Wikipedia talk:OPTOUT/Long Term Straw Poll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on May 4, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] chat away!

discussion and feedback is most welcome! - Privatemusings (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] deletion discussion

I hope this page isn't deleted - but any discussion here on that matter would be most welcome too! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opting out of other wikipedias

I'm not sure if this is the best page to get heard, but will people be able to complain about language wikipedias? For example, the person who harassed Newyorkbrad has articles in six languages.

Also, would a proposal for an automatic nomination for AfD upon request of that person be a possibility? (Yes, they could do the AfD themselves, but they'd probably get snowballed for doing so) Andjam (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Long-term discussions

Reading between the lines, this is an attempt to keep a discussion going on a policy that was rejected. As someone who edits WP periodically rather that constantly, and who is still discovering facets of WP administration and maintenance as I go, I like the idea that just because the ten people who saw the issue within the couple of weeks of it being posted came to a consensus that doesn't mean all future discussion of the idea should be terminated. So near as I can tell, continuing to discuss a proposal on the talk page of a rejected proposal is permitted but not generally productive. Rebooting a proposal is however unacceptable - that's basically a chance for the proposer to keep rebooting a proposal until they get the desired result or all the people with an initial interest in the proposal stop caring enough to vote against it.

I'm not sure if there is a policy on reviving defeated policy proposals, but there should be one. It makes no sense to restart a discussion immediately, there should be a gap between proposals, but discussion should be able to continue on a rejected proposal in the interim. Maybe there would be a benefit in trying to get a global practice on dealing with the continuation of discussion on rejected proposals adopted, rather than trying to dodgy up a way to prolong this particular discussion in this way. CastorQuinn (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Its still open for discussion, never really dies, just no one appears interesting continuing it, or else there would be more discussion. MBisanz talk 05:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
In that case, if conversations on rejected proposals can be and are continued with a view to reviving them in the future, there's possibly no need to consider a process for doing so officially, though as someone who arrives to these conversations late, I certainly get the impression that a proposal, once rejected, is closed permanently, meaning I shouldn't voice my opinions once a decision has been reached. CastorQuinn (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General Discussion

In my opinion giving subjects of biography pages the ability to delete those pages is a violation of the philosophy of WP, which is to create an uncensored record of information. I agree that BLPs are a fiasco, and they require a swift, comprehensive and dramatic overhaul, but this policy wouldn't achieve that goal, or make the process in any way fairer to subjects, or improve the quality of BLP articles. Giving subjects the ability to fast track deletion of data about themselves is a dangerous road to start down - it is without a doubt allowing partisan concerns to dictate the content of WP.

Beyond this, it's just impractical. This policy is trying to define a grey area between notable and non-notable people, where someone can be sufficiently notable to have an article in the first place, but sufficiently non-notable to be able to nominate the removal of their own page without compromising the WP mandate to document notable content. Even if you could arrive at a consensus for what stipulations would define the scope of this policy, the only result would be constant argument about who falls within that scope and who doesn't. You're asking editors and admins to make highly subjective calls on content within what is already the most subjective and controversial of the WP projects. That's a recipe for disaster.

BLP needs to be fixed, but this isn't the way. CastorQuinn (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is not the way to change BLP

I think efforts would be better spent trying to form a policy that addresses people's objections rather than repeatedly pushing for the same thing. "The proposal is currently not accepted by the wider community, and will no doubt take quite some time in gaining enough ground to be enshrined as policy. Well, time and perhaps an external event which might bring this issue into sharper focus - there's a bit of precedent there in terms of how wiki evolution works" - While repeatedly pushing for something until enough of the opposition gives up does often result in changes happening, it certainly isn't a positive step in collaboration or "wiki evolution." Mr.Z-man 02:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, Z - my only intention here really is to get more eyes and ears on the issue, and to keep people talking - I know you're aware of the reams written about this in 2008, and unfortunately nothing has really happened... (I think) - I'm well up for rolling my sleeves up into any process, but am a little unsure as to where and how... meantime, I do still support this proposal, hence my village pump edit..... I hope that some good might come of this... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
My comments and the result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Stern may be of interest to Privatemusings. Yechiel (Shalom) 13:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)