| Revision as of 00:55, 11 October 2024 editDaniel (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators75,754 edits Remove section following conversation with Mach61, to avoid potential appearance of impropriety.Tag: Manual revert← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 06:35, 9 January 2025 edit undoExtraordinary Writ (talk | contribs)Administrators75,417 edits →Instructions subpages: comment | ||
| (14 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| {{nowrap|'''2021''': {{Archives by months|2021}}}} | {{nowrap|'''2021''': {{Archives by months|2021}}}} | ||
| {{nowrap|'''2022''': {{Archives by months|2022}}}} | {{nowrap|'''2022''': {{Archives by months|2022}}}} | ||
| {{nowrap|'''2023''': {{Archives by months|2023}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2024''': {{Archives by months|2024}}}} | |||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| Line 40: | Line 42: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| ==Discussion at ]== | |||
| ] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. <span style="color:#595959">‍—‍</span>]<sub style="color:#595959">]]</sub> 22:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] --> | |||
| ==Discussion at ]== | |||
| ] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. ] (]) 21:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] --> | |||
| == Speedy Close == | |||
| {{see also|Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Frivolous_filings_at_DRV}} | |||
| I proposed at ] that ] should have, and state that it has, closures of '''Speedy Endorse''' for a Deletion Review when the appellant has failed to state a case. On further thinking, I think that what is needed is '''Speedy Close''', similar to the administrative closes sometimes used at XFD, and that the instructions for DRV should list the reasons for Speedy Close. The reason for changing the phrase is that some of the Deletion Reviews to which this should apply are not really appeals of deletion decisions. | |||
| I suggest, in particular, that the instruction should say, below "Deletion review may be used" and "Deletion review may not be used", there should be a paragraph beginning "A Deletion Review request may be Speedily Closed if:" followed by: | |||
| *1. The filing does not appear to involve a deletion action in the English Misplaced Pages. | |||
| *2. The filing does not address any of the ], either an error or new information. | |||
| *3a. The filer is a banned or blocked user. | |||
| *3b. The filer does not have permission to edit in the area, e.g., not extended-confirmed when the area is subject to an extended-confirmed restriction. | |||
| *4. The filing is completely erroneous, e.g., it misstates the number of !votes in the XFD. | |||
| We see such requests for Deletion Review from time to time, and they are often administratively closed, but it would be useful to list them as bases for speedy closes, similar to Speedy Keeps at XFD. | |||
| I would like to send this provision for Speedy Closes at DRV forward to an RFC to add it to the DRV instructions, after discussion and any changes to the rationales. ] (]) 02:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. While I occasionally procedurally-close disruptive or pointless DRVs, I always feel like I'm treading the gray boundary of policy-sanctioned process. Clear wording will make this more consistent and save us all time. I do, however, have qualms about C#1, which seems to exclude appeals to turn a Keep into a No-consensus or vice versa. While some dismiss such appeals as pointless, they do impact renomination delays, and also act as important feedback, especially in cases of BADNAC. I believe we also need clearer language for a speedy ''overturn'' for out-of-process speedy deletions. If any editor in good standing contests a G6, it is no longer uncontroversial maintenance. ] ] 10:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **You can already do that last bit if you feel strongly enough about it. From ]: {{tq|If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), an administrator may choose to undelete it immediately. In such a case, the administrator who deleted the page should be informed. However, such undeletions without gaining consensus may be viewed as disruptive, so they should be undertaken with care.}} —] 13:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **:Admins who routinely delete out of process are the worst ones with whom to get into a wheel war. While policy allows us to revert them, the caveat it spells out should be heeded. A speedy overturn supported by two or three participants is more effective and less prone to prompting a wheel war. This usually happens within a few hours of the DRV being listed, so I don't think we're adding unnecessary wonkery here. ] ] 13:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **::So wait until it racks up those two or three overturns. I don't think that "immediately" language means "only if you do it right after it happens" so much as "without further discussion". —] 13:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *With this proposal, we need to be mindful of two things. | |||
| :Firstly, DRV is a backstop against various kinds of abuse: things that don't usually happen on en.wiki, but theoretically could -- such as a bad faith user gaining control of a sysop account and using that account to delete inconvenient articles or speedy-keep inconvenient AfDs. As a guard against that, I'd suggest an explicit rule that any sysop can overturn or revert a speedy close of a DRV, on their own authority, with or without giving a reason. (Sysops can revert each other's administrative actions but are usually hesitant to do it. We want wording that empowers and encourages them to use that power here.) | |||
| :Secondly, DRV has another purpose as well as reviewing decisions. We also ''explain'' decisions. An inexperienced user ought to be able to bring a DRV and come away with a clear understanding of all the reasons for a deletion decision, and that occasionally happens. So we want a rule that says that when speedy closing a DRV brought by an inexperienced user, the closer should pop over to their talk page and start a discussion explaining all the reasons why the deletion decision was correct. | |||
| :I wouldn't want to pass this without those provisions.—] <small>]/]</small> 11:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' codifying how to run this review process. It should be run by humans, not algorithms. The problem being fixed has not been explained. —] (]) 13:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *This is instruction creep, and the worst sort of instruction creep in that it's mostly redundant and the remainder is actively harmful.{{pb}}#1 is already covered by ]. #2 and #4 are frequently accompanied by the sort of accusations for which we could invoke the ''other'' speedy close criterion we have at ] NOT#8, but for reasons incomprehensible to me we usually don't. #3 is covered by the combination of ] and ], doesn't need repeating here, and is already the usual practice if nobody who's permitted to edit has agreed with them yet.{{pb}}When somebody ''has'' agreed, and for the remaining, milder cases of #2 and #4, speedy closing is harmful because deletion reviews are essentially never reviewed or overturned - the buck stops here - and have zero effect on content namespaces while in progress. Even when it's a kept page that's being reviewed and {{tl|delrev}} is supposed to be put on the mainspace page (or category or template or whatever), it's usually forgotten, even by the people who clean up broken and incomplete drv nominations. —] 13:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *With the exception of 4, I IAR close all of these. I'm not sure I need a rule telling me I can't, as I don't think any have even been challenged, never mind overturned. Just my .02 ] ] 14:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Language improvement, here & Refund == | |||
| from @]'s comment , @]'s thread above and note at ] and my fairly regular "We're not doing 7 days of bureaucracy", it appears there's a start to consensus on how to improve and streamline DRV to allow it to focus on the discussions where it's needed vs. where there's another solution. Thoughts, suggestions on where else this should be? ] ] 13:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I made a proposal about just this a while back at ] ] 13:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::There’s no good reason to split DRV. | |||
| ::Uncontroversial REFUNDS should be advised to go to REFUND to ask. | |||
| ::REFUNDS to draftspace are almost always uncontroversial. | |||
| ::REFUND should plainly distinguish between whether the REFUND is to draftspace or to mainspace, and give simple advice on both. REFUNDS to mainspace are rarely uncontroversial, except for late disputed PRODs. ] (]) 22:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Natural history - partially deleted category tree == | |||
| Not sure where to ask about these two: | |||
| * ] - result was delete | |||
| * ] - result was no consensus | |||
| As a result the category tree is partially deleted and partially extant. Would it be possible to revert the first deletion (as mentioned would be appropriate by a couple people in the second discussion)? I will note that the second nomination got more attention, I think because it included lower-level subcategories that get more "circulation". | |||
| ] (]) 23:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Neha Harsora == | == Neha Harsora == | ||
| Line 122: | Line 69: | ||
| ] (]) 01:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | ] (]) 01:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | ||
| == Instructions subpages == | |||
| The DRV instructions/rules are transcluded from ] (11 watchlisters) and ] (21 watchlisters), meaning any changes aren't visible to the main DRV page's 1316 watchlisters. Is there ]? If not, I think it'd make more sense to just copy them over. ] (]) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don’t know the history of the splitting and transclusion of the instructions, but I think the semi-hidden content is very long overdue for editing. It’s convoluted, read differently by different people, and we reached an impasse years ago trying to fix it. ] (]) 22:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Since there have been no objections, I've gone ahead and copied everything over; I ''think'' I've managed to do this without making a hash of things, but if anyone sees anything that looks off, let me know. (In principle I'd certainly be on board with simplifying the instructions, although in practice it would be a challenge.) ] (]) 06:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 06:35, 9 January 2025
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deletion review page. |
|
 | This is not the place to contest a deletion or to request a history undeletion. Follow the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. This page is for discussing maintenance issues, proper usage of deletion review, etc. |
Neha Harsora
Hi, I would like to contest the deletion of the article of this actress, but since it was deleted under G5 there was no consensus, hence where can I do it? 202.41.10.107 (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is the wrong place to contest a deletion. If you go to Neha Harsora, you will see a box telling you to "please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below", that is to say, Explicit (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I want my article back
The article I wrote was deleted around 2 years ago because 6 months passed without activity and now they wont undelete it because they think there's a conflict of interest. I am writing an article for Dr. Zouhair Amarin because I was his student. There is no conflict of interest as we are not colleagues, friends or family. I have maintained a neutral tone throughout the article. Zamarin (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Zamarin: This is not the place to make such a request. The notice at User talk:Zamarin#Concern regarding Draft:Zouhair Amarin directs you as follows:
- If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
- You need to follow that last link and do what it says. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Redrose64 The user already requested undeletion, which was declined, multiple times Mach61 22:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Twice, actually - once at 14:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC) and declined at 15:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC), i.e. before posting here; the second was at 16:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC) and declined at 16:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC), i.e. afterward. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Redrose64 The user already requested undeletion, which was declined, multiple times Mach61 22:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Status update of DRV still ongoing beyond 7 days
Page The Peel Club was submitted for DRV on 26 Aug, now on the 9th the article message says review is still underway. Can someone tell me the status of it and what stages it awaits? Hellenistic accountant (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- The reason this debate is still open is a large number of our DRV regular closers got involved in the debate itself, in my case due to sub-optimal behaviour that was leading to disruption of the discussion. Having been involved in the process like that, I am reticent to close it per a broad interpretation of WP:INVOLVED, and I imagine a number of my peers are the same. It will be closed in due course. Daniel (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Pawn (scripting language)
- I plan to improve and expand the Pawn (scripting language) article to meet the required criteria.
- I intend to move the Pawn (programming language) draft to the mainspace and will strive to improve its quality. I would also like to highlight that on the page Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pawn (scripting language), there was a fairly supportive discussion about the topic's eligibility for a main article.
- I hope to gain support from the Misplaced Pages community to develop this article into a comprehensive source of information on the Pawn programming language.
Putu Suhartawan (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Instructions subpages
The DRV instructions/rules are transcluded from Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Purpose (11 watchlisters) and Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Discussions (21 watchlisters), meaning any changes aren't visible to the main DRV page's 1316 watchlisters. Is there some non-obvious good reason for this? If not, I think it'd make more sense to just copy them over. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t know the history of the splitting and transclusion of the instructions, but I think the semi-hidden content is very long overdue for editing. It’s convoluted, read differently by different people, and we reached an impasse years ago trying to fix it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since there have been no objections, I've gone ahead and copied everything over; I think I've managed to do this without making a hash of things, but if anyone sees anything that looks off, let me know. (In principle I'd certainly be on board with simplifying the instructions, although in practice it would be a challenge.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)