Recently an edit was added to the Deletion process page that stated, "Users who have previously voted in a discussion should not relist it, and users who have relisted a debate should not subsequently vote in it." (diff). This addition was based upon the fifteen-hour discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 68 § Question on an AfD procedure..., which was in part about one AfD discussion. I reverted this change because it is rather abrupt and could have significant chilling effects upon users that contribute to AfD, particularly regular contributors who work to keep the backlog down. At this point, requesting community input regarding this matter via RfC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – As worded, this limits users to too great of an extent. For example, if an editor relists a discussion as a part of routine AfD log maintenance, they should not be forbidden from later participation in a discussion. Additionally, if a user participates in an AfD discussion by !vote and the discussion has received little or no other input, or if new compelling arguments or sources are presented that were previously nonexistent in the discussion, etc., that user should not be limited from relisting in efforts for a clearer consensus to be obtained. In instances of AfD discussions with little or no input that require relisting, this type of addition to the guideline would also force users to consider whether or not they want to contribute to the discussion on the spot, adding unnecessary complexity to the process and creating an unnecessary barrier to keeping AfD running smoothly. Also, relisting is not the same thing as closing a discussion, and should not be considered as such. With AfD receiving less and less input nowadays, it seems too abrupt to further limit participation in this manner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Order matters Relisting after having made a comment on the substance of a discussion is problematic, a relisting essentially says more discussion is needed for a close, and thus a close immediately after, does sort of contradict the relist, even if not prohibited. Thus you should not relist a discussion you have !voted in. However I see nothing wrong with relisting, and then becoming WP:Involved in the substantive discussion, so long as a relisting was justified at the time you did so. So lets say there are three delete !votes, and no keeps; you should not relist because in its current state it should probably be closed delete, but you may vote !keep, and that may be enough for someone else to relist it. If instead its nom pluss 1 delete !vote and one keep, it would qualify for relisting, and after you relist it, there is no problem with voting either way. Monty₈₄₅ 15:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I used to !vote and relist on the same AFDs but was told I wasn't supposed too, My logic was If you've !voted in an AFD, Come next week your going through the entire log to relist and see the AFD needs relisting despite you voting - The easiest thing to do is relist instead of leaving AFDs here & there & to a certain extent being a pain, I continued to moan here but wiped it as was all off-topic so we'll leave it there, –Davey2010^Talk 16:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• My thought on this is that it follows from the same principle as WP:INVOLVED, and I'm not sure that the practicality is worth being seen as being involved. What comes to mind regards Monty's "order matters":
  • For "!vote, then relist", the bad actor scenario here is that someone objects to the apparent consensus in a discussion (at whatever date; don't forget that some things are relisted more than once) and then decides that the consensus is not in his favor, and so prevents an uninvolved person (admin or no) from making the decision to relist by relisting it himself. This is clearly something that we should want to prevent from occurring.
  • For "Relist, then !vote", I think this is just a point of semantics to distinguish between the two. Whether the !vote appears above or below the relist, you still look INVOLVED to have relisted it yourself. Though perhaps I'm taking the case of "these actions are occurring near in time to each other".
• I don't know whether I oppose the wording or agree with it, however, so this is just some idle thoughts. --Izno (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Circumstantial - the addition (and honestly, WP:INVOLVED as well) pretty much assumes bad faith (or the assumption of bad faith, or...you know) - the situation is almost never that black and white. I think that there should be a warning that relisting and opining on a discussion, in whatever order, could be seen as improper, but that it should not be forbidden except for egregious offenders. Also remember that a relisted discussion can be closed at any time, not only 7 days after the relisting. ansh666 21:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: Relisting != closing. Relisting can not really be tainted by a !vote. Yes, editors should exercise some caution when relisting AfDs they have !voted in; however they can be closed at any time and by any administrator or non-admin in the case of clear cases (disagreements can be discussed), not necessarily in seven days. This would be instruction creep at best. Esquivalience ^t 22:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - First of all, it wasn't a "recent change" - the edit was made by me six weeks ago, based on the statement that BOLD would cover it. Here's the link to the AfD that spawned the discussion and led to the edit: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adarsh_Liberal. The originator of this discussion (Northamerica1000) was the perpetrator of the issues that led to the edit, so this discussion is either disingenuous on his part, or he's hoisted himself on his own petard. TL:DR is: that AfD was 0-3 (inc. nom) after the initial 7 days. It was relisted (by NA1000) instead of closed. The votes then went to 0-5, but the article was relisted again by NA1000, who then voted keep not three minutes later. That is nothing but biased administration. Now he wants to have the policy edit overturned so he can continue to decide unilaterally what should be kept in this community project. Moreover, the edit was not to prevent "!voting", it was to prevent any voting in an AfD by those performing procedures, and vice versa, because INVOLVED wasn't strong enough on this matter. Anyone who relists a discussion should not be participating in it, because the votes matter to the discussion. In point of fact, my change was to address exactly what happened here, because as far as I am concerned, that AfD was going to be relisted until NA1000 got his keep/no consensus. MSJapan (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I admit that regarding the above-linked discussion, it would have been better for me to have provided my !vote and to not have relisted it, leaving the decision to relist for another user. You're misinterpreting my intent here, though, which was innocent and to simply allow time for the new sources to be considered. It's not necessarily uncommon for discussions to be relisted when new sources are presented. For example, see this discussion, whereby an admin deleted an article and then reverted their close because new sources were posted around the same time it was being closed. Also, your vote count above is incorrect (diff): for starters, the first relist occurred after one delete !vote occurred, which along with the nomination, totaled two. Perhaps you misread the comment following the nomination as a delete !vote? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

And that first comment was basically a keep opinion, though based on potentially faulty reasoning, making the first relist very reasonable. ansh666 03:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Too much logical fallacy here. What happened on another AfD is not germane to this discussion. Finding sources is not what happened here. Debating minutiae only derails the discussion. Off by one vote or not, I saw no issue with the first relist at any time (and stated such). A clear consensus was reached after the first relist, as there were no keep votes. The AfD was relisted instead of closed, with the relister voting contrary to the consensus after the relist. That is a problem, because it appears biased even if it's a mistake. To summarize the situational issues as to why I made the change:

1. Vote and relist/close - if clear consensus is there, there is no need to vote. If there isn't, the person is either creating consensus and closing or voting against the trend and relisting, in either case appearing to manipulate the AfD in support of their position.

2. Relist and vote - If a consensus has been reached, relisting is unnecessary, as is any additional voting. If consensus has not been reached, relisting and voting either way appears biased, as above, and more so when the relister's vote is against the trend.

That is the underlying issue behind the change to the policy page here, as INVOLVED doesn't cover this. I see no problem with adjusting either policy, but the opportunity for issues is too great if there is a requirement to remain neutral - if you look at the discussion on AfD, Black Kite closed several AfDs that fit the pattern I pointed out. It wasn't just one instance. This is one of those cases where if there appears to be a problem, there is. People fixing backlog should be doing admin tasks, not voting on AfDs, because AFAIK, no votes either way still can be closed as delete because there were no objections. We've got lots of precedents for AfD, but what happened in the Adarsh Liberal AfD shouldn't be one of them. MSJapan (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment – I feel that what has occurred in other AfD discussions is relevant toward this discussion, in part because changes to deletion policy should be based upon consensus, with consideration being allowed in this discussion toward precedents at AfD that exist, rather than based upon a bold edit to the Deletion process page per one AfD discussion. As I have stated, there is precedent for the relisting of discussions in which new information or sources have been presented, or ongoing discussion/commentary has occurred that was previously not present before a first relisting. As such, people that have participated in such discussions should not be automatically prohibited from relisting by default. Some examples of relisted discussions that were leaning toward or had a consensus that were relisted per new content presented in them are listed below.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Cury (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic minority politicians in the United Kingdom
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sayan Bhattacharya
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stem cell educator (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Blissett
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest European law firms (excluding UK) (2012)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Motherfuckers
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Charter
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chowdhury Hasan Sarwardy
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flexible contracts
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earn to Die 2

I understand the notion of a person who has participated in a discussion that is leaning toward a particular outcome who has !voted against that outcome not relisting it, but I still feel it's too drastic to outlaw any relisting in discussions that an editor has participated in, particularly those that 1) do not have a clear consensus, and would likely be relisted anyway by another user, 2) when new sources/information etc. have been presented that has a reasonable likelihood to significantly counter previous arguments. I also think that a user who has previously relisted a discussion should not be forbidden from later participation, which is unnecessarily prohibitive, with chilling effects. As stated above, the change to the page, which stated (diff):

is too far-reaching and prohibitive, forces users to consider whether or not they want to participate prior to relisting, and does not take into account various circumstances that may occur. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Not sure what problem this solves. Someone relisting a discussion going the "wrong" way and then voting in the hopes that it will stay open long enough to attract votes to their position? That may be a problem but I don't know if it rises to the level of needing a policy to proscribe it. Protonk (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons given by Northamerica1000 and Protonk, though some clarification of 'inappropriate' re-listings might be useful.Pincrete (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: Another reason why relisting then !voting may be beneficial is because many assess notability by looking at the references alone, without searching for sources. Often, I come across AfDs with a consensus to delete, yet when I look for sources, they are blindingly obvious, I could just merely vote on the 7-day-old AfD and hope that the closer doesn't do a raw vote count, but it would make sense to relist then vote, as new sources are available, and it requires more discussion. Esquivalience ^t 02:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment – Also, as a related concept, at WP:DRVPURPOSE #3, it states that deletion review may be used "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". This is similar to the notion of relisting when new sources become available in an AfD discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment – Another AfD relisted per new sources presented in the discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invoicera. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
• I don't think the commenters should relist, but the other way around seems relatively harmless. What we actually need is for people to stop hitting the relist button because it's "close" and they want to give it another whirl around rather than close no-consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think it's good practice not to relist discussions you've participated in, but I don't think it needs to be codified as such. The counterpart, about not commenting in a discussion you've relisted, is seriously problematic in the way it discourages participation in the discussion and/or AfD upkeep. I see a questionable relisting once in a while, but I can't think of any example in which it seemed like the person relisting was doing so in pursuit of a particular outcome. The language that already exists implies this, but I might be able to support some brief language along the lines of "If consensus emerges from the discussion, the debate should not be relisted in pursuit of a different outcome." That at least would address the problem, insofar as a problem exists, directly. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Because this was recently disputed at ANI, a RfC is needed to clarify the meaning of "seven days" in AfD closures, and to an extent, relists.

The question is: should "seven days" mean the seventh day or 168 hours? If "seven days" is the seventh day after, this means that the AfD has to be opened seven calendar days before closure (e.g. an AfD opened Jan 15 (GMT) can be closed on Jan 22 (GMT, any hour)). If "seven days" is 168 hours, this means that the AfD has to be opened exactly 168 hours before closure. Esquivalience ^t 21:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Seven days means 168 hours. Do not disenfranchise once-per-week editors. This does not mean that a discussion can't be closed early if the outcome is obvious. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Of course it means 168 hours. A day is 24 hours. If something needs to be available for comment for N days, then it can't be closed until (N times 24) hours have elapsed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• We aren't wikilawyering hard enough: it should be 604,800,000 milliseconds. Automatic block and desysop of the offender should be triggered based on the timestamp of the close, with a ban to follow after 604,800,000 MB of drama board discussion. ... Sarcasm aside, I agree that it should be 168 hours as the norm. (If it's overwhelming and WP:SNOW obvious, then whenever.) But really, what I think this needs more than an RFC is a good dose of AGF, IAR, and WTF. --RL0919 (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• It should definitely be 168 hours minimum (24×7), otherwise with timezone variations we might get less than 6 days of voting, depending on when people think days are. eg someone in Hawaii opens it at their 1st at 23:55 and then someone in New Zealand closes it at their 00:05 on 7th, it will be open for under 6 days total. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• I was leaning towards on the 7th day but Graeme's comment really convinced me of the problems with that, so I say 168 hours on principle, but I don't think an hour here or there in practice is something we should quibble over. Wugapodes (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• (as starter of RfC) I am more inclined to go with the 8th day, or after seven calendar days have passed (even though I personally prefer 7th). It should resolve all bureaucracy caused by 1-3 hour differences, and also give equitable time for Wikipedians to vote (although this is not much of a problem). Esquivalience ^t 01:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• One day is 24 hours; two days is 48 hours; ... seven days is 168 hours. There is no need to complicate issues by defining 7 days in some other way. A deletion discussion is very important to those participating, and it should not be closed before 168 hours has elapsed, unless WP:SNOW clearly applies, or some other WP:IAR factor clearly applies. People closing deletion discussions must be prevented from closing them early—if the result is obvious, why not leave it until 7 days has elapsed? For one thing, that would save all this wasted time discussing the obvious. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• What's with the hurry? Just wait till they're on WP:AFDO - i.e. 8th calender after listing. -- KTC (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Seven days might be 167 or 169 hours due to Daylight saving time. 96.41.0.15 (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Seven days is seven full days. In 2009, we discussed increasing the time for discussion from five to seven full days - Proposal to change the length of deletion discussions to 7 days - with the outcome: "All AFDs will now run a full 7 days. Early closures will be discouraged unless a valid reason can be given from Speedy keep or Criteria for speedy deletion." We should adhere to that. In general, there is no need to close discussions early other than for speedy keep or speedy delete or, rarely, a snowball close. In general, there is no harm in discussions lasting a full seven days or even longer but there is a need to allow everybody to have an opportunity to make an argument in the discussion. As KTC says, "Just wait till they're on WP:AFDO". --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Personally, I think that if an AfD has obviously had no participation for the last few days of the full 168 hours, there's not really an issue to closing it a couple hours early...but in principle, yes, 168 hours was the intention. ansh666 05:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with seven full days (168 hours) but with a reservation: If you click on the "closing" link at the AfD page, it takes you to the seventh day after nomination - which means that due to time zones and UTC, those nominations have not been open for seven full days. They have been open for six days and a fraction. So it is very easy for someone in good faith to close a discussion which has only been open for 150 hours, or 160 hours; after all, it is on the page that Wikipedia called "closing". Is this something we need to do something about, or is it not a problem? --MelanieN (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

  I think the word "closing" there is used in the sense that the discussions are about to be closed due to it being the last day for discussion (unless relisted etc.), rather than that it is actively being closed. -- KTC (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• The elephant in the room is the constant re-listing after seven days with no-one being brave enough to make a decision. It's clear that it should be keep, delete or no-consensus (default to keep) instead of seeing AfDs relisted two, three or more times. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Part of the problem (indicated here and at the ANI discussion) was that the AFD closing link gave you pages too soon. I have now changed the responible template[1] so that normally no page can appear there too soon. If the consensus of this RfC would be that instead of the 168 hours / 7 full days, we go with 7th day, then of course the template can be changed back. Perhaps the template also needs to be changed for other XfDs, I only did AfD. Fram (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• I endorse Fram's change which seems very sensible. 7 full days is what I've always supposed is intended. Andrew D. (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• As a regular closer, I've always understood the rule as clearly requiring 7 full days. Relists should be limited to two as a maximum.  Sandstein  11:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Just as 7 days for a PROD means 168 hours (just look at the template produced and you will see that it lists a time after which the PROD has expired), so should 7 days for an XfD mean 168 hours. An XfD opened at 15:37 on 24 January can be closed (or relisted) at any time after 15:37 on 31 January, but the usual rules regarding early closures remain valid (e.g. WP:SNOW). — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• I have updated WP:DELPRO to say 168 hours per the consensus. Esquivalience ^t 12:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• 168 hours, obviously, but closing a few minutes early by mistake on a non-controversial discussion isn't a huge problem. Common sense is required. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC).
• 168 hours, but once the snow has formed, closing on day 6 isn't grounds for DRV, even if it isn't clearly marked as Speedy or Snowy - common sense trumps. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• 168 hours, with the standard allowances for early closes. If we just went by calendar days, then AfD nominations created early in the day would be active much longer than AfDs posted later in the day. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• 168 hours. As a side note, I take a very dim view of controversial non-administrative closures. If an editor wants to engage in controversial closes, they ought to go through an RfA. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• 168 hours. As a worldwide project, figuring out exactly what 7 days means other than 7 24 hour periods would be problematical at best - 7 days for whom? The only thing that makes sense is 7 24 hours periods based on UST times. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• 168 hours. Due to time zone issues, a bright-line rule seems appropriate in this case. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 21:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• 168 hours, per KTC. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• How about we close this discussion? The originator has removed the RfC template and edited the project page in line with the apparent consensus, but the discussion still continues and it is still advertised in the centralised discussion box, even though further comments are very unlikely to change the consensus now: Noyster (talk), 00:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
• 7 full days. 168 hours. It's a minimum, not a target. Unless criteria for early closure are met an AfD should run for a minimum of 7 full days. --Michig (talk) 09:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
• 7 days = 168 hours. Closing early on all but the most uncontroversial discussions is disruptive. Looking for sources to save a supposedly "non-notable" article is a very time intensive process; as such, editors need to have a firm deadline for when the article's deletion is imminent (barring relists) and get a clear idea of how much time they have left to search for sources. Altamel (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)