On 1/29/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote: I think that all of us, at least from this issue alone, can see that DRV is probably worse off than any of the other *FD pages. It is hopelessly confusing, with all the different options, and functions contrary to the consensus-driven spirit of Wikipedia. I think the only way that you can get a result for the page using a measure of community consensus as a gauge is by using AFD. DRV is not going to give consensus: it will give you votes. And as we all know, [[Meatball:VotingIsEvil]]. -- Ben Emmel Wikipedia - User:Bratsche bratsche1(a)gmail.com "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees." -- William Blake

I'm not going to get drawn into editing that nomination again. SimonP restored the discussion to AfD but R. Fiend has now closed it, falsely claiming that the nominaiton was made in bad faith. Now I don't get angry easily, but I do think something's amiss here. I'm trying to hold a second deletion nomination and things are going heavily in favor of keep, and the person who apparently thinks the article should be deleted is thwarting the discussion and claiming that I am, in effect, lying when I say that I want AfD, and not DRV, to make the decision to delete this article, if it is to be deleted. Meanwhile there is a vote going on in Deletion review which is apparently designed to overturn the original no-consensus keep, and delete the article. As I say, I don't easily get angry. But sometimes I do get a little bit suspicious.

On 1/30/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote: I can not remember where, but somewhere at enwiki it says that "concensus" is in some cases defined as a supermajority number, different in different cases: 70% at VfD, more at RfA etc. Is that not correct? Too bad I can not say the name of the page, I know it's there... or at least was, less than two months ago. /habj As far as I'm aware there has never been quite this blatant an attempt

This user is "gaming the system". Isn't there some policy that explicitly forbids this? Ryan On 1/30/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Maybe at [[WP:NOT]]. That page definitely needs a "Wikipedia is not a game of Nomic", if it doesn't already have one. Steve On 1/30/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com> wrote:

No, the one he is talking about, who tried to use DRV to overrule a no-consensus AFD because it was more likely to get the result he wanted. This is a picture-perfect example of how process should NOT be (ab)used. Ryan On 1/30/06, Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:

It's best to define things in terms of what we are. Not least as suggesting things that we're not just gives people ideas. Let me give an example. You know what a blue door is. Well, don't think of a blue door. Think of anything other than a blue door, and wipe your mind of all thoughts about doors that are blue. Now tell me what you're thinking of, and whether you'd have been thinking of it had I not mentioned blue doors. Expressing things positively is important. It's very tempting to express things negatively, but that way tends often not to work well. Incidentally, I had seen [[WP:ENC]]. The shame is that [[WP:ENC]] is not the policy, and [[WP:NOT]] is not the joke. All the best Jon (jguk) Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote: On 1/30/06, Jon wrote: You're obviously not aware of [[WP:ENC]]. *groan* But if you like, there's always [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia in eight words]]. Well, Wikipedia is lots of things that no other encyclopaedia is (including user-editable, unreliable, inconsistent, multilingual, frequently up-to-the-minute etc etc). To get really picky though, I thought the official line was that Wikipedia is a *project* to *build* an encyclopedia. Or maybe "Wikipedia" is the name of the encyclopaedia being built by "The Wikipedia Project". In that case, half of the entries at WP:NOT refer to the project (wikipedia is not therapy, a game, myspace, a chat site) and half refer to the actual encyclopaedia (not an indiscriminate collection of information, not a jargon file etc). To answer your original point though, "why expand WP:NOT"? Basically because the nature of Wiki means that people can endlessly expand the project in new directions. Saying "WP is X and nothing but X" doesn't really pose any limits on this expansion. Saying "WP is X, but definitely not Y or Z" does. Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l --------------------------------- Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now.

There's at least 2 sections in WP:NOT. One which explains what the project is not, one which explains what the articles are not. BTW, I do agree with that last paragraph. You can say Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia anyone can edit, but some people don't seem to grasp the idea of what an encyclopedia is, so while it's unfortunate we have to use negative language "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion" is something we need to have in there. Even if it's just so we can point people there. It's easier than explaining what type of content is encyclopedic and what isn't. Mgm

This isn't directed at anyone in particular, but a legit question for the group: If someone disagrees with a deletion result, then lists it on DRV, this is generally (with the exception of vanity self-promoters, trolls, and the like) accepted as a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. If someone disagrees with a keep result, then lists it on DRV, this is seen by many as an "abuse of process" and an effort to "get the result he wanted". It seems that if one type of result can be reviewed and possibly overturned, what's wrong with reviewing another type of result? What's the difference? On 1/30/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Is there anyway to organize the AfD list by subject matter or general topic? I think part of the problem with the listings are that they are huge, and people like me would rather spend time working on new articles, updating articles, etc. versus reading through a huge laundry list of articles up for deletion. However, if the list were more organized, I think you would get a better representation in the vote and discussion as people would be better able to find the articles they had actual thoughts on. Sue Anne sreed1234

Rob wrote: The problem I've got with this situation is that the person who listed this on DRV wanted the "keep" result to be overturned _and the article deleted as a result._ He's essentially saying that the default assumption should be that articles are deleteworthy until proven otherwise. This is completely 180 degrees backwards. If all someone wants to do is "overturn" a keep result there should really be no need for DRV at all, just create another AfD nomination and argue your case there. If the argument works and the new AfD returns a clear "delete", the old AfD's keep result is moot. DRV is only particularly useful for retrieving deleted stuff since you can't make an AfD nomination for an article that doesn't exist.

grm_wnr wrote: Sounds like a fine idea to me, if only for the sake of simplifying the deletion situation (one set of "rules" rather than two). And then once AfD gets fixed it'll solve everything at once.

On 1/30/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com> wrote: Currently it stands as follows: A second AfD was started by me on "List of state-named avenues in Washington". The first AfD had been closed with a no consensus keep, and the user was trying to get that overturned in DRV. I believed that it would be more appropriate to rerun the AfD and see what we got. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_state-… This was closed by someone who falsely claimed that my nomination was made "in bad faith" (apparently because I recommended a keep result, although as a historical matter this is quite common in such reruns). There is another case currently going through where an undeleted article has been edited to add two paragraphs and an external reference. Someone involved in Deletion review then protected the article and slapped a template over the top, apparently in an attempt to stop the editor improving the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Alexander_%28cartoonist%29 I have unprotected the article and removed the template. I am used to this kind of illogic when dealing with those who frequent Deletion review, but I do recognise that this is very, very bizarre behavior. Attempts to prevent a second run of a deletion nomination because the first one is still being investigated, and attempts to prevent the improvement of an article because its earlier speedy deletion is under investigation. In both of these cases it seems to me that a process has been used to make it unreasonably difficult for potentially useful content to be retained and improved in the encyclopedia.

Steve Bennett wrote: Elian has some great old wikipedia quotes on her userpage in German: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Elian#Zitate_zu_Wikipedia One of them is... "The big secret of course is that Wikipedia is not really about an encyclopedia, it's just a big game of nomic. ;-) --JimboWales" That was just a joke in irc, of course, some years ago.

On 1/30/06, Rob <gamaliel8(a)gmail.com> wrote: I don't think there's any problem with that, although I'd prefer to see such a discussion take place inn a second noimination, on AfD, not DRV. The reason for this is that DRV is not consensus-based; discussions are effectively votes and a tally is made. At the end, the decision is overturned if there is a 75% vote to overturn it. The AfD process, by contrast, is much more in keeping with the way we try to run Wikipedia. There are other problems with DRV, but I am addressing those with some success.

I think this loophole is a clear argument for WP:DRV to make decisions based only on process, not on content. If it's not consensus-based, we can't have the decision to delete be made there. SCZenz On 1/29/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 1/30/06, Sue Reed <sreed1234(a)yahoo.com> wrote: you mean something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geni/test -- geni

Steve Bennett wrote: I don't agree with your perception of the balance. An incorrect deletion of an article is nearly nothing to us -- it can be undeleted instantly by any admin. And most incorrect deletions will be of marginal topics anyway. And it's better to have nothing on a marginal topic than to have something that is embarassing to us in any way at all. Right, but lurking copyvio and libel stuff is exactly what the core problem is. --Jimbo

On 1/31/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: If it's a clearly incorrect deletion, it can be undone by any admin. In my humble opinion this should be accompanied with a notice somewhere so the decision can be reviewed, but that's different from saying it can't be done. SCZenz

Jimmy Wales wrote: I strongly disagree with that; eventually producing a good encyclopedia ought to take precedence over immediately gaining good PR (or avoiding bad PR). -Mark

geni wrote: I think a few people have gotten quite confused about the role of admins due to the excessive rules lawyering. Maybe they are the ones who need to rethink it. --Jimbo

On 2/1/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: The tradition of no big deal was never consistant with capabilities allowed by the softwear. However process limts how and when those powers can be used. Take that away and admins become very powerful indeed. -- geni

Tony Sidaway wrote: I've often wondered why DRV is set up this way, since it seems to be the only thing on Wikipedia that runs on voting rather than consensus (at least in theory). Was there a reason? Cheers, N. -- Nicholas Boalch School of Modern Languages & Cultures Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456 University of Durham Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421 New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/

Delirium wrote: Ermmm.... Have you heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub types ? grm_wnr

Tony Sidaway wrote: I've been pushing Tony to put forth a real replacement for DRV for a long time, and I'm glad he did. This is a solution I'd like to see implemented. I think admins can be trusted with this. John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])

On 2/3/06, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gawab.com> wrote: The flaw is that with 800 admins to shop around with we risk haveing to repeat a heck of a lot of AFD votes. Neutraliseing missbehaveing admins is tricky. -- geni

On 2/3/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote: Create a review namespace and I might support a version of this "process-committed administrators" are not conservatives. They just want you to stick to policy. You are of course free to change that policy by the normal root. Discusion to hammer out a soild policy suggestion. Presenting it to anyone who cares to try and gain a consensus and perhaps some further modification in order to do so. Then depending on the level of support either institute it or hold a final vote to see if you can get enough support to do so. -- geni

Philip L. Welch wrote: -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch I think that's a great idea, properly setup live tests could give us experience that no amount of debate could. I wish we were more open to those kind of live tests.....

On 2/3/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia(a)philwelch.net> wrote: It was my impression that it already was! qv. However I don't see the temporary undeletion thing as a policy matter, rather one of persuading administrators not to delete articles while their deletion is being challenged, in good faith, on DRV. It's all about assuming good faith, of which alas there is not much in our deletion and undeletion processes.

Tony Sidaway wrote: Oh screw it. Let's make a new committee which will handle *all* deletion and undeletion requests, except speedies and copyvios. Let's call it, um, Uncyclopedia... -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP