On 4/8/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Israel_News_A...
Eventualy proved posible to delete through AFD despite claims to the contry.
The AFD in question... http://tinyurl.com/yrzj2h
But in order to make it possible, you had to make a special rule about having to have 150 edits to make a keep/delete comment, a rule that doesn't apply to any other AFD though a similar "made up" rule was used once used for GNAA.
If it is necessary to treat certain controversial sock prone AFDs this way then a policy needs to be adopted covering it, who can invoke "special rules", under what circumstances, and what qualifies an account to "vote" when the rule is invoked. This is so it doesn't look like the nominator is pulling rules out of his ass. If I am not mistaken, users have been warned in the past about making up their own policies.
As for how such a rule would be phrased, I don't like the use of "edit counts". In the case of the INA AFD, my vote would have been ruled out even though I am nobody's sock and have been around since 2005. A better idea would be to disallow "votes" from accounts less then 15 days old which should cover the length of an AFD plus a relisting. That is, if it must be done at all.
On 4/8/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
But in order to make it possible, you had to make a special rule about having to have 150 edits to make a keep/delete comment, a rule that doesn't apply to any other AFD though a similar "made up" rule was used once used for GNAA.
I think it has been used on other occasions but it isn't common no.
however the lesser form of ignoring !votes from new accounts is far more common and is pretty standard when we are worried about outside interference.
If it is necessary to treat certain controversial sock prone AFDs this way then a policy needs to be adopted covering it,
If you really want a policy justification then it was an enforcement of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AFD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD.2FWikietiquette
who can invoke "special rules",
Anyone who can do so without significant opposition. I had no ability to enforce the 150 edit number if I encounter significant opposition. I just judged correctly that I would not in this case.
under what circumstances, and what qualifies an account to "vote" when the rule is invoked. This is so it doesn't look like the nominator is pulling rules out of his ass.
Rules were set up as needed I was aware of a number of aged socks with non zero edit counts around but I was pretty sure the number was not as high as 150.
If I am not mistaken, users have been warned in the past about making up their own policies.
I wasn't making up policy. I was doing what I believe needed to be done in order to create a workable AFD.
As for how such a rule would be phrased, I don't like the use of "edit counts". In the case of the INA AFD, my vote would have been ruled out even though I am nobody's sock and have been around since 2005. A better idea would be to disallow "votes" from accounts less then 15 days old which should cover the length of an AFD plus a relisting. That is, if it must be done at all.
Wouldn't work in that case. These things are done case by case to deal with each individual situation so a universal rule would be a bad idea. Additionally the whole thing is not common enough to need a policy.
On 4/8/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/8/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
If I am not mistaken, users have been warned in the past about making up their own policies.
I wasn't making up policy. I was doing what I believe needed to be done in order to create a workable AFD.
Why does an AFD have to be "workable"? If there is consensus for something to be done, it should be pretty obvious.
Anthony
On 4/9/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 4/8/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/8/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
If I am not mistaken, users have been warned in the past about making up their own policies.
I wasn't making up policy. I was doing what I believe needed to be done in order to create a workable AFD.
Why does an AFD have to be "workable"? If there is consensus for something to be done, it should be pretty obvious.
Anthony
There are various ways to flood AFDs with socks that make things difficult.
On 4/8/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Why does an AFD have to be "workable"? If there is consensus for something to be done, it should be pretty obvious.
Sometimes a person(s) who really really wants an article kept or gone for reasons other then wikipedia policy will flood an AFD with sock/meat puppets and use them to sling bullshit all over the place. With all this noise it's almost impossible to reach a true consensus one way or the other. What geni did was set special ground rules for a particular AFD to keep them from doing that. All "votes" from accounts with less then 150 edits were moved to the talk page. He did this because he suspected that there were "sleeper socks" ready to wake up and invade this particular AFD.
On 4/8/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/8/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Why does an AFD have to be "workable"? If there is consensus for something to be done, it should be pretty obvious.
Sometimes a person(s) who really really wants an article kept or gone for reasons other then wikipedia policy will flood an AFD with sock/meat puppets and use them to sling bullshit all over the place. With all this noise it's almost impossible to reach a true consensus one way or the other. What geni did was set special ground rules for a particular AFD to keep them from doing that. All "votes" from accounts with less then 150 edits were moved to the talk page. He did this because he suspected that there were "sleeper socks" ready to wake up and invade this particular AFD.
Why do you put the word "votes" in quotation marks? Is it because you're not supposed to be counting votes in the first place?
On 4/8/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Why do you put the word "votes" in quotation marks? Is it because you're not supposed to be counting votes in the first place?
It's to make it clear that I understand the current line that AFD (which use to be known as "votes for deletion") is not a "vote" even though a lot of people still treat it as one.
On 4/8/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/8/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Why do you put the word "votes" in quotation marks? Is it because you're not supposed to be counting votes in the first place?
It's to make it clear that I understand the current line that AFD (which use to be known as "votes for deletion") is not a "vote" even though a lot of people still treat it as one.
Well, just to clarify the line was that it wasn't a vote even when it *was* called "votes for deletion".
Other than that clarification, I'm going to bow out of this discussion. It's giving me a headache just thinking about it :).
Anthony
On Apr 8, 2007, at 5:44 PM, Ron Ritzman wrote:
If it is necessary to treat certain controversial sock prone AFDs this way then a policy needs to be adopted covering it, who can invoke "special rules", under what circumstances, and what qualifies an account to "vote" when the rule is invoked. This is so it doesn't look like the nominator is pulling rules out of his ass. If I am not mistaken, users have been warned in the past about making up their own policies.
Dreadful idea. There's no way to close an AfD like this to everybody's satisfaction. I'd rather the thing that pisses people off be a well-reasoned human than an arbitrary set of rules.
-Phil
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 00:33:42 -0400, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
There's no way to close an AfD like this to everybody's satisfaction. I'd rather the thing that pisses people off be a well-reasoned human than an arbitrary set of rules.
Absolutely. It does not happen often enough to justify a special policy anyway.
Guy (JzG)
On 4/9/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Absolutely. It does not happen often enough to justify a special policy anyway.
OK, I can understand that. I was thinking of what a casual AFD reader would think of seeing the nominator setting what might seem to be an arbitrary edit count number to vote in that AFD. He might not understand that it might be the only way to get a "clean close".
Consider this, a few years ago, when some yahoo would call up the office angry about an article and threatening to sue or something, Jimbo would have to go to the article and take some kind of action. Though whatever action taken was necessary, it might look to the regular editors that the "God King" was dropping out of nowhere and having his way. Therefore to clearly explain such rare but drastic actions, we came up with WP:OFFICE.
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 17:44:53 -0400, "Ron Ritzman" ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
But in order to make it possible, you had to make a special rule about having to have 150 edits to make a keep/delete comment, a rule that doesn't apply to any other AFD though a similar "made up" rule was used once used for GNAA.
So it's our fault that Leyden used sockpuppets and offsite votestacking? I don't think so.
How many editors with genuine knowledge of Wikipedia policy and community mores will have fewer than 150 edits?
Guy (JzG)
On 4/9/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
So it's our fault that Leyden used sockpuppets and offsite votestacking? I don't think so.
I don't think I ever implied that.
How many editors with genuine knowledge of Wikipedia policy and community mores will have fewer than 150 edits?
Probably more then you think. I know of one user who edited anonymously for a few years and only registered an account to make AFD nominations. Because he appeared to pop out of nowhere, he was accused of being somebody's sock. This put a bad taste in his mouth and he picked up his ball and went home. Of course it would have been nice if he had a thicker skin and understood the reason for other's skepticism.
The point here is that some newbies aren't really newbies.