them for deletion). - dcljr 05:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

request: Image:Cell cycle.png[edit]

Image:Cell cycle.png was deleted from Meta. It now exists in the English wikipedia without information on who has made it and it only says "from meta". Is it possible to find out who might've made it and released it under GFDL? Samulili 09:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


(I copy this from Talk:Main_Page, as I got no reply there. en:Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC))

This is not a wikipedia in a language like any others. There are very heated debates about it, mostly at that encyclopedia itself, and recently, I did a post at en:Wikipedia:Village_pump (policy)#Moldovan_Wikipedia where one can read why this is such an issue.

People have different opinions about whether this mo.wikipedia should exist or not, but what they agree on that there must be some public discussion on it.

Where to do it, and how to do it that's the big question. Should it start as request for comment (where?), should it be a vote for deletion (where?)? Feedback is much appreciated; I am not sure if ever before the question of existence of an entire wikipedia language branch was put into question. en:Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any material on the rights and wrongs of Moldovan Wikipedia on that link now. What is it all about? Theox 12:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Association of Antiexclusionist and Wikiliberal Wikipedians[edit]

I am outraged that my association has been nominated in the same general group as the Association of Moron, Moral WIkipedians. I opposed them from day one! My association watches and attempts to stop exclusion on Wikipedia. The information on Davidson Black's marriage was nearly excluded! A annoymous exclusionist annouched the creation of the Exclusionist Party. My association is not just a side group, created soley to oppose those administrative-posisistion exclusion advocates, but also exclusive editing! Canadianism 22:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete[edit]

A fast glance at the entries here, show that almost all of them are totally unrelated to Meta. Also, when I do a page search for "keep", I get two results (out of 77 delete requests). So, can't most of this (or even all of it?) be speedy deleted, and eventually transwiki'd if it isn't already on a Wikipedia? Going through a process for each and one of these entries seems like a big waste of time and resources to me. Jon Harald Søby 10:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Since some candidates claimed useless / irrelevant were proven that they were actually meta regitimate contents. I admit they were exceptional, and most of such candidates exactly deserved deletion, but for keeping the files we need, I don't think it a waste of time. --Aphaia 16:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The newly expanded deletion policy includes a speedy deletion criteria for "Pages clearly irrelevant to the Wikimedia Foundation, unless they have a known and definable historical context." The key word is 'clearly'; if there is any doubt it should go through the process. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


Because there is no Meta-pub...[edit]

Because there is no Meta-pub I write it here. Proposal; I think it would be useful for Meta to enable the "patrol"-function. That you have a red ! on the RC for every edit. And then you can mark the edits as checked. --Walter 16:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Meta-pub: Meta:Babel. It's not very active though. Jon Harald Søby 12:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Moved to Meta:Babel#Enabeling_the_patroll-function_on_Meta --Walter 14:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Giant Center deletion[edit]

I request that the article called "Giant Center" be deleted as I have replaced it with the same information at "GIANT Center." At the time I did not know how to move pages and it was a mistake. I am from Pennsylvania where this arena and grocery-store chain is located and the proper name for the GIANT Food corporation is spelled with all capital letters, and this goes for the arena too. Thank you. User: 20:00, 3 May 2006

Please note that Wikipedia has its own deletion process, completely seperate from the Meta-Wiki; see w:Wikipedia:Proposed deletions and w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I am an administrator on Wikipedia as well, so I merged the edit histories and redirected the previous article. Thanks for your contributions. :) // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 20:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed overhaul of the deletion policy[edit]

Please see Meta talk:Deletion policy#Proposed_overhaul for a proposed overhaul of the deletion policy. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 22:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Need an edit deleted[edit]

moved to Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat which seems the more appropriate place. Sorry if if was already handled, no one had said as much. - Taxman 17:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

How long does it take for stuff to get closed here?[edit]

I was wondering when the Gastrich issue would be resolved and so was looking at other cases here and the time for closing seems to be highly variable and some itemts are left open that have been open for months. What is the policy? JoshuaZ 20:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

After at least two weeks... --M/ 20:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. So there is no upper bound involved? Is there a practical upper bound? JoshuaZ 20:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Meta is a largely overburdened project underpopulated by users busy elsewhere; processes such as this one tend to be cleared in batches when someone can spare the time. I'll begin clearing the backlog tonight. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
How serious is the "After at least two weeks"? I often see discussions closed after one week or less if the meanings are not divergent. (And I think that's not a bad idea.) Maybe we should exchange the "at least" by "around"? --Thogo (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Coming from a "I'm not a big fan of rules" approach I would be happy to see some thought put into this. There are times when it appears that the community are of one mind fairly quickly. Waiting another week if someone has five minutes to close it seems a bit silly. It can always be undeleted & I am happy to take full responsibility for any decision I make --Herby talk thyme 07:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
+1 --Thogo (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I prefer to keep the current "two weeks". It is very annoying to "be invited" to a discussion about ordinary sysop action if you are very busy on something you are responsible and you only under a heavy time pressure. Also it is very annoying to be forced to explain relative new people what is so necessary for which they cannot figure out in that situation. I even prefer to expand the current 2 weeks twice as default. I am open to reduce the time for kept items, but please do not reduce it for deleting. I say this from my experience to be involved into conflicts with sysops who couldn't understand the need I stated and tried to force me to get involved the discussion on VfD when I was busy with other more urgent concerns. --Aphaia 23:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I would suppose that we write there that people making RfDs should inform the author(s) on his/their respective home wiki (if he/they are not active on Meta) about the RfD. This could be a good solution to avoid long laying times of RfDs and could speed up the procedure. --Thogo (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
No, that is what I said before. You may put them under another time pressure. Honestly I am now feeling cutting my body; I have another more serious concerns but you are now trying to change the policy now, so I feel the necessity to intervene even unwillingly. Please keep it two weeks. --Aphaia 23:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't try to speed up. Please. Or you don't know what we are now doing on meta. Never. It is very serious concern. I daresay. You don't force people to get involved just to make them fit to your pace. Please don't try to give them pressure. --Aphaia 23:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Huh??? I'm sure I know what we are doing here... I just wondered how serious the "two weeks" are, please read my first comment. This question should be allowed, especially in face of the recent closings of RfDs after one week, shouldn't it?? And I never proposed to speed up (I said, informing the author could have the effect of speeding up, which would not hurt us, I guess). I only wanted to hear opinions whether or not one could maybe change the "at least two weeks" to "around two weeks", I don't see a time pressure for anyone therein, sorry! I see, you completely misunderstood my question. :o( (And I don't think that informing the author would put him under time pressure at all, but would be much more polite, especially because most people are not coming here that often. Not to inform him may lead to a wrong deletion (even after months of discussion about the RfD) because the author could perhaps not explain why this or that is useful.) Anyway, maybe I should not try to make things better, it could just mean a change... This is the opinion of a very disappointed Thogo (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC).
Sorry you don't understand I think. Being active on meta isn't equal to have time enough get involved to RfD. Don't bother people who are busy with their own concern. As a person who is charing Election Committee, I ask for keep the current deletion term at least until the Election ends in July; imo it is very bad idea to change policy at this moment. Thanks. -Aphaia 00:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
"At least two weeks" is a good guideline, but not strict policy: in normal circumstances, we should wait two weeks, but closing earlier is okay if the decision is clear. Likewise, closing later is fine if more time is needed to reach a decision. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:24:39, 06 June 2007 (UTC)
  • reset

I'm happy with Pathoschild's comment here - don't change the policy - do use sense. I would never close anything "early" where there seemed any doubts. However looking at some recently there have been maybe 6 or so votes (quite high numbers by Meta standards) to delete within very few days. To me the likelihood of 4 or so people who have a valid reason to "keep" is not high. Equally I have no problem undeleting if someone is unhappy. Just my 0.02 --Herby talk thyme 07:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No please. I have seen English Wikipedia based sysop speedy what he shouldn't have. I undeleted because I needed it, and then he listed it to VfD and call for English Wikipedia people who hadn't been involved into meta activities and perhaps no experience on translation. They voted for deletion. In the very moment of my business, I need to fight with those morons. That is your "obvious". Created obviousness by canvassing. They said it shouldn't belong to meta - for my creation or other Committee member creation. And who they are? So I am very very very unhappy with proposed change even as guideline. Please don't bother us/Transcom just before we need to coordinate a lots of translation. DO NOT CHANGE ANYTHING RIGHT NOW PLEASE. Thanks. --Aphaia 10:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I must add - already in this week I had only three hours for sleeping. We are already very very busy to hold the Election in time. And in my experience it is not the hottest hour. So please do not disturb us. Your change may cause a mess which disturbs us greatly, I say this from my experience. Do not first delete and then undelete by request. Please let us spare time. If you don't delete it, never, so we needn't to ask you to undelete it? Do you understand what I mean now? I am afraid you don't. Please do not force us to spend the time to ask you to undelete, just leave them as they are. --Aphaia 10:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I regret I do not see this as Aphaia does. The fact that a person is busy on a Wiki cannot prevent a valid debate occurring. I stress I am not seeking a change in anything merely to look at the process and explore the possibilities. I feel strongly that one person's view (however valid) must not prevent that - I am content with the view suggested by Pathoschild --Herby talk thyme 11:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Unless you think it genuine theoretical debate, any potential cause of changes at this time is not welcome. Imo it is not only unwise but also cruel to bring such topic just before many newcomer arrive and many regulars become terribly busy. Cannot you just wait for that the Election ends? If not, I need to say you are going to disturb us even unintentionally and you don't know what meta is. You are now putting obstables for cross-wiki coordination with your debate. Even this debate, not its outcome, is for me already a sort of torture, as you may notice. Please do not try to change anything now. That is what I continue to say on this thread. --Aphaia 12:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


Archving the debates?[edit]

This debate has been on the RfD page for a while now, but it's closed. Could someone archive it - I'm a bit unsure on how to do so... Giggy\Talk 03:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In the green header at the top of the page, there is a right-aligned block of text like this: "Archives (current)→". Click on "current" to find the current archive. Archive the section by cutting it from the debate page to the appropriate section in the archive (in this case, at the bottom of "Articles" under "Kept"). —{admin} Pathoschild 03:36:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Done...I missed the archives note at the top; there were some other archive links that I got confused with. Thanks! Giggy\Talk 11:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


At least two weeks[edit]

No one seems to be bothering to stick to that, so I suggest we remove it. Majorly (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Not everyone is active as us core members, so we might fail to see what we cannot understand but it is an interest for a specific group and thus deserve to keep. And the busiest people, who have known meta from the beginning have no time to get involved into a speed-up routine, I'm afraid. Even I can hardly get involved when I am busy in something need to coordinate. And it is then I find pages I created for translation coordination listed up as "not meta relevant" by monolingual/English speaking people. --Aphaia 21:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Aphaia. Those admins who don't stick to this should be reminded of the reasons she states as to why this is a good idea. Adambro 21:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. lolwut? ....Only in clear cut circumstances that is there is no objection to it being deleted in the first 4 days and secondly, if we have over 5 in favour of deletion within that makes no sense, I know.. but I just wanted to vote here :P ...--Cometstyles 22:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per Aphaia. What's the rush?--Poetlister 17:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Poetlister. Seriously, the world won't end if these pages live for an extra week. Giggy\Talk 05:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment - this needs dealing with. Currently it is rare for an RfD to be open a whole week never mind two weeks. There really must be a minimum of a week surely --Herby talk thyme 11:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This discussion is completely pointless, even 7 days is not being respected regularly --Herby talk thyme 09:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, why it should when there is 100% consensus and no discussion going on? --Thogo (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Given that it is currently the policy of Meta I would have hoped that it was obvious why it should be given some respect but obviously not --Herby talk thyme 09:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Why not just getting rid of any deadlines and just decide when there is an obvious consensus reached? Isn't that the way things should go rather than sticking to completely unuseful deadlines? --Thogo (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you to a degree. However until the policy changes I would have assumed even stewards would treat it with respect. By all means seek to change the policy --Herby talk thyme 09:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, right, but as it seems to be usual praxis to close requests earlier than 7 days if the consensus is so obvious, I don't think that it harms anyone to follow this. But if you really want to stick to some number, just consider the following draft: Close the request after at least 7 people have given their opinion (excluding the proposer), after at least 24 hours without posting to the thread and after at least 83% (that's 5/6) majority for one possible solution is reached, if the arguments provided are not obviously nonsense. (If the latter is the case, just wait for more opinions or exclude in counting all voters who came by the argument in question.) --Thogo (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In the past, in the busy time so having no enough time to join the VfD debate, I saw pages I thought needed were listed on VfD and requested for deletion almost unanimously. Most of such votes came non regulars. I strongly oppose to introduce such scheme without voters' criteria. Voters may not understand what meta is or what the file is in some cases. See the recent request for deletion and vote about This kind of rushness may fail us to keep necessary pages for cooredination. Also if we are going to shorten the period, editors of the pages should be informed, I think. --Aphaia 10:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
They should be informed anyway, I guess, independent of any voting time. --Thogo (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A brief recap: Aphaia has provided reasons to maintain the two-week period; Thogo has not provided any reason for otherwise. Remember that questions (e.g. why it should when there is 100% consensus and no discussion going on?), rhetorical or not, and statements of personal opinions (in particular, I don't think that it harms anyone to follow this which fringes on w:appealing to ignorance) are not valid arguments. Hillgentleman 12:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The key point here is what consensus seeking is: It is not an annoying wait to see that everybody agrees; rather, it is a search, ideally an active one, for possible alternative viewpoints. Hillgentleman 13:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyone please just stick to the rules, and not make it up on the spot. Requests should stay open for at least two weeks unless there are exceptional circumstances. If you don't like it being two weeks, propose a change, but until then, please follow the rules. Majorly (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Majorly (while I am not directly affected, lol). In particular recently deleted items, I'd agree they may have no chance to survive, but the two week term was exactly set to have us review the requests on that page from all the aspects including which tends to be ignored/unaware. Heartedly I recommend to stick to the rules. For most of deletion candidates, keeping them more one week may not harm, too. --Aphaia 13:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree that until policy is changed we stick with policy. The fact that some have been deleted within a week recently is ludicrous --Herby talk thyme 13:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I agree that we should stick to the rules (of course). But isn't it an "exceptional circumstance" if a significant number of people give their opinion and it's all the same (thus 100% consensus)? I guess it is one (and it seems to me other people who processed RfDs recently, too). Anyway, if anyone thinks I closed the last ones too early and there will probably be other arguments, just revert. I won't bite you (probably :p ). --Thogo (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Ich stimme dich gegen, Thogo. Zum Beispiel, wieder siehe Fall von Es ist moeglich, alle die Leute, die ebenfalls mit der Diskussion mitteilen, fehlen die richtige Ahnung, was das eigentlich ist, und stimmen an der Loeschungen ein, obgleich diese Seite sich mit Foundation oder Verein betrifft, damit man sie nie loeschen darf. Konsensus ist hier nicht das, alles von allem ist, nach meinen Meinungen. --Aphaia 14:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
No sorry, in my opinion "exceptional circumstance" only be the case legal compliance requires us to delete it as soon as possible. A forming consensus with several editors are no good moment to proceed further. I'd like you to stick the rules. --Aphaia 14:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Concur with Majorly. Process is a way to ensure that outcomes are fairer, we have a policy, and we should either work to change it, or stick to it. Exceptional circumstances should be very exceptional. ++Lar: t/c 14:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I reverted. You may not be happy to see my undelete which is apparently out of scope of Transcom (and Wikimania jury, while not explictly Majorly mentioned: see my talk) , so Thogo or another, could you please undelete them? I think it necessary to undo for the sake of regularity. --Aphaia 15:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done although I would have been happy for you to have done it myself Aphaia, thanks for your assistance --Herby talk thyme 15:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing 2 weeks idea[edit]

One look at the amount of consensus already obvious at the most recent RFD (Post-Deletionism) says to me that two weeks might be a tad too long for RFDs. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

One seems to be plenty on other wikis, with the ability to leave it open for another week at the most if consensus isn't evident/there isn't many comments. Daniel (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Remove the two weeks limit. It's one week everywhere else - two weeks is excessive. Many admins have been confused and closed stuff here early because of this. A week is plenty long enough for RFAs, and should be the same for RfD. Majorly talk 13:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
per as Majorly two is very excessive.--Mardetanha talk 13:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, on the 30th May, 7 days after the last comment, I'm going to implement this change, provided that no opposition arises. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • A week is fine in my POV ^_^ ...--Cometstyles 13:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • No objections to one week. Nakon 13:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not totally convinced with the above arguments, so I need to think about this again... Would you please allow a little bit more time before implementing this change? Korg 03:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What are the benefits to closing requests earlier after one week instead of two weeks? Korg 10:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It results in a more efficient and fluidly working process. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Could you please elaborate? I don't really see how it would impact on the efficiency of the process. Korg 17:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a word of caution, those request that were put before the approval of this "1 week policy" will not be deleted on that day but will serve out its 2 week RfD but those added after the new rule is placed will be deleted or kept after one week time...--Cometstyles 04:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I am unsure what is best here and can see both sides of the argument. However it is obvious, despite the clarity at the top of the page that people are ignoring the policy.
I think the argument was that people do not visit Meta as often as their home wiki & so a longer period here was appropriate to allow as many people to participate as possible. That seems quite sensible to me.
Whatever else my understanding is that currently the policy here is to wait two weeks --Herby talk thyme 10:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no policy yet, since there was no community approval for this "rule". It is a recommendation, not a policy. --Thogo (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, no point in dragging out discussions that don't need to be. Majorly talk 11:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
This is nevertheless mentioned in the deletion policy. Also, administrators should have in mind the points outlined in Meta:Deletion policy#Administrators. Korg 17:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It is quite clear that policy is really out of date ("recently" not undelete media, Meta sysops don't know each other etc). Much has changed since when that was written, pre 2006. We are a very strong community these days I feel, strong enough that we trust all admins to be bureaucrats without even having a vote, for example. Majorly talk 20:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, though some points are still very applicable. By the way, thanks for having started a discussion there! Korg 23:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

One week seems reasonable when there is a clear consensus, but sometimes a consensus is not reached after this time, or particular requests generate few comments or deal with a specific case, so leaving the discussion open for another week when needed seems sensible (Daniel suggested that above).

How about something like: "The request is discussed for at least one week. If a clear consensus emerges after that period, it can be closed and archived; otherwise, the discussion continues for another week."
Or, alternatively: "The request is discussed for at least two weeks. If a clear consensus emerges after one week, it can be closed and archived."

This compromise would rather reflect the current practice. Korg 22:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Ok, there is general consensus that two weeks should be changed to a week, and there have not been any further comments on this issue for three days. I am going to now make this alteration. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • (a bit late, but) Sounds good, go for it. giggy (:O) 01:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Yep, I'm fine with this. I've now closed the first discussion under the new one-week system. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Ok, thanks. I assume that the phrase "at least one week" will be interpreted wisely when there isn't a clear consensus... Korg 15:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul of deletion system[edit]

I am planning an overhaul of the deletion in my userspace. You might want to check User:Kelsington/Deletion process overhaul. to see. Thanks, AP aka --Kelsington 13:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Meta is rather small; I'm not sure if it's ready for three seperate processes yet. —Giggy 15:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Giggy, I would much rather have it all centralized here until we get overwhelmed. Cbrown1023 talk 15:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Bad idea. We often have no requests at all on this page. We can easily manage them here. Separating them doesn't seem to be a useful thing to do. Majorly talk 20:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
per giggy meta is not very crowded wiki with lots of request for deletions--Mardetanha talk 21:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree with above, could always go this route but not needed here yet. Cirt 20:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe the main deletion page gets enough traffic to warrant separating it into three separate pages. Nakon 23:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Meta:Image use policy[edit]

Please discuss this proposed policy at Meta talk:Image use policy. Thank you, Cirt 19:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Add "notify the authors"[edit]

I suggest that people who list pages for deletion are asked to kindly contact the authors, as a courtesy not a requirement, especially when the subject matter is not in their field of expertise, or written in a language or culture that they are not familiar with. Hillgentleman 05:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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 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 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, 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)


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


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:
-- 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 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 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 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 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)

Deletions of files without a valid license etc.[edit]

It seems that it is not possible to get files deleted in huge numbers - probably because there is no concensus if meta should have a EDP or not.

As I understand it the solution is to nominate files for deletion one by one?

I nominated 3 files for deletion. It this how it should be done or is there an easier way? --MGA73 (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

According to WM:CSD, files with unknown source may be speedily deleted after one week, provided that the file is unused. Files with unknown licence or files uncer licences such as CC-BY-ND can't be speedily deleted at all, and files with unknown source can't be speedily deleted if the file is in use. If a file with copyright problems can't be speedily deleted, then I would suggest that you nominate it for deletion. According to wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, Meta is required to delete files promptly unless the file is freely licensed. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The files are now deleted. It seems that a formal DR is the way forward unless the file is unused (Special:UnusedFiles). --MGA73 (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Even if a file is unused, it seems to take forever before it is deleted. Maybe because it is difficult to find the unused files in Category:Images with unknown source as the category also is full of files which are in use. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)