Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/May 2005 Part Four

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 Proposal: Retirement of obsolete Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (long form) page
2 Removing attacks on VfD nominators' motives
- 2.1 User:RickK's deletion of User:DoubleBlue's question
3 Leonardo, Leonardo and Leonardo

Proposal: Retirement of obsolete Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (long form) page

The new per-day hierarchical structure for VfD appears to have been working very well for some weeks, with no significant complaints.

We should now consider retiring the old "long form" version of the page, which seems to serve very little purpose, given the new scheme. Keeping it has two disadvantages:

it presents a severe load on the WP servers whilst being rendered, since it is both huge and makes extensive use of templates, and provides a potential denial of service attack vector
it will be rendered many times a day, since it will be hit by crawlers, and will not be cached effectively, since it is updated regularly
when accessed deliberately, it tends to choke Web browsers presented with multiple megabytes of content, and the new hierarchical VfD is an easier way to navigate the VfD discussions, in any case

I'd like to ask other VfD users:

does anyone still use this "long form" version of the page?
does anyone have any other arguments for keeping it?

-- The Anome 10:13, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I expected that I would continue to use the long form, but actually as I make extensive use tabs when browsing, I can still see all the votes I want easily by opening multiple days. As I can load several days simulatenously quicker than the single long form I no longer use it. Thryduulf 11:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

As someone who still uses the long form, I have no problem with removing it. It would only mean I'd open five tabs instead of just one, which is no big deal. --cesarb 13:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with keeping the long form. I don't think there's anything wrong with keeping up the page for those folks that want to continue using it. --Death phoenix 13:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Just FYI, there's an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Reducing VfD load about ways to, well, reduce the size of VfD. Check it out. Soundguy99 14:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- I use it, and I definitely want it kept. It's much easier to scoll up and check if any new evidence/arguments have surfaced. Kappa 15:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  - I agree. We should keep it. The VfD process is confusing to newbies as it is, removing something they've gotten used to would be even more so. RickK 20:10, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
    - The fact that Kappa and RickK actually agree on this point suggests that it should be kept. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 20:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- I definitely use it, it's very useful because I can search for my name and see if anyone has directly replied to my votes, or if any new evidence has arisen on matters which I've already voted upon. Keep it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:35, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I vote keep since I use it occasionally, but like CesarB, I wouldn't find it devastating if it went away.—Wahoofive (talk) 16:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removing attacks on VfD nominators' motives

I have gotten sick and tired of all of the attacks on the motives and "lack of research" that VfD nominators have been getting lately. I hereby announce that, if I see them, I will begin removing them. I will leave the attackers' votes in place, of course. Rick K 20:10, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I don't interpret things like "could have googled a bit first" as personal attacks, just as requests. Kappa 20:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
In general, I don't have a problem with this idea, but lack of research before nominating an article is sometimes a sign that the nomination is being made in bad faith, and in those cases, comments about that should remain in the discussion (unless they speak to motive or are otherwise abrasive). AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 21:03, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Nor do I. I posted a response to the accusation that I attacked a nominator on RickK's talk page because I don't want to highlight it here. We all bitch and whine about how high the traffic is on VfD, why not remind the nominators to take thirty seconds to have a look for themselves before nominating something they're not knowledgeable about? --Unfocused 21:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- You are referring to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Masjid e Tooba, which a google test wouldn't have helped. 114 hits does not help its vfd case any. I tend to agree with RickK here, there is no need to demean nominators by suggesting that they are being lazy. Unless the nominator has a history of nominating notable articles, the comments should be kept to a minimum. A simple "Keep. Notable." will do fine. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:12, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  - COUNTING Google hits is virtually useless. LOOKING at the first Google hit in this case would have immediately established notability. 70 meter minarets! Interior space for 5000! This place is HUGE by virtually any measure of enclosed buildings.
  - Further, I suspect you're thinking "Strong Keep, suggest withdrawl of nomination." is critical of the nominator. It isn't. It's similar to voting Speedy Keep, but at the same time, asking for the agreement of the nominator rather than accusing them of vandalistic nomination, as a Speedy Keep vote does.
  - Further, look at the nominator's response in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wazir Mansion (Karachi). He was late for work and didn't recognize it, so he nominated it. Well, there's a lot I don't recognize, but that's NOT enough to nominate for deletion, especially with the increasing traffic on VfD. No big deal, a new user mistake. I suggested he Google first, and asked him to withdraw so we don't have to wait 5 days to settle this article. --Unfocused 21:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    - First, I doubt you intended it, but the all-caps thing is usually interpreted as shouting on the internet... I would suggest using italics as a less interpretably hostile form of emphasis. Second, counting google hits is usually a reliable measure of notability, otherwise it wouldn't be part of Wikipedia:Google test. Third, in the state that the user found it, if he only saw 53 google hits, it seems perfectly reasonable to ask the community if the topic is notable or not... All that I'm suggesting is that, instead of telling him to "google it", you could instead provide one or two helpful links to notable sites and establish the topic's notability itself. Often times, the vague nature of electronic communication can lead to subtle inferences of hostility or negativity where there are none, so its best to be as clear as possible about these things. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:05, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
      - Well, I'm willing to accept that we don't agree about whether a low count of Google hits gives useful information (I think it doesn't, especially regarding areas of the world where there is little English language internet penetration). A high Google count is a valuable source of information, a low Google count is a lack of a valuable source of information.
      - I'm also willing to accept that I expect people to open at least one of the Google links they find, usually the first, and you might not.
      - But I still hope someone tells me where the personal attack was in my vote comment. I gave the nominator good advice, and followed it up with a polite comment on his user page. I believe that RickK has attacked me in this instance, but it doesn't bother me. I only ask that he tell me where the personal attack is that he's upset about. After all, that is the justification that he's using to remove my comments without consent. Un focused 22:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
        
        Don't worry about RickK. He is a hypocrite. He frequently attacks others and then chooses to interpret almost anything negative said to him as a personal attack that can't be tolerated. He thinks that any acknowledgement that there may be some systematic bias in Wikipedia as "Anti-American". He has been doing this for years and has a skin thicker than the back end of an elephant, so nothing you say to him will change his petty, stubborn way of thinking. Fortunately no single person really affects the direction of the Wikipedia jaugonaut. Pcb21| Pete 21:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
        
        I see Pcb21 just loves to make personal attacks against me. See the egregious example on the Templates for deletion page, which even those who disagree with my opinion on the subject have repudiated. Rick K 18:55, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
        
        I stand by my comments on that page. Sometimes, you call things personal attacks just to avoid answering points against your own opinion (FWIW, here is the diff that Rick is getting worked up about. Of course, the TfD page contains no such repudiation. In fact it contains a long list of people agreeing that we should keep the template.) Pcb21| Pete 21:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
      - Don't these examples prove that your blind faith in the Google test is misplaced? A raw number of hits is almost entirely useless for many topics. If you take a look at the list of topics at Wikipedia:2004 Encyclopedia topics, all of whom have unimpeachably encyclopedic articles at Britannica, some register Google hits only in the single figures. Yes it is a tool, but a tool to be used wisely. Pcb21| Pete 09:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I think it's not only reasonable but good advice to ask nominators to consider more carefully whether a vfd should be placed or rather, a note on the talk page and/or one of the clean-up tags. Tagging a page with "This article is being considered for deletion" that someone has contributed can certainly feel like a personal attack as well and at least an attempt should be made to verify or request more info rather than submitting it to vfd and asking for someone to "check this one for notability, and if is notable, try and fix it up a bit". DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- Well, now it's looking like the nominator falls in the second category I mentioned above: it's not just one article he's nominated, it's now at least three notable articles. At this point, it would be understandable if someone said something to him on his talk page... --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 01:50, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

RickK makes an excellent point. We should not make public displays of exasperation at deletion listings that we believe to be poorly researched. When repeated in discussion after discussion the cumulative effect is very bad and contributes nothing of value to the discussions while making them much more heated than need be. I endorse his proposal to remove this kind of personal attack and will aid him if need be. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If RickK or anyone else is going to do this, they, at the very least, owe the original poster whose comments were altered an explanation. I see nothing in any policy anywhere that says that suggestions and advice to reduce traffic on VfD is not permitted in the vote comments. VfD nomination not researched at all before posting is a perfectly valid reason to vote "keep".

If someone alters my comments without my consent, accusing me of a personal attack, then it damned well better be a personal attack, not just a suggestion that the other person disagrees with. In my case, had RickK addressed the issue directly with me politely and respectfully, instead of accusing me of a personal attack where there clearly was none, we probably could have worked this out without getting to this point, and I bet the same could have been said for User:DoubleBlue. RickK did not reply to me when I asked what part of my comments was a personal attack in my edit summary or on his talk page. He also didn't refactor the comments to preserve the meaning and context, nor offer any suggestion of alternate wording. Note that until Tony Sidaway volunteered to help, RickK is the only one accusing others of personal attacks for this type of recommendation. Un focused 14:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you're taking this a little too personally. If we make only civil comments on VfD they will not be taken as personal attacks. We should always be careful to ensure that our recommendations don't come across as displays of tetchiness or simple slurs on the good faith or competence of the nominator. This is what has happened here. And I see that you're doing it again. "Note that until Tony Sidaway volunteered to help, RickK is the only one accusing others of personal attacks for this type of recommendation." Can you not see that this amounts to a personal attack on Rick rather than addressing his actions? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please explain further what about my comment is a personal attack on RickK. This is not a facetious request, I really want to know what you're thinking. RickK is accusing others of making personal attacks. His accusations are not substantiated by the very guideline he cites, WP:RPA, yet he has so far refused to clarify what personal attacks he was accusing others of making. RickK also has not offered any suggestions to improve the situation. As I said before, had he made a suggestion of how to reword my suggestion (which I explicitly asked him to do), this would not have been an issue in the first place. As it stands, the only clear personal attacks are the unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations of "personal attack" being made. Un focused 15:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Remove_personal_attacks/Temp to see my comments about Radiant!'s idea of how this could be defused in future discussions, considering we are unlikely to reach consensus about exactly where the line is crossed into "personal attack". Un focused 15:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) items in italic bold inserted Sorry about the phrasing, Radiant!, I didn't mean to try to steal your credit! ;) --Un focused 16:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:RickK's deletion of User:DoubleBlue's question

RickK: I fail to see how asking: "Why wouldn't you have waited to get results from your clean-up tag before nominating for deletion?" qualifies as a personal attack. [1] & [2]

Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks says one should "refactor" personal attacks with [square brackets] such that the meaning of the comment is maintained but without the personal attack. I would appreciate it if you would do so such that my question may stand. I do not see any word in my question that is an attack of any sort but you clearly do so I would also appreciate you clarifying what word is a personal attack so that I can refrain from such phrasing in the future. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't make personal attacks questioning the motives of the nominators, and I won't have to delete them. Rick K 18:28, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

"Why wouldn't you have waited to get results from your clean-up tag before nominating for deletion?" is blatantly not a personal attack. Accusing someone else of making a personal attack on such flimsy grounds, however, is another matter. - Mustafaa 18:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Please stop claiming everything you don't like is a "personal attack". Pcb21| Pete 19:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

RickK, since you still haven't told me what about my comments to VfD submitters that you deleted is a personal attack, by accusing others of personal attacks, you're making personal attacks yourself! Removing the comments of others is an extreme action, and needs to be justified. I think you're beginning to hold yourself to a different standard than everyone else, and don't think it's fair. Un focused 20:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

RickK, I did not question the motive of the nominator, though I believe this is sometimes pertinent (i.e. WP:POINT). I only asked why he would request a clean-up but not wait for action. May I presume you would feel attacked were I to ask you this question? How should I phrase it to calm the nerves of our more sensitive contributors because I do strongly believe in Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Thanks for your response here. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it's a pretty weak personal attack, if we were to consider it that. It struck me as more of a "what were you thinking?" kind of question, as it was an unusual procedure by the nominator: he originally added a {{cleanup}} and a speedy deletion template at the same time, and followed up with a nomination for deletion fifteen minutes later after it was rejected as a speedy candidate. It probably belonged on the nominator's Talk page rather than in the VfD discussion and it perhaps should have been phrased more clearly and diplomatically, but it's not a particularly unreasonable thing to ask.... --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 21:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

This looks like an excellent case for WP:RPA. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you're going to suggest WP:RPA, then follow through on the entire WP:RPA instead of just the quick and convenient parts. In other words, refactor and preserve context. Un focused 14:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see no way to refactor that would not imply that the nominator had made a bad faith nomination. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any implication of bad faith in that question. Considering that the nominator applied the {{cleanup}} and {{d}} tags to the article with the same edit, which makes absolutely no sense, I see it as more of a "What are you doing?" question than an accusation of malfeasance. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 15:10, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Evidently this is one case where there is considerable rooom for difference of opinion on whether the statement amounts to a slur. To me it does seem an unnecessarily tetchy question so I'm not surprised to see someone describe it as an attack. "Why wouldn't you have waited to get results from your clean-up tag before nominating for deletion?" That use of the subjunctive is subtle but rather tips the balance for me. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a border case, however, the accusation of "personal attack" is not. This is why a polite refactoring is an essential part of WP:RPA, and a far better solution than a deleting someone else's comments with a note "removed personal attack". Even a ~~strikeout~~ and a note to the effect of "that wasn't very polite" would be far more appropriate than a dubious accusation unsupported by the guideline cited. --Un focused 15:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I certainly did not consider that I was attacking the nominator. I did, however, find the accusation, with no message from RickK on what was wrong to be rude. That page will stand with the implication beside my name that I said something highly inappropriate. I would far prefer for it to have been struck out or at least re-factored.

You stated that the subjunctive tense was troubling for you. I appreciate that since no one had yet stated what was a personal attack there. Would it have been better to ask: "Why didn't you wait to get results...?". I'm still curious to know the answer to that question, though I have no expectation any longer of receiving one. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that RickK confuses criticism directed to a particular person with a personal attack. I also think that Doubleblue was not critisizing, but making a valuable observation of strange behaviour, with a request for an explanation. Doing this hopefully educates people to not bring certain articles straight to vfd, which could have been better handled elsewhere. --MarSch 17:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)