Participate. This is like shovelling through sewage, but the only way to get the attitude changed is to get in there. Got a spare half an hour today?
- d.
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 9:03 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Participate. This is like shovelling through sewage, but the only way to get the attitude changed is to get in there. Got a spare half an hour today?
I guess that really is the only way, sadly enough, ha. All our mailing list agreement won't mean much to the people that work it every day and don't read this. :) I'll do some work this week I promise. Maybe this can be the start of a big change in Notability! :D
On 09/03/2008, Judson Dunn cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 9:03 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Participate. This is like shovelling through sewage, but the only way to get the attitude changed is to get in there. Got a spare half an hour today?
I guess that really is the only way, sadly enough, ha. All our mailing list agreement won't mean much to the people that work it every day and don't read this. :) I'll do some work this week I promise. Maybe this can be the start of a big change in Notability! :D
And remember: it appears most AFD nominators are quite unable to tell disagreement from a personal attack. See my talk page. So always include "Not to at all question the nominator's sincerity or good faith, but ..." when someone's done something so stupid you can hardly believe it.
- d.
If everyone of the 10,000 or so active editors commented on one afd a week on a topic they were not personally involved in (in addition of course to whatever hey were) we'd have about 10 neutral comments on each proposal, which would give a much clearer view of true consensus.
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 2:34 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/03/2008, Judson Dunn cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 9:03 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Participate. This is like shovelling through sewage, but the only way to get the attitude changed is to get in there. Got a spare half an hour today?
I guess that really is the only way, sadly enough, ha. All our mailing list agreement won't mean much to the people that work it every day and don't read this. :) I'll do some work this week I promise. Maybe this can be the start of a big change in Notability! :D
And remember: it appears most AFD nominators are quite unable to tell disagreement from a personal attack. See my talk page. So always include "Not to at all question the nominator's sincerity or good faith, but ..." when someone's done something so stupid you can hardly believe it.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Generally, well referenced articles don't get deleted at AfD. So, it isn't like we're losing our best content here. The WQA on David is a bit ridiculous, though, and the criticism from an admin that "you've been an editor since 2004, you should know better!" doesn't seem calculated to actually do any good. Etiquette police... When was the last MfD for WP:WQA?
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 1:52 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
If everyone of the 10,000 or so active editors commented on one afd a week on a topic they were not personally involved in (in addition of course to whatever hey were) we'd have about 10 neutral comments on each proposal, which would give a much clearer view of true consensus.
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 2:34 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/03/2008, Judson Dunn cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 9:03 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
wrote:
Participate. This is like shovelling through sewage, but the only
way
to get the attitude changed is to get in there. Got a spare half
an
hour today?
I guess that really is the only way, sadly enough, ha. All our
mailing
list agreement won't mean much to the people that work it every day and don't read this. :) I'll do some work this week I promise.
Maybe
this can be the start of a big change in Notability! :D
And remember: it appears most AFD nominators are quite unable to tell disagreement from a personal attack. See my talk page. So always include "Not to at all question the nominator's sincerity or good faith, but ..." when someone's done something so stupid you can hardly believe it.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 09/03/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Generally, well referenced articles don't get deleted at AfD. So, it isn't like we're losing our best content here. The WQA on David is a bit ridiculous, though, and the criticism from an admin that "you've been an editor since 2004, you should know better!" doesn't seem calculated to actually do any good. Etiquette police... When was the last MfD for WP:WQA?
Notice also the complete refusal to address the question "so how would you phrase severely defective judgement on the part of a nominator?" Said severely defective judgement being much of the problem with AFD.
This is going to take interested parties diving in. This means you.
- d.
On 09/03/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/03/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Generally, well referenced articles don't get deleted at AfD. So, it isn't like we're losing our best content here. The WQA on David is a bit ridiculous, though, and the criticism from an admin that "you've been an editor since 2004, you should know better!" doesn't seem calculated to actually do any good. Etiquette police... When was the last MfD for WP:WQA?
Notice also the complete refusal to address the question "so how would you phrase severely defective judgement on the part of a nominator?" Said severely defective judgement being much of the problem with AFD.
This is going to take interested parties diving in. This means you.
Usually "I disagree with the nominator for reasons X Y Z".
On 09/03/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/03/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Notice also the complete refusal to address the question "so how would you phrase severely defective judgement on the part of a nominator?" Said severely defective judgement being much of the problem with AFD. This is going to take interested parties diving in. This means you.
Usually "I disagree with the nominator for reasons X Y Z".
This fails to address the case where the jawdropping lack of good judgement is the actual problem with the nominations, and that poisons AFD in general. Pretending the actual problem isn't a problem is not really an option any more.
- d.
This fails to address the case where the jawdropping lack of good judgement is the actual problem with the nominations, and that poisons AFD in general. Pretending the actual problem isn't a problem is not really an option any more.
Perhaps it would be best not to try and deal with that on individual AFDs. If someone routinely makes bad nominations, start a single discussion about it rather than complaining on every AFD - RFC would probably be a good place to start.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
This fails to address the case where the jawdropping lack of good judgement is the actual problem with the nominations, and that poisons AFD in general. Pretending the actual problem isn't a problem is not really an option any more.
Perhaps it would be best not to try and deal with that on individual AFDs. If someone routinely makes bad nominations, start a single discussion about it rather than complaining on every AFD - RFC would probably be a good place to start.
It's going to take a multi-level approach. The rot has been allowed to grow for a long time.
Ec
On 09/03/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This fails to address the case where the jawdropping lack of good judgement is the actual problem with the nominations, and that poisons AFD in general.
Not seeing a lack of good judgment. Just seeing people using a different set of auxiliary assumptions.
Pretending the actual problem isn't a problem is not really an option any more.
But it isn't really a problem. If you wish to have a certain set of axioms used in AFD debate you have to justify them.
On 09/03/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Not seeing a lack of good judgment.
Then, by all means, feel free to do nothing.
- d.
On 3/9/08, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
But it isn't really a problem. If you wish to have a certain set of axioms used in AFD debate you have to justify them.
Frequently used axioms tend to be added to the notorious [[Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions]] page, so that a well-read deletionist can rebut each principle by linking to its corresponding shortcut.
*'''Keep''', a comprehensive well-referenced article. ~~~~ **To closing admin: please disregard per [[WP:ITSGOTREFS]]. --Dipshit1 17:04 10 March 2008
—C.W.
David Gerard wrote:
On 09/03/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/03/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Notice also the complete refusal to address the question "so how would you phrase severely defective judgement on the part of a nominator?" Said severely defective judgement being much of the problem with AFD. This is going to take interested parties diving in. This means you.
Usually "I disagree with the nominator for reasons X Y Z".
This fails to address the case where the jawdropping lack of good judgement is the actual problem with the nominations, and that poisons AFD in general. Pretending the actual problem isn't a problem is not really an option any more.
There is a recurrent quality to the problem. How long has it been since we solved the world's problems by chnging VfD to AfD?
Ec
Of course, it's not just participation in AfD discussions that is required.
We will always need experienced Wikipedians of good judgement and commonsense willing to close and correctly summarise deletion discussions in the light of consensus and established policy.
David Gerard wrote:
On 09/03/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Generally, well referenced articles don't get deleted at AfD. So, it isn't like we're losing our best content here. The WQA on David is a bit ridiculous, though, and the criticism from an admin that "you've been an editor since 2004, you should know better!" doesn't seem calculated to actually do any good. Etiquette police... When was the last MfD for WP:WQA?
Notice also the complete refusal to address the question "so how would you phrase severely defective judgement on the part of a nominator?" Said severely defective judgement being much of the problem with AFD.
This is going to take interested parties diving in. This means you.
Yes. Sigh! It must have taken me an hour to go through a half-dozen of these nominations. I know fuck-all about Austrian rock bands or New Zealand soap operas.
Anyway, I added a small flame to the WQA nomination.
Ec
On 09/03/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Generally, well referenced articles don't get deleted at AfD. So, it isn't like we're losing our best content here. The WQA on David is a bit ridiculous, though, and the criticism from an admin that "you've been an editor since 2004, you should know better!" doesn't seem calculated to actually do any good. Etiquette police... When was the last MfD for WP:WQA?
Esperanza got removed for the same sort of behaviour.
- d.
On Sunday 09 March 2008 09:03, David Gerard wrote:
Participate. This is like shovelling through sewage, but the only way to get the attitude changed is to get in there. Got a spare half an hour today?
I suggested this on the list a couple of days ago.
But we need to concentrate our efforts on a few AfDs each day, rather than spreading ourselves out.
An organized effort is what is needed.
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Sunday 09 March 2008 09:03, David Gerard wrote:
Participate. This is like shovelling through sewage, but the only way to get the attitude changed is to get in there. Got a spare half an hour today?
I suggested this on the list a couple of days ago.
But we need to concentrate our efforts on a few AfDs each day, rather than spreading ourselves out.
An organized effort is what is needed.
Sure, The number of articles to be dealt with is overwhelming, and one vote on one article can be barely noticeable. It is also hard for some of us who believe in a fair-minded approach to look at a nominated article without giving some thought to what we are doing. Anything else, and we would be engaging in the same ignorant processes as the nominators?
Ec
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 10:03 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Participate. This is like shovelling through sewage, but the only way to get the attitude changed is to get in there. Got a spare half an hour today?
Maybe we should start discussing this on-wiki too? I'm not sure what the appropriate location would be. [[WT:AFD]] maybe. But getting wider community input would make it seem less like a "mailing list cabal attempting to subvert AfD."
On 10/03/2008, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe we should start discussing this on-wiki too? I'm not sure what the appropriate location would be. [[WT:AFD]] maybe. But getting wider community input would make it seem less like a "mailing list cabal attempting to subvert AfD."
The problem with AFD is that it's entirely too inbred, and overtly hostile to perceived outsiders. For it to claim to represent community opinion, it needs not to actively repel the community. This requires more people participating. This is why I ask people here to participate. Particularly if you don't agree with me.
- d.
OK, here's what I'm going to do.
Every day, I'm going to pick five totally BS AfDs and weigh in on them. I'm going to list them at [[User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight]], by day. If you want to try and concentrate efforts to end the deletion madness, you might want to focus on those five that I list there so we don't spread ourselves out.
You might also want to take a look at the recent [[Klondike Kalamity]] AfD and the DRV that I just posted...it's an excellent example of a horrible deletion by trigger-happy demolition men.
Why not just post them here, Kurt?
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
OK, here's what I'm going to do.
Every day, I'm going to pick five totally BS AfDs and weigh in on them. I'm going to list them at [[User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight]], by day. If you want to try and concentrate efforts to end the deletion madness, you might want to focus on those five that I list there so we don't spread ourselves out.
You might also want to take a look at the recent [[Klondike Kalamity]] AfD and the DRV that I just posted...it's an excellent example of a horrible deletion by trigger-happy demolition men.
-- Kurt Weber kmw@armory.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Monday 10 March 2008 16:08, Nathan wrote:
Why not just post them here, Kurt?
I plan on doing it on a daily basis, and I really don't want to clutter up the mailing list with it. Unless everyone else doesn't mind...
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 9:59 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
You might also want to take a look at the recent [[Klondike Kalamity]] AfD and the DRV that I just posted...it's an excellent example of a horrible deletion by trigger-happy demolition men.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Klondike_Kalami...
Used to be
Klondike Kalamity is an old-fashioned comedy melodrama written by Gary Peterson and David Byrne. It was published in 1978 by The Dramatic Publishing Co. of Woodstock, Illinois. The stageplay concerns the misadventures of a crusty but benign free-lance lumberjack, his loving but spinster daughter, a stalwart but clueless Mountie, and a deliciously hateful villain. The action takes place during the Great Yukon Blizzard of 1888, and consists of three acts.
The play continues to receive productions as of 2008, having been produced in 2008 at the Brookville Community Theatre in Brookville, Ohio[1] and the Mansfield Playhouse in Mansfield, Ohio.[2]
Heartrending deletion, this.
Michel
On Monday 10 March 2008 16:11, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
Heartrending deletion, this.
Yes, especially when you consider the horribly suspect way in which the AfD was carried out.
What was suspect (above and beyond what's wrong with AFD in general)?
-Matt
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Monday 10 March 2008 16:11, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
Heartrending deletion, this.
Yes, especially when you consider the horribly suspect way in which the AfD was carried out.
-- Kurt Weber kmw@armory.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Kurt and David, you have been reported to AN/I for disruption and canvassing!
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
What was suspect (above and beyond what's wrong with AFD in general)?
-Matt
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Monday 10 March 2008 16:11, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
Heartrending deletion, this.
Yes, especially when you consider the horribly suspect way in which the
AfD
was carried out.
-- Kurt Weber kmw@armory.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
...and promptly told that this was entirely proper by at least two people including me.
-george
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Kurt and David, you have been reported to AN/I for disruption and canvassing!
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
What was suspect (above and beyond what's wrong with AFD in general)?
-Matt
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Monday 10 March 2008 16:11, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
Heartrending deletion, this.
Yes, especially when you consider the horribly suspect way in which
the
AfD
was carried out.
-- Kurt Weber kmw@armory.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
And the other was me, but you know that won't be the end of it ;-)
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 6:47 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
...and promptly told that this was entirely proper by at least two people including me.
-george
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Kurt and David, you have been reported to AN/I for disruption and canvassing!
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
What was suspect (above and beyond what's wrong with AFD in general)?
-Matt
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Monday 10 March 2008 16:11, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
Heartrending deletion, this.
Yes, especially when you consider the horribly suspect way in which
the
AfD
was carried out.
-- Kurt Weber kmw@armory.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/03/2008, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Kurt and David, you have been reported to AN/I for disruption and canvassing!
...and promptly told that this was entirely proper by at least two people including me.
Indeed. If the reaction of AFD regulars to the prospect of the community they work in the name of actually *showing up* is to "report" people to ANI ...
- d.
On 10/03/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/03/2008, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Kurt and David, you have been reported to AN/I for disruption and canvassing!
...and promptly told that this was entirely proper by at least two people including me.
Indeed. If the reaction of AFD regulars to the prospect of the community they work in the name of actually *showing up* is to "report" people to ANI ...
This list is not the community. AFD regulars seem to have no problem with random members of the community dropping if for random AFD debates. What they tend to object to is coordinated campaigns which going by past experience is not an unreasonable worry.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:56 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/03/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/03/2008, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Kurt and David, you have been reported to AN/I for disruption and canvassing!
...and promptly told that this was entirely proper by at least two
people
including me.
Indeed. If the reaction of AFD regulars to the prospect of the community they work in the name of actually *showing up* is to "report" people to ANI ...
This list is not the community. AFD regulars seem to have no problem with random members of the community dropping if for random AFD debates. What they tend to object to is coordinated campaigns which going by past experience is not an unreasonable worry.
A point I made on-wiki...
If we were intervening on a specific AFD poll only, this would be canvassing and improper.
We're not doing that. We're concerned about the process, and intervening in a general manner.
This is entirely proper operation of the community. The analogy with canvassing is false.
I am not entirely sure. You focus on a few articles, to maximise the effect of a small group can have on a project. It does sound a little pointy.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 6:59 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:56 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/03/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/03/2008, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Kurt and David, you have been reported to AN/I for disruption and canvassing!
...and promptly told that this was entirely proper by at least two
people
including me.
Indeed. If the reaction of AFD regulars to the prospect of the community they work in the name of actually *showing up* is to "report" people to ANI ...
This list is not the community. AFD regulars seem to have no problem with random members of the community dropping if for random AFD debates. What they tend to object to is coordinated campaigns which going by past experience is not an unreasonable worry.
A point I made on-wiki...
If we were intervening on a specific AFD poll only, this would be canvassing and improper.
We're not doing that. We're concerned about the process, and intervening in a general manner.
This is entirely proper operation of the community. The analogy with canvassing is false.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Where's this focus you speak of?
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Martijn Hoekstra < martijnhoekstra@gmail.com> wrote:
I am not entirely sure. You focus on a few articles, to maximise the effect of a small group can have on a project. It does sound a little pointy.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 6:59 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:56 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/03/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/03/2008, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com
wrote:
Kurt and David, you have been reported to AN/I for disruption
and
canvassing!
...and promptly told that this was entirely proper by at least
two
people
including me.
Indeed. If the reaction of AFD regulars to the prospect of the community they work in the name of actually *showing up* is to "report" people to ANI ...
This list is not the community. AFD regulars seem to have no problem with random members of the community dropping if for random AFD debates. What they tend to object to is coordinated campaigns which going by past experience is not an unreasonable worry.
A point I made on-wiki...
If we were intervening on a specific AFD poll only, this would be
canvassing
and improper.
We're not doing that. We're concerned about the process, and
intervening in
a general manner.
This is entirely proper operation of the community. The analogy with canvassing is false.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I was referring to this:
"If you want to try and concentrate efforts to end the deletion madness, you might want to focus on those five that I list there so we don't spread ourselves out."
That does seem a bit pointy, and possibly disruptive in my opinion
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Alex G g1ggyman@gmail.com wrote:
Where's this focus you speak of?
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Martijn Hoekstra < martijnhoekstra@gmail.com> wrote:
I am not entirely sure. You focus on a few articles, to maximise the effect of a small group can have on a project. It does sound a little pointy.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 6:59 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:56 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/03/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/03/2008, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com
wrote:
> Kurt and David, you have been reported to AN/I for disruption
and
> canvassing!
...and promptly told that this was entirely proper by at least
two
people
including me.
Indeed. If the reaction of AFD regulars to the prospect of the community they work in the name of actually *showing up* is to "report" people to ANI ...
This list is not the community. AFD regulars seem to have no problem with random members of the community dropping if for random AFD debates. What they tend to object to is coordinated campaigns which going by past experience is not an unreasonable worry.
A point I made on-wiki...
If we were intervening on a specific AFD poll only, this would be
canvassing
and improper.
We're not doing that. We're concerned about the process, and
intervening in
a general manner.
This is entirely proper operation of the community. The analogy with canvassing is false.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/03/2008, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
I was referring to this:
"If you want to try and concentrate efforts to end the deletion madness, you might want to focus on those five that I list there so we don't spread ourselves out."
That does seem a bit pointy, and possibly disruptive in my opinion
Oddly enough, I have been pushing for general participation in AFD, and consider focusing on a few articles not likely to be useful.
- d.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 7:29 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/03/2008, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
I was referring to this:
"If you want to try and concentrate efforts to end the deletion madness, you might want to focus on those five that I list there so we don't spread ourselves out."
That does seem a bit pointy, and possibly disruptive in my opinion
Oddly enough, I have been pushing for general participation in AFD, and consider focusing on a few articles not likely to be useful.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Which I believe is fine by the way. It is just that a coordinated effort to change the outcome of a handful AfD's is disruping the process of AfD, and even worse, it seems to be exactly the goal of Kurts initiative, not a byproduct of it.
I haven't followed this discussion in full, so sorry if I'm wrong here. I believe that statement was made by Kurt, whilst it was David who started off this discussion here.
That said, I agree that in *some* of those cases, deletion isn't warranted. In any case, I don't think we should blame the list in whole for what one member has done.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Martijn Hoekstra < martijnhoekstra@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 7:29 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/03/2008, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
I was referring to this:
"If you want to try and concentrate efforts to end the deletion madness, you might want to focus on those five that I list there so we don't spread
ourselves
out."
That does seem a bit pointy, and possibly disruptive in my opinion
Oddly enough, I have been pushing for general participation in AFD, and consider focusing on a few articles not likely to be useful.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Which I believe is fine by the way. It is just that a coordinated effort to change the outcome of a handful AfD's is disruping the process of AfD, and even worse, it seems to be exactly the goal of Kurts initiative, not a byproduct of it.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Monday 10 March 2008 19:34, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
Which I believe is fine by the way. It is just that a coordinated effort to change the outcome of a handful AfD's is disruping the process of AfD, and even worse, it seems to be exactly the goal of Kurts initiative, not a byproduct of it.
No, the goal is to make AfD work the way it should, NOT to disrupt it.
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Monday 10 March 2008 19:34, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
Which I believe is fine by the way. It is just that a coordinated effort to change the outcome of a handful AfD's is disruping the process of AfD, and even worse, it seems to be exactly the goal of Kurts initiative, not a byproduct of it.
No, the goal is to make AfD work the way it should, NOT to disrupt it.
The way is should, *or* they way you believe it should?
./scream
On 3/10/08, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
It is just that a coordinated effort to change the outcome of a handful AfD's is disruping the process of AfD...
Can you think of a process more sorely in need of coordinated disruption?
—C.W.
The coordinated attempts seem to be going in both directions. If one group of people can join to delete articles without all of them necessarily even reading them, others can do similarly to keep them. At present the process is set to favor the deletors. Perhaps some of the people objecting to efforts to support articles want to continue it that way. The keepers are not disrupting the process, they are trying for equal treatment.
The first step in reform would be to not merely permit but require fair notice to all groups and individuals interested in an article--notice before the discussion even begins, to minimize the effect of immediate pile-on deletes. The second would be to make repeated attempts at deletion symmetrical with repeated attempts to re-insert: to require prior permission from a separate process for a second AfD after a keep.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/10/08, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
It is just that a coordinated effort to change the outcome of a handful AfD's is disruping the process of AfD...
Can you think of a process more sorely in need of coordinated disruption?
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:13 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The coordinated attempts seem to be going in both directions. If one group of people can join to delete articles without all of them necessarily even reading them, others can do similarly to keep them. At present the process is set to favor the deletors. Perhaps some of the people objecting to efforts to support articles want to continue it that way. The keepers are not disrupting the process, they are trying for equal treatment.
The first step in reform would be to not merely permit but require fair notice to all groups and individuals interested in an article--notice before the discussion even begins, to minimize the effect of immediate pile-on deletes. The second would be to make repeated attempts at deletion symmetrical with repeated attempts to re-insert: to require prior permission from a separate process for a second AfD after a keep.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/10/08, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
It is just that a coordinated effort to change the outcome of a handful AfD's is disruping the process of AfD...
Can you think of a process more sorely in need of coordinated disruption?
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If one group of people gangs together to delete articles, then they have to stop. If another group gangs together to put up keep votes, then they have to stop aswel.
On 3/11/08, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The second would be to make repeated attempts at deletion symmetrical with repeated attempts to re-insert: to require prior permission from a separate process for a second AfD after a keep.
Or at least a general agreement that the second AFD can be speedy-closed if there have been no substantial changes since the first AFD (or if any discernibly negative changes have been reverted/undone, especially if they are the primary reason for the second AFD).
Or maybe if we start viewing repeated nominations (especially by the same user) as prima facie evidence of deletion hunger...
—C.W.
On 11/03/2008, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The coordinated attempts seem to be going in both directions. If one group of people can join to delete articles without all of them necessarily even reading them, others can do similarly to keep them. At present the process is set to favor the deletors.
You need a 2/3rds majority at least to delete. Clearly you are using a definition of favor unknown to the rest of the English speaking world.
Perhaps some of the people objecting to efforts to support articles want to continue it that way. The keepers are not disrupting the process, they are trying for equal treatment.
The schoolwatch mob had had equal treatment we would have far fewer school articles.
The first step in reform would be to not merely permit but require fair notice to all groups and individuals interested in an article--notice before the discussion even begins, to minimize the effect of immediate pile-on deletes.
You are free to inform whatever interested parties exist. It is unreasonable to expect volunteers to do so.
The second would be to make repeated attempts at deletion symmetrical with repeated attempts to re-insert: to require prior permission from a separate process for a second AfD after a keep.
No. You are free to go to vfu until people get fed up with you. Same as afd.
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, geni wrote:
At present the process is set to favor the deletors.
You need a 2/3rds majority at least to delete. Clearly you are using a definition of favor unknown to the rest of the English speaking world.
You do not need a 2/3 majority. It's not a vote, remember?
RfAs? :D
Seriously though I have seen more coordinated efforts of disruption with off-wiki communication. Some people delete articles without wasting time with AfD. Redirect it away! This actually is a pressing problem
Ranting aside, I think AfD needs a better system that checks for sockpuppetary. Unlike the claim, afds can be a vote. RfCu deals with more obvious cases of sockpuppetary. A cross reference should be run for afds regularly.
There also is an AfD cabal. Well, they are more of an angry mob than a cabal I suppose.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/10/08, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
It is just that a coordinated effort to change the outcome of a handful AfD's is disruping the process of AfD...
Can you think of a process more sorely in need of coordinated disruption?
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
I was referring to this:
"If you want to try and concentrate efforts to end the deletion madness, you might want to focus on those five that I list there so we don't spread ourselves out."
That does seem a bit pointy, and possibly disruptive in my opinion
It is indeed a bit "pointy". I think that that is necessary. The deletion proposers have already been pointy for several years. Campaigns by a group with similar goals and perceptions can be very efficient if they deal with material in one subject at a time. Of a sudden large numbers of articles are proposed for deletion in one subject area, and an ultimatum is issued to deal with them all in five days. This easily overwhelms the knowledgeable editors in that area who cannot deal with massive attacks on what may have taken years to build up. That's pretty pointy too. Later that same technique can be used in another subject area with a completely different group of knowledgeable editors. It's a divide and conquer strategy.
The campaign to do something about AFD seeks to balance the pointyness.
Ec
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
I am not entirely sure. You focus on a few articles, to maximise the effect of a small group can have on a project. It does sound a little pointy.
Just to clarify - I don't think that focusing only on those few articles per day is necessarily enough of a fix, that was Kurt's initial approach to starting to work on the percieved problems.
Yes, it was not to change the results on these in particular, it was a way of drawing attention to the list in general. People should simply go, find something interesting, read the actual article being discussed--which is not all universal among those participating in afd discussions--and give their views based on what they think the applicable policy. all of us regulars there with whatever views--and very few of us really are uniformly on one side or another-- would be helped by some fresh participation. Speaking for myself, it can get rather monotonous, and those of us attending regularly have most of us other things we would rather be doing at least part of our time at WP.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 9:28 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
I am not entirely sure. You focus on a few articles, to maximise the effect of a small group can have on a project. It does sound a little pointy.
Just to clarify - I don't think that focusing only on those few articles per day is necessarily enough of a fix, that was Kurt's initial approach to starting to work on the percieved problems.
--
-george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
geni wrote:
Indeed. If the reaction of AFD regulars to the prospect of the community they work in the name of actually *showing up* is to "report" people to ANI ...
This list is not the community. AFD regulars seem to have no problem with random members of the community dropping if for random AFD debates. What they tend to object to is coordinated campaigns which going by past experience is not an unreasonable worry.
A cogent observation. It's a.k.a divide and conquer.
Ec
*groan* And they tell us the system works.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:52 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/03/2008, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Kurt and David, you have been reported to AN/I for disruption and canvassing!
...and promptly told that this was entirely proper by at least two
people
including me.
Indeed. If the reaction of AFD regulars to the prospect of the community they work in the name of actually *showing up* is to "report" people to ANI ...
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I liked having AFD summaries, which Dragons_flight produced with a bot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight/AFD_summary/New http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AFDSUM
These haven't been updated since August. I haven't been around AFD much, to know if something has replaced that. Since I don't have time to look at all AFDs, it was helpful for me to pick out some that were controversial, where my say might make a difference one way or the other. Also, it found AFDs that had few votes, ones with huge number of votes, etc.
If someone would resume producing these AFD summaries, than that would be very helpful.
-Aude
David Gerard wrote:
On 10/03/2008, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Kurt and David, you have been reported to AN/I for disruption and canvassing!
...and promptly told that this was entirely proper by at least two people including me.
Indeed. If the reaction of AFD regulars to the prospect of the community they work in the name of actually *showing up* is to "report" people to ANI ...
I remember when the Encyclopædia Britannica was wanting to sue Science Magazine for daring to suggest that Wikipedia might be as good. Ensconced hierarchies seem predisposed to such actions.
Ec
On 11/03/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Indeed. If the reaction of AFD regulars to the prospect of the community they work in the name of actually *showing up* is to "report" people to ANI ...
I remember when the Encyclopædia Britannica was wanting to sue Science Magazine for daring to suggest that Wikipedia might be as good. Ensconced hierarchies seem predisposed to such actions.
And it's not even malicious - see [[WP:PRO]] - virtual committees tend to form and look askance at outsiders by their nature.
- d.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
You might also want to take a look at the recent [[Klondike Kalamity]] AfD and the DRV that I just posted...it's an excellent example of a horrible deletion by trigger-happy demolition men.
A cursory glance suggests that this deletion was in very poor judgment. I'm tempted to go rogue(/rouge) and just undelete it. If I didn't know I'd get thrown against the wall.
Chris Howie wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
You might also want to take a look at the recent [[Klondike Kalamity]] AfD and the DRV that I just posted...it's an excellent example of a horrible deletion by trigger-happy demolition men.
A cursory glance suggests that this deletion was in very poor judgment. I'm tempted to go rogue(/rouge) and just undelete it. If I didn't know I'd get thrown against the wall.
A while back I was going through some old AfDs looking for "merge and delete" GFDL violations, and when I found them I simply redirected and undeleted them without asking anyone or going through any sort of "process". Not one was ever challenged, that I know of, or likely even noticed. Now granted changing a redlink into a redirect is not something likely to draw attention, but I think for really egregious examples of poorly done AfDs a "bold-revert-discuss" approach could work just fine. If anyone complains it can then be taken to DRV or wherever else these things are supposed to be discussed.
Tensions and objections may be further eased if we focus our efforts on reviewing AfDs that are over a year old, or some other such arbitrary threshold. We're more likely to get fresh faces reviewing our actions that way and even those people who did participate in them will have had lots of time for any heat to fade.
On 3/11/08, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
A while back I was going through some old AfDs looking for "merge and delete" GFDL violations, and when I found them I simply redirected and undeleted them without asking anyone or going through any sort of "process". Not one was ever challenged, that I know of, or likely even noticed. Now granted changing a redlink into a redirect is not something likely to draw attention, but I think for really egregious examples of poorly done AfDs a "bold-revert-discuss" approach could work just fine. If anyone complains it can then be taken to DRV or wherever else these things are supposed to be discussed.
Excellent idea. I'm glad somebody besides me cares about the relationship between AFD and the GFDL. Unfortunately this will probably be very difficult and searching for 'q="merge and delete" site:en.wikipedia.org' will be bloody useless due to the robots.txt exclusion of Google-Bot from AFD pages. As it is most of the results are from CFD where it has a completely different meaning.
Tensions and objections may be further eased if we focus our efforts on reviewing AfDs that are over a year old, or some other such arbitrary threshold. We're more likely to get fresh faces reviewing our actions that way and even those people who did participate in them will have had lots of time for any heat to fade.
Another excellent idea, but how would you know where to look? Even if you can view the deleted edits, how would you know which titles to look under? Tool-server access might be be a necessity. Get a list of red-link titles according to number of deleted edits (this could be extremely helpful for finding "merge and delete" incidents), or any other meaningful filter you can think of.
—C.W.
Charlotte Webb wrote:
Another excellent idea, but how would you know where to look? Even if you can view the deleted edits, how would you know which titles to look under? Tool-server access might be be a necessity. Get a list of red-link titles according to number of deleted edits (this could be extremely helpful for finding "merge and delete" incidents), or any other meaningful filter you can think of.
I used two approaches, neither of which were particularly efficient but both of which scored more hits than I'd like. One was simply skimming over old AfD daily archives looking for the magic words, or for plain "delete" results that had blue links. Had to go in and check them manually, but that wasn't hard. The other was to pick a random "respected" long-time editor and start skimming through his list of deleted edits looking for blue links. Manual checking is of course required there too, but usually there's no reason not to restore such edits.
It's a pity our deletion mechanism doesn't distinguish between stuff deleted for "hard" reasons like copyright violation and stuff deleted for "soft" reasons such as notability, it'd make it easier to give access to stuff like this that could still be of value. I recall there's been discussion in the past of creating a "deleted:" namespace for such things, anyone know if anything's likely to come of that?
On 3/11/08, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
It's a pity our deletion mechanism doesn't distinguish between stuff deleted for "hard" reasons like copyright violation and stuff deleted for "soft" reasons such as notability, it'd make it easier to give access to stuff like this that could still be of value. I recall there's been discussion in the past of creating a "deleted:" namespace for such things, anyone know if anything's likely to come of that?
It was a suggestion I made once in a thread about "soft deletions"
To expand on the idea, "soft deleted" articles could go to a "deleted" namespace which would be made uncrawlable by search engines. The only way to get to a soft deleted article would be to know its name, follow a link from an xfd discussion or specify the "deleted" namespace in an internal search. The "deleted" namespace would also be good for articles temporarily restored for DRV discussions.
On 10/03/2008, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
Every day, I'm going to pick five totally BS AfDs and weigh in on them. I'm going to list them at [[User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight]], by day. If you want to try and concentrate efforts to end the deletion madness, you might want to focus on those five that I list there so we don't spread ourselves out.
I prefer going through the whole list, but whatever increases effective and not just self-selecting participation.
- d.
Every day, I'm going to pick five totally BS AfDs and weigh in on them. I'm going to list them at [[User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight]], by day. If you want to try and concentrate efforts to end the deletion madness, you might want to focus on those five that I list there so we don't spread ourselves out.
I just took a look at that list myself. All the items in it look like they deserve deletion from all except a *very* extreme inclusionist viewpoint.
I can see a point for Klondike Kalamity, though. The play predates the Internet and Googling for it is going to produce limited results.
On Monday 10 March 2008 17:36, Ken Arromdee wrote:
I just took a look at that list myself. All the items in it look like they deserve deletion from all except a *very* extreme inclusionist viewpoint.
How so?
I can see a point for Klondike Kalamity, though. The play predates the Internet and Googling for it is going to produce limited results.
Although I believe the substance warrants inclusion, my objection to that particular deletion was more procedural than substantial.
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
I can see a point for Klondike Kalamity, though. The play predates the Internet and Googling for it is going to produce limited results.
Although I believe the substance warrants inclusion, my objection to that particular deletion was more procedural than substantial.
How come?
On Monday 10 March 2008 20:12, Screamer wrote:
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
I can see a point for Klondike Kalamity, though. The play predates the Internet and Googling for it is going to produce limited results.
Although I believe the substance warrants inclusion, my objection to that particular deletion was more procedural than substantial.
How come?
Just read the DRV rationale...
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
I just took a look at that list myself. All the items in it look like they deserve deletion from all except a *very* extreme inclusionist viewpoint.
How so?
Because nobody's heard of them. I agree that notability as it is is nonsense, but any view except the very extreme inclusionist is at least going to allow for deletion of articles about individual works that nobody's heard of (except the person creating the article and his friends).
I also find your main argument silly:
"Like all so-called "policies" on Wikipedia, "Notability" is absolutely non-binding. We're expected to exercise our own judgment based on the given situation, not defer to a bunch of arbitrary and non-binding "rules" and "policies"."
First of all, notability is a guideline, not a policy. By ragging on policies, you're overextending the argument.
More importantly, we should follow policies and guidelines most of the time. If you're not following them, you need a good reason--and a good reason for that specific case. You haven't articulated any reason why you think these particular AFDs are ill-served by notability. All your reasons are generic ones merely stating that we shouldn't ever have to care about notability at all.
(Incidentally, I'll retract my earlier remark a bit. Jumpstart sounds like it could be legitimately okay too, since it's likely most Wikipedia editors wouldn't have heard of it merely because of geography. Moslanka, in Russia, may be another one. There seems to be a common theme here of something foreign being called non-notable because nobody in America has heard of it.)
On 11/03/2008, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
(Incidentally, I'll retract my earlier remark a bit. Jumpstart sounds like it could be legitimately okay too,
The topic probably could be, but the article isn't.
since it's likely most Wikipedia editors wouldn't have heard of it merely because of geography. Moslanka, in Russia, may be another one. There seems to be a common theme here of something foreign being called non-notable because nobody in America has heard of it.)
They just don't have any third party references. Period. Russian references would be fine too. As they stand these articles are completely pointless.
If they somehow magically pass AFD without deletion and without extra references, I can and *will* blank these articles without breaking *any* rules.
On 11/03/2008, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Ian Woollard wrote:
If they somehow magically pass AFD without deletion and without extra references, I can and *will* blank these articles without breaking *any* rules.
Only if WP:POINT isn't considered a rule.
Deleting unreferenced material isn't disrupting the wikipedia. They can always reinsert it again if they can be bothered to reference it. And I wouldn't be doing it to disrupt, nor to make a point, either.
Sure, that will work for knowledgeable people like you and me. But WP contributors do not all have the determination to persist over resistance or difficulty. This shouldn't be an obstacle course. We should be helping the newby and the clueless and the inept, the people who don't know they need to source, the people who don;t know how to source, and the people without the ability to source in a particular case. That is, if we want to actually join in helping build, not destroy, an encyclopedia.
There is only one really good response to an unreferenced article that is not obviously hopeless--and that is to help look for references for it. Everyone, not just the author, but the patroller, the nominator for deletion, the person !voting at Afd, the admin deleting a CSD or a prod, all individually share that responsibility.
At least for what I can do best, when I see someone asserted to be a notable author without any evidence, I look. Depending on what I find, I act to keep or delete. I follow the evidence: I've done 2 searches for things at AfD in the last 2 days, where people were !voting both ways without any basis but their intuition--in each case I looked properly, found nothing really adequate, laid out what I did find, and said delete or weak delete. Only when I find enough for a keep, do I say keep.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/03/2008, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Ian Woollard wrote:
If they somehow magically pass AFD without deletion and without extra references, I can and *will* blank these articles without breaking *any* rules.
Only if WP:POINT isn't considered a rule.
Deleting unreferenced material isn't disrupting the wikipedia. They can always reinsert it again if they can be bothered to reference it. And I wouldn't be doing it to disrupt, nor to make a point, either.
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly imperfect world things would be a lot better.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/03/2008, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
At least for what I can do best, when I see someone asserted to be a notable author without any evidence, I look. Depending on what I find, I act to keep or delete. I follow the evidence: I've done 2 searches for things at AfD in the last 2 days, where people were !voting both ways without any basis but their intuition--in each case I looked properly, found nothing really adequate, laid out what I did find, and said delete or weak delete. Only when I find enough for a keep, do I say keep.
I should point out, by the way, that although I consider AFD's culture severely problematic - the siege mentality and consequent newbie-biting having become so bad as to make international press - I fully understand how it got that way. Anyone who thinks they're an "inclusionist" - go do Special:Newpages patrol for a while. It's a firehose of sewage. Over 50% of new articles are shot on sight, and they fully deserve it. Most of what hits AFD deserves to die as quickly as possible too. Oh dear Lord it's awful. No wonder some editors seem to go on mad rampages with a machete through the article space.
- d.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 6:42 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/03/2008, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
At least for what I can do best, when I see someone asserted to be a notable author without any evidence, I look. Depending on what I find, I act to keep or delete. I follow the evidence: I've done 2 searches for things at AfD in the last 2 days, where people were !voting both ways without any basis but their intuition--in each case I looked properly, found nothing really adequate, laid out what I did find, and said delete or weak delete. Only when I find enough for a keep, do I say keep.
I should point out, by the way, that although I consider AFD's culture severely problematic - the siege mentality and consequent newbie-biting having become so bad as to make international press - I fully understand how it got that way. Anyone who thinks they're an "inclusionist" - go do Special:Newpages patrol for a while. It's a firehose of sewage. Over 50% of new articles are shot on sight, and they fully deserve it. Most of what hits AFD deserves to die as quickly as possible too. Oh dear Lord it's awful. No wonder some editors seem to go on mad rampages with a machete through the article space.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Don't get me started on newpages. It is truely horrible. Apart from the bot-like entries of new villages in somewhere, new astroids, or sports players from template, I do think 60 to 80 % should be deleted. And of that, 50% as crystal clear speedies. We need plenty more carefull, deliberate, newpage patrollers. The problem is, the pages that should be kept, about half of those look just as bad as the really horrible ones. And getting one page to a more or less decent standard, slightly refd, tagged, and ready to enter the motherload, takes me as much time as about 20 good, or about 8 speedy pages. And then, when you *do* mess up (and I do, every once in a while), the comment that I do more to break down wikipedia then to build it up is not exactly encouraging.
Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
Don't get me started on newpages. It is truely horrible. Apart from the bot-like entries of new villages in somewhere, new astroids, or sports players from template, I do think 60 to 80 % should be deleted. And of that, 50% as crystal clear speedies. We need plenty more carefull, deliberate, newpage patrollers. The problem is, the pages that should be kept, about half of those look just as bad as the really horrible ones. And getting one page to a more or less decent standard, slightly refd, tagged, and ready to enter the motherload, takes me as much time as about 20 good, or about 8 speedy pages. And then, when you *do* mess up (and I do, every once in a while), the comment that I do more to break down wikipedia then to build it up is not exactly encouraging.
It is because of the fact that noteworthy new articles often look just as bad as an one that is not noteworthy that newpage patrollers must make sure to put on article on AFD or up for speedy delete due to the article's topic and not the article's content at the time. The fact is that new articles are mostly in very bad shape and so people are quick to jump on them. However, some of these articles, despite their current state are actually noteworthy and should be kept and improved.
Ian Woollard wrote:
On 11/03/2008, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
(Incidentally, I'll retract my earlier remark a bit. Jumpstart sounds like it could be legitimately okay too,
The topic probably could be, but the article isn't.
How these things are handled is the important issue. The aggressive approach is not the way to deal with a newbie with a short edit history. Nuking him when he apparently used a sockpuppet (The Russian name translates as "Brilliant pearl".) was a hasty move. What would be better would be to explain very politely and very respectfully at least once that this sort of thing is just not done, as I have in an off-list message to him. Drastic measures should only be used if he becomes clearly defiant.
since it's likely most Wikipedia editors wouldn't have heard of it merely because of geography. Moslanka, in Russia, may be another one. There seems to be a common theme here of something foreign being called non-notable because nobody in America has heard of it.)
They just don't have any third party references. Period. Russian references would be fine too. As they stand these articles are completely pointless.
The absence of third-party references alone should not be sufficient for deleting an article. Reasonable doubt that the entire article is false needs to precede a move for deletion. Talking to the contributor in a constructive manner can be very helpful. In this case the editor is currently active; there is no need to dig deep into the article's history to find out who is responsible for what.
If they somehow magically pass AFD without deletion and without extra references, I can and *will* blank these articles without breaking *any* rules.
Threatening such actions is unwarranted. The article has problems, and I presume that the other article which was speedily deleted has similar problem. I agree that articles about recruiting should not go into the same details about available courses as the article on the institute in Moscow, but an article on Moslanka. By talking nicely the hoped for result will be that he is willing to remove the redundant material himself.
I have no problem with basic neutral information about a company coming from a single source. Basic information would include where they are, who the directors are, and their general areas of activity as well as other routine information. This would certainly be helpful to a person who is a potential recruit and who just wants to know who these guys are.
Other kinds of activities would require independent verification. One participant in the AfD suggested that some people had made complaints about the company; that would certainly need to be sourced before it goes into the article. Another valid question might be what other companies might be doing the same thing in other parts of the world, or what are the typical recruitment policies of the Russians. These would interest some readers, and with a little guidance this contributor's efforts could be redirected to more acceptable work.
Ec
Interesting. I generally remove information about directors, on the grounds that people serve on multiple boards and individual directors usually dont have a significant role in the company. I just leave the CEO and the Chairman of the Board. We don't really have standards for content.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I have no problem with basic neutral information about a company coming from a single source. Basic information would include where they are, who the directors are, and their general areas of activity as well as other routine information. This would certainly be helpful to a person who is a potential recruit and who just wants to know who these guys are.
Other kinds of activities would require independent verification. One participant in the AfD suggested that some people had made complaints about the company; that would certainly need to be sourced before it goes into the article. Another valid question might be what other companies might be doing the same thing in other parts of the world, or what are the typical recruitment policies of the Russians. These would interest some readers, and with a little guidance this contributor's efforts could be redirected to more acceptable work.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/03/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The aggressive approach is not the way to deal with a newbie with a short edit history. Nuking him when he apparently used a sockpuppet (The Russian name translates as "Brilliant pearl".) was a hasty move. What would be better would be to explain very politely and very respectfully at least once that this sort of thing is just not done, as I have in an off-list message to him. Drastic measures should only be used if he becomes clearly defiant.
Your description of the situation is wildly at variance with reality. The user involved was running two different identities in an AFD, has just had his main account suspension upheld after 4 entirely spurious unblock requests; and had been caught resurrecting a speedied unverifiable and self-interested article under a different name. He was also essentially harassing other users, including myself.
The absence of third-party references alone should not be sufficient for deleting an article.
Basically, you're saying anybody with a website can create a wikipedia article and expect to not get it deleted. That doesn't fly. It's inconsistent with NPOV VER NOR every core policy, none of them work without reliable sources.
Ec
-- -Ian Woollard We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly imperfect world things would be a lot better.
Ian Woollard wrote:
On 12/03/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The aggressive approach is not the way to deal with a newbie with a short edit history. Nuking him when he apparently used a sockpuppet (The Russian name translates as "Brilliant pearl".) was a hasty move. What would be better would be to explain very politely and very respectfully at least once that this sort of thing is just not done, as I have in an off-list message to him. Drastic measures should only be used if he becomes clearly defiant.
Your description of the situation is wildly at variance with reality. The user involved was running two different identities in an AFD, has just had his main account suspension upheld after 4 entirely spurious unblock requests; and had been caught resurrecting a speedied unverifiable and self-interested article under a different name. He was also essentially harassing other users, including myself.
It's this unduly punitive attitude that is the problem. I don't dispute that there was a suspicious second identity, but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when he says that the second person was acting as a "friend", and that this will likely result in the wikisuicide of the aghast friend. It's in the nature of face saving devices that we should accept them as literal truth if they will accomplish the desired effect.
Apart from a short series of edits on one article in January, the first edit appears on March 8. An unblock request can only be spurious if its intent is not to be unblocked, and, under the circumstances, calling that request spurious is utter nonsense. The blocking strategies employed in this incident have no remedial qualities, and are more characteristic of schoolyard bullies. Assuming that you are indeed User:WolfKeeper, I find that the comments by Pearlysun on your talk page cannot reasonably be viewed as harassment, and your claim that they are such has no credibility. Resurrecting a speedied article under a different name is no big deal under the circumstances. Whether they were "unverifiable" or "self-interested" is nothing more than one person's POV.
That said, the Moslanka article is not without problems, but problems cannot be solved in an atmosphere that has been supercharged with unnecessary blocks and threats of blocks. Any existing blocks should be lifted immediately.
The absence of third-party references alone should not be sufficient for deleting an article.
Basically, you're saying anybody with a website can create a wikipedia article and expect to not get it deleted.
That gross distortion does not characterize what I have said.
That doesn't fly. It's inconsistent with NPOV VER NOR every core policy, none of them work without reliable sources.
NPOV is not a factor in this discussion. Some elements of the article obviously lack neutrality, but these can be cleared up without deleting the whole article if they are addressed with that in mind.
There is a difference between "verifiable" and "verified". If there is a reasonable chance that the verification can be found by another person, it is verifiable.
It is too early to tell whether original research is a factor here. What new theories are being propounded? You may not view the sources as reliable, or you may view them as self-serving, but they exist, and the material in the article is at least consistent with those sources. Thus they are not original.
Ec
On Monday 10 March 2008 17:24, David Gerard wrote:
On 10/03/2008, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
Every day, I'm going to pick five totally BS AfDs and weigh in on them. I'm going to list them at [[User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight]], by day. If you want to try and concentrate efforts to end the deletion madness, you might want to focus on those five that I list there so we don't spread ourselves out.
I prefer going through the whole list, but whatever increases effective and not just self-selecting participation.
So many articles get listed on AfD that many people who work for a living or go to school (I fall in both categories) simply do not have the time to respond to them all.
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
OK, here's what I'm going to do.
Every day, I'm going to pick five totally BS AfDs and weigh in on them. I'm going to list them at [[User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight]], by day. If you want to try and concentrate efforts to end the deletion madness, you might want to focus on those five that I list there so we don't spread ourselves out.
You might also want to take a look at the recent [[Klondike Kalamity]] AfD and the DRV that I just posted...it's an excellent example of a horrible deletion by trigger-happy demolition men.
Thanks for the list. It's hard to go through the whole list of proposals without the risk of apoplexy. You are bringing an important focus to efforts.
Ec
More like preforming surgery in the sewers and not getting the patient infected by anything.
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 4:03 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Participate. This is like shovelling through sewage, but the only way to get the attitude changed is to get in there. Got a spare half an hour today?
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l