Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-11 List of computer pranks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-06-11 List of computer pranks 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Evidence 1.4 Compromise offers 1.5 Comments by others 1.6 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-06-11 List of computer pranks

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Λυδαcιτγ 01:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

List of computer pranks

Who's involved?

Myself (User:Audacity), User:Zzzzz (though not recently), and many anonymous users

What's going on?

On May 8, I proposed that this article be deleted, since it was "Merely a collection of external links and descriptions. Most are non-notable; notable ones are extant at Prank flash. Any other notable ones should be moved there." Zzzzz removed the PROD, and informed me that this article was necessary as an "overflow" for the many pranks that people wanted to add to Computer prank. Basically, the spam and non-notable links were dumped into this article so that we wouldn't have to worry about them. Me being idealistic, I decided to clean up the article and watch over it to ensure that it wouldn't regress to a spam-filled format. I basically dumped almost all the pranks except for ones I had heard of, and changed it into a table (based on List of backmasked messages). Of course, fans of the old version were outraged, and immediately began protesting; some reverted the article back to its old version. Anyway, this has been going on now for over a month now, and the anons keep pointing out that the numbers are on their side. They have made some decent arguments why the article should be reverted to how it was before.

What would you like to change about that?

I would like some other people with a good knowledge of policy to settle this dispute once and for all. Once that is done I can take care of maintaining the page to the standard that is decided upon.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

You don't have to work discreetly, but you can reach me by email or at my talk page.

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

Probably. Let me see how effective you guys are, and then I'll decide.

[edit] Mediator response

Hello there! I am Cowman109^Talk and I have volunteered to take this case. The first thing I'd like to do is ask for some clarification. Concerning the prod tag you used, WP:DP states that:"Wikipedia:Proposed deletion is for uncontroversial articles that do not meet the speedy criteria. Flagging such an article with {{prod}} will place it into Category:Proposed deletion; if it remains uncontested there for five days it can be deleted at an administrator's discretion." This article is clearly wanted by a few people, so WP:AFD may be the process you may want to look at instead (see below questions). Much improvement has clearly been made to the article since then with the addition of a table and an effort to keep only notable links. The version that the anonymous IPs are reverting to does appear to merely be a collection of links with very short descriptions attached to them. The explanation by some of the users as a reason for keeping the page are the exact opposite of policy; for example, "People could avertise the ones they made themselves! Not just others." Wikipedia guidelines state that one should actually not advertise their own work or anyone's elses for that matter. There are standards of notability to uphold.

So, here are some questions:

1. Would you be interested in gaining community consensus to determine whether to article as it stands should have an article? IE, would you be interested in proposing this article for AFD to have a discussion to see whether the page should have an article?

1a. A possibly slower, though less drastic step could be a Request for comment, though the backlog there is pretty large and it may only bring one extra person to the talk page. Would you like to try this instead, if you wish to gain a wider community consensus? However, from looking at the talk page it seems several users agree with you, and it is mostly unregistered users that want to retain the old version of the article.

The number of IPs, while they do represent a community, do not necessarily represent what is best in terms of policy.

You were doing just as an editor should do when you attempted to improve the article, but I'm not quite sure what it is that you want for this article exactly. Please reply and tell me where you'd like to go to from here. Cowman109^Talk 21:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply by Λυδαcιτγ: I think you misunderstood; I don't want to delete the article anymore. I originally PROD'd it without knowledge of its history. But now what I'm looking for is simply some further community involvement with regards to whether to keep this version, revert to the old one, or do something in between. I originally learned of this article through WikiProject Spam, but I have a feeling the people there would be biased.

I'd like you and/or someone else from the Cabal to take a look at the article, as another representative of Wikipedia. The RfC is also a good idea, and might be useful as well. Thanks for your time. Λυδαcιτγ 03:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, alright. Well as Wikipedia builds off of consensus I think the best way to go about this would be at least an RFC to get other people to put their two cents on to what exactly should be put in the article. I will hop on the article and see if I can find any specific policies that may provide further insight. That may be more of a job of a advocate, but I'll jump in anyway. Cowman109^Talk 20:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll start an RFC. As for WP:ADVCAB, I'm looking more for neutral comments than for someone to take my side. I've made my arguments, and having someone else come in with a bias would simply aggravate the situation. What I want to do is show what the consensus is - both for the anons and for myself. So if you're going to jump in, please do so with an open mind. Λυδαcιτγ 23:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Case closed

Well, the matter seems to have died down. If that's everything, I will list this case as closed and move it to the archives. Should any further trouble arise, this page will be on my watchlist (though a message on my talk page would be best). Cowman109^Talk 15:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That's all, thanks! Λυδαcιτγ 17:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Comments by others

[edit] Discussion