Wikipedia talk:Undeletion policy/Archive 1

Miscellaneous

This policy is ridiculously weighted toward deletion, especially the stricture that undeleted pages need to be listed on Votes for Deletion again. --The Cunctator 15:32, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• Presumably the idea behind putting an undeleted article back on VfD is to give a heads up to people that an article has been undeleted. Is this heads-up necessary? VfDers are likely to be monitoring unVfD too. Also if an article is undeleted does it re-appear on the watchlists of those who were watching it prior to deletion? If the answer to this last question is yes, then I support strongly a change in policy so that it is NOT necessary to relist and undeleted article on VfD. If the answer is no, the I still think a change in policy would be ok, but wonder if we can persuade a developer to introduce the feature (I noticed on User_talk:MyRedDice that User:Tim Starling that the undeletion code is a bit flake-y and needs beefing up anyhow. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:55, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
• If you look at the number of votes on each you can see that Votes for undeletion has a fraction of the interest and traffic. I, for one, had no idea that this crap was going to be undeleted or I would have said something to that effect on the page. I suppose I trusted people on Votes for undeletion to be sensible. If they are not going to be then I will have to waste time picking up on people's silly little games. Secretlondon 16:01, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

I disagree that the policy is weighted towards deletion. In fact, it is quite the opposite. However, the policy had a tendency to allow for articles to ping pong back and forth, so I added a requirement to the undeletion policy that articles deleted via VfD need a notice on VfD that they are listed on VfU. I think that is a better method than Pcb21's proposal. I would be okay with removing the relisting requirement as well if and only if the notice of a VfU listing were required to stay on VfD for the entire 10 day period. I think it makes sense to have as many people involved as possible to avoid ping ponging of an article's status. Daniel Quinlan 16:26, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

If, say, I am interesting in working on the VfD page but not the VfU page, then I don't want the VfD page loaded up with VfU information. Alternatively, and more likely, I am interested in both VfD and VfU then I will watch both pages anyway. In either case repeating the content of VfU on VfD provides with no benefit. Is this a fair analysis? What are the wins from your proposal? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:22, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's just a reference to the VfU page, like the following:

• undeletion proposal for Santorum on WP:VFU#Santorum, comment there only please

Daniel Quinlan 19:20, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

Undeleting selected revisions

Sysops now have the ability to undelete selected revisions of a page, which I have explained (correctly, I hope) on Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages by sysops. This allows sysops to purge individual revisions from the history without bothering the developers, which can be a good thing (for example if an article started as a copyright violation but was completely rewritten before being deleted) and a bad thing (sysops can now hide stuff they don't like in such a way that nobody but another sysop can see it). I would like to open discussion on:

• Why we have this feature.
• When it should be used.
• What our policy on its use should be.

—Charles P. ^(Mirv) 13:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think this is highly likely to affect the way we deal with copyright violations, so I have added a note to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems mentioning this (potential) discussion. --rbrwr^± 13:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could this also be used to remove personal info from things like Talk:Sollog history? Pakaran (ark a pan) 16:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removing personal information and removing copyvios are the only two things I can think of that this should be used for. I don't think it should be used to remove standard vandalism - and it certainly shouldn't be used to remove disputed content (of the sort that is so often wrongly described as "vandalism") -- sannse (talk) 16:03, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Those are the uses I was seeing it as good for. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:51, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think we really need some policy on this, basically what sannse said. It is now possible for an admin to delete a page and then restore it with one or two revisions missing. It should be made very clear that this is not allowed at all besides for the reasons of copyvios and displaying personal informations (which should only be done if requested IMHO). --Conti|✉ 22:29, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Conti that personal information should only be removed on request. A question to consider: is it OK for an admin to act on their own behalf if their own details need removing? Or should they ask an uninvolved admin to do the work? (I'm thinking of the general principle of not acting to block someone you are in dispute with, protect an article you are involved in, etc.) -- sannse (talk) 19:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is a perfectly reasonable restriction well in line with the principle that one isn't supposed to use sysop powers in disputes where one is involved. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some notes on GFDL and this feature, and how this feature should be made use of, in my opinion.

GFDL require proper preservation of revision history of the document. If certain revisions are selectively undeleted, it would look like as if some people never contributed to the article.

The basic principle to follow is "if you keep certain revision undeleted, there should not be any copyrightable contribution by that revision's author."

Some illustrations:

Case 1) Revison 1 (no problem) > Revision 2 (copyvio by User:A) > Revision 3 (copyvio remains, additional contribution made by User:B) > Current version (copyvio removed by User:C).

In this case, in order to remove copyvio from the past revisions, both Revision 2 & 3 have to be removed. But if only Revision 1 and Current version are undeleted, then the contribution made by User:B would look like as if made by User:C. And that is a problem in terms of GFDL. The simple solution in this case, then, is to undelete only the Revision 1, giving up all later Revisions.

Case 2) Revision 1 (no problem) > Revision 2 (copyvio by User:A) > Revision 3 (copyvio removed and additional contribution made by User:B) > Current version (additional contribution made by User:C)

In this case, undeleting Revisions 1, 3 and the Current version is fine.

Case 3) Revision 1 (no problem) > Revision 2 (copyvio and original contribution by User:A) > Revision 3 (copyvio removed by User:B) > Current version (additional contribution by User:C)

In this case, User:A's original contribution is still in the current version, and if you undelete everything but the Revision 2, it would look as if the original contribution made by User:A is made by User:B. Again, this is problematic. The simple solution in this case is to give up everything and Undelete only Revision 1. A better solution, which is not always possible, is to ask User:C to make another edit and remove the original contribution made by User:A, and undelete that latest version along with Revision 1. This way, none of User:A's contribution is reflected in any of the current or past revisions, and therefore User:A does not have to remain in revision history.

Major implication of the relation between this feature and GFDL's history requirement is that "if you find any copyvio, revert to a version before it first happened, do not simply remove infringing part." "Undelete the revisions before copyvio has happened & any versions after the reversion." That way, any contribution made afterwards can safely be undeleted later.

However, there is a tricky exception about this. Think about the following case:

Case 4) Revision 1 (no problem) > Revision 2 (copyvio and original contribution by User:A) > Revision 3 (additional contribution by User:B) > Revision 4 (Reverted to Revision 1 by User:C) > Current version (Non-infringing contributions of User:A and User:B are re-inserted by User:D)

In this case, if Revision 1 (the revision before copyvio has happened) & Current version (a revision after the reversion) are undeleted, it would look as if User:D has made all the contributions that he simply re-inserted. User:A and User:B's names would not be shown in the revision history. Again, this is problematic.

My opinion is mostly formed through discussions at Japanese Wikipedia, where I am most active. This feature is developed by a Japanese Wikipedian (Tietew) mainly due to the fact Japanese Wikipedia accumulated over 1,000 revisions to be reviewed and selectively deleted/undeleted to remove copyvio and other legally problematic contents. (We asked developers' help to remove specific revisions, but no case was resolved over a year for various reasons, and the issue became a big concern among some Japanese Wikipedians.) Relevant discussions are available at ja:Wikipedia‐ノート:著作権/特定版削除向けrevert , ja:Wikipedia‐ノート:削除の方針#.E7.89.B9.E5.AE.9A.E3.81.AE.E7.89.88.E3.81.AE.E5.89.8A.E9.99.A4.E3.81.AE.E6.89.8B.E9.A0.86, and ja:Wikipedia‐ノート:特定の版の削除.

Tomos 23:07, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's food for thought. If we want to keep good contributions that are made at the same time as the copyvio or at any time up to the removal of the copyvio, we have to leave the copyvio in the history, despite this new sysop power. Drat.

Anyway, I have a simpler case that I'd like to try this function out on: the copyvio (albeit quite a small one, and marked as "work in progress") was the first version of the article and was properly removed and replaced with a copyvio notice. A second user started a /Temp version, which the anon IP which had done the original copyvio then cut-and-pasted over the copyvio notice, and continued to develop. I would like to merge the histories of the two articles (as per the usual procedure for fixing cut-and-paste moves), and it would make sense to leave the copyvio and the copyvio notice deleted. Would this be controversial? See the histories of Hanna Sheehy-Skeffington and Hanna Sheehy-Skeffington/Temp for the case in question. --rbrwr^± 17:42, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it was already mentioned, but what if a admin is able to restore a specific revision, and somehow lock all the other revisions? That would mean that they would still show up in the history, and you would still be able to see who contributed, but one wouldn't be able to revert back to those. What do you think? --ymmotrojam 15:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio test case

A few days ago I was working on some of the older things on WP:CP, and I came across Alfred Wegener, which was listed due to having copyvio added into the existing article. Using the new powers, I deleted three revisions.

1. the addition of the copyright violation
2. {{copyvio}}
3. revert to last clean revision.

They were all contiguous, no other edits were made between the initial addition and the revert. Any opinions? -- Cyrius|✎ 03:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe admins should be supposed to list such partial deletions somewhere. I know that it's sort of an instruction creep, but on the other hand it's not so easy to follow the actions of multiple deletions and undeletions of a page. I fear that this process could be (ab)used without (almost) anyone being able to reconstruct what exactly happend. --Conti|✉

RFC

Does this page still need to be listed at RFC? Maurreen 06:50, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the conversation is dead. The lessons learned shall be integrated into the policy, and it shall be delisted from RFC. So sayeth I, and so shall it be. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 03:40, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed revision to "Exceptions" clause

Recent experience has illustrated to me that the Exception rule is flawed. In particular, it appears that there is an expectation that the VfU must last five days, even if the deleting sysop states that the deletion was not in accordance with policy. The policy as it currently stands states:

If the page was obviously deleted "out of process" (i.e. not in accordance with current deletion policy), then a sysop may choose to undelete immediately. In such a case, the sysop who deleted the page should be informed of the undeletion and the reason for it. The page then should be listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. If you are unclear as to whether it was out of process or not, the normal undeletion procedure should apply.

I would propose the following revision to the policy of exceptions.

If the page was obviously deleted "out of process" (i.e. not in accordance with current deletion policy) and a Vote for Undeletion has not been started, then a sysop may choose to undelete immediately. In such a case, the sysop who deleted the page should be informed of the undeletion and the reason for it. The page then should be listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion.

If you are unclear as to whether it was out of process or not, the normal undeletion procedure should apply. All articles being voted on at VfU must remain for the whole five days, regardless of the apparent merits of the case.

Support

1. Sjakkalle 09:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Object

1. It is generally an informal process. The best method for normal users to let and admin know that there might have been an out-of-process deletion is to list it on VfU. Making it so that listing something on VfU prevents its immediate undeletion is counterproductive. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 23:30, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

It seems that this proposal actually says the opposite: that an article may be immediately undeleted, but the discussion must remain for the full duration.

Comment

• Looking at this now, I was surprised to see that the proposal was made as long ago as April! I think the current policy is correctly stated. There is a situation where an article is deleted out-of-process by a sysop in "bold" mode because he disputes a non-delete VfD close, and then the deleting sysop (not the original closer) has listed the article on VFU. Undeletion followed by relisting of the article on VfD permits the discussion to remain in-process, and prevents a double-jeopardy situation where an article is legitimately kept according to a validly closed VfD, but then deleted and kept deleted by discussion on VfU. A close no-consensus keep would not necessarily be able to command a majority to undelete. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 11:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Information changed

In my view the undeletion policy should be revised to reflect that a possible reason for undeletion can be that a subject or individual has become more relevant or significant than at the time of his/its deletion. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That seems more like a reason to create a new article. The old one would be obsolete. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 21:54, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the "sufferage" Policy

I thought Wikipedia is not a democracy|. If so, why wouldn't the opinions of anonomyous editors be considered?

Because the page tends to attract a lot of sock puppets. If you don't filter them out, it would be quite easy to get the most useless pages undeleted. Counting anon votes would make it more of a democracy, so I don't see your point there. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 16:45, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Formal suffrage

I was wondering why VFU has a formal suffrage policy of 25 edits, where any other voting page (e.g. *FD, RFA, etc) has an informal suffrage policy that allows anyone to vote, but allows for some votes to be discounted (per common sense) if they have a lack of edit history. The specific rule for VFU sounds rather like instruction creep, and it also means that we must allow anyone to vote here if they follow the specifics of the rule, even if common sense would indicate otherwise (e.g. 25 major edits to a single article related to the VFU matter, or 25 major edits most of which were reverted, etc). If we're going to rely on common sense anyway, we could probably do without this strict line. Radiant_>|< 08:22, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well I agree with you, but you might have guessed that from my comments on the suffrage page!

On another note, the board member vote has to have strict suffrage requirements because it is a secret ballot... which begs the question... why is it a secret ballot? I think we debated this a bit but can't find the chit-chat in question. Pcb21| Pete 15:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Reworded now, to match other voting pages, since nobody objected so far. Radiant_>|< 09:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Note that a broader discussion on formal suffrage has been started at Wikipedia:Suffrage. -Splash 16:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

EH? Majority?

Hey, that's interesting, VFU has an exception to how a situation is decided which is contrary to every other page on wikipedia. Namely, it requires a majority, not a consensus. I'm trying to figure when it crept in. Kim Bruning 15:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, spotted it. It crept in due to an effort to make quick undeletions possible. Kim Bruning 15:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Nevertheless it is somewhat strange, and possibly unnecessary. As a VFU frequenter, I don't recall anything being undeleted with a 50%-60% majority; nominations tend to get a substantial majority either way. Radiant_>|< 15:31, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • But useful in this case. Kim Bruning 15:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It also serves to lower the bar on returning an article to community consideration. Speedies will have been done either bilaterally or unilaterally and so a lower bar on reopening the discussion to the community seems to make sense. It also sweeps away any admin discretion or wishy-washy consensus for the issue, and returns it to a forum that allows for both of those (VfD). As for overturning VfD discussions, perhaps there should be a separate, consensus, requirement for overturning those in VfU? Generally, admins get VfD deletions right and to overturn a community consensus should take another community consensus. And, we should require that any overturned VfD goes directly back to VfD, while retaining the "don't VfD it if you think it would be a pointless keep-keep-keep" suggestion for out-of-process speedies. -Splash 17:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of changing the wording slightly since under WP:NOT it clearly states that wikipedia is not a democracy and unless the arbcom or Jimbo rules otherwise there shouldn't be some random exception for VFU rules. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Jtkeifer, I must have missed the discussion on that. Changing a part of policy in a vacuum of discussion seems odd. And no, I don't think it's such a great idea, especially considering the running discussion on VfU's scope and operation. -Splash^talk 22:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

And the reason it's a bad idea is much what Tony's later amendment pointed out: it makes it much harder to reverse an out of process deletion. My reply from a while back just up there explains why a lower threshold here makes sense. But do go to Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion where the kind of change you just made is being discussed. -Splash^talk 22:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Normally of course I'd take it up for discussion, however I decided that it was uneeded this time due to the fact that I was making changes to put the page in line with existing Wikipedia policy. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It was changing one policy in line with another. Why not change the other policy? Obviously not, I know, but it shows why you should discuss first. -Splash^talk 22:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Just forget it, the system is broken and you know as well as I do that hell will freeze over before they get any kind of consensus on the issue so what's the fucking point. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that was at all necessary. But anyway, Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU is currently proceeding reasonably constructively. -Splash^talk 22:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Currently the undeletion policy is completely out of step with deletion policy. If in doubt, don't delete must be reflected here also. And Wikipedia, we must remember, is not a democracy,so these silly numbers must go. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The discussions for and against this change all have merit but why is anyone trying to change this policy without discussion or consensus for the change? Was this policy once approved by consensus? If so, it would require consensus to make this change. - Tεxτurε 23:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway's proposed policy change

The latest change attempt does not merely replace "majority" with "consensus" but instead reverses "undelete" to "keep deleted" as requiring more votes. - Tεxτurε 20:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Tony needs to submit a proposed policy change and gain consensus before it will go into effect. Wikipedia may not be a democracy but it isn't a one-man band. - Tεxτurε 20:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The "change" follows from deletion policy and WP:NOT, and isn't really a policy change but a revision to bring deletion policy and undeletion policy into harmony. Firstly we don't have votes, so "majority" is out. Secondly we don't delete where is doubt, so requiring a consensus to undelete is inconsistent with deletion policy. It follows that we must undelete unless there is a consensus to keep deleted. Requiring a greater hurdle to be undeleted than to remain undeletes is perverse. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• The difference is, of course, becasuse VfU ought to be evaluatinmg the deeltion process in a particualr case, not the content. An item ought to remain deletion only when VfU determines (by majority) that a consensus to delete was actually formed by a properly conducted process. Thus nothing stays deleted unless there was in fact a consensus to delete it. everything is consistant. I therefore oppose Tony's proposed change. DES ^(talk) 16:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Process or content

The longstanding practice on WP:VfU is that VfU is about process, not contnet. Much of the undeletion policy IMO supports this view, but the bullet under "reasons for undeleteion" that says "Article wrongly deleted (ie that Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored)." can be, and recently has been intepreted to mean that content can be considered -- indeed one admin is suggesting that all VfU comments that evaluate process without explicitly considering the quality of the content should be discounted. This is of course absurd -- it would limit VfU to admins, except in the case of those articles already undeleted, or of which a copy is pasted into the VfU page.

Therefore I propose that this bullet be changed to read "Article wrongly deleted in that the deletion process was not properly followed. This could include relevant issues raised during the deletion discussion being ignored when they ought to have been responded to, or the articel not being properly listed for discusion. it does not include people in the undeletion discussion simply disagreeing with the conclusions of those editors who participated in the deletion discussion."

I hope this change will reduce the current level of controversy at VfU, which ahs include reverts of the instruction section of the WP:VfU page. DES ^(talk) 16:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

You neglect to state that the content which was reverted on the VFU instruction page was a direct quote from the undeletion policy, which I inserted.

I strongly oppose this proposal because it would reverse the intent of the undeletion policy and turn VFU into a mere rubber stamp for bureaucratic decisions. If you really think that it's "absurd" to state that " Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored" is primarily about content, then let's put it to a proper survey. Wikipedia-wide. To overturn this policy and make VFU primarily about process, which is utterly contrary to the clear intent of the policy as currently worded, you would need a pretty thumping consensus on a very broad vote. If you push this hard I shall force the broadest survey possible.

Undeletion policy is about making sure that good, or potentially good, articles aren't wrongly deleted. We can't just sit around and say "well I liked that article but that's the way the cookie crumbles." That is the way to lose good articles and to render VFU worse than useless. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

To be explicit: I am proposing to remove the phrase "Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored" as I think it implies that the decision is about content, while the rest of the undeltion policy is largely about process. And yes, i want wide attention to this proposal, and i am not suggesting that it be adopted without a clear consensus. I haven't yet had time to place pointers to this elsewhere, but I planned to do so and will -- i am not trying to make a wide change is secret. You seem to think that the main purpose of VfU is to save possibly good articles from poor decisons on AfD and other deletion fora, that it is in effect a second chance for an article that might improve the encyclopedia. I disagree, and i think most disagree -- if AfD and the otehr deletion fora are not to be final (when properly conducted in accorance with policy) what is the point of having them at all? Also, you are distorting my comment, I trust unintentionally. What I said was "absurd" was the idea that a VfU comment msut be about (or at least consider) content. Taht is absurd because (at least as currently constructed) this would efectively limit valid VfU participation to admins, which IMO is profoundly unwiki.

I do not think taht this proposed change "would reverse the intent of the undeletion policy". Most of the sections of the policy other than the one i propose changing are now about process, and indeed I would argeu that even the "wrongly deleted" bullet is primarily about process -- the phras I propose removeing is in parens in the current policy text. i belive it was inserted to say that undelting poor articels becaue of a technical error in process was not the intent of the policy -- not to say that undeltion is to reverse any deltion which a later group of editros thinks was a poor idea. Note aslo that this bullet goes on in the present text to discuss valid reason for retention simply ignored -- it does not discuss the case where they are responded to but the two sides fail to convince each other. DES ^(talk) 17:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored" precisely because an encyclopedia is about content and undeletion must take into account the actual quality of the article deleted when deciding whether it was improperly deleted. As I say, if you're confident that you'd get a site-wide consensus that it's okay to delete good articles with no appeal as long as they were deleted after due process, then go for it. I think you're baying at the moon, which is why I'm quite happy to watch you try and fail. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Put that phrase in context. The full quote is "Article wrongly deleted (ie that Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored). This may happen because they were not aware of the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (AFD) or Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion (MFD), or because it was deleted without being listed on AFD, or because they objected to deletion on bona fide grounds but were improperly ignored." The items mentiond after "This may happen because" all sound like process issues to me. Note that "due process" must include a clear consensus to delete, on one of the XfD pages, or pre-established via the speedy deletion criteria. i am not proposing some process that doesn't include a consensus, and by implying otherwise you distort my statementns and the effect of this proposal -- I trust unintentionally. DES ^(talk) 17:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• I would think no-one would for a moment contemplate saying that it's okay to delete good articles with no appeal. But, if AfD has rendered a decision (no matter how distasteful to some) that the article is not good then there is no reason to suppose we should restore it. To avoid deleting good articles, we have VfU which focuses on process since AfD has already done its job on the content. Just occasionally, a particularly deletionist/inclusionist admin takes things a step to far (or a nothingist admin makes a human error) and we do lose a good article or retain a bad one. That is solely because of the closure process not the content discussion that preceded it. Thus the means for reversing such errors should study the closure process as that must be what was in error. -Splash^talk 18:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• There is nothing that stops someone from recreating a deleted article with proper content. I object to creating what is essentially a *second* complete AfD process for every article that is deleted. If someone whose article is deleted under AfD can simply VfU it ten seconds after it's deleted for no other reason than "the content was OK you shouldn't have deleted it," then AfD becomes utterly pointless. VfU would simply become AfD in reverse. Can someone VfU an article *again* if they lose a VfU vote? Can we simply allow admins to speedily delete anything they want and have those decisions put up to a VfU? FCYTravis 18:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • To expand on what I said, to me, it's the same principle as the court system. VfU is the appeals court for AfD - you can argue that the article was improperly deleted for any number of reasons *except* that "the jury was wrong." VfU is for procedural matters, improper closures, failure to follow guidelines, etc. It is *not* another place to argue "my autobiography is notable despite the fact that there was a consensus to delete it as vanity." FCYTravis 19:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Just a small note, from a generally uninvolved bystander. I support DES, etc's view. VfU is and should be about process, not content. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

This is the most appalling idea I have seen in some time. It would require that anyone who thinks there is a serious possibility that they might ever think, say, a notable subject in a slightly esoteric field might get wrongly deleted and need to be undeleted to carefully watch EVERY AFD that goes up, or else they will lose the opportunity to object. And God forbid a subject expert who could possibly explain to people that there's been a wrongful deletion go on vacation for five days. The only way this could possibly be a good idea is if we accept that AfD has a 0% error rate. That is demonstrably untrue.

Absolutely appalling. This idea will, and I am not in any way being hyperbolic, kill the project. Snowspinner 22:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, although I think you are way over the top about it, when was the last time you saw a good article put on AfD and a consensus to deelte form there, but that consensus be reversed on VfU because one particular user noticed the debate late? But you have a point, comments by people who would have spoken up on XfD but didn't because they didn't know of the deletion discussion are an important sepcial case. I was primarily aiming at the idea that VfU was to be a simple re-run of XfD, or worse yet, a chace for thsoe who lost the deeltion discussion to try to convince a different set of people. See below. DES ^(talk) 22:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Revised proposal

In light of Snowspinner's comments above, I am revising my proposal as follows:

I propose that this bullet be reeplaced by the following two bullets:

• "Article wrongly deleted in that the deletion process was not properly followed. This could include relevant issues raised during the deletion discussion being ignored when they ought to have been responded to, or the articel not being properly listed for discusion. it does not include people in the undeletion discussion simply disagreeing with the conclusions of those editors who participated in the deletion discussion."
• "Significant objections to deletion were not raised during the deletion discussion because the users were not aware that the discussioon was taking place. If undeleted for this reason, a new deletion discusion will genrally be held on the appropriate page, where these objections can be raised and assesed."

That will keep VfU focused on process, but not allow deletion of good articles merely because soemone was not watching AfD, and allow a proper consensus to be formed, one way or the other, when people are watching. Obviously the "I dodn't notice" reason coudln't be invokled by people who participated in the XfD discussion, biut otherwise we would normally assume good faith if someone says that s/he didn't notice a deletion discussion.

Snowspinner, does that deal with your point satisfactorially? DES ^(talk) 22:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

You know this is almost exactly the proposal you already supported over at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU, up to a couple of points about when things can be ignored? -Splash^talk 22:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The two are certianly intended to be not inconsistant, and indeed compelementary. This proposal is IMO less radical in that it does not empower VfU to consider or reverse non-delete outcomes, nor does it explicitly sanction results other than "undelete" as the other proposal does, IIRC. This proposal grew out of the specific claim that the wording about wrongly deleted articles being those whose undeletion would improve wikipeia implied that VfD debates should normally review content, and be basically reruns of AfD (or so the claims seemed to me, perahaps i am misrepresnting them, as i oppose them). IMO this proposal could pass and would be worthwhile even if the Deletion Review proposal does not, but that proposal might be a bit handicapped unless it includes this or something like it. DES ^(talk) 23:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that 'radical' proposal would certainly alter the mechanics of the undeletion policy more broadly than this one would. But still, the phrasing here could be incorporated there very easily; that proposal needs a preamble anyway. It strikes me that there are two very similar discussions taking place in two seperate places and that the end result is a stalemate between the two just because they're not in the same place. That would be unfortunate for both suggestions. -Splash^talk 23:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Siunce this proposal was specifically to cahnge the wording (although as I see it not the intent) of the policy page, i didn't think discussion of it belonged on Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion. If there were a separat proposal page that would be a different matter. I was careful to give cross-links in both places. DES ^(talk) 00:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

You're proposing that we remove all reference to whether Wikipedia would be better off with the article than without. That's a very radical change in intent, don't try to sweep that under the rug. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see an addition to the revised proposal. Something like:

there is substantial agreement that the deletion policy was wrongly ignored during the AfD.

For a recent arguable example of this, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of power ballads and, with reference to that this wikien-l email. While we'd have to consider the merits and arrive at a consensus, I think a good case can be made that the article was not a deletion candidate according to the deletion policy.

AfD isn't a United States court, and the deliberations of AfD participants are not unchallengable. An article is always deleted if it's a copyvio, no matter how many keep votes there are. An article may be kept if the conditions raised in the nomination are satisfied, no matter how many delete votes there are. it should be possible for VFU to restore an article if it is convinced that AfD got it wrong, even if the deletion process was followed. Let's not get hung up on process--an encyclopedia is about content and we must address situations where good content is deleted because the process is not perfect. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tony Sidaway that the VfU process is crazy if content is taken out of the picture. That is afterall what we're here to create, content — not process — so that's part of what we should be judging on. I've seen enough highly uninformed votes on AfD to not fully trust that process. — Laura Scudder | Talk 17:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• Tony says above "An article may be kept if the conditions raised in the nomination are satisfied, no matter how many delete votes there are." I strongly disagee. An articel may be nominated for one reason, but there may be consensusa to delte for a quite different, but valid reason. For example, an articel might be nominated as inherently PoV. Most of the people in the AfD discussion might disagree, but thing the subject non-notable, even if it has been rewritten during the AfD to completelyu remove the PoV problem. I think that what Tony is getting at is that if an articel is rewritten, or new evidence reveled, during the AfD, so as to remove the validity of the reaosn of the nominator and most or all of the persons opting for deleteion, then the articel should not be delted unless there is a consensus to delete among the people who expessed their views after the rewrite. This I agree with, anf maybe it needs to be made more explicit. it is already the practice, and I think it is supported by curent policy, and that nothing in this proposal changes that policy. If anyone can suggest a wording that makes that clearer. I will probably adopt it. DES ^(talk) 21:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Read the deletion policy. "The page will also remain if it has been improved enough since the initial listing that the reason for the listing no longer applies. This requires a reason to be given initially when requesting that a page be deleted." I'm surprised how often I cite the deletion policy and someone who apparently thinks he knows it well disagrees with it. DES, the provisos that you describe do not exist. The opinions of the others who vote on the article are not mentioned, only the question of whether the condition set in the nomination has been satisfied. Of course a copyright violation, which comes under a key policy (and thus outweighs the deletion policy) would trump this, and the article would still be deleted. But if the nominator says, for instance, "this should be deleted unless cleaned up", and the article is cleaned up to his satisfaction, no amount of "nn" sheep voting need be taken into account. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I have read it. I think you are misreading it. Why you think views of "non-notability" to be "sheep voting" I don't know. I think it is clear that the general consesus is that "non-notability" is a valid reason for deletion, although there is not firm agreemetn on the boundry of what is notable and what is not. (the recent passage of WP:CSD A7 is merely one piece of evidence of that consensus, in my view). i also that that the clear practice on AfD is that if there is a consensus to deelte for a valid reason, even if it is not the reason specifed by the nominator, the article is delted. (Otherwise you would simply be insiting on the waste motion of re-nominating it with a different inital reason, where quite probably the consensus would be again to delete. Are your really suggesting that in such a case we would have to jub through that hoop?)
    • This whole thing about "oh, if the nominator makes a mistake in their nomination, we'll just completely ignore what everyone else says" is transparently not the way AfD works. Cite all the policy you like: it isn't the way AfD works and there's no way people are going to say "oh, ok, then, I'd better only say I agree/disagree with the nominator", because that's what some document somewhere prescribes. It would break the AfD process so badly it doesn't bear thinking about. Imagine I (heavens above) take an article about an academic to AfD because I reckon (good heavens above) that s/he's non-notable (WP:PROF yadda yadda). Turns out s/he's not an academic at all, doesn't exist at all and is a hoax. My reason for nomination must be invalid by definition, and we'd have to keep the article despite the (near) unanimous deletions racking up below my nomination. Something in that just doesn't sound right to me. (Anyway, we're talking about undeletion here, not AfD.) -Splash^talk 22:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Notability votes are sheep-voting because notability is not in the deletion policy (having read the deletion policy, you know this). No, there is no consensus on notability, with the exception of biographical articles.
      • You say "the clear practice on AfD is that if there is a consensus to deelte for a valid reason, even if it is not the reason specifed by the nominator, the article is delted". This is absolutely true. Who suggested otherwise? The deletion policy is another matter, however. We're expected to follow the deletion policy and even you, I think, admit that VFU must oversee AfD's application of that policy. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If, on the other hand Tony means that the reasoning for the bulk of the comments in the discussion are demonstrated to be wrong by someone somehow (not uncommon by any means), but the closer deleted anyway, then that would be a good case for VfU. Why? Because the process of understanding that debate was broken. However, I wonder if I'm getting to Tony's concern about content-not-process here: it would be a perverse situation if the VfUers were so blinded by the words in some document somewhere as to refuse to consider that the reason the closer's decision was wrong was the status of the content. Again, this is already the way VfU works. Those who participate here regularly do not pretend that their personal opinion on the article should be able to override a perfectly valid AfD discussion, but they do consider that if that discussion was clearly broken in some way, it should be attempted again — so the contents of the discussion must sometimes be judged against the article. That is different to simply judging the article again, and importantly so. -Splash^talk 22:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It looks to me as if my simple insistence on referring to deletion policy and undeletion policy has really set that cat among the pigeons. Leave it to stew for a while in your dome. Undeletion policy requires that we consider the content no less than deletion policy does. If an article listed for deletion does not qualify for deletion, and then is deleted, it should obviously be deleted. This is why we have a deletion policy and an undeletion policy--to stop us losing good articles. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Tony also says that "there is substantial agreement that the deletion policy was wrongly ignored during the AfD." should be a reason for undeltion. I agree. IMO if policy was not followed, then the proces (which mandates following that policy) was in error. When i say "Process not content" what I mean is not revisiting the judgement calls that are within the wide limits of policy -- I do not mean immunizing clear policy violations. I will revise the proposal

wordign to make this clear, although i thought that was already pretty clear under the current wording. Note that I propose to chnge one bullet in the current undelteion policy -- all the rest of the current policy would be left unchanged and fully binding by this proposal. DES ^(talk) 21:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• • This consideration would necessarily address content. For instance in the case of that "list of power ballads" AfD, it would be a valid consideration that the reason for the nomination "unmaintainable list" is neither true nor is it in the list of problems that may require deletion. The list was maintained for an extended period by a relatively small number of maintainers, and a little pep talk on the criteria for inclusion was all that was required. It should have gone to Wikipedia:cleanup or Wikipedia:pages requiring attention. Only if all reasonable attempts to produce an encyclopedic list failed should this article have been listed on AfD. It's as much about content as it's about process. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Often content would have to be refered to, yes. i am not saying that no refernce to content could be made. I will say that IMO "unmaintainable list" is a valid reason for deletion, and i have nominated lists using that phrase. It is a subvariety of "not suitable for Wikipedia" (as per the deletion policy) specificaly "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", and yet more specifically "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" from WP:NOT. In any case, a truly unmaintainable list, a list that purports or seesm to purport to be compelte, but cannot possibly be anywhere near complete, IMO harms the encyclopedia, this violating the basic principles of wikipedia. What copuld be more in line with policy than that judgement? But obviouly in many cases where a violation of policy is alleged, the content must be refered to to judge what policy applied and whether it was violted. But VfU/DR should not IMO be in the buisness of reversing reasonable and within-policy judgment calls made at AfD. DES ^(talk) 22:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • You're makng ad hoc arguments here, but I don't want to focus on this one article, which was just an example. You do seem to have conceded the main point--that VFU must make judgements on content. For you to make those arguments above and for others to respond to them, we'd have to look at the content. None of the above arguments were used in the original AfD. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I was merely responding to your comments, or I thought I was. To be clearer, "Whether List of Foo is in fact unmaintianable" is IMO primarily a content question, and if setteld on AfD should be out of bounds for VfU/DR. Whether "unmaintainable list" is a valid deletion reason within the deltion policy is a process qustion, for VfU/DR. (Not it it is a judgement call within policy, the wisdom of the judgement is again a content question, and not for VfU/DR.) Whether the policy was followed, and whether consensus was correctly determined by the closer are process questions, although content may need to be referenced to decide them. But saying "There was consensus to delete Foo, but I think Foo is a good article, so i want that consensus overturned" is excatly what VfU/DR must not do. If there was in fact a valid consensus, in accorcace with policy, everyone must respect that consensus. the remady in tis case is to create a new version of the article, one different enough to be a different question. DES ^(talk) 16:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• In response to Laura above, of course AfD does not always get it right. But much of what Afd does is make jdgemetn calls, by soem sort of consensus (depening on the closer's standards). Judgement calls should not be subject to beign overrulled by an essentially similar process that ther is no better reason to think will get it right, but may have a different outcoem if differnt people are paying attention. If policy is violated, thst should be corected. But if theere is a community judgement that a certian piece of content is not wanted, that shouldn't be subject to endless reruns of the debate, simpley because soem people disagree. Neither should a decison the otehr way. If an AfD dicussion goes the "wrong way" n a judgement call, not a violation of policy nor an error of process, the beast answer is to rewrite the articel in question (possibly with the help of a temporary undel or a mirror) making it different enough not to be automatically speedy deleted, and then if soemone relists it for deletion, make a better case or increse the visibility of the second deletion debate. That is my view. DES ^(talk) 21:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

It's about good content being deleted because AfD was asleep at the wheel. So it's always going to be partly about content and partly about process. VFU should be a place where we take a second look at the content. It is apparently precisely because this is reflected in the question "would wikipedia be better off with this article than without?" that there is a proposal to remove that, which a number of us oppose, or at least want replaced with something that still asserts a place for content-based decisions. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this. If VfU si to reverse bad judgement calls at AfD, why shouldn't bad judgemetn calls at VfU also be subject to reexamination. Where is there any fianlity in this process? DES ^(talk) 22:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper so we shouldn't expect any sort of finality in this process. We rely on the fact that issues can be brought up and reexamined. — Laura Scudder | Talk 23:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Where is the finality to the process? Why, when the article is deleted and, if appealed, the deletion is confirmed at VFU. This is how it's supposed to work. VFU isn't supposed to be a rubber stamp; to have teeth it must be able to make the determination that valid content was removed. This can be done, for instance, by looking at the content and seeing if it qualified for deletion under the deletion policy in the first place. It is unfortunate but true that AfD often fails to take notice of the deletion policy at all and often ends up deleting articles that shouldn't. VFU should correct that fault. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

You seem to want VfU to be a second vote for keep or delete. If that's all you want just extend the AfD to two weeks or schedule a second vote for each AfD - because if VfU can be started by content each and every person who loses an AfD will begin at VfU. Why not? Free second chance. Is this proposal of yours really just an effort to kill deletions for good? Because that's the effect I see out of this. - Tεxτurε 15:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

A couple of points.

1. I don't think the worry about VfU being flooded and becoming AfD Part 2 is that founded. We've had this page for ages, and it's generally maintained a pretty consistent level of activity. The percentage of articles that make it here from AfD is tremendously small, and they are almost always cases where there is at least some reason to entertain the possibility of an appeal.
2. I think improper closings don't need to be put to a vote, really. We don't put improper blocks to a vote, which are what I think improper closings are most akin to. If an admin sees an AfD that was improperly closed, they should make the call - either close it correctly, or relist it. I point out the irony here - if someone found an AfD that was improperly kept, we would not demand a vote before they go and delete it. But we demand a vote in the other direction?

That said, this proposal is an improvement. But it's still, I think, a solution in desperate search for a problem. Snowspinner 17:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

#1 is certainly very true. I think VfU averages less than an article a day. On the other hand, a reasonable proportion of articles brought there are editors who want their forum listing undeleted on the basis of a thousand socks, or in a more recent example, a vanity page because he had been denied his "human right to an article" (I kid you not). #2 - you will want to go and oppose the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion which has just produced a wide consensus that flawed 'keeps' should also be taken to a newly-named VfU, as a means for cutting off wheel wars before they even break out. At the very least, instead of an admin simply reversing another admin's closure, surely you would suggest they discuss it among themselves first? -Splash^talk 18:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I will, in fact, oppose, because of the simple reason that administrator calls are not democratically overturned. Yes - administrators should talk it out amongst themselves. (And my objection to the Airplane! VfD is specifically taking it to VfU, as though there's anything to democratically determine. In truth, the issue is that one of us is wrong - either I'm wrong, and 60% is a threshold, or you are, and it's not. But this should not be determined on a case by case vote, which is what the Deletion Review proposal leads to. Either 60% is a consensus or it's not. It's not a consensus depending on the vote. Snowspinner 18:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I already answered the part of that comment relating to Airplane! on AN/I, so we should probably contain the discussion to there. -Splash^talk 18:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I used it mainly because it was clearly the example on both of our minds. Because I still don't think the VfU is relevent to the discussion in that case. :) Snowspinner 18:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

wording change

I have changed

If, after five days have passed, at least 3 people (including the person who proposed it) currently want to undelete and a majority are currently in favor of undeletion, the page may be undeleted by a sysop. If ten days elapse and the proposed undeletion lacks 3 supporters and a majority, then the page remains deleted (to avoid rapid re-deletion since deletion requires a two-thirds majority).

to

If, after five days have passed, at least 3 people (including the person who proposed it) currently want to undelete and there is a consensus in favor of undeletion, the page may be undeleted by a sysop. If ten days elapse and the proposed undeletion lacks 3 supporters and there is no consensus to undelete, then the page remains deleted (to avoid rapid re-deletion since deletion requires a two-thirds majority).

This being in line with other wikipedia voting mechanisms and not in compliance with WP:NOT Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 17:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I know people prefer discussion on this and ironically would like consensus, however this is only to bring it in line with existing policies so there is no real need for discussion before hand. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 17:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason people prefer discussion is because some disagree with you. Note that other changes are actually being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion and Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal. You could join in there rather than summarily rewriting policy. -Splash^talk 17:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I would if I were rewriting policy, I am just bringing this in line with existing policy. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 17:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Why not rewrite the other one and bring that in line with this? Anyway, Wikipedia is inherently inconsistent, and VfU on a majority works very well. Changing to consensus as written by you makes undeletion adn repair of mistakes much harder. VfU is procedural, and so there is a lower bar to undeleting an article and returning it to community discussion than there was for deleting in the first place. -Splash^talk 17:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

While I think this should properly read "consensus", I don't see much point in getting overly bothered over it. VfU is, like the entire deletion mechanism on Wikipedia, broken, and this tweak won't fix it. As to the assertion that VfU is "entirely procedural", that's a load of donkey doodle; reconsideration of the substantial question is definitely germane here. Of course, factionalization is going to exist here just as it does on AfD, and as long as the factions exist there is not going to be consensus to fix it. I think it's going to take a technological change to resolve this impasse. Kelly Martin 17:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It isn't donkey doodle at all. In fact, the process works quite well; look at the recent clutch of school undeletions that were unanimous. That'd never happen on AfD. The factions on VfU are far less severe than on AfD. The 'substantial question' is only germane insofar as the admin needs to look at the article to see if the comments are actually 'true' or not and in that sense the article is part of the VfU discussion determining if the admin got it right or not. Plus, by way of repeated advertisement, you might see the so-far widely supported changes proposed on VfU talk and the proposal page as I linked to above; they are a sharp move in the direction of a consensus-based process. -Splash^talk 17:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if VFU was even needed for those school undeletions. Correct me if I'm wrong but if I remember correctly they were all incorrectly closed by an admitted rabid school deletionist. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 17:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

That would be about right, I think. But the school-deletionists could have opted to keep them all deleted: they didn't, and unanimously so. When people see a blatant violation of the process turn up on VfU they move to correct it, largely regardless of the content. The current debate on Knunder is a good example of a terrible article about to be undeleted: but which would stay deleted despite a fairly clear error in process (imo, anyway) if we had a consensus system rather than a majoritarian one. -Splash^talk 17:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)