After a couple of articles get no "delete" votes at all, however, I would be inclined to consider listing more of them trolling, yes.
-Snowspinner
I'm sure I could muster up some delete votes. But change the topic slightly, to something like number articles, or rambot articles, for which I could definitely get some delete votes (and which I think should be deleted anyway). I could do it with Federal Standard 1037C articles, or articles about non-bestselling albums, or articles about most actors, or article about most movies, maybe even many of the species articles, though I wouldn't want to. It's basically what happened with the September 11th victims. At first there was a lot of support for keeping at least some of them, but as they got listed over and over and over again the people willing to waste their time voting keep waned, to where we've now deleted *even the pilots of the aircraft*. It's what's happening right now with high school articles. It happened with the pokemon articles, but I don't know what the outcome of that one was.
Anthony
But these are all red herrings, as the Rambot articles, the Pokemon articles, most movies, the species articles, all get strong keep votes if they're ever put on VFD, and I can't think of a single one of these that has been deleted in recent times.
-- ambi
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:22:27 -0400, Anthony DiPierro anthonydipierro@hotmail.com wrote:
After a couple of articles get no "delete" votes at all, however, I would be inclined to consider listing more of them trolling, yes.
-Snowspinner
I'm sure I could muster up some delete votes. But change the topic slightly, to something like number articles, or rambot articles, for which I could definitely get some delete votes (and which I think should be deleted anyway). I could do it with Federal Standard 1037C articles, or articles about non-bestselling albums, or articles about most actors, or article about most movies, maybe even many of the species articles, though I wouldn't want to. It's basically what happened with the September 11th victims. At first there was a lot of support for keeping at least some of them, but as they got listed over and over and over again the people willing to waste their time voting keep waned, to where we've now deleted *even the pilots of the aircraft*. It's what's happening right now with high school articles. It happened with the pokemon articles, but I don't know what the outcome of that one was.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:22:27 -0400, Anthony DiPierro anthonydipierro@hotmail.com wrote:
After a couple of articles get no "delete" votes at all, however, I would be inclined to consider listing more of them trolling, yes.
-Snowspinner
I'm sure I could muster up some delete votes. But change the topic slightly, to something like number articles, or rambot articles, for which I could definitely get some delete votes (and which I think should be deleted anyway). I could do it with Federal Standard 1037C articles, or articles about non-bestselling albums, or articles about most actors, or article about most movies, maybe even many of the species articles, though I wouldn't want to. It's basically what happened with the September 11th victims. At first there was a lot of support for keeping at least some of them, but as they got listed over and over and over again the people willing to waste their time voting keep waned, to where we've now deleted *even the pilots of the aircraft*. It's what's happening right now with high school articles. It happened with the pokemon articles, but I don't know what the outcome of that one was.
Perhaps the VFD rules could be changed to make deletion harder unless there is a real consensus. One formula might be:
delete if deletion_votes > 10 + 3 * keep_votes
phil hunt wrote:
Perhaps the VFD rules could be changed to make deletion harder unless there is a real consensus. One formula might be:
delete if deletion_votes > 10 + 3 * keep_votes
That's too open for abuse by sockpuppets, and it's unusual for 11 people to vote to delete a listing. The most blatant spam is usually skipped over unless it's speedily deleted.
Maybe this would work:
<pseudocode> # Ignore excessive sockpuppet votes if ( deletion_socks > deletion_votes / 4 ) { deletion_votes = deletion_votes + deletion_votes / 4 - deletion_socks deletion_socks = deletion_votes / 4 } if ( keep_socks > keep_votes / 4 ) { keep_votes = keep_votes + keep_votes / 4 - keep_socks keep_socks = keep_votes / 4 }
# Require a majority, even with sockpuppets. Note the code above that removes excessive sockpuppet votes from deletion_votes and keep_votes if ( ( deletion_votes > keep_votes ) # consensus test (requires 75% of the total plus 3 votes -- sockpuppets don't count) and ( deletion_votes + 3 * keep_socks > 3 * keep_votes + deletion_socks + 3 ) ) { delete } else { keep }
</pseudocode>
More tests would probably be necessary, but I think this proves the point that a simple formula cannot handle VfD, and it's a start if we're actually going to use a formula.
Guanaco
How about "Admins judge what to do with articles, based on a rough threshold of 2/3 and their own common sense." Then we can have a page called "Requests for Undeletion" to deal with things where admins made dodgy or bad calls.
If VfD is becoming unwieldy, why not split it into some topical pages. VfD-Popular Culture, VfD-Sciences, VfD-Humanities, VfD-Politics, etc. That would lighten the load on the single page.
But for the most part, the pendulum has swung back to the deletionists favor at the moment. I'm sure the trend will reverse shortly and I'll start getting frustrated at how people vote to keep things that are obviously deletable. Fear not, inclusionists.
-Snowspinner On Oct 24, 2004, at 3:43 PM, Guanaco wrote:
phil hunt wrote:
Perhaps the VFD rules could be changed to make deletion harder unless there is a real consensus. One formula might be:
delete if deletion_votes > 10 + 3 * keep_votes
That's too open for abuse by sockpuppets, and it's unusual for 11 people to vote to delete a listing. The most blatant spam is usually skipped over unless it's speedily deleted.
Maybe this would work:
<pseudocode> # Ignore excessive sockpuppet votes if ( deletion_socks > deletion_votes / 4 ) { deletion_votes = deletion_votes + deletion_votes / 4 - deletion_socks deletion_socks = deletion_votes / 4 } if ( keep_socks > keep_votes / 4 ) { keep_votes = keep_votes + keep_votes / 4 - keep_socks keep_socks = keep_votes / 4 }
# Require a majority, even with sockpuppets. Note the code above that removes excessive sockpuppet votes from deletion_votes and keep_votes if ( ( deletion_votes > keep_votes ) # consensus test (requires 75% of the total plus 3 votes -- sockpuppets don't count) and ( deletion_votes + 3 * keep_socks > 3 * keep_votes + deletion_socks + 3 ) ) { delete } else { keep }
</pseudocode>
More tests would probably be necessary, but I think this proves the point that a simple formula cannot handle VfD, and it's a start if we're actually going to use a formula.
Guanaco _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Phil Sandifer wrote:
If VfD is becoming unwieldy, why not split it into some topical pages. VfD-Popular Culture, VfD-Sciences, VfD-Humanities, VfD-Politics, etc. That would lighten the load on the single page.
I've had a similar thought but on a different basis. The most controversial criterion by far has been notability/encyclopedic. Why not simply split off "VfD-Notability". Perhaps other criteria could be split off later too if one begins to dominate the discussions.
Ec
Guys, this is already a proposed policy (in case you didn't know). See [[Wikipedia:Categorized Deletion]].
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
If VfD is becoming unwieldy, why not split it into some topical pages. VfD-Popular Culture, VfD-Sciences, VfD-Humanities, VfD-Politics, etc. That would lighten the load on the single page.
I've had a similar thought but on a different basis. The most controversial criterion by far has been notability/encyclopedic. Why not simply split off "VfD-Notability". Perhaps other criteria could be split off later too if one begins to dominate the discussions.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 15:43:00 -0500, Guanaco guanaco@cox.net wrote:
phil hunt wrote:
Perhaps the VFD rules could be changed to make deletion harder unless there is a real consensus. One formula might be:
delete if deletion_votes > 10 + 3 * keep_votes
That's too open for abuse by sockpuppets, and it's unusual for 11 people to vote to delete a listing. The most blatant spam is usually skipped over unless it's speedily deleted.
Maybe this would work:
<pseudocode> # Ignore excessive sockpuppet votes if ( deletion_socks > deletion_votes / 4 ) { deletion_votes = deletion_votes + deletion_votes / 4 - deletion_socks deletion_socks = deletion_votes / 4 } if ( keep_socks > keep_votes / 4 ) { keep_votes = keep_votes + keep_votes / 4 - keep_socks keep_socks = keep_votes / 4 }
How do you define who is a sockpuppet?
phil hunt wrote:
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 15:43:00 -0500, Guanaco guanaco@cox.net wrote:
phil hunt wrote:
Perhaps the VFD rules could be changed to make deletion harder unless there is a real consensus. One formula might be:
delete if deletion_votes > 10 + 3 * keep_votes
That's too open for abuse by sockpuppets, and it's unusual for 11 people to vote to delete a listing. The most blatant spam is usually skipped over unless it's speedily deleted.
Maybe this would work:
<pseudocode> # Ignore excessive sockpuppet votes if ( deletion_socks > deletion_votes / 4 ) { deletion_votes = deletion_votes + deletion_votes / 4 - deletion_socks deletion_socks = deletion_votes / 4 } if ( keep_socks > keep_votes / 4 ) { keep_votes = keep_votes + keep_votes / 4 - keep_socks keep_socks = keep_votes / 4 }
How do you define who is a sockpuppet?
It could be anyone for whom there is consensus (perhaps using the same function, potentially making people perform recursive sockpuppet hunting :\ ) that the account is not a unique person.
I thought of another test:
and ( deletion_votes >= 5 ) # or another number
Guanaco
On 25 Oct 2004, at 02:08, phil hunt wrote:
How do you define who is a sockpuppet?
Ah, but that's easy. Just follow these simple pointers:
1. They have voted the other way. 2. Their user page currently happens to be blank, making their username show up in red. 3. They have voted the other way. 4. I've personally never heard of them before. 5. They have voted the other way. 7. They don't agree with me. 8. They have voted the other way.
If most of these apply the person's a sockpuppet. Easy as pie.
A user who has not created an account or has not edited prior to the VfD posting.
RickK
phil hunt zen19725@zen.co.uk wrote:
How do you define who is a sockpuppet?
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!