Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Closing process and clerking

Below are suggestions for how to close deletion discussions in a way that maximizes consensus, minimizes disruption, and is fair.

Deletion hides material from public review and makes further considerations impractical. Deletion discussions are for more than the sake of discussion, they are to ensure decisions truly reflect consensus. Deletions without consensus are generally considered more harmful than keeping without consensus. "No consensus" means that the community is divided or could not come to a decision within a reasonable period of time. Where the community is divided, broader process may be pursued.

Who may close
Any participant acting in good faith can close discussions. However participants should be experienced with the Wikiversity community's position on inclusion and should not be invested in the outcome. A close should be consistent with consensus, or the lack of consensus. A close which may seem obvious to a person with experience at another website, may be considered disruptive here. We prefer to help participants improve their teaching skills through education.

A closing statement, where the reasoning is not obvious from the discussion, should review and include a neutral summary explaining how the various claims and options were considered.

Wikiversity's small user base, combined with a strict interpretation of "invested", can result in open requests for many months or longer. Hence there is currently a need for involved closures as described below. A reasonable close should generally not be reverted without an equally reasonable explanation, regardless of the identity of the closer.

Normally, if a participant objects to a close as "Keep" or "No Consensus," the closed discussion should not be re-opened, but a new nomination filed. New nominations should refer to prior nominations, and should present new argument for consideration by the community. However a month should lapse before renominating a "Kept" project to give participants time to improve it. "No consensus" closes need not delay renomination a a single time. Repeated renomination should be avoided.

Invested closure
A participant is considered "invested", if they have voiced a position other than neutral prior to closing, or they have participated significantly in the learning project. When participation in the community is high, closes by invested participants should be avoided. When participation in the community is low, all actively involved participants may have already expressed an opinion. An invested participant may close discussion under the following conditions:


 * The closure is consistent with consensus -- or the lack thereof -- and is reasonably expected to be confirmed if challenged,
 * The closure is for a discussion that has exceeded the time requirements of the (proposed) policy, and which appears unlikely to attract new comments that could change the result,
 * The outcome is unlikely to differ whether the participant is neutral or invested, and
 * No neutral participant is likely to step forward to close discussion (as seen by delay).

Renomination
Normally a keep close should discourage rapid renomination; however, in the case of an involved Keep close, and with some visible doubt as to Keep, from other than the nominator, in the original discussion, a nominator should be able to renominate a page for deletion (once); the reason is that the lack of reversion of the involved close does not prove consensus to keep, it only implies it.

Notice that a renomination is more likely to attract new comment than an open but stale discussion. A renomination need not provide new argument, but should reference the prior discussion.

Renomination after a No Consensus close is generally acceptable.

Abusive renomination (i.e., renomination after a Keep close, and unreasonably soon) may be speedy closed.

Reversing closes

 * If a close is reverted, any comments with the close should be moved and shown as a Proposed Close, with a note regarding the reversion and the reasons for that.


 * A nominator should never revert a close, whether the closer is involved or not.


 * Closes by uninvolved, knowledgeable editors, following a reasonable interpretation of consensus or weight of argument, should never be reversed. The remedy, if one believes this kind of close to be in error, is renomination. Excessive renomination could be a problem, but isn't likely.


 * If more than one close is to be reversed, they should be separately reversed, with edit summaries that show each nomination, so that the reversions can be separately reviewed. An exception would be an en-masse reversion of numerous closes that amount to vandalism or grossly inappropriate behavior, not mere disagreement with the closes, and this should never be done by a nominator of a closed discussion.

Close by nominator
A nominator may generally close a discussion with an adverse result, i.e., by withdrawing the nomination. The remedy, then, if someone disagrees with the close, is renomination. A clerk may close a withdrawn nomination as such.

No responsible nominator or deletion argument
Sometimes editors helpfully create an RfD for someone else. While an editor could write a nomination for someone, to be helpful, it should not be allowed to stand unless a responsible user actually does the nomination. Old unlisted RfD tags, for example, have been used to create a new RfD by a nominator who specifically denied being the nominator. An IP editor blanked a page, and this was then claimed to be the equivalent of an RfD nomination, so another editor helpfully made the nomination, to "help out a newbie," and, of course, the page was highly controversial, but without providing any deletion argument. RfDs without a responsible nominator or deletion argument should be speedy closed without prejudice. I.e., a responsible editor may re-open them.

Anonymous nominations may remain if promptly seconded by a registered editor, agreeing with the nomination and taking responsibility for it. Wikiversity appreciates the help of anonymous editors, but anonymous editors who focus on deleting material, we are more careful about.

Clerking
Clerks may undertake the following maintenance actions:

Keeping the page clean
Clerks may remove (generally, archive) discussions created without a responsible nominator, and may correct errors of form.

Clerks may check to see that nominated pages have tags and that authors have been notified. Failure to place a tag should be corrected by placing it, citing the actual deletion discussion in the edit summary. (Templates can be an exception, because placing a tag can be disruptive). Failure to notify a significant author should be corrected by notifying the author. Clerks notifying authors should be specially careful to be courteous and helpful, a cold notice that "your page is being considered for deletion" can come as a shock to a newcomer. People invest time in a page, normally, not expecting it to be erased!

Archive procedure
Discussions may be moved to the archive after a week has elapsed since close and the placement of the archive template. In certain cases, more rapid archiving may take place, but a week should normally be allowed, to give time for someone to object to a close.

To archive a discussion, while maintaining transparency and the easy of finding discussions, follow this procedure:


 * 1) Open up an edit window on the discussion to be archived. The section header should then appear in the Summary field. Select and copy this.
 * 2) Open the most recent archive page, see Requests for Deletion/Archives. If an archive has become too large, a new Archive page may be linked on the Archives page and Opened instead. (Currently the archiving pages are at 2-month intervals, and closes are being archived according to the date of last standing edit.) Edit this whole page.
 * 3) Paste the section header link from the previous copy action into the edit summary for the archive page edit.
 * 4) Select all the text in the RfD page section and Cut. Paste this text at the bottom of the Archive page. Save the Archive page.
 * 5) Make sure that the Archive page save worked, that the section being archived is actually present.
 * 6) Note "Moved to archive" in the edit summary for the edit to the RfD page, and Save it.
 * 7) Review any actions that were required by the RfD closure, and make them if necessary. If a deletion is required, request this from a custodian, if you are not a custodian. (Generally, use a speedy deletion tag, signed. You may reference the closed discussion.) If you are not prepared to make these (normally minor) changes, it may be better not to do the archiving, because an unarchived close is then a reminder to do the action. Examples of actions that might be undone or incomplete:
 * Removal of RfD tag from page with any non-deletion close.
 * Move or edits of a page, as suggested by a Merge close, for example, or some other fix, if the change is clear. (It is enough, however, that a user who has proposed the change is aware of the close. Clerks are not expected to make complex changes.)
 * If multiple pages were proposed for deletion, but the close was inconclusive because good pages were included, but you notice an obviously deletable page that was included, consider adding a speedy deletion tag to it.