[WikiEN-l] False AfD Nominations

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

[WikiEN-l] False AfD Nominations

Philip Sandifer-2
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
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] False AfD Nominations

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] False AfD Nominations

Philip Sandifer-2


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
[hidden email]

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] False AfD Nominations

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] False AfD Nominations

Nick Wilkins
In reply to this post by Philip Sandifer-2
On 1/31/07, Phil Sandifer <[hidden email]> 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
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] False AfD Nominations

Ron Ritzman
In reply to this post by Philip Sandifer-2
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.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] False AfD Nominations

Philip Sandifer-2
In reply to this post by Nick Wilkins


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

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] False AfD Nominations

Nick Wilkins
On 1/31/07, Phil Sandifer <[hidden email]> 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
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] False AfD Nominations

Nick Wilkins
In reply to this post by MacGyverMagic/Mgm
On 1/31/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <[hidden email]> 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
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] False AfD Nominations

MacGyverMagic/Mgm
On 2/1/07, Nick Wilkins <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 1/31/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <[hidden email]> 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
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] False AfD Nominations

Andrew Gray
In reply to this post by Ron Ritzman
On 01/02/07, Ron Ritzman <[hidden email]> 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]

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] False AfD Nominations

MacGyverMagic/Mgm
On 2/1/07, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 01/02/07, Ron Ritzman <[hidden email]> 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]
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
> [hidden email]


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

Re: [WikiEN-l] False AfD Nominations

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
In reply to this post by Philip Sandifer-2
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!!!"

--
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://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

signature.asc (554 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] False AfD Nominations

Ron Ritzman
In reply to this post by Andrew Gray
On 2/1/07, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]> 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.

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