Forum:CT:Valid reasons to put something back in the trash

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Valid reasons to put something back in the trash

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. Result was no consensus. However, the recent Mofference decided that re-TCing an article is allowed, but conditions have not been decided upon. Graestan(Talk) 18:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


Another question arising from Forum:Disputed Trash compactor closing is, "When is it acceptable to nominate an article for the trash compactor when it's already survived one TC discussion?" Obviously, we don't want articles to be nominated and renominated endlessly. However, articles are sometimes kept after a TC discussion ends with "no consensus" — if someone has a new argument for deletion or merging, why shouldn't that be considered?

I'm not making a proposal yet, but I'm starting a CT thread up anyway. Hopefully, discussion will lead to a proposal soon. Note that this discussion should not be taken as invalidating any TC discussions which were started before this thread was closed. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, how are these for possible reasons? —Silly Dan (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible good reasons

  1. The previous discussion had several options, no obvious consensus had built around any one of them, but eliminating one or more of them would (in the nominating editor's opinion) result in consensus building around one of the other options.
  2. Since the last discussion ended with the article being kept, policies have changed in such a way that this article may no longer be acceptable.
  3. Since the last discussion ended with the article being kept, a new argument or piece of evidence has come up which wasn't brought up last time. (Maybe this is because the new nominator didn't have a chance to say anything last time.)
  4. Another article was recently deleted or merged, and the reasons for deleting it apply to this article.
  5. The previous discussion was some time ago, and the nominator wasn't aware of it at the time (and, for that matter, may be a relatively new user unaware that there was a previous TC thread, or that articles such as the one in question are allowed.)
  6. A discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard led to the conclusion that the previous TC thread was closed improperly (maybe there was a premature declaration of "no consensus", for example), and that a new thread should be started. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible bad reasons

  1. Consensus was clearly on the side of keeping the article, the TC thread lasted long enough that everyone interested (including me) was able to have their say, and I have nothing new to say about it, but I just didn't like the result of the last one for idiosyncratic personal reasons.
  2. As above, but I am using a new account in violation of Wookieepedia:Sockpuppetry in order to pretend to be someone who didn't get a chance to speak last time. (Also, the admins actually have evidence that I'm a sockpuppet, and they're not just accusing me of it because they wanted to keep the article in question for their own idiosyncratic personal reasons.)
  3. I'm aware policy allows this article, but I'm trying to change policy by requesting a bunch of deletions rather than starting a Consensus Track thread, bringing it up at the Mofference, etc. (Maybe I'm new, and need existing policies explained to me or something.)
  4. I have no hope of meeting the Wookieepedia:Consensus requirement of "a renewed discussion of the issue with participation equal to or greater than the original discussion" which overturns the previous result.
  5. I have personal issues with the admin who closed the previous thread. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • Maybe we should have this split up into "Good," "Bad," and "Ugly" reasons - Good reasons being ones that a TC would be restarted and kept open, Bad ones being reasons that will get a re-opened TC closed but without punitive action (e.g. your Good Reason #5), and "Ugly" being things that will get you in trouble with the admins. Then again, Good Reason #5 is the ONLY thing I can think of that would fit in this revised Bad category, so perhaps there's a better way of handling it. jSarek 14:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I like all of the reasons, aside from Good Reason #5. It doesn't sound like a very good argument, either that or I'm reading it wrong. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 01:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'm not sure about that no. 5, but otherwise they sound good. -- Ozzel 06:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
      • The only thing which could make "good" reason #5 valid is the nebulous "some time ago" qualifier...but it would have to end without changing anything if none of the first four reasons also came into play and the requirements of Wookieepedia:Consensus weren't met. I also don't want any TC discussion to be final and absolute: we should reserve the collective right to change our minds, shouldn't we? —Silly Dan (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, it seems that reasons 2 and 3 cover that scenario fairly well. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 16:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)