Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Relisting_can_be_abusive below:

Wikipedia:Relisting can be abusive - Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Essay on editing Wikipedia

Sometimes during deletion discussions, editors may see a discussion which clearly shows consensus against their personal opinion and may be tempted to "relist" in an attempt to gather more support for their preferred outcome.

Relisting a debate that has no opposition to the stated position brings no purpose. For example, if a WP:AFD discussion consists of a nomination and then another editor agrees with deletion but there is no opposition to keep, this should function the same as a WP:PROD and WP:SECOND that has been unopposed. Once the standard time frame has passed and no reasons to keep has been provided, the article can reasonably be assumed to have developed a WP:CONSENSUS to delete. Even without the WP:SECOND, there still may be reason to delete the article if there is no opposition or reason provided to keep the article.

Editors who choose to relist a deletion discussion should make sure that they are doing so when consensus is not clear. Relisting articles for further discussion when a clear consensus has already been found can be disruptive to the process. However, before adding a wikilink to this essay on an XfD, the editor should be sure that the reasoning given in support of the apparent consensus is sound and supported by Wikipedia guidelines. Otherwise, the reference to this essay could itself be disruptive.

• v
• t
• e

• Article content
• Articles must be written
• All Five Pillars are equally important
• Avoid vague introductions
• Be a reliable source
• Civil POV pushing
• Cohesion
• Competence is required
• Concede lost arguments
• Dissent is not disloyalty
• Don't lie
• Don't search for objections
• Duty to comply
• Editing Wikipedia is like visiting a foreign country
• Editors will sometimes be wrong
• Eight simple rules for editing our encyclopedia
• Explanationism
• External criticism of Wikipedia
• Here to build an encyclopedia
• Large language models
• Leave it to the experienced
• Levels of competence
• Levels of consensus
• Most ideas are bad
• Need
• Neutrality of sources
• Not broken is ugly
• Not editing because of Wikipedia restriction
• Not every article can be a Featured Article
• The one question
• Oversimplification
• Paradoxes
• Paraphrasing
• POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields
• Process is important
• Product, process, policy
• Purpose
• Reasonability rule
• Systemic bias
• There is no seniority
• Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia
• Tendentious editing
• The role of policies in collaborative anarchy
• The rules are principles
• Trifecta
• We are absolutely here to right great wrongs
• Wikipedia in brief
• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
• Wikipedia is a community
• Wikipedia is not RationalWiki

• 100K featured articles
• Abandoned stubs
• Acronym overkill
• Adding images improves the encyclopedia
• Advanced text formatting
• Akin's Laws of Article Writing
• Alternatives to the "Expand" template
• Amnesia test
• A navbox on every page
• An unfinished house is a real problem
• Article revisions
• Articles have a half-life
• Autosizing images
• Avoid mission statements
• Be neutral in form
• Beef up that first revision
• Blind men and an elephant
• BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
• Build content to endure
• Cherrypicking
• Chesterton's fence
• Children's lit, adult new readers, & large-print books
• Citation overkill
• Citation underkill
• Common-style fallacy
• Concept cloud
• Creating controversial content
• Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability
• Dictionaries as sources
• Don't cite Wikipedia on Wikipedia
• Don't demolish the house while it's still being built
• Don't get hung up on minor details
• Don't hope the house will build itself
• Don't panic
• Don't "teach the controversy"
• Editing on mobile devices
• Editors are not mindreaders
• Encourage the newcomers
• Endorsements (commercial)
• Featured articles may have problems
• Formatting bilateral relations articles
• Formatting bilateral relations templates
• Fruit of the poisonous tree
• Give an article a chance
• How to write a featured article
• Identifying and using independent sources
  • History sources
  • Law sources
  • Primary sources
  • Science sources
  • Style guides
  • Tertiary sources
• Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats
• Inaccuracy
• Introduction to structurism
• Mine a source
• Merge Test
• Minors and persons judged incompetent
• "Murder of" articles
• Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography
• Not everything needs a navbox
• Not everything needs a template
• Nothing is in stone
• Obtain peer review comments
• Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area
• Permastub
• Potential, not just current state
• Presentism
• Principle of Some Astonishment
• The problem with elegant variation
• Pro and con lists
• Printability
• Publicists
• Put a little effort into it
• Restoring part of a reverted edit
• Robotic editing
• Sham consensus
• Source your plot summaries
• Specialized-style fallacy
• Stublet
• Stub Makers
• Run an edit-a-thon
• Temporary versions of articles
• Tertiary-source fallacy
• There are no shortcuts to neutrality
• There is no deadline
• There is a deadline
• The deadline is now
• Try not to leave it a stub
• What is a reliable source
• Understanding Wikipedia's content standards
• Walled garden
• What an article should not include
• Wikipedia is a work in progress
• Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion
• The world will not end tomorrow
• Write the article first
• Writing better articles

• Avoid thread mode
• Copyediting reception sections
• Coup
• Don't throw more litter onto the pile
• Gender-neutral language
• Myth vs fiction
• Proseline
• Turning biology research into a Wikipedia article
• Use our own words
• We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions
• Write the article first
• Writing about women
• Writing better articles

• Adjectives in your recommendations
• AfD is not a war zone
• Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
• Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews
• Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions
• Arguments to make in deletion discussions
• Avoid repeated arguments
• Before commenting in a deletion discussion
• But there must be sources!
• Confusing arguments mean nothing
• Content removal
• Counting and sorting are not original research
• Delete or merge
• Delete the junk
• Deletion is not cleanup
• Does deletion help?
• Don't attack the nominator
• Don't confuse stub status with non-notability
• Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument
• Emptying categories out of proccess
• Follow the leader
• How the presumption of notability works
• How to save an article proposed for deletion
• I just don't like it
• Identifying blatant advertising
• Identifying test edits
• Immunity
• Keep it concise
• Liar liar pants on fire
• Nothing
• Nothing is clear
• Overzealous deletion
• Relisting can be abusive
• Relist bias
• The Heymann Standard
• Unopposed AFD discussion
• Wikipedia is not Whack-A-Mole
• Why was the page I created deleted?
• What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion
• When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork
• No Encyclopedic Use

• Accepting other users
• Apology
• Being right isn't enough
• Contributing to complicated discussions
• Divisiveness
• Don't retaliate
• Editors' pronouns
• Edit at your own pace
• Encouraging the newcomers
• Enjoy yourself
• Expect no thanks
• High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors
• How to be civil
• Maintaining a friendly space
• Negotiation
• Obsessive–compulsive disorder editors
• Please say please
• Relationships with academic editors
• Thank you
• Too long; didn't read
• Truce
• Unblock perspectives
• We are all Wikipedians here
• You have a right to remain silent

• A thank you never hurts
• A weak personal attack is still wrong
• Advice for hotheads
• An uncivil environment is a poor environment
• Be the glue
• Beware of the tigers!
• Civility warnings
• Deletion as revenge
• Duty to comply
• Failure
• Forgive and forget
• It's not the end of the world
• Nobody cares
• Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals
• Old-fashioned Wikipedian values
• Profanity, civility, and discussions
• Revert notification opt-out
• Shadowless Fists of Death!
• Staying cool when the editing gets hot
• The grey zone
• The last word
• There is no Divine Right of Editors
• Most ideas are bad
• Nothing is clear
• Reader
• The rules of polite discourse
• There is no common sense
• Two wrongs don't make a right
• Wikipedia clichés
• Wikipedia is not about winning
• Wikipedia should not be a monopoly
• Writing for the opponent

• Assume good faith
• Assume the assumption of good faith
• Assume no clue
• Avoid personal remarks
• Avoid the word "vandal"
• Be excellent to one another
• Be pragmatic
• Beyond civility
• Call a spade a spade
• Candor
• Deny recognition
• Desist
• Discussing cruft
• Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass
• Encourage full discussions
• Get over it
• How to lose
• Imagine others complexly
• Just drop it
• Keep it concise
• Keep it down to earth
• Mind your own business
• Say "MOBY"
• Mutual withdrawal
• Read before commenting
• Settle the process first
• You can search, too

• ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI
• Wikipedia:Because I can
• Civil POV pushing
• Cyberbullying
• Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack
• Don't be a fanatic
• Don't be a jerk
• Don't be an ostrich
• Don't be ashamed
• Don't be a WikiBigot
• Don't be high-maintenance
• Don't be inconsiderate
• Don't be obnoxious
• Don't be prejudiced
• Don't be rude
• Don't be the Fun Police
• Don't bludgeon the process
• Don't call a spade a spade
• Don't call people by their real name
• Don't call the kettle black
• Don't call things cruft
• Don't come down like a ton of bricks
• Don't cry COI
• Don't demand that editors solve the problems they identify
• Don't eat the troll's food
• Don't fight fire with fire
• Don't give a fuck
• Don't help too much
• Don't ignore community consensus
• Don't knit beside the guillotine
• Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your signature
• Don't remind others of past misdeeds
• Don't shout
• Don't spite your face
• Don't take the bait
• Don't template the regulars
• Don't throw your toys out of the pram
• Do not insult the vandals
• Griefing
• Hate is disruptive
• Nationalist editing
• No angry mastodons
  • just madmen
• No Nazis
• No racists
• No Confederates
• No queerphobia
• No, you can't have a pony
• Passive aggression
• POV railroad
• Superhatting
• There are no oracles
• There's no need to guess someone's preferred pronouns
• You can't squeeze blood from a turnip
• UPPERCASE

• WikiBullying
• WikiCrime
• WikiHarassment
• WikiHate
• WikiLawyering
• WikiLove
• WikiPeace

• Advanced source searching
• All high schools can be notable
• Alternative outlets
• Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
• Articles with a single source
• Avoid template creep
• Bare notability
• Big events make key participants notable
• Businesses with a single location
• But it's true!
• Common sourcing mistakes
• Clones
• Coatrack
• Discriminate vs indiscriminate information
• Don't cite GNG
• Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity
• Every snowflake is unique
• Existence ≠ Notability
• Existence does not prove notability
• Extracting the meaning of significant coverage
• Google searches and numbers
• How the presumption of notability works
• High Schools
• Historical/Policy/Notability/Arguments
• Inclusion is not an indicator of notability
• Independent sources
• Inherent notability
• Insignificant
• Masking the lack of notability
• Make stubs
• Minimum coverage
• News coverage does not decrease notability
• No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability
• No big loss
• No one cares about your garage band
• No one really cares
• Notability and tornadoes
• Notability cannot be purchased
• Notability comparison test
• Notability is not a level playing field
• Notability is not a matter of opinion
• Notability is not relevance or reliability
• Notability means impact
• Notability points
• Notability sub-pages
• Notabilitymandering
• Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article
• Obscurity ≠ Lack of notability
• Offline sources
• One sentence does not an article make
• Other stuff exists
• Overreliance upon Google
• Perennial websites
• Popularity ≠ Notability
• Read the source
• Reducing consensus to an algorithm
• Run-of-the-mill
• Solutions are mixtures and nothing else
• Significance is not a formula
• Sources must be out-of-universe
• Subjective importance
• Third-party sources
• Trivial mentions
• Video links
• Vanispamcruftisement
• What BLP1E is not
• What is and is not routine coverage
• What notability is not
• What to include
• Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia?
• Wikipedia is not Crunchbase
• Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause
• Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé
• Your favourite thing does not need a Wikipedia article
• Two prongs of merit

• Adminitis
• Ain't no rules says a dog can't play basketball
• Akin's Laws of Article Writing
• Alternatives to edit warring
• ANI flu
• Anti-Wikipedian
• Anti-Wikipedianism
• Articlecountitis
• Asshole John rule
• Assume bad faith
• Assume faith
• Assume good wraith
• Assume stupidity
• Assume that everyone's assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming good faith
• Avoid using the preview button
• Avoid using wikilinks
• Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense
• Barnstaritis
• Before they were notable
• BOLD, revert, revert, revert
• Boston Tea Party
• Butterfly effect
• CaPiTaLiZaTiOn MuCh?
• Complete bollocks
• Counting forks
• Counting juntas
• Crap
• Don't stuff beans up your nose
• Don't-give-a-fuckism
• Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"!
• Don't delete the main page
• Editcountitis
• Edits Per Day
• Editsummarisis
• Editing under the influence
• Embrace Stop Signs
• Emerson
• Fart
• Five Fs of Wikipedia
• Seven Ages of Editor, by Will E. Spear-Shake
• Go ahead, vandalize
• How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?
• How to get away with UPE
• How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle
• How to vandalize correctly
• How to win a citation war
• Ignore all essays
• Ignore every single rule
• Is that even an essay?
• Keep beating the horse
• Mess with the templates
• My local pond
• Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them
• Legal vandalism
• List of jokes about Wikipedia
• LTTAUTMAOK
• No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man
• No episcopal threats
• No one cares about your garage band
• No one really cares
• No, really
• Notability is not eternal
• Oops Defense
• Play the game
• Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you
• Please bite the newbies
• Please do not murder the newcomers
• Pledge of Tranquility
• R-e-s-p-e-c-t
• Requests for medication
• Requirements for adminship
• Rouge admin
• Rouge editor
• Sarcasm is really helpful
• Sausages for tasting
• Spaling Muich?
• Template madness
• The Night Before Wikimas
• The first rule of Wikipedia
• The Five Pillars of Untruth
• Things that should not be surprising
• The WikiBible
• Watchlistitis
• We are deletionist!
• What's a forint?
• Wikipedia is an MMORPG
• Yes legal threats
• You don't have to be mad to work here, but
• You should not write meaningless lists

• Essay guide
• Value of essays
• Difference between policies, guidelines and essays
• Don't cite essays as if they were policy
• Avoid writing redundant essays
• Finding an essay
• Quote your own essay

• About policies and guidelines
  • Policies
  • Guidelines
• How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance
• Policy writing is hard

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.4