It's official: AFD is dead.
Because if you don't like the decision, you can always just try again, and keep trying until you get the decision you want.
A disgrace.
On 07/04/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
It's official: AFD is dead.
Because if you don't like the decision, you can always just try again, and keep trying until you get the decision you want.
A disgrace.
Don't most review mechanisms work this way? In Wikipedia and the real world (examinations)...
There is nothing wrong with this because there is no reason to think the standards of measurement would fall (if people were to try again and again on RfA without reason, people would come out in solidarity against them). Also, people can change and improve so have the right to be retested.
The problem is that it's a one-way 'try as often as you'd like'. It's a lot harder to re-try a delete decision, and while it can be done, it's nowhere near as easy as just filing AFD again and again after 'keep' or 'no consensus' decisions.
-Matt
On 07/04/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/04/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
It's official: AFD is dead.
Because if you don't like the decision, you can always just try again, and keep trying until you get the decision you want.
A disgrace.
Don't most review mechanisms work this way? In Wikipedia and the real world (examinations)...
I think of it this way:
If the article could be kept in the past and the current version cannot be kept, it seems obvious that the correct course of action is to revert to the version that consensus was to keep.
Of course, in the current case, there was no consensus, but an admin deleted it anyway.
On 4/7/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, in the current case, there was no consensus, but an admin deleted it anyway.
It'd be nice if someone actually let those of us learning about it here know what article this is about.
-Matt
On 07/04/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/7/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, in the current case, there was no consensus, but an admin deleted it anyway.
It'd be nice if someone actually let those of us learning about it here know what article this is about.
Barbara Bauer.
James Farrar wrote:
On 07/04/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/7/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, in the current case, there was no consensus, but an admin deleted it anyway.
It'd be nice if someone actually let those of us learning about it here know what article this is about.
Barbara Bauer.
At DRV now.
-Jeff
On 4/7/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, in the current case, there was no consensus, but an admin deleted it anyway.
Your options include asking me to clarify my reasoning if you couldn't understand it, or taking the close to deletion review if you disagreed with it. Proclaiming the death of AfD on the mailing list seems to me to be a less productive option than either of those two.
On 07/04/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/7/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, in the current case, there was no consensus, but an admin deleted it anyway.
Your options include asking me to clarify my reasoning if you couldn't understand it,
I've queried the reasoning in an appropriate place.
or taking the close to deletion review if you disagreed with it.
No point, since I have no faith in the process.
On 07/04/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/04/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
It's official: AFD is dead.
Because if you don't like the decision, you can always just try again, and keep trying until you get the decision you want.
A disgrace.
Don't most review mechanisms work this way? In Wikipedia and the real world (examinations)...
There is nothing wrong with this because there is no reason to think the standards of measurement would fall (if people were to try again and again on RfA without reason, people would come out in solidarity against them). Also, people can change and improve so have the right to be retested.
Apologies, I though the statement was about RfA for some reason... My response was to "RfA is dead"
No, not a disgrace.
1. Consensus can change. Community standards re inclusion/deletion can change as well.
2.Wikipedia is most emphatically not governed by precedent.
3.You don't like decision X, DRV exists for a reason.
4. Persistent nomination of Article Y for deletion in the face of overwhelming consensus to keep will, in fact, get you blocked for disruption.
So, AfD is not dead. Consensus for what can and can not be included in Wikipedia can easily change over the months and years. That's just the way the wiki-model works.
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail is evolving - check out the new Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.co.uk/
On 07/04/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
- Consensus can change. Community standards re inclusion/deletion can
change as well.
2.Wikipedia is most emphatically not governed by precedent.
[...]
So, AfD is not dead. Consensus for what can and can not be included in Wikipedia can easily change over the months and years. That's just the way the wiki-model works.
s/dead/pointless, then. OK, I'll happily spend my time elsewhere instead.
If you feel like it. Just out of random interest, I wonder what Citizendium's deletion fora are like. Do they have any?
_________________________________________________________________ Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your mobile. http://www.msn.txt4content.com/
On 07/04/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
If you feel like it.
Why waste time when I could be doing things for the project that might actually be useful? It seems like there's an awful lot of time committed to meta-activity; and whilst some is essential, it can easily spiral out of control. Exhibit A: RFA.
On 07/04/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
If you feel like it.
Why waste time when I could be doing things for the project that might actually be useful? It seems like there's an awful lot of time committed to meta-activity; and whilst some is essential, it can easily spiral out of control. Exhibit A: RFA.
Yeah. Shrug. Maybe just write articles. It's more fun anyway.
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________ Match.com - Click Here To Find Singles In Your Area Today! http://msnuk.match.com/
On 4/7/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
No, not a disgrace.
- Consensus can change. Community standards re inclusion/deletion can
change as well.
From wp:consensus
=== "Asking the other parent"
On the other hand, it is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia's decisions are based not on the numerical fact of how many people showed up and voted a particular way. It is based on a system of good reasons. Attempts to change consensus must be based on a clear engagement with the reasons behind the previous consensus - not simply on the fact that today more people showed up supporting position A than position B.
A good sign that you have not demonstrated a change in consensus, so much as a change in the people showing up, is if few or none of the people involved in the previous discussion show up for the new one. ===
IMHO The admin who closes a renomination should look for people who voted in the first afd who changed their vote from "keep" to "delete" in determining if consensus really has changed. Lacking that, the article should stay unless the article is substantially different from what it was when the article was first nominated. Even that case there is always the option of reverting it back to its pre-first-nomination state.
On 4/8/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO The admin who closes a renomination should look for people who voted in the first afd who changed their vote from "keep" to "delete" in determining if consensus really has changed. Lacking that, the article should stay unless the article is substantially different from what it was when the article was first nominated. Even that case there is always the option of reverting it back to its pre-first-nomination state.
Looking at the same people is a good idea. I also like to consider whether different arguments have been raised in different debates.
In this case, the first debate [1] followed a DRV which overturned a speedy deletion [2]. The debate largely confined itself to the question of whether the speedy deletion could be justified, and asked whether the article was an attack page and whether the subject was notable.
The second debate [3], which also followed a DRV [4], also raised issues of notability but additionally focused on questions of reliability of sources, the BLP policy and questions of NPOV.
It seems to me that looking at whether the debate is conducted on a different basis is a good indicator of changing consensus, just like whether the same people are expressing different views.
-- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barbara_Bauer [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review&di... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barbara_Bauer_%... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_26
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 08:16:34 +0100, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Because if you don't like the decision, you can always just try again, and keep trying until you get the decision you want.
No, it's OK, if they keep creating it eventually we salt the earth.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 08:16:34 +0100, "James Farrar" wrote:
Because if you don't like the decision, you can always just try again, and keep trying until you get the decision you want.
No, it's OK, if they keep creating it eventually we salt the earth.
Salt is a fairly broad-band herbicide. It tends to kill the good plants as well as the weeds. :-)
Ec