This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I have written an article Mahatma Gandhi Central University protest which was accepted for article for creation on 27 December 2019 but some users copied text from sources which were (Times of India, The Telegraph The wire and The Quint ) newspapers of India and pasted them to the article which violated the copy right policy of Wikipedia and the page was deleted. I didn't even get enough time to fix the problem. It took almost 3 months to summarize the independent reliable sources to write this article. As Wikipedia plays a vital role in letting world know about the important things across the globe. Hope you'd love to help me in inclusion of one of the India's topic to the Wikipedia so that whole world may know about it. Now, I want to remove all the copied text from the article and will write my own words in place of copied text so that it may not be deleted again for violating the Wikipedia's policy. This article may be the helpful to the researchers and students who are curious to explore India. Therefore, you are requested to undo the deletion and restoration the page. From now, I'll try my level best not to violate Wikipedia's policies. So, Could you please restore the page once ? Waiting for your kind reply. Thanking you--Rohitmishra111 (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rohitmishra111: You need to ask the deleting admin, 331dot first, and if that doesn't work out, post to WP:DRV.-- Deepfriedokra 18:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rohitmishra111: I don't see where anyone but you added content to this page.-- Deepfriedokra 18:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I see you already asked 331dot. Next step is WP:DRV. I think 331dot's offer to mail you the txt so you can write in own words is the best choice.-- Deepfriedokra 18:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

We're getting minimal compliance with the rule that you should talk to the closing admin before opening a DRV. So, I'm thinking we should ask that DRVClerk be modified to create a page notice for each new daily page it generates. The notice would say something like, "Yo, dummy, have you talked to the closing admin yet?" Specific wording might need to be tweaked, but you get the idea. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Page notices still weren't shown to mobile users, last I checked, and are subject to banner blindness. We also say to do that in the html comment on the DRV subpages themselves, right next to the tricky template code that just about everyone seems to get right (despite, by and large, omitting the rest of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Discussions#Steps to list a new deletion review), so repeating it there isn't going to do anything. And besides, consulting the deleting admin doesn't actually do anything for non-speedy deletions: an admin reversing his afd close after more than a day or so is going to cause more overall disruption than a DRV would - just look at the mess at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1022#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Mongillo (2nd nomination). —Cryptic 20:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

On further reflection, the text in the comment is "Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving ((subst:DRVNote|page name)) on their talk page." And, in fairness, filers also do that in the majority of cases. Maybe the solution here is to change that line to something closer to the text in WP:DELREVD. —Cryptic 05:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:DELREVD includes: "Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer". I think that new DRV nominators routinely skim read WP:DELREVD.

Repeatedly, recently, the failure of nominators to discuss with the closer, has been mentioned. Often, the context is that the nominator would have benefited from doing so.

The same issue was well addressed at WP:Move review by including in the header template the "Discussion with closer" link. I think this has been very helpful, working by providing review nominators with examples in previous cases. In practice, the "Discussion with closer" link has to be manually added, and if the nominator leaves it as a redlink then it is an appropriately pointy reminder of something not done. This doesn't make it mandatory, but does encourage it.

I suggest adding this "Discussion with closer" link to the template ((DRV links)). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, we say to do that in the html comment on the DRV subpages themselves, right next to the tricky template code that just about everyone seems to get right (despite, by and large, omitting the rest of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Discussions#Steps to list a new deletion review), so repeating it there isn't going to do anything. And besides, consulting the deleting admin doesn't actually do anything for non-speedy deletions: an admin reversing his afd close after more than a day or so is going to cause more overall disruption than a DRV would - just look at the mess at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1022#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Mongillo (2nd nomination). —Cryptic 00:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Providing the explicit link in the MRV headers has worked, where fussing with instruction statements, and lambasting current nominators, did not.

The need to fuss with the tricky template code tends to draw one's mind away from the non-technically-mandatory instructions, so that should be no surprise.

Consulting the deleting admin for XfD discussions is generally desirable, because the usual problem is of misunderstanding on the part of the unhappy user. The benefit of talking to the deleting admin is not the likelihood that the deleting admin will promptly reverse the close, but is of the value of a conversation between two people with different perspectives. The benefit in terms of outcome from recent cases can include: (a) inappropriate DRV nominations don't get launched (eg recreation, whether bold or by AfC); (b) Where the complaint goes to the the closing statement word choice, the closer can fix it without the week+ DRV discussion; (c) Where the unhappy user has a few facts and word definitions explained, it makes for a more coherent DRV nomination statement; (d) it decreases the chance that the AfD closer discovers only by chance that it is already days into a discussion critiquing their close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Not a big fan of this. I do realise that some closers feel entitled to contact before their close is challenged in a public venue, but, they aren't and they shouldn't be. Some of our discussions on Wikipedia have serious real-world implications. There has to be an easy-to-access route of appeal to a genuinely independent review of these decisions, and this doesn't and can't mean an obscure appeal to a page in an anonymous/pseudonymous closer's userspace. Transparency really matters. If a close needs explaining, then we're perfectly capable of explaining it.

  Experienced Wikipedians can and should talk to the closer first, of course. I'm talking about how we look to outsiders.—S Marshall T/C 14:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I see your point, but there's multiple advantages to talking first, and many of them are to the user. Sometimes when a user contacts me about a close, I'll take a look at my close, decide it's marginal, and back it out. That user gets their problem resolved in a few minutes, rather than a week. Maybe what we need is a process where Wikipedia:XFDcloser drops a template on the author's talk page that explains what happened and offers two easy to use buttons: "Discuss this with the admin", and "Ask for a formal review". We could have text that urges people to use the first one, but doesn't require it. A nice side-effect of this is if the DRV creation process was also automated, users wouldn't have to struggle with our inscrutable multi-step nomination process, and we'd have fewer mis-formatted header templates to have to manually fix up. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
    • That's a splendid idea.—S Marshall T/C 17:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
      • My only concern with that is to make sure new users don't think it's an either/or. Otherwise I easily support that. SportingFlyer T·C 20:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
    • My concern here is that it makes it even more inconvenient to fully close afds without using specialized tools. ((Old XfD multi)) used to be purely optional; now it's a hoop anyone who closes an afd as anything but delete is expected to jump through. Perhaps tolerable if implemented as a bot. Better if it were in ((afd top)) and ((afd bottom)), which is what I suspect drives a good chunk of the traffic here - I do see plenty of deletion challenges made on the talk pages of deleted articles, the vast majority of which are almost certainly G8'd unread. —Cryptic 05:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• There's an efficiency benefit to having people talk to closers first. If they can work it out and the closer agrees to modify or reverse their close, or the complaining editor agrees it was a valid close, then it spares the rest of the community the time of a DRV. On the other hand, there's the "intimidation" factor of making a closer a gatekeeper to a review of their own close. So I think encouraged but not required is the right approach, and seems to be (dare I say) the approach that has consensus. I'd be in favor of doing something to make the "encouraged but not required" message clearer to would-be filers. But if we agree that it should be encouraged but not required, that means we all have to stop coming down on filers for failing to notify closers first – and that means closers not complaining about it, either. Finally, I think the #1 thing we could do to make DRV more accessible to editors is to make it technically easier to file a DRV – ideally it would be as easy as AfDing is with Twinkle. However, this is a "careful what you wish for" thing: if we make it "one-click easy" to file a DRV, we may be enabling editors to impulsively challenge any close that didn't go their way. I think a well-calibrated appeal system strikes a balance between accessibility and flood prevention. Levivich 04:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The idea that a closer should modify or reverse their close, except perhaps in the very limited and rare case of reverting themself and relisting very shortly after closing, is abhorrent. The closer's talk page is not AFD round 2 any more than DRV is, and afd participants shouldn't need to watchlist the closers' talk pages to be able to respond to procedural challenges. I'd expect any such shenanigans to themselves be the subject of a (messier-than-average) DRV or ANI thread. —Cryptic 05:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• Back to the "Discussion with closer" link. I think newcomers look at the recent DRV discussions, and take theirs cues from the examples provided in them. The "Discussion with closer" link of the previous DRVs provides an example of how others have started a discussion with the closer, which helps the newcomer. Also, again, at WP:MR, it has worked. Disgruntled users post close are going first to the closer's talk page, and matters are resolving there. And it is working the other way too, closer's are responding better, probably because of they don't respond responsibly, there will likely be a formal review process linking directly to the thread on their talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• I think there's a probably false assumption that most people unhappy with a close don't try to discuss with the closing admin first. I suspect most do, and it's easily resolved because there's some obvious miss. Conversely, it's quite rare I see anything here where the closing admin says "Oops, I really messed that up, I'll fix it." I don't have numbers, so it's just an impression, of course, but it seems like people largely are following the advice - considering discussing it with the closing admin when it's likely to be helpful, not bothering when they're correct it's unlikely to be, and the very occasional misjudgement, as is bound to occur in any case. WilyD 05:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There are plenty of examples in the DRV recent archives where a DRV nominator could have had it resolved by talking to the XfD closer. There are some cases in recent months where the closer did agree with the DRV nominator, but everyone feels obliged to let the process play out. No one is suggesting making talking to the closer mandatory. If there were to be the "Discussion with closer" link, it is allowed to be a redlink. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that putting an LTA in a hatnote on a high-profile page like DRV gives too much attention to the LTA? Levivich 04:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. —Cryptic 04:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes.—S Marshall T/C 09:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes.–SportingFlyer T·C 10:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich, Cryptic, S Marshall, and SportingFlyer: I put it in there because it was possible for people looking for that particular thing to search WP:DRV. And we needed a shortened abbreviation than WP:LTA/DRV, just like with WP:RON. ミラP 17:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Use WP:DARV.—S Marshall T/C 18:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: Done. ミラP 18:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Can somebody please explain to me what this conversation is about? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: somebody put up a hatnote on this page linking to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dog and rapper vandal, in the belief that people looking for it might type in WP:DRV. Nobody else thought this was a good idea. Hut 8.5 18:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Got it. Yeah, I agree, not a good idea. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)