Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Unused Central Asian Country WikiProjects

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 SPEEDY CLOSE Projects must be entirely undesirable to be deleted (see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Introduction). This nomination amounts to WP:POINT and the debate over content, proliferation, and WP:OWN is not a proper MfD issue. There is no reasonable liklihood that this issue will result in consensus that these projects are entirely undesirable during a content and policy dispute among several very experienced editors, therefore I'm closing this as WP:SNOW without prejudice to bringing it back here, if necessary, after the underlying dispute has been resolved. Parties are encouraged to try to work this out on the respective projects' or parent project's talk page or by using any of the various WP:DR methods. (non-admin closing). Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Kazakhstan

Unused project pages. All were created by the same user without consulting any of the editors actually working in the respective areas (he originally created them as "work groups" within the otherwise well-coordinated WikiProject Central Asia). Btw: This is just the tip of the iceberg: The same user seems to have created around 100 seperate country related projects, and will clearly be unable to actively maintain even a small fraction of them. Grandiose dreams of "categorisation by robot" are bound to fail, because categorisation is a task that simply cannot automated. --Latebird (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I've tried very hard to just describe the situation as factually as possible, but maybe I should have waited until I'm not pissed anymore. Just that it's hard to maintain one's cool if someone tells you: "Look, I know what I'm doing, I've made the same mistake a hundred times!"... Ok, I can laught about it now. In any case, I'll step back for a while to see what other people think. --Latebird (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree with Latebird. These workgroups/projects were created in an ad hoc style, then never used. Otebig (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy close This seems to be more of a disagreement that should be sorted out on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Central Asia page between the users in question, User:John Carter and the nominator, rather than MfD. If worse comes to worst, they can be reverted back to task forces. I do not foresee any of these Projects being deleted at this time via MfD. --12 Noon 2¢ 02:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Those are really two seperate issues. The question of WikiProject vs. work group/task force is only relevant to those items that have active users, none of which is nominated here. The nominated items are not in use and thus pointless to keep independently of their technical status. --Latebird (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep on the basis of nominator's own COI and failure to abide by existing protocols. The fact that the bots have not yet been sent out to tag the articles is the only point against the majority of the projects. Betacommand has already more or less agreed to be very helpful in that regard. No project should be deleted until at least several months of inacitivity, and at this point the projects were only created in December, with me being tied up with the various other multi-national projects in the interim. It clearly could be the case that they might take off, and in fact some are even currently included on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page, even if doing so would require separate banners, a possibility the proposer evidently did not even think to consider before making the nomination. I personally believe that the purpose of the nomination is the fact that I took exception to the nominator's imperious tone when he told me to STOP IMMEDIATELY on setting up the categories for the new draft banner. Personally, the projects were created along with several other projects to assist wikipedia in general in knowing which articles were most relevant to existing subjects of notable importance, specifically including extant national entities. It should also be noted that the editor is not including one of the other projects I created, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mongolia, despite it also being created at the same time. His own statements regarding "grandiose dreams" is I believe a direct misrepresentation, probably conscious, of a statement I made earlier, when I was addressing the fact that the bots would tag the articles. I said nothing about the articles page, which is one I generally develop while doing the assessments to ensure that only relevant articles are included. Under the circumstances, however, I am adjusting that practice. I also tried to ensure that all nations have the name, if not the function, of separate projects, while territories would be named work groups, to take into account the geographical and political "parents". All of this was explained to the editor above already. The fact that I took exception to his high-handed tone and did not include the Mongolia assessments in the new Central Asia banner after his imperious remarks, baasically to ensure that the only one he had joined not be adjusted without his prior consent, is I believe the proximate cause for this deletion request. John Carter (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Reading this, it is clear that John Carter is completely missing the concerns here. He is trying to present this as a personal issue between another editor and himself (along with ridiculous accusations like COI), which is not the case. There are several real issues here:
  • These workgroups were created without consulting anyone else in Wikiproject Central Asia. While it's great to be bold, there are certain reasons individual country projects do not exist and a regional project works better. Had John Carter taken a moment to talk to anyone else on the project, this could have been explained.
  • No one has joined these new workgroups/projects (except the Mongolia project and a previously-existing Tajikistan project). There has been enough time for people to join if they wanted to (again, see the Mongolia group). The projects listed here are just taking up space.
  • Several of us (myself included) have worked very hard rating, ranking, and categorizing articles for Wikiproject Central Asia. We do so because this helps us improve articles and the project. John Carter, however, is now trying to unilaterally create a double layer of ratings for each project, which has the potential to make things quite confusing, especially if they will be included on the same Wikiproject Central Asia banner. Again, he has never asked if creating these groups or ratings would be helpful to the project, and I have not seen anyone actively involved with the project who thinks it would.
  • As far as I can tell, the reason these projects were created was that "maybe", "in the future", "someone" might try to create these projects. Therefore (this is my understanding), we should create them now to preempt that - even if they just sit unused.
  • John Carter continues to push ahead with this, trying to set up bots and new banners, but still has not started a discussion about the need of these projects. Obviously some people feel these projects are not needed now, and John Carter needs to stop (am I imperious now?) and discuss these ideas with the Wikiproject Central Asia community.

"The fact that the bots have not yet been sent out to tag the articles is the only point against the majority of the projects". I hope by reading the above he can understand how incorrect this statement is. In the meantime, these unused projects need to be deleted until a consensus at some point (if ever) decides such projects are needed. Otebig (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask you as I did the original poster, watch your tone, several comments can be taken as uncivil. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
And yet John Carter, who has called people ignorant for disagreeing with him, gets no warning from you. Anyway, back to the issue at hand... Otebig (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This statement "John Carter continues to push ahead with this, trying to set up bots and new banners, but still has not started a discussion about the need of these projects" is both a flat lie, and a gross misrepresentation of policies, specifically including WP:OWN. I had in fact posted a question about the new proposed banner several hours before this posting was made, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Central Asia#Proposed change to project banner. Also, there is no specific need to propose new projects with relevant groups. I strongly urge the editors above to read several extant policies, including WP:OWN, considering that they seem to believe that they "own" the content. John Carter (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
You're offense, he's defense, and you're the only one to use the word "ignorant" anywhere in this discourse. Check it yourself. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It was here. Check it yourself. And please don't call me offense - it could be taken as uncivil. Otebig (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
And your own statement above, which contains a comment which is clearly in violation of fact, cannot be taken as being anything other than uncivil, and possibly as an unfounded WP:NPA. Your own behavior, I regret to say, is probably more demonstrably problematic than that of almost anyone else here. John Carter (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Still sounds like a dispute to be settled elsewhere. Suggest speedy close and try to keep a cool head to reach a consensus on the Project talk page; if that seems futile, try Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. --12 Noon 2¢ 03:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Since when does the mediation cabal decide about whether unused WikiProjects should be deleted or not? --Latebird (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't. However, at least one of the projects above has gotten at least one other member, and the bots can be set to run later today, if required. On that basis, they do not necessarily qualify as unused. Since when do you get to determine that they must qualify by your own, clearly conflicted standards? John Carter (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
More accurately, Wikipedia:WikiProject Kyrgyzstan has been created by Chris a bit later than you created the others. Correction:Chris has indeed joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Kyrgyzstan a bit after you created them. He hasn't done anything else with it since then either, so that still qualifies as an unused project for me. But we'll see what other people think. --Latebird (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, in all accuracy, if you look here, you will see that I did in fact create it. I am continuously surprised by the amount of inaccurate and judgemental opinion passed of as fact by several of the parties involved here. John Carter (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out my mistake in such a non-judgemental way. --Latebird (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
When individuals repeatedly pass of as fact statements which clearly are not, it is not judgemental to say that one is surprised by the repeated lack of accuracy of comments. It should also be noted that the only reason there has been no activity is because of my delay in modifying the banner, as per the reasons outlined above. If there is no agreement to changing the existing banner, of course, I could create others later today and start tagging relevant articles by the end of the day, with entirely separate banners. I would however regret having to create such unnecessary templates. John Carter (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment to Latebird: Mediation (or WP:3O, etc.) does not decide deletion debates; they help editors come to an agreement as to what to do. In this case, they can help you two (or three, or whatever) agree as to what the best course of action would be. If you do come to an agreement to merge or delete, then no MfD is necessary, as the creator (John) can mark the pages {{db-author}} or move them back to task forces. Mediation should also minimize the amount of drama imposed on third parties. Essentially, right now you are using MfD to mediate this dispute for you. --12 Noon 2¢ 15:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
There's always more than one way to skin a cat. Actually, I had considered submitting the unused workgroup pages for deletion for quite a while, and just never got around to do it. John's recent activities now motivated me to go ahead (maybe still too early) and get this very specific issue out of the way. All the other drama may be somewhat related, but at those times when I'm not pissed, I usually prefer to deal with editing questions rather than user conduct. I now somewhat regret to have introduced so much context here. The first three words of the nomination rationale are really the core of what this debate should focus on. --Latebird (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
If the above statement is accurate, then I believe that the nomination is actually premature. The existing norm is three months of inactivity before deletion of a project. Also, given the recent activity on the pages, I believe that, in all honesty, the first three words no longer apply to many, and on that basis the nomination should now be closed as a faulty one. John Carter (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I remember seeing a page mentioning those three months somewhere, but can't for the life of me find it again now. Care to provide a pointer? --Latebird (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Propose once again speedy keep pending discussion elsewhere. Otherwise, I regret to say that, given the tendencies toward ownershi of the content displyed by at least two parties above, I may well have to propose Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia for deletion as a vehicle for pushign POV. John Carter (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Well...that would never fly since the Project is productive and active. That nomination would result in nothing but a speedy close as disruptive. But if that is your impression of the Project, then you should definitely initiate some sort of dispute resolution before things get any further out of hand. As things are right now, this MfD is nothing but a snip-fest between the interested parties and only going downhill. Would John Carter and Latebird, et al., consider dispute resolution or a request for comment, or am I off-base here? --12 Noon 2¢ 17:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Suggesting the deletion of an entire regional project because one editor thinks that two of its participants are violating WP:OWN makes absolutely no sense at all to me. The project has been in place for a year and a half and is clearly productive. -- Hux (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Producitivity is, unfortunately, an entirely different issue than violation of policy, which cannot be countenanced. There have been at least one, I think more than one, projects related to the former Yugoslavia which produced content, but which were hijacked for the purposes of violating POV. And please note that I asked for reasons to not delete, indicating that I thought they could exist. However, there is clear precedent that any wikipedia space pages which are used as a platform to violate policy can be deleted. I did not however necessarily state or even imply that such would be forthcoming if evidence to not delete were put forward. John Carter (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
"there is clear precedent that any wikipedia space pages which are used as a platform to violate policy can be deleted" - I can see how such a precedent can make some sense in the former Yugo example you mention, but as I said on the project talk page, it simply doesn't make sense to delete an entire project based on the violation of any policy by one of its participants. What's going on here is nothing like what you describe in your former Yugo example. It's simply two or three editors having a disagreement, with one editor expressing what might uncharitably be described as a feeling of ownership over the Mongolia workgroup. Even if such a user blatantly acted in violation of WP:OWN, the proper response to that is to tell that user to stop and to remove any article content added by that user as a result of the sense of ownership that may violate other policies. Choosing the "nuclear option" of deleting the whole project is way beyond excessive, imo. - Hux (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there is a precedent for deleting projects which violate policies, productive or not. I do think that both of the opponents have acted in a way which is, at best, in violation of at least one or more policies. And, for what it's worth, the basic standard for nomination of WikiProjects is three months, set unofficially by the guy who has proposed most of them for deletion or taken part in the deletion discussions for the past year, me. I can verify that by links elsewhere as required. Beyond that, however, I honestly do not see any reason to believe Latebird is even capable of reasonably discussing much anything, certainly not on the basis of my limited acquaintance with either. If that were to change, and it would have to change dramatically, I wouldn't have any objections. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's only been a short time since these projects were created, so deleting them on the basis of lack of use is not justifiable. We need to wait until the bots are involved and see if they become useful to editors. That's a process that should take a number of months, imo. -- Hux (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Although this does not directly affect the merits of this MfD, it is rather obvious that the motivation for it is Latebird's personal dislike of the way in which they were created (hence the above comment, "maybe I should have waited until I'm not pissed anymore"). As you can see, he or she made this post questioning the creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mongolia from its previous status as a workgroup. The next day he or she filed this deletion request for all the projects John Carter created except Mongolia. It's tit-for-tat, bad faith stuff - certainly not the right way for something like this to be dealt with. -- Hux (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • It should also be noted that that comment on the talk page occurred about two months after the pages were first created and linked to on the main project page, and after he had substantially reorganized one of those pages himself. Presumably, he had known of them before then, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to adjust the Mongolia one. On this basis, I have to assume that his actions were explicitly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It should also be noted that the one objection he expressed to me, that he didn't want to create separate templates, is irrelevant, because no separate templates were even being considered for creation, and he had even been told that in advance of this nomination. John Carter (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • What we've got here is failure to communicate. --12 Noon 2¢ 20:23, 4 February 2008 (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.