There is a serious problem with undeletion policy, rendering it incompatible with other Wikipedia policies.
Firstly undeletion requires a majority (50%). Wikipedia is not a democracy, we should do changes by consensus.
Secondly the undeletion policy is inconsistent with deletion policy. The main principle of deletion policy is "if in doubt, don't delete". It follows that a consensus should be required to keep a page deleted.
On 9/15/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
There is a serious problem with undeletion policy, rendering it incompatible with other Wikipedia policies.
Firstly undeletion requires a majority (50%). Wikipedia is not a democracy, we should do changes by consensus.
Secondly the undeletion policy is inconsistent with deletion policy. The main principle of deletion policy is "if in doubt, don't delete". It follows that a consensus should be required to keep a page deleted.
Hmm, I never knew it was that bad. It *definitely* has to change.
On 9/16/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Secondly the undeletion policy is inconsistent with deletion policy. The main principle of deletion policy is "if in doubt, don't delete". It follows that a consensus should be required to keep a page deleted.
yeah but to get as far as vfu its already been through that so if there has been a consenus one way it seems fair there should be a conensus to overturn it.
From: Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com
There is a serious problem with undeletion policy, rendering it incompatible with other Wikipedia policies.
Firstly undeletion requires a majority (50%). Wikipedia is not a democracy, we should do changes by consensus.
I'm not sure why people continue to try to make this false distinction. On Wikipedia, "consensus" means a majority of editors agreeing with one option, ranging from 66% to 80%, depending on the issue.
Secondly the undeletion policy is inconsistent with deletion policy. The main principle of deletion policy is "if in doubt, don't delete". It follows that a consensus should be required to keep a page deleted.
The second premise doesn't follow from the first. The fact that someone might want to have an article undeleted does not necessarily mean there is any doubt it should have been deleted. As well, when something is deleted that means there was a consensus it should have been deleted; VfU is not intended to be "AfD round two"; if it's just another AfD, then it should be consolidated into AfD and deleted.
Jay.
On 9/16/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
VfU is not intended to be "AfD round two";
Oh but it is. That is one of my key points: an argument improperly neglected (for instance, if conditions mentioned in the original nomination have been met--which is grounds for a keep result unless there is some overriding reason to delete, such as a copyright violation). Or say an editor finds that an article has been deleted while he was otherwise occupied, and he raises the necessary undelete quorum. Or perhaps the article was deleted by a consensus on AfD despite the well documented fact that the subject was the President of Mauritania for six months.
Some AFU participants seem to be deliberately neglecting this function. A validly closed AfD *can* be challenged on AFU. Those who seek to deny a VFU undelete on the sole grounds that the closed AfD was formally valid should be told that their opinions will be ignored as inconsistent with deletion policy.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 9/16/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
VfU is not intended to be "AfD round two";
Oh but it is. That is one of my key points: an argument improperly neglected (for instance, if conditions mentioned in the original nomination have been met--which is grounds for a keep result unless there is some overriding reason to delete, such as a copyright violation). Or say an editor finds that an article has been deleted while he was otherwise occupied, and he raises the necessary undelete quorum. Or perhaps the article was deleted by a consensus on AfD despite the well documented fact that the subject was the President of Mauritania for six months.
Some AFU participants seem to be deliberately neglecting this function. A validly closed AfD *can* be challenged on AFU. Those who seek to deny a VFU undelete on the sole grounds that the closed AfD was formally valid should be told that their opinions will be ignored as inconsistent with deletion policy.
Agreed. VfU is the appeals court of AfD.
On 9/16/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Oh but it is. That is one of my key points: an argument improperly neglected (for instance, if conditions mentioned in the original nomination have been met--which is grounds for a keep result unless there is some overriding reason to delete, such as a copyright violation). Or say an editor finds that an article has been deleted while he was otherwise occupied, and he raises the necessary undelete quorum. Or perhaps the article was deleted by a consensus on AfD despite the well documented fact that the subject was the President of Mauritania for six months.
I don't think there is anything in policy to stop you relisting a deleted article on AFD. could be interesting to try.
On 9/16/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think there is anything in policy to stop you relisting a deleted article on AFD. could be interesting to try.
I think it would be disruptive to restore a deleted article after an AfD and insist on a rerun of the vote. I've suggested something called deletion challenge, which would be a one-off rerun that could be performed with or without temporary undeletion (the latter to be performed if any admin thinks it is merited). It did not find any favor, however. While I would favor this because it would place the challenge in exactly the same forum inwhich the original vote took place, and would use exactly the same mechanisms but a slightly different decision-making process, there is also something to be said for having a separate review forum.
But something needs to be done about the barrier to undeletion. To be consistent with deletion policy, undeletion should be performed unless there is a consensus to keep deleted. At present there is a majority rule and a quorum.
On 9/16/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think there is anything in policy to stop you relisting a deleted article on AFD. could be interesting to try.
I think it would be disruptive to restore a deleted article after an AfD and insist on a rerun of the vote.
I wasn't suggesting you restore it I was jsuting seeing how you could mess with the rules to atchive odd results.
On 9/16/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I wasn't suggesting you restore it I was jsuting seeing how you could mess with the rules to atchive odd results.
Er, thanks but no thanks. I know VFU is a bit weird at the moment, but that no excuse for taking an article deleted in process through AfD again, for a post-mortem rerun.
I don't see how people can form a valid opinion about undeleting an article if they can't compare the original AFD/VFD against the article that was deleted. Temporary undeletion may even uncover additional research that could seal an undeletion without doubt.
There may be consensus to delete, but if the last vote went against consensus and provided a valid reason, the reason "AFD was valid" makes no sense at all.
--Mgm
On 9/16/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I wasn't suggesting you restore it I was jsuting seeing how you could mess with the rules to atchive odd results.
Er, thanks but no thanks. I know VFU is a bit weird at the moment, but that no excuse for taking an article deleted in process through AfD again, for a post-mortem rerun. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sep 16, 2005, at 2:17 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
I don't see how people can form a valid opinion about undeleting an article if they can't compare the original AFD/VFD against the article that was deleted. Temporary undeletion may even uncover additional research that could seal an undeletion without doubt.
There may be consensus to delete, but if the last vote went against consensus and provided a valid reason, the reason "AFD was valid" makes no sense at all.
I have been known to disregard "AFD was valid" as a reason for not undeleting. Then again, I'm also a firm believer in temporary undeletion of VFU articles so people can see what they're voting on, and usually do so when I'm actually looking at VFU.
-Snowspinner
On 9/16/05, Snowspinner Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 16, 2005, at 2:17 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
I don't see how people can form a valid opinion about undeleting an article if they can't compare the original AFD/VFD against the article that was deleted. Temporary undeletion may even uncover additional research that could seal an undeletion without doubt.
There may be consensus to delete, but if the last vote went against consensus and provided a valid reason, the reason "AFD was valid" makes no sense at all.
I have been known to disregard "AFD was valid" as a reason for not undeleting. Then again, I'm also a firm believer in temporary undeletion of VFU articles so people can see what they're voting on, and usually do so when I'm actually looking at VFU.
There is currently a proposal for a policy change to undeletion policy to remove any last vestige of content-based decision making on VFU.
Wikipedia talk:Undeletion policy
I'm not going to participate; I don't think it will fly, but if it does I'm not going to wear myself out trying to stop it.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 9/16/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I wasn't suggesting you restore it I was jsuting seeing how you could mess with the rules to atchive odd results.
Er, thanks but no thanks. I know VFU is a bit weird at the moment, but that no excuse for taking an article deleted in process through AfD again, for a post-mortem rerun.
It looks like Elf Only Inn is getting this treatment. It's in its third VfD right now after having just been restored via VfU, and the nominator not only didn't provide any actual basis for deletion but also didn't even vote delete himself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elf_Only_Inn_%2...
Granted, some of the previous votes could well have resulted in inconclusive results that left the consensus unclear. However, I consider this VfD to be pretty fishy in its own right.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 9/16/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I wasn't suggesting you restore it I was jsuting seeing how you could mess with the rules to atchive odd results.
Er, thanks but no thanks. I know VFU is a bit weird at the moment, but that no excuse for taking an article deleted in process through AfD again, for a post-mortem rerun.
It looks like Elf Only Inn is getting this treatment. It's in its third VfD right now after having just been restored via VfU, and the nominator not only didn't provide any actual basis for deletion but also didn't even vote delete himself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elf_Only_Inn_%2...
Granted, some of the previous votes could well have resulted in inconclusive results that left the consensus unclear. However, I consider this VfD to be pretty fishy in its own right.
AFAIK, the procedure for VfU is that if the request for undeletion succeeds, the article must go through AfD again. The nominator was in this case merely following due process.
As for "abstain" votes on nomination for AfD, it's because there's really no better place for people to say "I think there's something wrong with this article, what should be done?" Just putting {{cleanup}} or {{wikify}} on something won't fix it in a hurry. Putting {{afd}} on it /will/.
On 9/17/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
As for "abstain" votes on nomination for AfD, it's because there's really no better place for people to say "I think there's something wrong with this article, what should be done?" Just putting {{cleanup}} or {{wikify}} on something won't fix it in a hurry. Putting {{afd}} on it /will/.
I'm in two minds about this. Should we allow the casual use of AfD as a cleanup resource? I think I'd be inclined to regard such use of AfD as borderline bad faith. If someone really thinks an article needs to be cleaned up, *and quickly*, he should just do a quick edit to remove whatever it is that makes him uncomfortable about the article from the current version. This should take a minute or so.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 9/17/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
As for "abstain" votes on nomination for AfD, it's because there's really no better place for people to say "I think there's something wrong with this article, what should be done?" Just putting {{cleanup}} or {{wikify}} on something won't fix it in a hurry. Putting {{afd}} on it /will/.
I'm in two minds about this. Should we allow the casual use of AfD as a cleanup resource? I think I'd be inclined to regard such use of AfD as borderline bad faith. If someone really thinks an article needs to be cleaned up, *and quickly*, he should just do a quick edit to remove whatever it is that makes him uncomfortable about the article from the current version. This should take a minute or so.
What about when they say to themselves "I'm not really sure if this is suitable but it's not complete nonsense and I'd like a second opinion" - is that an acceptable use of AfD?
Or should we rename AfD to make this an acceptable use?
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 9/17/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
As for "abstain" votes on nomination for AfD, it's because there's really no better place for people to say "I think there's something wrong with this article, what should be done?" Just putting {{cleanup}} or {{wikify}} on something won't fix it in a hurry. Putting {{afd}} on it /will/.
I'm in two minds about this. Should we allow the casual use of AfD as a cleanup resource? I think I'd be inclined to regard such use of AfD as borderline bad faith. If someone really thinks an article needs to be cleaned up, *and quickly*, he should just do a quick edit to remove whatever it is that makes him uncomfortable about the article from the current version. This should take a minute or so.
One unfortunate tendency is that people who want something cleaned up expect other people to do it. Thus they become a part of the problem. Wikifying an article or removing something from an article (if that is all that is required) does not require further outside resources. If those who recognize such problems on an article went ahead and did it the cleanup list would be a lot shorter. Someone else going through the same items on the cleanup list may not even recognize what needs to be done.
Articles that need something added are a much bigger problem. My experience lately in Wiktionary has been with people who refuse to cite sources, and who feel that it is the responsibility of those who reject a word to supply the proof for them. For them it is enough proof to say that the word has 250 hits on Google, and it is enough to believe that someone else will wade through all the nonsense blogs to pull out anything of value. I don't doubt that many of these terms would be kept if people did their proper homework; it comes down to a question of whose homework is it.
Ec
On 9/17/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
One unfortunate tendency is that people who want something cleaned up expect other people to do it. Thus they become a part of the problem.
I disagree. Back when I regularily did RC patrol (I haven't in a while) I certainly was not going to take the time to clean up every badly formatted article I came across; there isn't enough time to do, not with the current rate of editing on the Wiki. Someone who marks an article for cleanup may not be helping the project as much as one who actually cleans it up, but she is helping more than someone who does nothing at all. And we don't get to choose the amount or the nature of the help we get from our editors: they do (or do not do) what they want to do.
If you want something done in Wikipedia, either do it yourself or ask other people to do it for you. Don't whine about it not being done; that just makes people not like you.
Kelly
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 9/17/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
As for "abstain" votes on nomination for AfD, it's because there's really no better place for people to say "I think there's something wrong with this article, what should be done?" Just putting {{cleanup}} or {{wikify}} on something won't fix it in a hurry. Putting {{afd}} on it /will/.
I didn't write this, and I am diametrically opposed to this view so please be more careful with attributions. VfD is not cleanup, if this is really in the standard procedure for an undeleted article then it sounds like VfU's policy is screwed up too. "Okay, we just decided that this article shouldn't have been deleted. So now let's automatically propose that it be deleted!". Huh?
From: Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com
On 9/16/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
VfU is not intended to be "AfD round two";
Oh but it is. That is one of my key points: an argument improperly neglected (for instance, if conditions mentioned in the original nomination have been met--which is grounds for a keep result unless there is some overriding reason to delete, such as a copyright violation). Or say an editor finds that an article has been deleted while he was otherwise occupied, and he raises the necessary undelete quorum. Or perhaps the article was deleted by a consensus on AfD despite the well documented fact that the subject was the President of Mauritania for six months.
Some AFU participants seem to be deliberately neglecting this function. A validly closed AfD *can* be challenged on AFU. Those who seek to deny a VFU undelete on the sole grounds that the closed AfD was formally valid should be told that their opinions will be ignored as inconsistent with deletion policy.
VfU is an appeals court, not "let's keep voting on this till we get the result we want".
Jay.
On 9/16/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com
On 9/16/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
VfU is not intended to be "AfD round two";
Oh but it is. That is one of my key points: an argument improperly neglected (for instance, if conditions mentioned in the original nomination have
been
met--which is grounds for a keep result unless there is some overriding reason to delete, such as a copyright violation). Or say an editor finds that an article has been deleted while he was otherwise occupied, and he raises the necessary undelete quorum. Or perhaps the article was deleted
by
a consensus on AfD despite the well documented fact that the subject was the President of Mauritania for six months.
Some AFU participants seem to be deliberately neglecting this function. A validly closed AfD *can* be challenged on AFU. Those who seek to deny a
VFU
undelete on the sole grounds that the closed AfD was formally valid
should
be told that their opinions will be ignored as inconsistent with deletion policy.
VfU is an appeals court, not "let's keep voting on this till we get the result we want".
I don't think that's a fair statement. You seem to be dismissing concerns about real articles being deleted.
For instance, the other day I gave an example, the list of power ballads. The Afd was validly closed, but I listed some legitimate objections. Firstly the article simply didn't fall into the class of problems that may require deletion, secondly the problems listed could easily have been remedied, thirdly the statement that the article was unmaintainable was frankly incredible.
But if I took this to VFU, then contrary to undeletion policy the appeal on grounds of the merit of the content would be denied. Even if it were not, there would be a quorum requirement of three votes plus a majority to undelete.
It just isn't worth it. Now as a sysop I can download the list, research and rewrite if I wish to do so. I can turn it into a pretty good list that would be utterly bulletproof. But I don't think any of the former maintainers of that list have any such resources. So if I decide to do something else with my time,
The maintainers of that list have been let down by Wikipedia. A perfectly good resource has been deleted for purely procedural reasons, and any possible avenue of appeal is slowly but surely being sealed tight.