Dealing with crap deletion nominations

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
52 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dealing with crap deletion nominations

gamaliel8
Only if we expand the speedy deletion criteria accordingly.  We really don't
want to deal with a three month backlog of garage bands and ads for Bob's
Muffler Shop.

On 1/22/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
> My proposed idea remains: shut down AFD/DRV for a month. Make it three
> months.
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dealing with crap deletion nominations

David Gerard
Rob ([hidden email]) [060123 10:04]:
> On 1/22/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > My proposed idea remains: shut down AFD/DRV for a month. Make it three
> > months.

> Only if we expand the speedy deletion criteria accordingly.  We really don't
> want to deal with a three month backlog of garage bands and ads for Bob's
> Muffler Shop.


Straw man. Wikipedia runs 4000 new articles/day, 2000 of which are shot on
sight; AFD is maybe 200 articles a day *nominated* at present, which is a
trickle by comparison. It really will not make substantial difference
unless people start nominating to make a point. Which is shooting
behaviour.

By the way, Kim Bruning and Gmaxwell just ran numbers on Wikipedia articles
which might actually support Pure Wiki Deletion as a generally good idea.
I desperately await Kim's writeup, 'cos I doubt Greg's going to make one.
But it's the first thing I've seen resembling evidence. Basically, over 90%
of Wikipedia articles have one or two editors, and only 100-200 (out of
900k) have over 100 editors, and Kim thinks there's a good case for
declaring all those prima facie pathological until firmly proven otherwise.
So (1) being big does not mean we have to go from consensus to voting and
(2) does not mean AFD is the only possible way to run a deletion mechanism.
Fantastically interesting stuff.


- d.



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dealing with crap deletion nominations

David Gerard
David Gerard ([hidden email]) [060123 10:38]:

> By the way, Kim Bruning and Gmaxwell just ran numbers on Wikipedia articles
> which might actually support Pure Wiki Deletion as a generally good idea.
> I desperately await Kim's writeup, 'cos I doubt Greg's going to make one.
> But it's the first thing I've seen resembling evidence. Basically, over 90%
> of Wikipedia articles have one or two editors, and only 100-200 (out of
> 900k) have over 100 editors, and Kim thinks there's a good case for
> declaring all those prima facie pathological until firmly proven otherwise.
> So (1) being big does not mean we have to go from consensus to voting and
> (2) does not mean AFD is the only possible way to run a deletion mechanism.
> Fantastically interesting stuff.


Gmaxwell has left the project, which is annoying for many reasons, and this
reason is because the scripts and such he was running are on the
toolserver. But here's two diagrams to start you off:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Articles_distinct_histo.png

That's how many editors per article. Note that ALMOST ALL articles have one
editor, maybe two. And only 200 or so have over 100 editors (123 over 1000
editors), and almost all those are way overedited for the wiki process
(e.g. G.W. Bush, which is THE busiest article on the wiki and arguably
pathological).

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Articles_distinct.png

- same thing as above in CDF. Breakdown of editors per article.


- d.



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dealing with crap deletion nominations

Travis Mason-Bushman
Wow. Just wow. Really shows the scope and scale of what we're dealing with,
and just how little anyone has scratched the surface of what's on Wikipedia.

-FCYTravis


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dealing with crap deletion nominations

gamaliel8
In reply to this post by David Gerard
Based on your numbers, a three month shut down would mean a backlog of some
1800 articles that would have to be dealt with in some other way.  You may
think this is insignificant enough to dismiss and ignore, I don't.

On 1/22/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Rob ([hidden email]) [060123 10:04]:
> > On 1/22/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > > My proposed idea remains: shut down AFD/DRV for a month. Make it three
> > > months.
>
> > Only if we expand the speedy deletion criteria accordingly.  We really
> don't
> > want to deal with a three month backlog of garage bands and ads for
> Bob's
> > Muffler Shop.
>
> Straw man. Wikipedia runs 4000 new articles/day, 2000 of which are shot on
> sight; AFD is maybe 200 articles a day *nominated* at present, which is a
> trickle by comparison. It really will not make substantial difference
> unless people start nominating to make a point. Which is shooting
> behaviour.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dealing with crap deletion nominations

David Gerard
In reply to this post by David Gerard
David Gerard ([hidden email]) [060123 10:52]:

> Gmaxwell has left the project, which is annoying for many reasons, and this
> reason is because the scripts and such he was running are on the
> toolserver. But here's two diagrams to start you off:
>
>     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Articles_distinct_histo.png
>
> That's how many editors per article. Note that ALMOST ALL articles have one
> editor, maybe two. And only 200 or so have over 100 editors (123 over 1000
> editors), and almost all those are way overedited for the wiki process
> (e.g. G.W. Bush, which is THE busiest article on the wiki and arguably
> pathological).
>
>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Articles_distinct.png
>
> - same thing as above in CDF. Breakdown of editors per article.


I just asked Kim's permission to quote from him on #wikimedia last night.
At the end is the URL with the original data, bz2 compressed (16MB file,
expands to about 70-odd MB).

I've deleted the words of everyone except Kim and myself. Also, Kim wants
to note that:

[23:58] <kim_register> you can take my irc discussion too if you like
[23:59] <kim_register> though note that I'm a lot less collected on irc
[23:59] <kim_register> so with disclaimer
[23:59] <kim_register> and I reserve the right to not mean half of what
I said ;-)

Note also that all credit for the heavy lifting on this one goes to
gmaxwell.


- d.



[23:41]  <kim_register> I have something cool to show him that gmaxwell
drew ^^;;
[00:03]  <kim_register>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Articles_distinct_histo.png
[00:03]  <kim_register> BINGO!
[00:03]  <kim_register> most articles are only edited by a couple of users
[00:03]  <kim_register> do you see, do you SEE how far left that single
peak is?
[00:03]  <kim_register> it's almost invisible
[00:03]  <kim_register> OMG this is cool!
[00:03]  * kim_register raves
[00:04]  <kim_register> death to all the wikidemocracy folks
[00:04]  <kim_register> long live consensus!
[00:04]  <kim_register> (well, maybe not death to them, but...)
[...]
[00:05]  <kim_register>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Articles_distinct.png
[00:05]  <kim_register> heres a [[CDF]] view
[00:06]  <kim_register> GOAAAL
[00:06]  <kim_register> I mean wooohooo
[00:06]  <kim_register> sorry
[00:06]  <kim_register> :-)
[00:06]  <kim_register> I'm so happy :-)
[00:07]  <kim_register> thank Gmaxwell too :-)
[00:19]  <kim_register>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Articles_distinct_loghisto.png
[00:19]  <kim_register> here's a scaled one
[00:19]  <kim_register> it's LOG SCALED, so be DARN careful interpreting
it, if you're not used to log scaling
[00:20]  <kim_register> I'm noting how many editors edit each article
[00:20]  <kim_register> This basically shows that most articles have few
editors
[00:21]  <kim_register> brian0918, I'm using them to show that consensus
will still work
[00:21]  <kim_register> and the whole voting thing is silly
[00:21]  <kim_register> so we don't need to make drastic policy changes
"because the wiki is too big now"
[00:21]  <kim_register> all that is pure nonsense, is what these graphs
prove
[00:21]  <kim_register> the wiki segments conversations into small
managable areas that can be handled by consensus
[00:22]  <kim_register> brian0918, well, we'll do some more graphs
[00:22]  <kim_register> but these are pretty darn indicative already
[00:22]  <kim_register> I don't expect to see drastically different results
elsewhere
[00:22]  <kim_register> if it's this clear here
[00:22]  <kim_register> it's not going to differ by orders of magnitude
elsewhere :-)
[00:25]  <kim_register> oh gosh
[00:25]  <kim_register> anyway, I love these graphs
[00:27]  <kim_register>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Articles_distinct_logcdf.png
[00:27]  <kim_register> tricky to read one
[00:27]  <kim_register> (01:27:05) nullc: well there really is only one
thing to say..
[00:27]  <kim_register> (01:27:12) Kim Bruning: yeah
[00:27]  <kim_register> (01:27:17) nullc: that articles have few editors.
[00:27]  <kim_register> (01:27:21) Kim Bruning: *grin*
[00:32]  <kim_register>     * 67.20% have been edited by less than 10
distinct Users/IPs.
[00:32]  <kim_register>     * 86.07% have been edited by less than 20
distinct Users/IPs.
[00:32]  <kim_register>     * 91.90% have been edited by less than 30
distinct Users/IPs.
[00:32]  <kim_register>     * 99.21% have been edited by less than 150
distinct Users/IPs.
[00:33]  <kim_register> 01:33:12) nullc: 72% of the articles have 11
editors or less.
[00:36]  <kim_register> so we'll throw out all articles with > 200 editors
[00:36]  <kim_register> that's maybe 100 or so
[00:36]  <kim_register> and then see the new graphs
[00:36]  <kim_register> this is kinda cool ;-)
[00:37]  <kim_register> I'm willing to bet that the >200 editor set also
has trouble with NPOV
[00:37]  <kim_register> as well as many other things
[00:46]  <kim_register> Ok, so based on this alone
[00:46]  <kim_register> normal wikipedia policy should be consensus
consensus consensus
[00:46]  <kim_register> large pages can best be split and transcluded
[00:47]  <kim_register> transcluded sections will survive AFD anyway, since
even those will have like 50 editors or so
[00:47]  <kim_register> this way we can keep a consistent and coherent
policy across the entire encyclopedia namespace
[00:47]  <kim_register> now we need to consistentize in wikipedia namespace
[00:47]  <kim_register> this has low priority in theory
[00:47]  <kim_register> but is going to be tricky in practice
[00:47]  <kim_register> but like WOOT
[00:47]  <kim_register> love those numbers!
[00:47]  <kim_register> yippee!
[00:48]  <kim_register> we don't need to change much at all, even though
we've grown so much!
[00:50]  <kim_register> well I need to get some cooperative fire support
[00:50]  <kim_register> you're already helping keep them down ;-)
[00:50]  <kim_register> I'll have to recruit some more :-)
[00:50]  <kim_register> I'll start one by one :-)
[01:18]  <DavidGerard> kim_register: that's fantastic to read
[01:19]  <DavidGerard> and squares with my experience also: articles are
either contentious or ghost towns
[01:19]  <DavidGerard> with a few in between
[01:25]  <kim_register> yes
[01:25]  <kim_register> we're going to have so much fun fixing policy this
year :-)
[01:25]  <kim_register> I'd love to have special dispensation from jimbo
though
[01:25]  <kim_register> otherwise it's going to be hell fighting through
wikinomic
[01:26]  <kim_register> alternately we can just start policy from scratch
[01:26]  <kim_register> though that too might have some downsides...
[01:26]  <kim_register> but basically, the graphs show that wikipedia
policy will still work
[01:26]  <kim_register> and that it scales well
[01:26]  <kim_register> our job is to make sure it STAYS that way ;-)
[01:29]  <kim_register> DavidGerard, I have the base dataset in my mailbox
now. Do you want me to forward you a copy?
[01:31]  <DavidGerard> nonono, i believe your graphs ;-) what I'm
interested in is your writeup
[01:31]  <DavidGerard> kim_register: jimbo is just a little tired of
wikinomic
[01:32]  <DavidGerard> the stupidity and shittiness of afd is now causing
wikipedia lots of real world problems
[01:32]  <DavidGerard> i.e., the foundation is getting a lot of mail from
the aggrieved
[01:32]  <DavidGerard> and then the fuckwits tried CFDing [[Category:Living
people]] or whatever it was called
[01:32]  <DavidGerard> and jimbo killed the CFD
[01:32]  <DavidGerard> and it was *recreated*
[01:32]  <DavidGerard> THREE TIMES
[01:33]  <DavidGerard> and jimbo saw what moronic shit was said on that CFD
[01:33]  <DavidGerard> and thunder and lightning came down from the
heavens.
[01:33]  <kim_register> hello mindspillage , greg is messing with lovely
pristine numbers. Maybe might be fun if you could help him out :-)
[01:33]  <kim_register> DavidGerard, *ghrin*
[01:33]  <kim_register> DavidGerard, what kinda writeup are you expecting
btw?
[01:33]  <DavidGerard> AFD is about to discover that the rest of wikipedia
does in fact have a few things to say about the standard of behaviour
there.
[01:34]  <kim_register> and I mean, there's a zillion bits of info :-)
[01:34]  <kim_register> that we haven't explored yet
[01:34]  <kim_register> but the graph with the single peak all the way left
..
[01:34]  <kim_register> that does it for me
[01:34]  <kim_register> DavidGerard, I'm going to propose killing all > 100
participant pages, one way or the other
[01:34]  <DavidGerard> kim_register: hah!
[01:34]  <kim_register> DavidGerard, still need data for wikimedia
namespace to be sure that's a great idea
[01:35]  <DavidGerard> permanent semiprotect?
[01:35]  <kim_register> no, I mean kill
[01:35]  <kim_register> as in mark as deprecated
[01:35]  <DavidGerard> hmm.
[01:35]  <kim_register> use a different system
[01:35]  <DavidGerard> :-O
[01:35]  <DavidGerard> gosh!
[01:35]  <DavidGerard> case my case please
[01:35]  <DavidGerard> case by case i mean
[01:35]  <DavidGerard> but may basically be a good idea
[01:36]  <kim_register> Well, there are roughly 100-200 cases to consider
[01:36]  <kim_register> guesstimating by current data
[01:36]  <kim_register> actually probably much less
[01:36]  <kim_register> articles as a general case can be split up and
transcluded
[01:37]  <kim_register> leaving only wikipedia namespace stuff
[01:37]  <kim_register> the latter hasn't been looked at
[01:37]  <kim_register> not yet
[01:37]  <kim_register> so these are prelim findings so far :-)
[01:37]  <kim_register> wikipedia namespace will need some case by case
work on splitting, yes :-)
[01:38]  <kim_register> for all the *FDs, we can replace the whole lot with
true wiki deletion I'll wager
[01:38]  <kim_register> some people will hate it :-)
[01:38]  <kim_register> mindspillage, we'd need to check stats on that :-)
[01:38]  <kim_register> DavidGerard, but it would be too early to say
things about wikipedia namespace
[01:39]  <kim_register> in any case, on articles, there should be no
problems even now
[01:39]  <DavidGerard> well. gosh!
[01:40]  <DavidGerard> i eagerly await your writeup ;-)
[01:42]  <kim_register> LOL
[01:42]  <kim_register> I HATE WRITEUPS
[01:43]  <DavidGerard> cut'n'paste your comments here. or get greg to write
it up ;-)
[01:47]  <DavidGerard> if you make preliminary notes and make your data
available (as available as you can), then that will be enough for fun
[01:47]  <kim_register> grin

The data file: http://bruning.xs4all.nl/~kim/kim_query1.bz2

[02:10]  <kim_register> page_id | distinct_editors | oldest_revision |
rev_count |
[02:10]  <kim_register> 2004_distinct | 2004_rev_count | 2003_distinct |
2003_rev_count |
[02:10]  <kim_register> 2002_distinct | 2002_rev_count
[02:11]  <kim_register> (this is the key to the bz2 file)

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dealing with crap deletion nominations

Haukur Þorgeirsson
*crunch* Yummy statistics.

> [00:32]  <kim_register>     * 67.20% have been edited by less than 10
> distinct Users/IPs.

So, more than 30 percent of our articles have ten editors or more? Or am I
misunderstanding something?

Regards,
Haukur

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dealing with crap deletion nominations

Tony Sidaway-3
In reply to this post by David Gerard
On 1/22/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Rob ([hidden email]) [060123 10:04]:
> > On 1/22/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > > My proposed idea remains: shut down AFD/DRV for a month. Make it three
> > > months.
>
> > Only if we expand the speedy deletion criteria accordingly.  We really don't
> > want to deal with a three month backlog of garage bands and ads for Bob's
> > Muffler Shop.
>
>
> Straw man. Wikipedia runs 4000 new articles/day, 2000 of which are shot on
> sight; AFD is maybe 200 articles a day *nominated* at present, which is a
> trickle by comparison. It really will not make substantial difference
> unless people start nominating to make a point. Which is shooting
> behaviour.
>


You are channeling me!  Stop it!
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dealing with crap deletion nominations

Matthew Brown-5
In reply to this post by gamaliel8
Garage bands among others are now speedy-able.

-Matt
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dealing with crap deletion nominations

Matthew Brown-5
In reply to this post by gamaliel8
Of those 200 per day, how many /should/ be on afd?  As opposed to
speedyable or should have been dealt with another way (e.g. merge).

-Matt

On 1/22/06, Rob <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Based on your numbers, a three month shut down would mean a backlog of some
> 1800 articles that would have to be dealt with in some other way.  You may
> think this is insignificant enough to dismiss and ignore, I don't.
>
> On 1/22/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Rob ([hidden email]) [060123 10:04]:
> > > On 1/22/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > > My proposed idea remains: shut down AFD/DRV for a month. Make it three
> > > > months.
> >
> > > Only if we expand the speedy deletion criteria accordingly.  We really
> > don't
> > > want to deal with a three month backlog of garage bands and ads for
> > Bob's
> > > Muffler Shop.
> >
> > Straw man. Wikipedia runs 4000 new articles/day, 2000 of which are shot on
> > sight; AFD is maybe 200 articles a day *nominated* at present, which is a
> > trickle by comparison. It really will not make substantial difference
> > unless people start nominating to make a point. Which is shooting
> > behaviour.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dealing with crap deletion nominations

Tony Sidaway-3
On 1/23/06, Matt Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Of those 200 per day, how many /should/ be on afd?  As opposed to
> speedyable or should have been dealt with another way (e.g. merge).

Quite.  There are a few unverifiables (real unverifiables, not the
nonsense about announcements of licensing deals by two companies being
unverifiable) and we could probably find an innovative alternative to
AfD for those.

I'm strongly in favor of giving this ago.  Many AfD articles are
obvious merges or redirects and shouldn't ever see AfD at all.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dealing with crap deletion nominations

Jay Converse
On 1/22/06, Tony Sidaway <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 1/23/06, Matt Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Of those 200 per day, how many /should/ be on afd?  As opposed to
> > speedyable or should have been dealt with another way (e.g. merge).
>
> Quite.  There are a few unverifiables (real unverifiables, not the
> nonsense about announcements of licensing deals by two companies being
> unverifiable) and we could probably find an innovative alternative to
> AfD for those.
>
> I'm strongly in favor of giving this ago.  Many AfD articles are
> obvious merges or redirects and shouldn't ever see AfD at all.
>

That reminds me.  Why are people allowed to vote Merge or Redirect on AfD in
the first place?

--
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dealing with crap deletion nominations

Tony Sidaway-3
On 1/23/06, Jay Converse <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> That reminds me.  Why are people allowed to vote Merge or Redirect on AfD in
> the first place?

So they can say "this article isn't likely to be much use on its own
but the information can be placed elsewhere or the name of the article
pertains to another one."
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dealing with crap deletion nominations

John Lee-5
In reply to this post by David Gerard
David Gerard wrote:

>Some AFD regulars seem to view AFD/DRV as an independent fiefdom which
>claims dominion over all Wikipedia content, but resists all comment from
>outside (e.g. wikien-l) as interference. *Unfortunately*, it's been causing
>real problems for the Foundation of late. Unbelievable rudeness about
>outsiders, stupendously crap nominations to make a point, actively driving
>away outside experts, etc.
>
>Here is a suggestion: good faith is not enough when the good-faith actions
>are stupidly destructive. Incivility on *FD = 24 hour ban from all *FD
>pages and deletion of comment. Sufficiently crap nomination = 1 month ban
>from all *FD pages.
>
>Ideas?
>
>
>- d.
>
>
>  
>
I like the "crap nominations" part. I have seen people in places like
Wikipedia Review saying they intentionally disrupt Wikipedia by
nominating a few articles in bad faith every day. Putting a stop to bad
faith acts is an action nobody should be opposing, regardless of who is
doing it or why. The road to hell may be paved with good intentions, but
the road to a good encyclopedia sure damn ain't paved with bad ones either.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dealing with crap deletion nominations

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
In reply to this post by Philip Sandifer-2
Snowspinner wrote:

> How about David, an ardent deletionist, who is due for his more jobs
> after a year of excellent service to the arbcom?
>
> In fact, why don't we give David a title akin to Raul's on featured
> articles? Deletion Director. And give him broad authority to look  into
> deletion cases and force sane results. However much one agrees  with his
> claims about how systemically broken *FD is, I don't think  anyone has
> seriously argued against his extreme sanity when it comes  to, well,
> everything.
>
#'''Support''', knows music (that deals with band vanity), isn't a high
school student (that deals with schools), is Australian (that deals with
Australia-related stuff). I'm happy. ~~~~

--
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

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

signature.asc (568 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dealing with crap deletion nominations

geni
In reply to this post by John Lee-5
On 1/23/06, John Lee <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I like the "crap nominations" part. I have seen people in places like
> Wikipedia Review saying they intentionally disrupt Wikipedia by
> nominating a few articles in bad faith every day. Putting a stop to bad
> faith acts is an action nobody should be opposing, regardless of who is
> doing it or why. The road to hell may be paved with good intentions, but
> the road to a good encyclopedia sure damn ain't paved with bad ones either.
>
> John Lee
> ([[User:Johnleemk]])


You belive the people at Wikipedia Review?

--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dealing with crap deletion nominations

John Lee-5
geni wrote:

>On 1/23/06, John Lee <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>
>>I like the "crap nominations" part. I have seen people in places like
>>Wikipedia Review saying they intentionally disrupt Wikipedia by
>>nominating a few articles in bad faith every day. Putting a stop to bad
>>faith acts is an action nobody should be opposing, regardless of who is
>>doing it or why. The road to hell may be paved with good intentions, but
>>the road to a good encyclopedia sure damn ain't paved with bad ones either.
>>
>>John Lee
>>([[User:Johnleemk]])
>>    
>>
>
>
>You belive the people at Wikipedia Review?
>
>--
>geni
>  
>
Let's just say that given I've been keeping [[WP:AFD/Old]] backlog free
for a week, I've seen more than my fair share of priceless AfDs.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dealing with crap deletion nominations

SCZenz
In reply to this post by David Gerard
I know I'm getting into this late, but I'm gonna start from the top anyway...

Why not reform WP:DRV into something everyone can live with?  We could
give it more authority to overrule AfD, based on things other than
process, for example.  If you want oversight of AfD nominations, by
all means put it there--but I don't think having a single person with
broad review powers is a good idea at all.

SCZenz

On 1/22/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Some AFD regulars seem to view AFD/DRV as an independent fiefdom which
> claims dominion over all Wikipedia content, but resists all comment from
> outside (e.g. wikien-l) as interference. *Unfortunately*, it's been causing
> real problems for the Foundation of late. Unbelievable rudeness about
> outsiders, stupendously crap nominations to make a point, actively driving
> away outside experts, etc.
>
> Here is a suggestion: good faith is not enough when the good-faith actions
> are stupidly destructive. Incivility on *FD = 24 hour ban from all *FD
> pages and deletion of comment. Sufficiently crap nomination = 1 month ban
> from all *FD pages.
>
> Ideas?
>
>
> - d.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dealing with crap deletion nominations

Tony Sidaway-3
On 1/23/06, SCZenz <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I know I'm getting into this late, but I'm gonna start from the top anyway...
>
> Why not reform WP:DRV into something everyone can live with?  We could
> give it more authority to overrule AfD, based on things other than
> process, for example.

Deletion review already has powers of content review (which it
inherited from its predecessor, Votes for undeletion) under the
deletion policy.  This fact is not well known and is routinely denied
by regular users of that forum.  The culture of DRV is in a worse
state than that of AFD and it's far more process-bound; I'd suggest
that looking there for a solution would be a mistake.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dealing with crap deletion nominations

SCZenz
I'd suggest that end-running the forum because you disagree with its
current regular users is an error.  We need to hash out disagreements
about how things are to be run, even if it's difficult, not form
separate warring fiefdoms.

SCZenz

On 1/23/06, Tony Sidaway <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 1/23/06, SCZenz <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I know I'm getting into this late, but I'm gonna start from the top anyway...
> >
> > Why not reform WP:DRV into something everyone can live with?  We could
> > give it more authority to overrule AfD, based on things other than
> > process, for example.
>
> Deletion review already has powers of content review (which it
> inherited from its predecessor, Votes for undeletion) under the
> deletion policy.  This fact is not well known and is routinely denied
> by regular users of that forum.  The culture of DRV is in a worse
> state than that of AFD and it's far more process-bound; I'd suggest
> that looking there for a solution would be a mistake.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
123