Wikiversity talk:Deletions/Archives/Archive 1

Inital Start
The initial guideline/policy that I have added is borrowed from s:Wikisource:Deletion policy. Some or all of these items may not apply or need altering to make sence for Wikiversity. Matteo 21:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Internamespace redirects
I am assuming the these are redirect pages that direct you to another wiki, but I am un sure. Matteo 21:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that would be an interwiki redirect. An example of an internamespace redirect would be Topic:Example &rarr; School:Example, or something to that effect.--  digital  _  me   22:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ratifying...
Where would we put this up for ratification through consensus? --Remi 21:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems like a reasonable place. If you want to attract more attention to this page, you could try posting a message about deletion policy at Community Portal or Colloquium. --JWSchmidt 23:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Media file deletion
Consistent with other WMF projects, we need a method of deleting images with no license information, or which have GFDL-incompatible licenses. I recommend essentially using Wikibooks' policy. I imagine that people more familiar with Wikiversity that I will make some minor relevant changes, but the spirit should be the same. All uploads need to have appropriate source and license information. If they don't, it gets and deleted after a week if no change is made. Perhaps you'll want it to be 2 weeks or somesuch. This is a fairly basic way of protecting the Foundation and the project from liability.

I've only added a little blurb - it should certainly be expanded, or perhaps moved to an image use policy/policy proposal. – Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 00:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I want to raise for discussion the "game" that has long been played at Wikimedia wiki projects. We allow participants to upload media files without requiring that they provide copyright and licensing information. Then we set up policies for deleting media files that are uploaded without copyright and licensing information. Many Wikiversity participants frequently see this: "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL," and it is not unreasonable if they assume that the media files they upload are licensed under the GFDL by default. Given these conditions, it seems silly and destructive to let Wikiversity participants create and upload media files only to have us delete them later when we decide that not enough copyright and licensing information exists for those files. If we want to actually require that Wikiversity participants provide copyright and licensing information then we should make it impossible to upload files without selecting check boxes that indicate basic copyright and licensing information for each file. I believe that our legal obligations do not require that we automatically delete all media files that lack copyright and licensing information. However, if I am wrong about that, then it seems like we should make it impossible to upload files without selecting check boxes that indicate basic copyright and licensing information for each file. --JWSchmidt 03:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The key point is that the image is uploaded with a licence. The common method of indication of this fact is a tag.  However, this is not the only means - for example, a public statement on his user page that it is so is also possible.  Thus,
 * Is the tag mandated by the Foundation?
 * If not, is the tag formally mandated by the community?
 * If not, are there good reasons that it should be so?
 * If so, should these rules apply retrospectively?

Hillgentleman|Talk 20:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Licence information is definitely required (or should be). As a rule, it should done on a per-image basis, since the vast majority of people do not upload images which are all under the same licence. Certainly a declaration on a userpage is legally sufficient, but policy can equally require more than what's legally necessary. At they very least, a link to said declaration should be required; otherwise, how is one to know that the image(s) are licenced as such? If that's the case, then it's just as easy (in fact, easier) to append a licence template to the image at upload. Nevertheless, the policy should include that those declarations are valid, and that the image should be tagged with the appropriate template instead of being deleted if the admin is aware of the declaration. As well, users adding should be encouraged to apply the appropriate template if a userpage declaration is made.
 * As for deleting images without licence information, I'm quite sure that your legal obligations compel you to do so. As for requiring a licence to be chosen from the drop-down before upload will complete, I'd say that instead, the default should be - this gives uploaders x amount of time (1 week currently) to add licence information before it's considered a candidate for speedy deletion. On en.wb, we've added a nifty little feature which automatically moves images from Category:Images with unknown copyright status to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion after 7 days, which makes things easier to manage. A warning to that effect should be added to the appropriate Mediawiki: page.
 * As a point of mitigation, you should try (I would say that this should be required by policy) to get images uploaded to Commons unless they're fair use. Not only does this offload a burden from the local community to a community which is dedicated solely to this area, but it also allows the images to be used on any WMF project (and indeed beyond). – Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 02:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine. One might suggest that the link to the userpage can be found in the upload history, but, to some, that may be a little too arbitrary.Hillgentleman|Talk 02:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "As for deleting images without licence information, I'm quite sure that your legal obligations compel you to do so." <-- I'd be interested to see a description of the reasoning and laws that generate your certainty. With respect to Wikibooks, the default in the licensing drop-down menu seems to be "I do not know". Are you saying that when someone selects "I do not know" then the uploaded file is automatically marked for deletion? --JWSchmidt 04:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "I do not know" adds, which gives them 7 days to provide licence information before the image is considered a candidate for speedy deletion. Whether deletion happens on day 8 is another matter; in reality they'd usually get more than the week. As well, we try not to delete images unless they've been notified that licence information is required on their talk page. So if was added automatically at upload, they wouldn't receive a notice on their talk page. When we sort through the images for deletion, we (generally) check to make sure they've been notified. If not, add  and give them some extra time.
 * I'm sure you're required to delete images with no licence information because a) it makes sense and b) every other WMF wiki I know of has that as policy.
 * A link to the userpage is not a link to a licencing declaration. Checking the userpage for every upload that has no licence template before adding and again before deleting is just not feasible. A "licencing declaratio here" should be required. – Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 14:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I still do not understand the reason for providing this kind of option for "I do not know". If a wiki editor does not know, then why not direct them to a learning resource that will help them figure out what to do? --JWS 16:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The nld template includes a link to such a resource on WB and so does the msg you see when you goto the upload page. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 19:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My question is, why not have Wikiversity participants figure out how to license their files before allowing them to upload files? Why let files be uploaded without license information? --JWSchmidt 20:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What would determine that someone has figured out how to license their files and included license information? --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 20:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you asking how Wikiversity would help people learn how to license the files they upload or how you could tell if someone else had learned how to license the files? --JWSchmidt 21:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm asking what would be used to tell or indicate that someone has learned how to license their files and included license information in order to enable uploads, since you seem to be proposing uploads be disabled until a person has learned how to do so. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 21:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I asked the reason for allowing people to upload files when they select "I do not know" from the "license" drop-down menu. I guess an option would be to "disable uploads" for people who select "I do not know" from the menu and send them to a page like Uploading files. --JWSchmidt 22:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On the basis of my experience on a different project, I think it is important to have a don't know option.
 * Very often, people don't know, and the lack of a don't know option usually pushes them to be dishonest rather than back off. Any policy which encourages widespread dishonesty is bad.
 * It allows quick categorisation of dubious images for custodial action.
 * It allows identifícation of users with a media learning need. Think about it: what's the fastest way to find out if someone knows their way around media licencing? (a) Ask "Do you know your way around media licencing?" or (b) ask "Please upload a file" (and then watch how they do it).
 * The 7-day window for correction is good, because it allows time for a custodian to prompt the user to jump through the learning hoops.
 * --McCormack 04:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats a pretty good summery of my thinking as well. "I don't know" is pretty much for people who don't know and for whatever reason won't take the time to read up on it before uploading files. Its worked rather well so far on WB in catching people and helping them to understand what needs to be done and the importance of doing so. Since the no license tag and the upload msg itself both contain a link to read up on it, it also catches people who are willing to read up on it before uploading. It decreases dishonesty, provides a quick way to categorize files which are going to have to be deleted if there not fixed anyways, decreases the work load of manually finding images that need to be marked for deletion and decreases WB's chances of having a backlog again. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 12:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Having Wikiversity participants learn about licensing before uploading files

 * I'm trying to compare and contrast the "I don't know" upload (Wikipedia's "solution") with an alternative approach in which we would have Wikiversity participants learn about licensing before they upload files. It strikes me as a logical contradiction to say that we absolutely must delete files that do not have licensing information but we invite people to upload files without licensing information. I do not believe that the Wikipedia "I don't know" upload is the best path for us to take when Wikiversity participants do not know what license to use. If we adopt the Wikipedia "I don't know" upload approach then we are adopting a strategy based on bad faith assumptions about Wikiversity participants: that they will lie about the licensing of files if they are not allowed to upload files when they select "I don't know". I think we should assume good faith. The culture of Wikiversity should be such that participants are encouraged to say "I don't know" and when they do so they should be efficiently directed to learning resources that will help them learn what they do not know. I'm troubled when I see a few Wikiversity participants who are eager to assume the worst during a rush to delete the work of other Wikiversity participants. Yes, Wikiversity has some files that are not correctly licensed, but there need be no rush to delete them. Wikiversity has allowed people to upload files without licensing information, so we have created this problem. In my view, we should find ways of explaining to Wikiversity participants how to correctly license their files. Wikiversity is supposed to be a place for people to learn, not a place for good faith editors to be harassed by people who think every problem can be solved with a template. "This approach is good enough for Wikipedia" does not satisfy me. Wikipedia has a serious problem due to alienation of good faith editors. I'm not as familiar with Wikibooks, but my experience there has been that Wikibooks has essentially adopted the Wikipedia approach which includes zealots charging around threatening to deleting uploaded files without even bothering to read the licensing information provided by the people who uploaded the files. This has happened to me repeatedly at both Wikipedia and Wikibooks. People invent a new system of templates and then threaten to delete all files that do not display those templates. I spent a large amount amount of time making image files for those projects, but I don't anymore because of the harassment that was directed at me because I did not use someone's magic template. I'm not pleased to see the same thing happen to Wikiversity participants. I welcome the help of people who want to get licensing information for Wikiversity files, but I'd like to see some serious attention paid to Assume Good Faith. It might take more work to educate Wikiversity participants about licenses but we should make the effort required rather than risk driving away people who are good faith contributors. I know from personal experience that systems of warning templates can drive good faith editors away from wiki communities, so lets discus our options here and not just do a knee-jerk "but its good enough for Wikipedia". --JWSchmidt 18:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't feel particularly part of Wikiversity, so I'm not going to harp on about what I think you should do, save to reiterate that you need a policy and that the Wikibooks system works for us (and I think it can work for you).
 * Regardless of the above discussion about policy, do you want added to your untagged images? I can do it (slowly; I'm busy for the next week or so) including notifying uploaders on their talk pages. (I'll make a new message that is more in the direction of education than "here's the problem; fix it!") So: does the community want that done? – Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 18:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you look at the Wikipedia page w:Wikipedia:Upload, it's much more along the lines of helping people select the correct license and educating them about what's acceptable, what's not, and how their image fits into things. I don't particularly like the giant Your image will be deleted notices everywhere, but it makes sense for them; I'm sure Wikiversity could do without those. Compare this to b:Special:Upload, which does instead links to the educational pages, and has little detail to help uploaders determine the correct license. – Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 18:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know how Wikipedia does things, because I'm not much of a contributor to Wikipedia, so I can't say much about the Wikipedia way of doings things. The changes made at Wikibooks I hope are just the beginning. I have to admit that I would like to eventually have an interface that helps narrow down the choices of licenses for people who aren't sure to just one license, thats quicker and easier to use then whats used at Commons and includes additional options on the page then just a summary field and a license menu, while providing whats currently being used at Wikibooks for people who want to go directly to uploading. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 22:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not really know how large of a backlog problem we have with uploaded files that lack licensing information. A month or two ago I tried to categorize all the .ogg files and found about half a dozen files without licensing information. Most (if not all) of those oggs are probably files created by Wikiversity participants specifically for use at Wikiversity. I suspect that Wikiversity probably has a significant number of files without licensing information and I agree that we should try to do something about this problem. I do not really like Template:No license because I'm not sure Wikiversity has a policy structure to support its rather heavy-handed approach. When I went looking for a deletion template, the best I could find at Category:Deletion templates was Template:Deletion request. Later I came across Template:GFDL-presumed, which seems like it could be applied to most of our unlicensed ogg files. One thing I do not like about Template:No license is. "consider notifying the uploader on their talk page". I think we should always notifying the uploader unless we are dealing with some kind of image vandalism (in which case we just delete the file). I think there are probably two main classes of existing files without good licensing information. First, files from active participants at Wikiversity. In dealing with these files, the emphasis can really be on education.....making sure that Wikiversity participants understand how to license their contributions. In the case of the off files I looked at, the files without licensing information were from editors who did not spend much time at Wikiversity and seem to have moved on.....there does not seem to be much hope of contacting these former participants, but I think Template:GFDL-presumed is a reasonable option for most of the files they uploaded. The other issue facing Wikiversity is creating a system that will deal effectively with new file uploads. I'm thinking we should start a discussion thread at Colloquium, do a post about this issue to the Wikiversity mailing list and try to get participation from as many Wikiversity participants as possible. Maybe a key issue is design of a version of Template:No license that fits better with the Wikiversity community and emphasizes education about licenses rather than threats. I think Wikiversity now has a good start on pages with information about licensing and we should try to direct everyone who uploads files towards those pages. --JWS 15:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So, is this criteria for SPEEDY deletion then?
It kinda seems weird to call this a deletion policy, when it seems more like a speedy deletion policy. ViperSnake151 13:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikiversity custodians can delete vandalism pages on sight....I think of that as speedy deletion. For most other pages there is no hurry. Some of our page deletion discussions last for months. --JWSchmidt 16:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Unneeded redirects
"Unneeded redirects include alternate mixed-case capitalisation (one redirect for all-first-letter capitals suffices)" —I disagree; I think there's no reason to forbid multiple spelling/caps redirects, if it will help people find appropriate content sooner. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree - plausible misspellings and changed case are sometimes useful. Most orphaned redirects are unneeded, but this is one case where they may be worth keeping. – Mike.lifeguard &#124; @en.wb 01:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite
A few opinions: 1. I think that community discussion should be had on what we should be saying "keep" and "delete" about. I do not currently agree with the current incarnation, if it is intended to be a guide for deletion nominations. 2. We should specify which pages should be speedy deleted in a list format similar to what you have now, but for deletion nominations, we should simply create a guide of reasons to delete vs. reasons to keep pages. The focus for nomination discussions should be reasons, not rules, in my opinion. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. I don't think I understand what your saying. Do you mean you think discussion needs to happen to decide what the list should consist of, or do you mean you don't like the list because you feel it tries to replace community discussion? 2. What about the rewrite suggests to you that its about rules rather than reasons? I felt I did provide reasons. What do you think could be done to clarify that reasons are more important than rules, and that the list is no substitute for reasons or consensus? --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 23:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. The former.  2.  It says "keep" and "delete": these are rules.  Many of those contain some amount of reasoning accompanying the rules, but the emphasis appears to be on what to "keep" or "delete", as if it were a hard and fast thing.  I don't feel that such an emphasis is appropriate for deletion discussions, though it may be appropriate for speedy deletion.  I think that, for non-speedy pages, a list format emphasizing keep/delete should be avoided, and we should instead perhaps provide something along the lines of "Potential reasons to keep a page" and "potential reasons to delete a page".  Some pages, of course, may contain elements from both lists.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 09:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, we may want to start out by asking what the purpose or function of page deletion is at Wikiversity. What role should it play?  I think covering that first will help clarify where we should go with this policy.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 09:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the purpose or function of a delete policy is to document what process is used to request that pages be deleted, how the process is used, where to make requests for deletion, common reasons why deletion is requested, when should deletions be requested or not requested, common reasons why deletion happens or doesn't happen, and common expectations that participants have. The role of a deletion policy is to document the process for deleting pages and to inform people what to expect if they should request deletion by documenting common reasons that people will agree or disagree with deletion. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 17:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I asked what the purpose of page deletion should be, not what the purpose of a policy about it would be. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 07:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. The purpose of page deletion likely varies from person to person, but I think in general the purpose is to remove pages that don't aid Wikiversity's educational mission. Deletion has a maintenance role, like removing weeds from a garden, to weed out what people feel doesn't fit in with their concept of Wikiversity, allowing what does belong to be more easily found. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 13:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weeding isn't something which should be kept as "the last option when all else has failed." The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion policy/Working copy
I think this working copy content could be brought over and integrated with this draft policy, then we could continue on shaping it in a single location. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes by Darklama
"Pages that have been deleted for non-obvious reasons or for reasons that are not self-evident without discussion at Requests for Deletion may be undeleted by custodians at any time without discussion. You may also begin discussion at Requests for Deletion if you disagree with a deletion, or a deletion is not obvious or not self-evident to you."

I note the recent changes by Darklama including the addition of the above. I think the idea that custodians should feel free to immediately undelete anything which they don't understand why has been deleted needs discussing. I don't think this is a good idea. If a custodian has deleted something, they have reached the conclusion that it doesn't benefit the project or is actually detrimental to it. I don't think not understanding why something has been deleted should mean it should be immediately undeleted. We should respect that the deleting custodian wouldn't have taken that action if they didn't feel it appropriate and in the interests of Wikiversity. That should mean that if we can't understand the reason why a page has been deleted, we assume the deleting custodian had a good reason and ask them to help us understand it.

These changes do seem to remind me of a recent situation where this action was taken and I think the outcome was worse than what it would have been had some discussion between those concerned and the user involved in deleting the page. I won't beat about the bush, the situation I'm thinking of, and what I suspect has inspired these changes is that involving Jimbo and SB Johnny. That, I feel, is a good demonstration of why custodians should discuss any concerns about deletion with the custodian involved. Jimbo in that situation specifically asked that the page wasn't deleted without consulting him. Had that taken place we might have been able to more quickly appreciate that undeletion wouldn't be a wise move. As it was, more drama resulted from as the page was deleted again, SB Johnny's rights were removed, then reinstated, then removed again at SB Johnny's request. It was possible that if SB Johnny had waited for some feedback from Jimbo to his concerns, Jimbo might have made it clear that undeletion wasn't an option for the community at that point and so some of that drama could have been avoided.

So, to conclude, I don't believe that undeletion without attempting to discuss the issue with the custodian involved is a good idea. I don't think we should encourage an environment where custodians reverse the actions of other custodians without trying to discuss any of their concerns. That a deletion seems to be a bad idea, doesn't necessarily make it a good idea to instantly reverse it. Adambro 08:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes the change was partially a reflection of the situation with Jimbo. He should of discussed it from the start because he could already see a need for a further explanation since he asked that his use of the tools not be undone. That is what "cases that may require further explanation" is about. I believe SB_Johnny undeleted for two reasons 1) to allow a transparent discussion of the pages to be discussed at requests for deletion, and 2) the reason for deletion was not obvious and not self-exploratory to him. The change you quote is a reflection on the need to discuss such deletions further in a transparent way when there is any doubt about the obviousness of a deletion. In the same edit I also added "Custodians should assume good faith, if another custodian has undeleted a page, abstain from any further action with custodian tools — let the Wikiversity community decide what to do." I believe cases where a page is speedy deleted for obvious reasons, and another person or custodian thinks the reason is not obvious that the deletion can no longer be justified as being obvious, and so must favor undeletion and discussion by the Wikiversity community. That part is to ensure that people do not continuously delete and undelete pages and instead let the Wikiversity community decide.
 * We could argue about what should of been done to prevent things from going as far as they did, but I think there are many ways to reflect on that. I think building consensus is the best way to reduce drama and decide what to do when there is disagreement about the right thing to do. -- dark lama  12:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh also forgot to say, even though this is partially a reflection of the situation with Jimbo, it is more about reflecting on what can be done differently in the future when there is disagreement between two or more custodians on what to do. -- dark lama  12:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you not agree that a discussion with the relevent custodian would be most appropriate in the first instance? As you've said, "custodians should assume good faith". Shouldn't that extend to custodians who for whatever reason don't understand the reasons for a deletion? Surely custodians should work on the assumption that the deletion was appropriate even if they don't understand it and first ask the relevant custodian for clarification. What is obvious to some people might not be obvious to others. There can sometimes be complicated reasons why a page should be speedily deleted but those reasons might not be apparent from looking at the page and the deletion summary. If custodians aren't able to understand the reason something has been deleted they should first ask the custodian involved. That custodian may be in a position to assess whether it is appropriate to discuss it on Wiki or if discussions need to be conducted privately for example. Rushing to undelete something is often not a good idea. Adambro 13:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Some sort of balance has to be found. What about the custodian that thinks the reason is not obvious and believes the person that created the page was acting in good faith. Should the good faith of the authors of the page be ignored in all of this? Undeleting should not be seen a sign that the deleting custodian was not acting in good faith, rather that the undeleted custodian was acting on the presumption that the authors were acting in good faith and that further discussion with community involvement is needed. -- dark lama  13:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If the reasons for deleting are complicated, I think that is more reason to discuss the reasons with the community. -- dark lama  13:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Community Review
This policy is the subject of Community Review. --JWSchmidt 15:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed clarification of policy regarding closures.
TCNSV reverted my proposed explanations of closing policy on this page. There is currently no explanation of how deletions are closed, and as a result, there is continued confusion. In that vacuum, there has been regular reversion of closes contrary to what this guideline suggests, as if there were some other policy, and, as a result, the RfD page has filled with very old discussions.

TCNSV wrote, (rv significant change to deletion policy ideas; this may be supported in theory but not in practice). First of all, if it is supported in theory, it not a "significant change," it would be an explanation of what already might be expected. I've done many "involved closes," because I've been active in trying both to clean up Wikiversity and in preserving Wikiversity's remarkable academic freedom. TCNSV has reverted many of these, to no effect. In no case so far has a discussion result changed as a result of his reverts. With many of these, he was the nominator, specially involved himself. Requiring that the nominator abstain from re-opening a closed discussion is a simple device to ensure that there is community support for continuing a discussion. Keeping discussions open for a long time represses community participation; late-comers see a lengthy or old discussion and just skip it. So should it be true that a deletion should be discussed further, it should be done through a new nomination that considers all the old arguments (and refers to the old discussion, which a future closer may consider).

TCNSV has claimed that my closes are disruptive, see Wikiversity talk:Requests for Deletion, and the associated discussion, but I haven't missed it once yet, whereas TCNSV has nominated many pages that have not been deleted, and has reopened many discussions without any positive result or benefit to the community, simply wasting time and space on the RfD page. Clarifying the policy is the first step in cleaning this up.

I ask TCNSV to consider what could be included from the reverted section, or write something appropriate to cover this territory, and we can then discuss what remains controversial.

The ordinary principle that a closer should not be "involved," i.e., have expressed an opinion, is great when there are hundreds of active editors reviewing discussions. When there are very few, it creates what we have had: a long RfD page, with contentious discussions that just sit there for a long time, nobody wants to touch them because simply reading what already exists takes too much time.

I attempt to maximize consensus when closing, as should any closer; and where consensus or some approach to it is not clear, I close as No Consensus, which does allow anyone who still wants the page deleted to renominate with new evidence and arguments. We do not discuss for the sake of discussion, but to discover and maximize consensus. It seems that at the end of these discussions, sometimes recently, there is just TCNSV and me, I'm closing as keep or No Consensus -- I can't do Delete closes -- and he's reverting the close, even if it has been many months, and if we disagree, that's No Consensus in itself, and neither of us should take an action that prejudices the future of the community. No Consensus defaults to Keep For Now, in effect. I have not closed any discussions as Keep or No Consensus where there seemed to be any chance that the tide would reverse in any reasonable time. That should be enough. --Abd 19:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Darklama added different wording, with less detail than what I'd written, with shorter time periods, but substantially the same. That version is fine for me. If, however, there continues to be conflict and if policy is not clear enough to address the problem, we should add more detail. Thanks, Darklama. --Abd 19:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is the wrong forum page for that. You should probably take it to Community Review, Request custodian action, Colloquium, etc, etc, but not here.
 * @ Darklama, I applaud your attempt at compromise, a far better job than the lengthy post previously inserted into the policy page. TeleComNasSprVen 19:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Page created with guideline for closers and clerks for RfD
I wrote Requests for Deletion/Closing process and clerking as a page proposed to be linked from the RfD page under the section on procedure, to cover the other end of Deletion process, guidelines for closers. Most of this would be too much detail for this page, it's procedural, and detailed. It's intended as a guideline, not as a policy, as such, it should be flexible and easily revised, as actual experience reveals problems.

Wikis were originally created for user-generated manuals, but for some reason, WMF wikis went radically against "instruction creep," which is really only a problem when "instructions" are considered rigid rules. Step-by-step, easily understandable guidelines, make for a much more open environment, where people feel freer to contribute.

As written, it is both guideline and explanation of why parts of the guideline are suggested. The final guideline may be condensed, but, for now, I'd appreciate review of the sense of it.

I've also set up an undefined position, "clerk." I'm not proposing any special qualifications for clerks, and what is described for clerks there could, mostly, be the work of a bot. Archiving under the proposed method could easily be done by a bot: look for an archived section that sticks for a week, and move the material to an archive page, with headers as described.

Much archiving in the past has been done by someone cutting a pile of RfD sections, all at once, with some edit summary like "archive old" and then popping it down into an archive with a summary like "+6", all of which sometimes makes it harder to find where a discussion went, without reviewing a lot of diffs or looking through many TOCs. While there are ways around this, it is actually easy to do what I've proposed, and it creates one edit per discussion per page, it's trivial to review and see what has been done and by whom, which is important for transparency. Since I've been doing it this way, as well, I look at each RfD, which makes it easy to remember to check for leftover tasks. A number of RfD tags, I found, weren't ever removed from pages....

And checking all this led me to look at all RfD tags and clean up a number that had never resulted in filed RfDs. In one case, I think, I replaced the RfD tag with a speedy deletion tag.... Others, where I didn't think deletion was so obvious, I simply removed the incorrect RfD tag. Anyone can look over my contributions and disagree with me, simple to add a deletion tag if deletion is obvious, or to actually nominate for deletion if it isn't.

I've had an amazing sense of appreciation for the Wikiversity community, doing this work for the past few weeks. I agree with practically every decision that's been made, I can't think of any exceptions, recently, -- there might be one soon!, but hey, one exception, that's fantastic! -- and that is a radical reversal from my Wikipedia experience, where watching AfD was practically constant aggravation. (I agreed with many decisions there, but also found many to be, essentially abusive, dominated by users who clearly watched AfD process with an axe to grind, piling in within minutes of a nomination with "Delete per nom," practically no effort at all, and obviously no time spent investigating possible sources, etc., but confusing some closers.) --Abd 02:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Instruction creep has come to mean creep, which means that even the most friendly suggestion will eventually be used by someone (fascist) to hurt someone else. The material has no doubt been removed from the WP discussion pages.  This is the social experiment that keeps experimenting!--John[[Image:bessa66.png|12px]]Bessatalk 21:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. That happens when "instructions" are considered to be rules, with punishment for violation of rules. However, if guidelines represent a relatively safe harbor, where response is relatively predictable, the effect can be opposite. No set of rules or guidelines can protect against a substantial faction that is bent on abuse, it takes community culture to do that.
 * The irony here is that wikis were originally developed and applied to create user-generated software or system manuals. The tragedy is that Wikipedia did not develop efficient and reliable methods for estimating community consensus, relying on ad-hoc appearance of whoever, which is then easily warped by selective participation and awareness. Wiki theory would have disputes escalating in attention as needed, but effective large-scale attention requires careful deliberative process, because the knee-jerk reactions of a large audience are little better than those from a small audience. Attempts to improve the process have been resisted as "creating bureaucracy" and, yes, "instruction creep." The lack of "instructions" -- guidelines -- means that, then extra power is held by the users who have developed skill in crowd influence, and those users, by the conditions of the problem, have the ability to resist change.
 * Wikiversity is running close to the edge, though, in terms of volunteer attention to core processes. Individuals can have substantial influence here, but it takes patience, in any case. --Abd 16:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No objection appeared to the procedure page, so I've linked it from the deletion page. The procedure was intended to document actual practice. Some of it has been controversial, but the controversy was not sustained. At this point, if someone objects to the stated procedure, I'd suggest it should be changed if it is clearly wrong, improved if it can be clearly improved, or discussed if controversy remains. The procedures page establishes a baseline that allows the RfD page to be cleaned up and for Wikiversity to move on without prejudice. The page refers to "clerks," and suggests clerking procedure. Clerks are a device for extending custodial tasks beyond those who hold the tools, and we may eventually want to formally name clerks. But, by following a guideline like that, anyone may actually clerk, and anyone else may check their work. (Clerks should rigorously avoid, in the clerking, not only any bias but also any appearance of bias. Clerks, as clerks, are pure servants.) --Abd 15:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Policy proposal - straw poll
I believe that the current draft of the proposed deletion policy should be accepted as policy.

Discussion

 * - as proposer. --Claritas 09:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Question - Where can the details of this proposal be found? The phrase "straw poll" doesn't appear anywhere on the archived discussion page and it was unclear to me what this policy vote was referring to. MyNameWasTaken 19:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You can find the details for the proposal at Deletion policy. This straw poll is to see if there is support for adopting the proposal at Deletion policy as Wikiversity's deletion policy. -- dark lama  20:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Question Given that the page can be altered at any time, shouldn't you paste the exact version you want discussed here?--Collingwood 13:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We're at the phase where we need to involve more editors to look at the page and probably make more edits. If additional edits are relatively minor and further reinforce what has been written already, it's an additional signal that there is general agreement about the spirit of the text, if not the exact letter of it. The straw poll is worthwhile just to get a sense of where things are at. There's still more work to be done to adopt this page as policy. How that precisely happens will probably depend on this straw poll. --HappyCamper 13:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To echo HappyCamper, our policies can be edited at anytime as long as there is consensus for the changes. However, we effectively don't have a deletion policy at a moment, and while the current draft is not perfect, it's IMO probably best for it to accepted as policy now, and any issues or omissions can be dealt with when it's put into practise. --Claritas 20:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The proposal is "here" in the sense that this is the talk page of the policy in question. The talk page is precisely where auch things as straw poll should be taken. Before a policy is adopted we need to give a timescale for people to consider the issues - I would suggest 14 days from the poll starting but other people might have better ideas. When the policy has been agreed, the policy should be page protected with a link to Deletion policy/Proposed ammendments where any subsequent ammendments could be put forward, with further discussion on the rleevant talk page. Thus the whole process can be repeated ata future date to take the policy forward. Leutha 08:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for the last week of January. Really quiet here. --HappyCamper 17:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I support [ revision 851766]. I think some clarity was lacking, and the teaching and learning aspects missing from prior revisions. I think more could be done to encourage the teaching of good practices as a productive use of the deletion process, and to emphasis how doing so is a good way for participants to learn how to develop good resources, improve the overall quality of resources, and keep participants, but what is there ought to be good enough for now -- dark lama  12:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * - I think the second paragraph of "Discussion" could be made a bit more clear, though I don't see any issues with the actual policy. -- Rf 18:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I will refrain from voting for now but I would like to insert the following:

Consider the resource Overview of economic schools of thought.

There is no indication of the completion status, development status, if any, educational level, resource type, or subject. But, the sole contributor has placed the resource in the economics category.

The current, proposed Deletion policy criteria of speedy deletion can be used to comment on this resource:
 * 1) No educational objectives or discussion in history. - met.
 * 2) not met.
 * 3) many sentences appear to be paraphrases of Wikipedia articles on the subject, without citation. Met.
 * 4) not met.
 * 5) not met.
 * 6) met. User has indicated "Get rid of the cruft." at Colloquium which may mean a deletionist agenda. Unfortunately this may amount to vandalism of resources here.
 * 7) not met.
 * 8) not met.
 * 9) not met.
 * 10) Archaic redirects - unknown but probably unlikely.
 * 11) not met.
 * 12) not met.
 * 13) not met.

So resource meets possibly two to three criteria for speedy deletion.

Proposed deletion: "Resources may be eligible for proposed deletion when activity ceases for 90 days or more, further development may be difficult, education objectives and learning outcomes are scarce, and objections to deletion are unlikely."


 * 90 days or more - last update was August 25, 2011,
 * further development may be difficult - probably,
 * education objectives and learning outcomes are scarce - none stated,
 * objections to deletion are unlikely - questionable.

From Overview of economic schools of thought: "It is arguably now the dominant school of economics, being taught in most major universities." When the context use of "school" is meant as an assemblage or association, the two-word phrase "dominant school" is a relative synonym for the technical term "dominant group".

The use of the apparent technical or theoretical term "dominant school" suggests either research or original research.

On the same colloquium page is "The resource should be structured into lessons, which exist as subpages linked to on the main resource page." under Suggested minimum requirements for stand-alone resources. Such a prerequisite is a well-known foil against research or original research, for which Wikiversity is the only significant wikimedia home.


 * - nearly all of your efforts here have been positive and beneficial to forming an alternative deletion policy statement. I have compared your hard work and sincere effort with the earlier version before this discussion began and found little actual change with one important exception, "Deletion can harm Wikiversity when participants are lost and works that could have become useful with enough time are removed." This point in quotes from the older policy is very important at least to me. Marshallsumter 00:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there an alternative formulation of this quote you could support? Or perhaps it is sufficient for your support that the essence of this quote be elevated to policy in some form? --HappyCamper 15:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think an alternative formulation of the quoted text is already present in the proposal in several forms with stronger and clearer reasoning, "resources can often blossom when you teach participants good practices and they learn how to implement concrete improvements", "participants may be able to learn how to implement concrete improvements when taught appropriate practices", and "the preferred outcome is one participants can learn from to implement concrete improvements". I think the language in the newer proposal is also stronger and clearer about prohibiting speedy and proposed deletions when objections are made or are likely. I think overall the tone leans towards how keeping helps Wikiversity, participants, and resources, and addresses ways to make the process benefit Wikiversity, participants, and resources. -- dark lama  18:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The latter is good as are the points made by Darklama. My concern is that 'deletion' per se not be elevated to 'contribution' such as a resource or to a resource. Clearly there are things that need to be deleted, but I believe it's important for any custodian or nominator, especially, to think about it rather than delete to contribute. Deletion is a loss, sometimes an important loss such as vandalism or requests for one's own mistakes or no longer needed files to be deleted. Other instances are not good. Consider Gift economy. I contributed to it because the concept of the resource is important. I did not remove the deletion tag because that could promote a 'deletion' war. Perhaps, with the sentence in quotes aboard the deletion policy a user such as Rf would not be so hasty to slap a deletion tag on what the user perceives as 'cruft' yet is economically important. Each un- or underdeveloped economics resource the user has so tagged is such. None should be deleted. The irritating part if I may add is that the resource creators opened the resource, did next to nothing, then, vanished. As an author I enjoy creating a resource first, adding to a resource someone else created second, responding to a deletion discussion last. Deletion tags do not promote discussion. Instead, it's like a terrorist holding a loaded weapon to a creative person's head. Save it or they'll destroy it. No! Delete them all if that's the mentality we wish to promote. I hope this makes some sense! Marshallsumter 19:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the consider contributing rather than deletion point is covered by the alternatives to deletion section. People make hasty decisions for a number of reasons. I think haste is something best addressed by educating people who are hasty, and not something that can be adequately addressed through policy. I think to better promote discussion, a possibly drastic change in approach might be required, such as having a quality review process instead of a deletion process, where people discuss resources for many possibly reasons besides deletion, like to nominate a resource as a featured resource, to get community feedback for ways to improve a resource, etc. -- dark lama  20:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * While again I agree with what Darklama is writing, I believe the problem is more significant. To me no editor, contributor, resource creator should have the power to put other resources up for deletion. This perhaps should be a custodian's privilege. Even then a discussion may be requested before a deletion tag is placed. A large consensus to delete or not isn't needed, but 3-5 opinions pro & con written before the custodian proceeds even if against the deletion tag would be good. But, this has probably been tried before and custodial time is probably maxed as is. A second suggestion which may not be possible computer-wise is a rigorous lower limit of say 2000 bytes before even a genuine contribution is saved into resource space. This would put all such that are smaller back on user pages, a list could be available for content ideas, and resource creators who desire to do so can have the credit rather than having resource creator credit going to anyone who puts 500 bytes into resource space. I hope this helps. Marshallsumter 22:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think many people would simply ignore a restriction to where they can create resources or who can tag resources for deletion. Policy is expected to reflect actual practice as much as possible, and not attempt to change current practices. I think even my own comment about using a quality review process instead of a deletion process would be ignored because that isn't what people do or expect. -- dark lama  13:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment! While I personally prefer discussion before a deletion tag is applied, and we have such opportunities, there is much to be said about deleting un- or underdeveloped resources and starting over. I guess I see conforming to what people do or expect such as on Wikipedia as a loss of the very individual freedom that makes Wikiversity better. My gut response, probably inappropriate, is to let them remain ignorant. If my reverting to support will allow the policy to be tested for its positive benefits, then consider this as such. But its abuse will be much harder to correct. Good luck! Marshallsumter 15:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's possible the problems associated with misuse of this updated deletion policy might turn out to be more managable in the very long term compared to what we have now. How do you feel about revisiting this deletion policy in a year? By that time, I think this community will have collected enough data to know whether the workflow we have set up for deletion is suitable for Wikiversity or otherwise. --HappyCamper 18:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I like it! Marshallsumter 21:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I support revisiting/reviewing in a year. I am also willing to support the deletion proposal as a guideline instead of a policy. -- dark lama  22:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the guideline suggestion as well. Marshallsumter 02:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Me too. Let's do that then, elevate to guideline, and revisit in a year. I'll close this in a few days if nobody beats me to it. --HappyCamper 06:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)