We really need a good policy on speedy closing AfD nominations where the nomination contains obviously false claims and whacking votes that are just plain idiotic. Case in point, http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cyrus_Farivar_%284th_nomination% 29 where the nominator proclaimed that the article was kept because of the journalist's involvement in an Internet hoax. In fact, it was kept because this is a freelance journalist who has written for Wired, The Economist, and the New York Times. As anyone actually looking at the previous deletion debates would quickly notice.
Equally fun is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greenlighting_hoax_%282nd_nomination% 29, where we have people citing a disputed guideline as policy, and people declaring an article that's sourced to Slate (a publication owned by the Washington Post) as having no sources.
I'm only mildly invested in the second as an article to keep around (although I think deleting the first would be appalling), but this kind of sloppy voting and sloppy nominating needs to stop. It's far too clear that people are voting without even looking at what they're voting on, and that despite our pretending that AfD is not a vote, it is far too often treated as one. (And don't even get me started on the latest and greatest bit of deletion DoubleSpeak, the ever- wonderful Categories for Discussion.)
Personally, I'd support a speedy-close policy on any AfD with false information in the nomination, and a standard "comment removed due to obvious inaccuracy" template to put into place on the "discussions" for when people cite policies that don't exist, claim lack of sources where sources exist, or otherwise flagrantly decline to engage with reality.
-Phil
Start by educating admins and make sure that concensus is properly defined as determined by arguments rather than votes. Than people can claim false assertions all they like without them making any difference.
Mgm
On 1/31/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
We really need a good policy on speedy closing AfD nominations where the nomination contains obviously false claims and whacking votes that are just plain idiotic. Case in point, http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cyrus_Farivar_%284th_nomination% 29 where the nominator proclaimed that the article was kept because of the journalist's involvement in an Internet hoax. In fact, it was kept because this is a freelance journalist who has written for Wired, The Economist, and the New York Times. As anyone actually looking at the previous deletion debates would quickly notice.
Equally fun is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greenlighting_hoax_%282nd_nomination% 29, where we have people citing a disputed guideline as policy, and people declaring an article that's sourced to Slate (a publication owned by the Washington Post) as having no sources.
I'm only mildly invested in the second as an article to keep around (although I think deleting the first would be appalling), but this kind of sloppy voting and sloppy nominating needs to stop. It's far too clear that people are voting without even looking at what they're voting on, and that despite our pretending that AfD is not a vote, it is far too often treated as one. (And don't even get me started on the latest and greatest bit of deletion DoubleSpeak, the ever- wonderful Categories for Discussion.)
Personally, I'd support a speedy-close policy on any AfD with false information in the nomination, and a standard "comment removed due to obvious inaccuracy" template to put into place on the "discussions" for when people cite policies that don't exist, claim lack of sources where sources exist, or otherwise flagrantly decline to engage with reality.
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Jan 31, 2007, at 4:48 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Start by educating admins and make sure that concensus is properly defined as determined by arguments rather than votes. Than people can claim false assertions all they like without them making any difference.
Yes, certainly a miraculous transformation of attitudes surrounding AfD would work, but I'm not exactly sure how to implement it.
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
For a start admins shouldn't be afraid to follow concensus rather than the voting majority. If, for example, someone bolds delete, but indicates they're happy with a merge, there should be no reason that comment can't be used to support a merge decision.
In fact I see this happen quite often. People are ambiguous about what they want, yet they seem to only bold one of the two extremes: keep or delete. As if any sort of middle way can't be discussed.
Mgm
On 1/31/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 31, 2007, at 4:48 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Start by educating admins and make sure that concensus is properly defined as determined by arguments rather than votes. Than people can claim false assertions all they like without them making any difference.
Yes, certainly a miraculous transformation of attitudes surrounding AfD would work, but I'm not exactly sure how to implement it.
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/31/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
For a start admins shouldn't be afraid to follow concensus rather than the voting majority. If, for example, someone bolds delete, but indicates they're happy with a merge, there should be no reason that comment can't be used to support a merge decision.
In fact I see this happen quite often. People are ambiguous about what they want, yet they seem to only bold one of the two extremes: keep or delete. As if any sort of middle way can't be discussed.
Mgm
I'd recommend ignoring any word in bold. Read and consider what commenters actually say, rather than what they think they're voting. If the commenter has done a good job of making their case, the bold word out front is extraneous. If they're ambiguous, the bold word is harmful and misleading.
-- Jonel
On 2/1/07, Nick Wilkins nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/31/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
For a start admins shouldn't be afraid to follow concensus rather than
the
voting majority. If, for example, someone bolds delete, but indicates they're happy with a merge, there should be no reason that comment can't be used to support a merge decision.
In fact I see this happen quite often. People are ambiguous about what they want, yet they seem to only bold one of the two extremes: keep or
delete.
As if any sort of middle way can't be discussed.
Mgm
I'd recommend ignoring any word in bold. Read and consider what commenters actually say, rather than what they think they're voting. If the commenter has done a good job of making their case, the bold word out front is extraneous. If they're ambiguous, the bold word is harmful and misleading.
-- Jonel
It wouldn't hurt to not count votes without any type of argument. At least if someone sys 'per nom', you know you can discount them if the nominator turns out to be wrong in their nomination. Let's make "Votes without a rationale will be discounted by the closing administrator." a standard rule on xFD. \ Mgm
On 1/31/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
We really need a good policy on speedy closing AfD nominations where the nomination contains obviously false claims and whacking votes that are just plain idiotic. Case in point, http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cyrus_Farivar_%284th_nomination% 29 where the nominator proclaimed that the article was kept because of the journalist's involvement in an Internet hoax. In fact, it was kept because this is a freelance journalist who has written for Wired, The Economist, and the New York Times. As anyone actually looking at the previous deletion debates would quickly notice.
<snip>
Personally, I'd support a speedy-close policy on any AfD with false
information in the nomination, and a standard "comment removed due to obvious inaccuracy" template to put into place on the "discussions" for when people cite policies that don't exist, claim lack of sources where sources exist, or otherwise flagrantly decline to engage with reality.
-Phil
Of course, in the interests of accuracy and full disclosure, you were somewhere going to mention that the second nomination was closed by an administrator who strenuously argued in that very discussion for keeping the article? And that the third nomination was closed as a no consensus? Hardly convincing evidence that the previous discussions "were settled on the grounds that Farivar is a journalist who has written in the New York Times" rather than "because of the Slate article". Or even that they were actually settled. This article really isn't the best example for your proposal.
Are you going to deal with the argument put forth by Bwithh and others that Farivar is not particularly notable among journalists? Or should we just ignore them and speedy keep the article? I happen to disagree with them when they say that Farivar is not notable enough for an article, but I respect their opinions.
Give the discussion the full length, make your case, and trust that someone with a clue will evaluate all the comments and reasoning and make an appropriate decision.
-- Jonel
On Jan 31, 2007, at 6:32 PM, Nick Wilkins wrote:
Of course, in the interests of accuracy and full disclosure, you were somewhere going to mention that the second nomination was closed by an administrator who strenuously argued in that very discussion for keeping the article? And that the third nomination was closed as a no consensus? Hardly convincing evidence that the previous discussions "were settled on the grounds that Farivar is a journalist who has written in the New York Times" rather than "because of the Slate article". Or even that they were actually settled. This article really isn't the best example for your proposal.
It was closed with the support of Jimbo, on that exact grounds, so yeah, I'm going to go ahead and say that it has been consistently kept on those grounds.
Are you going to deal with the argument put forth by Bwithh and others that Farivar is not particularly notable among journalists? Or should we just ignore them and speedy keep the article? I happen to disagree with them when they say that Farivar is not notable enough for an article, but I respect their opinions.
Sure - I'm happy to deal with those. My problem is dealing with them in an AfD that has already been set up with outright falsehoods, and with people who are "voting" in line with policies that aren't policies, precedents that don't exist, and facts that aren't true.
Let me be blunter: if this is standard for how the community considers deletion (and I've seen precious little evidence of late that it's not), the community can no longer be trusted with this function.
-Phil
On 1/31/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
It was closed with the support of Jimbo, on that exact grounds, so yeah, I'm going to go ahead and say that it has been consistently kept on those grounds.
Jimbo's comments are nowhere on any of the three deletion discussion pages. Not everyone agreed with him or you (heck, a lot of people aren't even agreeing with *me* in the fourth discussion ;-) ). There are a lot of arguments floating around on each of them, including a number of people arguing for the article to be kept on grounds of internet history/fame or the like. Don't you think it's at least possible that there are other interpretations of the results?
Let me be blunter: if this is standard for how the community
considers deletion (and I've seen precious little evidence of late that it's not), the community can no longer be trusted with this function.
If the community isn't to be trusted with making decisions on deletion, how should deletion be handled? There are things that clearly should be deleted (which tend to speedied, prodded, or die nearly unanimously in AfD), things that clearly should be kept (Ron's example above shows what happens with something that clear), and things that aren't precisely clear. How should the third category be dealt with?
-- Jonel
Phil Sandifer wrote:
<snip>
Let me be blunter: if this is standard for how the community considers deletion (and I've seen precious little evidence of late that it's not), the community can no longer be trusted with this function.
I've known this for two years now. "The People" can NEVER be trusted. Democracy works well in theory, but not in practice - and people keep forgetting that Wikipedia is not an experiment in internet democracy (hence, they keep voting and denying that they're voting).
"You know how stupid the average person is? Well, by definition, half of 'em are stupider than that!!!"
Here's another example of a perhaps not false but "bad faith" nom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: Articles_for_deletion/List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts
What really smells about this one is that the nominating account, "Pizzazz" was created on the same day as the nomination and the only thing he did was make the nom in question. I would have no problem with promptly closing such noms regardless of the potential "deletability" of the article.
If an article is to be destroyed, then let it start with a good faith nomination from a real user, not somebody's sock/meat puppet.
PS. The article in question was speedy kept.
On 01/02/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Here's another example of a perhaps not false but "bad faith" nom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: Articles_for_deletion/List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts
What really smells about this one is that the nominating account, "Pizzazz" was created on the same day as the nomination and the only thing he did was make the nom in question. I would have no problem with promptly closing such noms regardless of the potential "deletability" of the article.
If an article is to be destroyed, then let it start with a good faith nomination from a real user, not somebody's sock/meat puppet.
...dear god.
You do realise *we make it impossible* for non-account users to list an article for deletion, right? And that the only way to jump through all our hoops to, in all honesty and good faith, list an article for deletion that you have problems with is to go off, create an account, then do it?
Saying "oh, close first-time noms automatically regardless of merit" is a stupid idea; it assumes that anyone attempting to contribute to the project in a certain way is inherently acting in bad-faith, and acts as though this were a given.
[Virtually the second thing I did on enwp was to list an article for deletion. If this was the reaction I'd got at the time, I really don't think I'd have hung around much]
On 2/1/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/02/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Here's another example of a perhaps not false but "bad faith" nom.
Articles_for_deletion/List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts
What really smells about this one is that the nominating account, "Pizzazz" was created on the same day as the nomination and the only thing he did was make the nom in question. I would have no problem with promptly closing such noms regardless of the potential "deletability" of the article.
If an article is to be destroyed, then let it start with a good faith nomination from a real user, not somebody's sock/meat puppet.
...dear god.
You do realise *we make it impossible* for non-account users to list an article for deletion, right? And that the only way to jump through all our hoops to, in all honesty and good faith, list an article for deletion that you have problems with is to go off, create an account, then do it?
Saying "oh, close first-time noms automatically regardless of merit" is a stupid idea; it assumes that anyone attempting to contribute to the project in a certain way is inherently acting in bad-faith, and acts as though this were a given.
[Virtually the second thing I did on enwp was to list an article for deletion. If this was the reaction I'd got at the time, I really don't think I'd have hung around much]
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
The idea needs to be refined. First time noms are fine as long as they're not renoms of something recently closed and as long as the nomination is based in policy. Bad faith noms are usually either IDONTLIKEIT or they contain false statements.
Mgm
On 2/1/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
You do realise *we make it impossible* for non-account users to list an article for deletion, right?
Did you ever consider that there might be a good reason for that and that same reason might also apply to creating an account for the sole purpose of making an AFD nom? We already give less weight to AFD "votes" from anons and newly created single purpose accounts, shouldn't the nominations be held to the same or a higher standard?
And that the only way to jump through all our hoops to, in all honesty and good faith, list an article for deletion that you have problems with is to go off, create an account, then do it?
No, there is another way. You can ask someone else to make the nom for you. This looks a lot more kosher then creating a trash account to make the nom. That makes you look like someone's sock puppet.