Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2014/October

DRV close contested

The surprising NAC close of Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_September_28#VideoPad is contested at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Deletion_review.2FLog.2F2014_September_28.23VideoPad.

I propose a formal agreement here that NAC closes are discouraged at WP:DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• One bad close doesn't establish a pattern.  Would you automatically object if User:Armbrust or User:Mkativerata closed?  It might even be a good thing for non-admins in general to have someone who has their viewpoint closing, because that is one of the biases in AfD closings that after a Deletion the admins still have access to the edit histories, so they don't feel the pain.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• I'm surprised that it has not already been reopened.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with your sentiment, Unscintillating, that this shouldn't be about the (supposed) skills and experience of administrators versus non-administrators. We have many admins who are unskilled and inexperienced in DRV closures, as well as a handful of non-admins (including ex-admins) who could demonstrably do the job well. I think it's for another reason. In a closely balanced discussion, there are usually two outcomes available, one of which will usually require the use of administrative tools (eg a deletion or a restoration). A non-admin can't perform that outcome, no matter how intelligent, skilled or experienced they are. So they bring an inherent bias to the close: they are closing a discussion where outcome A or B is possible but only outcome B can be performed. Whether conscious or not, they're not approaching it with an open mind; it's impossible to do so. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• I don't agree with Mkativerata. Everyone brings preconceptions and subconscious bias to closes ---- it's impossible not to, because if you're experienced enough to close a discussion, then even if you haven't discussed something similar before or worked on a similar article, you know some of the editors who've taken part in the discussion and that influences the weight you give to their commentary. Performing a decent close doesn't mean being unbiased. It means being aware of your biases and looking through them.

  I've closed DRVs, and I would prefer it if we didn't come up with a rule that says I couldn't do it again.

  Whether or not someone's a sysop has very little to do with their competence to close a discussion. It's got a lot more to do with whether they submitted an RFA before September 2008.—S Marshall T/C 20:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• S Marshall, out of curiosity, why did you choose a date as specific as September 2008 rather than a general date (like 2008) or a later date when you wrote, "It's got a lot more to do with whether they submitted an RFA before September 2008"? (Does it have to do with the significant dip in admin promotions beginning around that month?) Cunard (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, indeed. Between Mar 2005 and Aug 2008, there were always at least ten admin promotions per month (and indeed, apart from three months of that time, there were at least twenty). September 2008 with "only" six admin promotions seemed like a rubicon to me.—S Marshall T/C 08:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment  There has been another IMO questionable NAC DRV closure, at WP:Deletion review/Log/2014 October 1.  WP:DRVPURPOSE #3 states, "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page".  Although "no consensus" is in bold, the rationale IMO is "wrong forum".  Unscintillating (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reclosed it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)