Neutrality just closed a AfD regarding Crescent Park Elementary School by deleting the article.
The debate and discussion included 19 keep votes, and 15 delete votes, one merge and one "merge or delete" vote.
Since when does a majority keep mean to delete the article?
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
Have you brought this up with Neutrality, or are you taking it straight to the mailing list?
-Snowspinner
On Sep 25, 2005, at 12:08 AM, Michael Turley wrote:
Neutrality just closed a AfD regarding Crescent Park Elementary School by deleting the article.
The debate and discussion included 19 keep votes, and 15 delete votes, one merge and one "merge or delete" vote.
Since when does a majority keep mean to delete the article?
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/25/05, Snowspinner Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Have you brought this up with Neutrality, or are you taking it straight to the mailing list?
Straight to the list, because he's ignored and blanked every message I've ever left on his talk page. That itself was the subject of an RfC at the time, but nobody seemed to think it was a bad idea for an arbitrator to refuse to communicate in good faith. This again, is related to his desire to delete school articles from Wikipedia with or without consensus, and I don't expect any different treatment from the last time I tried to communicate on this issue with him.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
Even so, you really should have tried to communicate with him before taking it too the list. I agree that the decision is totally absurd, but you should let him defend himself first. And if he does, as you suggest he will, ignore/blank you, you will have more ammo for a discussion.
--gkhan
On 9/25/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/25/05, Snowspinner Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Have you brought this up with Neutrality, or are you taking it straight to the mailing list?
Straight to the list, because he's ignored and blanked every message I've ever left on his talk page. That itself was the subject of an RfC at the time, but nobody seemed to think it was a bad idea for an arbitrator to refuse to communicate in good faith. This again, is related to his desire to delete school articles from Wikipedia with or without consensus, and I don't expect any different treatment from the last time I tried to communicate on this issue with him.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/25/05, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
Even so, you really should have tried to communicate with him before taking it too the list. I agree that the decision is totally absurd, but you should let him defend himself first. And if he does, as you suggest he will, ignore/blank you, you will have more ammo for a discussion.
Ammo for discussion? What's wrong with simply discussing the issue rather than gathering "ammo"?
Look at it from my point of view: an arbitrator/administrator rebuffed my attempts to communicate with him. An RfC was started, and it went nowhere, apparently because so many people refused to believe the RfC was about refusal to communicate, instead choosing to believe it was that he nominated articles en masse to VfD.
If I had any reason to believe I would get a good faith answer from the person in question, I would post on his talk page. However, not only have I not been given reason to believe that he'll communicate, I've seen the opposite because shortly after the last time, he added a somewhat hostile "policy" to his talk page which seems to be meant to justify his capriciousness.
I'm not one to go banging my head against brick walls. I don't like to waste my time, and I don't like the headaches. Ignore me if you so choose, but I prefer to discuss this in the open with several other reasonalbe users rather than try to start a conversation with a single user who's already proven unresponsive to myself and several others on this exact issue.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
I'd just like to note that Mr. Turley has recently disputed a AFD I closed as well recently, that AFD being the one for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck the South, the resulting conversations can also be found at my talk page and at votes for undeletion.
-Jtkiefer
Jtkiefer wrote:
I'd just like to note that Mr. Turley has recently disputed a AFD I closed as well recently, that AFD being the one for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck the South, the resulting conversations can also be found at my talk page and at votes for undeletion.
-Jtkiefer _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
ugh, link Error, here's the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck the South http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck%20the%20South
-Jtkiefer
On 9/25/05, Jtkiefer jtkiefer@wordzen.net wrote:
I'd just like to note that Mr. Turley has recently disputed a AFD I closed as well recently, that AFD being the one for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck the South, the resulting conversations can also be found at my talk page and at votes for undeletion.
And in this case, I posted on your talk page because I felt confident that I would not be ignored by an unresponsive administrator. Obviously my good faith was not misplaced in you as you responded both on your talk page, and by undeleting the article in question. Thank you for both.
I don't know what point you are trying to make in mentioning this. Perhaps you will explain what the relevance is to a different article where the majority view was to keep, and the admin deleted anyway?
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
He was wrong. Now what?
Fred
On Sep 24, 2005, at 11:09 PM, Michael Turley wrote:
On 9/25/05, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
Even so, you really should have tried to communicate with him before taking it too the list. I agree that the decision is totally absurd, but you should let him defend himself first. And if he does, as you suggest he will, ignore/blank you, you will have more ammo for a discussion.
Ammo for discussion? What's wrong with simply discussing the issue rather than gathering "ammo"?
Look at it from my point of view: an arbitrator/administrator rebuffed my attempts to communicate with him. An RfC was started, and it went nowhere, apparently because so many people refused to believe the RfC was about refusal to communicate, instead choosing to believe it was that he nominated articles en masse to VfD.
If I had any reason to believe I would get a good faith answer from the person in question, I would post on his talk page. However, not only have I not been given reason to believe that he'll communicate, I've seen the opposite because shortly after the last time, he added a somewhat hostile "policy" to his talk page which seems to be meant to justify his capriciousness.
I'm not one to go banging my head against brick walls. I don't like to waste my time, and I don't like the headaches. Ignore me if you so choose, but I prefer to discuss this in the open with several other reasonalbe users rather than try to start a conversation with a single user who's already proven unresponsive to myself and several others on this exact issue.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
Even so, you really should have tried to communicate with him before taking it too the list. I agree that the decision is totally absurd, but you should let him defend himself first. And if he does, as you suggest he will, ignore/blank you, you will have more ammo for a discussion.
Okay, he should have tried talking to Neutrality first.
In the meantime, though, I've checked the VfD in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crescent_Park_E... and it appears that the basic complaint is true - this was clearly _not_ a consensus to delete. It's very clear that it isn't, too, since as pointed out there's actually a clear majority of votes for keep/merge versus delete. I'm putting this on VfU, but really, I think this should be a speedy undelete.
Yes, I agree totally, and that is precisely why he should have talked to Neutrality first. I looked at it too, and this isn't some academic discussion on the merits of true consensus decisions, this is an admin that made a clear and obvious mistake. And that's why he should have had the chance to defend himself first ("ohh, sorry 'bout that, i was drunk at the time" or something)
--gkhan
On 9/25/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
Even so, you really should have tried to communicate with him before taking it too the list. I agree that the decision is totally absurd, but you should let him defend himself first. And if he does, as you suggest he will, ignore/blank you, you will have more ammo for a discussion.
Okay, he should have tried talking to Neutrality first.
In the meantime, though, I've checked the VfD in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crescent_Park_E... and it appears that the basic complaint is true - this was clearly _not_ a consensus to delete. It's very clear that it isn't, too, since as pointed out there's actually a clear majority of votes for keep/merge versus delete. I'm putting this on VfU, but really, I think this should be a speedy undelete. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/25/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
In the meantime, though, I've checked the VfD in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crescent_Park_E... and it appears that the basic complaint is true - this was clearly _not_ a consensus to delete. It's very clear that it isn't, too, since as pointed out there's actually a clear majority of votes for keep/merge versus delete. I'm putting this on VfU, but really, I think this should be a speedy undelete.
While I don't necessarily agree with the decision (I think there was no consensus either way), one can see how some of the votes might have been given greater weight than others. For example:
"Keep, we winning the fight aginst school deletionism." "Keep. I heard from Aranda56 that we needed more votes for this article." "Keep I heard from Radman's sisters' aunts' brothers' cousins' girlfriends' sister that this needed to be kept!" "Keep."
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
Were they sockpuppets? Are they anonymous? Are they banned? If not, why should they count more than
"Delete another primary school of utter nonimportance." "Delete. A non-notable public school." "Delete. Usual reasons" "Delete yet another completely nn school"
No matter how you spin it, this call was ridiculus.
--gkhan
On 9/25/05, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/25/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
In the meantime, though, I've checked the VfD in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crescent_Park_E... and it appears that the basic complaint is true - this was clearly _not_ a consensus to delete. It's very clear that it isn't, too, since as pointed out there's actually a clear majority of votes for keep/merge versus delete. I'm putting this on VfU, but really, I think this should be a speedy undelete.
While I don't necessarily agree with the decision (I think there was no consensus either way), one can see how some of the votes might have been given greater weight than others. For example:
"Keep, we winning the fight aginst school deletionism." "Keep. I heard from Aranda56 that we needed more votes for this article." "Keep I heard from Radman's sisters' aunts' brothers' cousins' girlfriends' sister that this needed to be kept!" "Keep."
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
Were they sockpuppets? Are they anonymous? Are they banned? If not, why should they count more than
"Delete another primary school of utter nonimportance." "Delete. A non-notable public school." "Delete. Usual reasons" "Delete yet another completely nn school"
No matter how you spin it, this call was ridiculus.
On 9/25/05, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
For example:
"Keep, we winning the fight aginst school deletionism." "Keep. I heard from Aranda56 that we needed more votes for this article." "Keep I heard from Radman's sisters' aunts' brothers' cousins' girlfriends' sister that this needed to be kept!" "Keep."
All this proves is that we need more objective criteria and fewer votes.
Ec
Stephen Bain wrote:
While I don't necessarily agree with the decision (I think there was no consensus either way), one can see how some of the votes might have been given greater weight than others. For example:
"Keep, we winning the fight aginst school deletionism." "Keep. I heard from Aranda56 that we needed more votes for this article." "Keep I heard from Radman's sisters' aunts' brothers' cousins' girlfriends' sister that this needed to be kept!" "Keep."
Also: "*Delete."* *"Delete*. Usual reasons." "*Delete* not worthwhile"
So disregarding "low value" votes doesn't look like it swings the vote clearly in one direction or the other to me, unless one selectively disregards poorly-supported votes on one side but not on the other. I certainly wouldn't mind a policy encouraging disregarding such votes, mind you, I just don't think it would make a difference here.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Stephen Bain wrote:
While I don't necessarily agree with the decision (I think there was no consensus either way), one can see how some of the votes might have been given greater weight than others. For example:
"Keep, we winning the fight aginst school deletionism." "Keep. I heard from Aranda56 that we needed more votes for this article." "Keep I heard from Radman's sisters' aunts' brothers' cousins' girlfriends' sister that this needed to be kept!" "Keep."
Also: "*Delete."* *"Delete*. Usual reasons." "*Delete* not worthwhile"
So disregarding "low value" votes doesn't look like it swings the vote clearly in one direction or the other to me, unless one selectively disregards poorly-supported votes on one side but not on the other. I certainly wouldn't mind a policy encouraging disregarding such votes, mind you, I just don't think it would make a difference here.
Ok, that's it. As soon as I get the chance (eg. in a few days time), I will launch open a request for comments with everyone listed on [[m:AIW]] and [[m:ADW]], and I invite anyone who is sick of the way AfD is being run to join me.
And if that doesn't go anywhere, I'll open an arbitration case.
Alphax wrote:
Ok, that's it. As soon as I get the chance (eg. in a few days time), I will launch open a request for comments with everyone listed on [[m:AIW]] and [[m:ADW]], and I invite anyone who is sick of the way AfD is being run to join me.
Ok, opened at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/AfD]]. Diffs and complete listing of members needed.
The deletion of one (or even a couple of dozen) school articles doesn't hurt Wikipedia. This action may affect the reputation of the administrator involved for a short term, but that also will recover.
The following AfD closes by Neutrality also seem a little odd. I see no evidence of consensus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ma...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saint_Michael%2...
The following close by Neutrality was technically in order, except that someone seems to have tampered with the nomination two days ago, so that the article linked to was not the article originally nominated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%...
Neutrality was clearly aware of the switch, because he deleted *both* articles, although none of those voting on deletion had had any opportunity to view the Albany article, as at the time all votes were made the article listed for deletion was the Oceanview school in Clovis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oc...
Tony Sidaway wrote:
The deletion of one (or even a couple of dozen) school articles doesn't hurt Wikipedia. This action may affect the reputation of the administrator involved for a short term, but that also will recover.
The lurking of users on AfD for the sole purpose of voting to keep or delete articles /with no thought given to the votes/ does.
Hence I've opened [[Wikipedia:Request for comments/AfD]], against all members of the Associations of Inclusionist and Deletionist Wikipedians, respectively.
VfD was deleted because of the mindless voting. It was even renamed to try and discourage the mindless voting. Well, it's time some more concrete action was taken.
(Personally I would like to have listed the memberships of these "organisations" in full, but there are so many it would have taken pages, and hours)
On 25/09/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
The deletion of one (or even a couple of dozen) school articles doesn't hurt Wikipedia. This action may affect the reputation of the administrator involved for a short term, but that also will recover.
The lurking of users on AfD for the sole purpose of voting to keep or delete articles /with no thought given to the votes/ does.
Hence I've opened [[Wikipedia:Request for comments/AfD]], against all members of the Associations of Inclusionist and Deletionist Wikipedians, respectively.
For those, like me, who got lost trying to find it, that's [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/AfD]] ;-)
Good luck. I don't know if it'll help anything, I don't know what it can possibly achieve, but it's worth a try. I looked at AfD last night; it was simply impossible to read some of the day-by-day pages (21st, 23rd) without trying to throw heavy objects at people ranting (for|against) schools.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 9/25/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
The deletion of one (or even a couple of dozen) school articles doesn't
hurt
Wikipedia. This action may affect the reputation of the administrator involved for a short term, but that also will recover.
The lurking of users on AfD for the sole purpose of voting to keep or delete articles /with no thought given to the votes/ does.
It would indeed. However your accusation seems to fly in the face of the evidence. The arguments for and against deletion of schools have been elaborated over several months. As it happens very few school article deletion attempts have been successful in the time--a little less than 13% of all school article deletion listings have resulted in deletion.
Now you're talking, but please talk to Neutrality first.
Fred
On Sep 25, 2005, at 12:33 AM, Alphax wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Stephen Bain wrote:
While I don't necessarily agree with the decision (I think there was no consensus either way), one can see how some of the votes might have been given greater weight than others. For example:
"Keep, we winning the fight aginst school deletionism." "Keep. I heard from Aranda56 that we needed more votes for this article." "Keep I heard from Radman's sisters' aunts' brothers' cousins' girlfriends' sister that this needed to be kept!" "Keep."
Also: "*Delete."* *"Delete*. Usual reasons." "*Delete* not worthwhile"
So disregarding "low value" votes doesn't look like it swings the vote clearly in one direction or the other to me, unless one selectively disregards poorly-supported votes on one side but not on the other. I certainly wouldn't mind a policy encouraging disregarding such votes, mind you, I just don't think it would make a difference here.
Ok, that's it. As soon as I get the chance (eg. in a few days time), I will launch open a request for comments with everyone listed on [[m:AIW]] and [[m:ADW]], and I invite anyone who is sick of the way AfD is being run to join me.
And if that doesn't go anywhere, I'll open an arbitration case.
-- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Bryan Derksen wrote:
In the meantime, though, I've checked the VfD in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crescent_Park_E...
and it appears that the basic complaint is true - this was clearly _not_ a consensus to delete. It's very clear that it isn't, too, since as pointed out there's actually a clear majority of votes for keep/merge versus delete. I'm putting this on VfU, but really, I think this should be a speedy undelete.
Following up on my own comment, I just noticed while putting the VfU listing up that Neutrality did pretty much the same thing on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Manila_Waldorf_School. I'll go through a bunch of recent deletions and see if there are others that need listing on VfU too, and list them there.
On 9/24/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
Neutrality just closed a AfD regarding Crescent Park Elementary School by deleting the article.
The debate and discussion included 19 keep votes, and 15 delete votes, one merge and one "merge or delete" vote.
Since when does a majority keep mean to delete the article?
Neutrality has also ignored consensus on a number of other articles lately (or found consensus when no consensus reasonably existed). I'm becoming concerned about his objectivity in closing AfDs, although I have not actually spoken to him about this yet.
Kelly