Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Eagle 101/WikiDiscussion Manager

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep unanimously. It appears this utility now has no doubters. Xoloz 17:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Eagle 101/WikiDiscussion Manager

A discussion on this page (at a previous title) was speedy closed because of an improperly incendiary nomination. A DRV discussion on that matter was rendered moot by a page move, which also effectively changed the objectionable title of the utility involved.

Out of personal concern, as well as a desire to lay the matter firmly to rest, I now nominate the newly-named page for deletion. Although it is in userspace, I fear any utility which makes it easier for editors to comment over quickly at XfDs could present serious problems for the integrity and seriousness of the discussions. That said, I don't despise this tool; I merely feel the question of whether it should exist on-wiki should be debated. Skeptical that it serves any useful purpose, I do say weak delete for now.

I trust no one will find this nomination incendiary, and I ask everyone to allow calm deliberation to proceed for the normal five-to-seven day period. Xoloz 15:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Super Speedy Keep this is a valuable tool and actualy assits the user in gathering information and making a informed and inteligent decision in WP:AFD . this is a valuable tool it ranks with vandalproof and AWB. Betacommand 00:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Speedy Keep per my reason on the old mfd and betacommand. GeorgeMoney (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Any tool that assists with Wikipedia-related tasks could in turn be used for malicious purposes. It all depends in whose hand the tool rests. When used as intended, this tool merely simplifies repetitive tasks in the same vein as VandalProof, AWB, and the Wikipedia toolbar. It has always been emphasized that the tool should be used for meaningful participation in AfD's, and not "mindless voting". There are some measures in place to prevent just anyone from using it and to track who is using it (requirement of 200+ Wikipedia edits and category membership, respectively) as well as a built-in method for blocking anyone found to be abusing the tool. No where has anyone yet pointed to any instance of the tool actually being abused; instead of speculating endlessly about possibilities let's look at what it is being used for. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Speedy Keep per betacommand, and I can point out (per AbsolutDan), that it is actually 250+ edits in the mainspace. --Deon555^talk_Review 01:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I can understand Xoloz' reasoning against having this page in project space. In user space, I think it is fine. I hope that the recent discussion about this tool encourages its responsible use - you know, people might be less inclined to vote "per nom" if they have a program like this to do formatting and editcount-checking and googling for them. Kusma (討論) 08:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Keep (see below) as well as a Comment Look at recent contributions of any editor who is using this and you see that it seems to only increase the "delete per nom" type votes occuring in AfD, and the editors using it are never encouraged to go back and check for replies on their votes. Also, I am lead to question why this is an MfD for the user page, shouldn't this be in the village pump? 1 more note: I think more editors in this discussion are users of the tool than aren't. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

as for the comment about are never encouraged to go back and check for replies on their votes that is the same with any AfD just because a user uses WDM doesnt mean that they dont respond. and for the the "delete per nom" type votes that has been in use and it just restates given information. would you prefer that the users copy the nom's comment and repast it for their entry if they agree with the comments and reasoning behind the nominators comment? Betacommand 15:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As for more "editors in this discussion are users of the tool than aren't", I think MichaelBillington has a good point there, but the only way people should be voting on this is if they actually have tried out WikiDiscussion Manager, and used it for themselves. As everyone who's been involved in XfDs know, a comment to keep or delete is only useful if you know what the XfD is all about, and the same rule applies here. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 19:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Changed to keep; I have a great dislike for the tool myself, but I'm not seeing any reason for the user (sub)page to be deleted. I do still think we should take this to the village pump however, to discuss in further detail the tool itself. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Super Speedy Keep - The application makes it easier for editors and dedicated Wikipedians to keep track of the AfDs - and actually encourages thoughtful discussion and deliberation, rather than supressing it. It's hard to misuse it as well - the program checks for a user's edit count when it starts up (250+ edits), so that pretty much eliminates the chance of a random vandal using it to spam AfDs. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 19:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Not sure why this is here ? - Nominating with a weak delete does not seem purposeful. The tool is useful and can be abused as can any other ( AWB/VP/popups/Godmode ) which is hardly a reason for deleting a well used userspace page like this - Peripitus (Talk) 10:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Should we go and MfD everything relating to other AFD utilities, like AFD-helper? I do not think so, and I see no difference in kind between tools to help put something up for deletion and something to help comment in AFDs (a process which is currently clunky even in tabbed browsers). --maru (talk) contribs 05:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.