User talk:Jclemens/CSD-RFC

I don't really have much more to add

I re-read my statement and I'm satisfied with it. I think it brings to light 4 examples of why a strict interpretation of the current wording of G4 isn't a good idea. Some of the particularly troubling parts were recreation INSTANTLY after an xfd closes and admin shopping for contentious discussions. I'd like to see some examples by the other side of the coin as to how a strict interpretation of the current wording has any benefit. If G4 is being used improperly, that's an admin problem that should be brought up on a case by case basis on their talk page or deletion review if necessary. If there's been a really old discussion that's the basis of the G4 deletion that you suspect no longer represents consensus on Wikipedia, a deletion review can be brought up to determine if consensus has changed. The mere fact that an admin G4's something shows that there is still support for the deletion of that content (otherwise they could implement WP:IAR and ignore the recreation), and even if they hold the minority view, that's a determination for DRV. The entire purpose of having an XfD seems undermined if a delete result doesn't prevent recreation without having to go through DRV first. A good policy identifies and closes all the loopholes someone can use in an attempt to game the system. The current policy wording has plenty of loopholes someone intent on disruption can take advantage of, while changing it to "most recent" eliminates those loopholes. Being able to bring back potentially good content is important, but if it's that good, deletion review will agree. VegaDark (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ideas for improvement...

Sorry, been kinda busy the past few days. This weekend will hopefully improve things substantially.

1) If we all agree on other exceptions to the prior-deletion-discussion protection, can we consolidate those in one place, for the community to endorse?

2) I don't particularly like the repeated "Jclemens proposal" wording in VegaDark's statement: It's not my proposal, it's the current wording, and I don't own it. What we're discussing isn't whether I can read the current wording or not, we're talking about the implications of the current wording in the lead of CSD on the specific application of G4. Jclemens (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

1) I wouldn't consider there to be any exceptions to G4. Everything that falls under the G4 criteria can be deleted as far as I'm concerned. If the content of the page has substantially changed, or the reason for which the page was originally deleted under G4 no longer applies, then the page simply no longer falls under G4. I wouldn't consider this an exception, it just no longer applies. All of Flatscan's examples of exceptions are in fact not exceptions at all, but rather examples of circumstances changing so the G4 criteria no longer applies, except office actions. I can't imagine a scenario when a WP:OFFICE action would restore some content against the consensus of the most recent xfd resulting in delete, however, so I don't think it's necessary to write this exception in to the criteria anywhere.

By this, I mean things that we all agree that should be G4able, regardless of the current wording of CSD. If we all agree that there's a problem here, and propose a unified solution, there's that much less ink to spill, we can write a consensus statement on those, and there's that much less for people to process before they can opine on the parts about which we disagree. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, take a look at my examples. Do you agree that any of those should be G4able? One thing to consider is a merge, rename or redirect decision as well. If an xfd results in keep, then a later xfd results in rename (causing a deletion in many instances, particularly categories), if someone recreates the page would you consider that exempt from G4, or would you agree we could simply G4 delete it? VegaDark (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Now, I don't believe any of them would generally result in the content being KEPT, but a SNOW response from the community is a better outcome than a G4 response from one nominator and one admin (or, in some cases, just "one admin"). Much of my objection to G4 is that I'd rather give these articles/categories a fair trial before executing them. :-) I would go so far as to say in case 4 that SALT should be applied after the deletion discussion, such that G4 wouldn't be remotely necessary. In your example #3, I think it likely that the user who did that would be cautioned for disruptive editing, as well as the discussion being endorsed. It's more important in my mind for content to get a full and fair hearing in disputed cases than that deletions be efficient or that recreating editors be penalized immediately. If you asked me to streamline AfD, it would be to close most relisted topics earlier. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, those were pretty much all the fringe cases I could think of where I could expect someone initially inclined to side with you to question barring G4 in those cases. Can we agree G4 has no time limit? (in that, something can be deleted per G4 even if the original discussion resulting in delete is 5+ years old, provided it is substantially similar to the original and the original reasons for deletion haven't changed?). Can we agree that the proper venue to discuss if consensus has changed or not on previously deleted content is DRV? (i.e., Someone disagrees with a previous deletion closure, but the closure is procedurally correct)? I think this could be an important addition to mention at G4 per recent concerns that there is no place for such discussions. VegaDark (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Time limit: No. If anything, the older an AfD was, the more likely that consensus may have changed, new material may have come to light, etc. Not to mention the fact that if the old AfD was years ago, the disruption at giving it another hearing at AfD is pretty minimal.

DRV: No. DRV users often self-limit to considerations on the propriety of the close. That's an area of flux, but there are plenty of "endorse, process was followed" opinions--if there's to be a forum that specifically looks at the merits of an article, it's AfD. Forcing a recreation immediately to DRV guarantees that it will only be overturned in the most egregious of cases. If I was ever going to recreate a previously-deleted article that might be construed as G4 eligible, I'd create it and then immediately start an AfD myself, arguing that it should be kept, just to keep it out of DRV's clutches--and I say that as a regular DRV participant.

What I hope we can agree on is the areas flatscan brought up, where I've already indicated my agreement with him. If you agree, then we can take it out of his statement and mine, and put it in a section of things the RFC phrasers agree upon. Jclemens (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Are we talking about the "List of possible exceptions" section in his statement? I don't see how most of those have a relation to G4.

• G4, a few examples given in previous discussions at DRV - Don't understand this being listed, how is G4 an exception to G4?
• G6 Technical deletions: A very new user creates a WP:Requests for adminship, but does not transclude it. The page is immediately MfD'd and is kept as the right of any user in good standing. The RfA is deleted G6, after a period when the user does not respond to questions about the page. (AN discussion, WT:RFA follow-up) Don't see where G4 comes in to play here. If it is recreated, and once again the user doesn't move forward with the page, simply G6 delete it again.
• G8 Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page: After its AfD is closed merge (non-delete), an article is merged and redirected to a list article. The list article is later AfD'd and deleted, and the redirected article is deleted G8. (AfD 1, AfD 2) - If the redirected article is recreated substantially similar to how it was pre-merge, then a G4 deletion would be appropriate.
• G9 Office actions - I'd simply say redelete per G9 than deleting per G4 if office-deleted content is recreated, and the reasons for deletion are still applicable.
• U1 User request: User:Example's user page includes content that another user believes to be a violation of WP:User pages. That user nominates it at MfD, but the page is not found to be an egregious violation and is kept. Example later retires and tags his/her user page with U1. - Deletion per U1 is proper here. If the user recreates it, it would not be G4able. Once again, don't see how G4 relates to this.

Was that what you were talking about, or is there something I'm missing here? VegaDark (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

2) Changed, although I consider your stance a minority view that doesn't represent the majority consensus, hence originally referring to it as your proposal. To repeatedly refer to it as "the current wording", while technically accurate, makes it seem like I'm the one trying to change the status quo, which I don't consider to be the case. VegaDark (talk) 09:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the phrase you're looking for is "policy, as currently written, that doesn't reflect actual practice". I'm not insisting that the current writing is correct, or that it reflects actual practice, but when practice and written policy differ, we have essentially two options: change practice, or update written policy. You prefer the latter, I prefer the former, and based on Wikipedia's own expectations, I don't think positioning it that way confers an advantage to either "side". Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the List of possible exceptions, they are exceptions to the survive XfD → no CSD valid rule, not G4. Flatscan (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Erm, yes, that's what I meant to say. Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about splitting off the List of possible exceptions. I think that we disagree on what they mean. My point is that the sentence should be read with implicit exceptions (3.2, second choice 2), while I interpret Jclemens's statement as supporting specific exceptions (3.1) and dealing with G4 independently. Flatscan (talk) 05:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

So... maybe we want to reword the RFC into multiple questions.

1. Does "No CSD after an XfD except for copyvio" really reflect the current will of the community?

2. Whether or not it does, what changes would we like to make to it?

What do you think? Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That could work with a little rewording. They're the same basic questions, just swapped in order. Flatscan (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Difference between option 2 and 3.2

I still don't get what the difference is between these two options. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

2 and 3.2 have the same underlying interpretation of implicit exceptions, but differ in that 3.2 specifies changes to the text. I intended 2 to avoid comments like "Support 3.2, but I think the text is fine as written." If they're really the same, there will be comments like "Support 2 or 3.2, the exact wording doesn't matter to me." Flatscan (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I'd rather have fewer options that are more distinct. If we can write one that's a "change the text or add a footnote to clarify" then the closing admin can pick whichever has more support, if that option prevails. Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)