User:Zordrac/deletions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Keep Wikipedia fair! As often as you can, vote in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion!!! See: User: Zordrac/deletions#Big note

Contents 1 Why this page 2 Big note 3 How to steam roll votes and influence people 4 Patterns in AFDs

[edit] Why this page

I first created this page as snippets on my own talk page/main page, but then moved them here. The reason for the initial creation of the aspects was due to personal experience and shock at some of the horrific trends in AFDs, coupled with the AFD analysis, that led me to feel that this page was necessary. I also moved this to sub pages because I was receiving too much abuse in relation to the contents of this page, which I for one didn't want in my talk page. I did not want to delete my work, though, as I believe that this is very valuable for all users of Wikipedia. Thus this is a happy compromise. For the most part I don't check the talk page associated with this sub page, so people can talk amongst themselves about this page.

[edit] Big note

I wrote this in User talk:Here':

I noted from your page, it directed me to Wikipedia:AFD_100_days and I was astounded. Here are some excerpted statistics:

• 6314 out of 6912 voters make less than 20 votes.
• These 6314 voters vote "delete" on average 56.2% of the time (just over half).
• 46 out of 6912 voters make more than 250 votes.
• These 46 voters vote "delete" on average 76.0%.
• The overall statistic is that 70.6% of votes end in delete.
• Yet the average voter would delete only 60%.

Conclusion is obvious - a handful of deletionists are pushing through deletions. Not only that, but the vast majority of people who make a lot of votes are voting delete!

Check out these snippets:

• The number 1 voter, User: JamesBurns, has made 3,645 of the 79,077 votes (about 5%). He has voted for delete a massive 89.7% of the time.
• The number 2 voter, User: Etacar11, has made 1,841 votes, of which an incredible 96.0% were delete.
• Number 3, User: Splash is 1,318 votes, with 87.8% delete!

Now, number 4 and 5 are inclusionists (number 4, User: Kappa, particularly), but even still 18 of the top 20 contributors are deletionists. Thats pretty shocking really.

The ultimate conclusion to all of that is that the Vfd process is unfair. And that, other than deletion reform, what we can do in the short term is to vote vote vote as much as possible. Not just because you love deleting things (i.e. are trigger happy and like to see people suffer), but because you want this to be a fair process. After all, if everyone voted, then it'd work reasonably well.

So remember: As often as you can, vote in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion!!!

[edit] How to steam roll votes and influence people

Feeling down? Had a bad day? Feel like taking it out on someone? Well, why not delete an article? You can feel good about yourself, say that you're helping to clean up Wikipedia, and feel very self important. To make sure that the deletion really works, follow this guide:

• Make sure to nominate the article a long time after the last edit. This way, the author won't be able to defend themselves, and you will be free to influence everyone yourself.
• If the author does appear, insult them, but do it in a way that you can pretend that you are just enforcing wikipedia policy, just in case they try to claim that you did the wrong thing by insulting them.
• If possible, nominate the article for deletion the instant that it is created. This way the author will be busy editing and not realise that the Vfd is there until there are already too many delete votes for them to salvage anything.
• If nominating while author is likely there, make sure to say something insulting as part of the nomination. This is bound to upset them, and influence votes in your favour.
• If anyone votes "keep", especially from an IP address, make sure to accuse them of being sock puppets. We all know that sock puppets are always used to vote keep, and that the anon IPs that vote delete are genuine.
• After accusing them of sock puppetry, then go around and see who else you can accuse of being the same person. Just make small innocent suggestions that they might be the same person, just to make sure that they can't be considered legitimate.
• If the author (or anyone else) accuses you of doing anything wrong, threaten them with wikipedia hell. That'll scare them! And if that doesn't work, dare them to complain. They'll be surely scared, and think that the whole world supports you in your task.
• Say "non notable" as often as you can. No need to say why you think it is. Shorten it to "nn" so that its easy to copy. Then others can simply write "nn per you".
• Learn your wikipedia shortcuts. WP:V, WP:WEB, WP:MUSIC etc. Just plonk them in with no explanation. The less explanation the better. It will convince people that it's so obvious that it doesn't need explanation.
• If absolutely required to explain, then make something up. And at the end, add a wikipedia shortcut.
• Whenever you explain something, don't come back to check what the response was, and certainly don't write a counter. Voters will assume that their response was useless and you are laughing.
• For added impetus, say that you are laughing. That will make voters feel confident that the article has no merit.
• Vandalise the page. Removing all external links is handy, as you can then claim its original work. Removing all assertions to notoriety is good too, because then you can say that it is non notable.
• When vandalising the page, say something insulting, so that it doesn't look like vandalism. Don't just put "removing this part because I question the validity of it". Write in something really nasty. Say "unverifiable", or even "patent nonsense" is a good one too. This will be sure to rile up the author, and encourage them towards reactionary behaviour, which in turn will boost your chances of winning.
• Make sure to make regular accusations about the author.
• Go to the author's talk page and insult them, then accuse them of things, threaten them, and dare them to do something about it. This is sure to influence the votes.
• Go around complaining about the author's behaviour. Say that you're hardly done by.
• Find yourself some other deletionists who are willing to vote delete for you, and ask them to help you out. Offer to do the same thing for them later.

Follow these tips, and you will be sure to get to delete articles whenever you need to feel good about yourself.

Disclaimer: This is not about any individual person. Whilst it was inspired by 2 specific individuals, it was generally related to some of the worst examples of steamrolling that I had seen (a combination of about 11 examples). I added some aspects that I have never personally witnessed but I presume probably happen. This is intended to be humorous, so as to help people to understand, through humour, the problems with AFD. If you find yourself thinking "Thats me!" then I suppose that that is up to you for how to deal with this. Please note that this is not an invitation to launch personal attacks on me, nor to edit this page to suit yourself. I have a chuckle every time I read this joke".

[edit] Patterns in AFDs

I have done an analysis to work out my voting patterns. As at when I last checked, they were as follows:

• Delete 61%
• Merge/Redirect 10%
• Keep 29%

Yet, strangely enough, I am apparently an inclusionist! How odd is that?

I have filed Deletion Reviews with the following results:

• An article that was deleted after a 6/6 count with incorrect allegations of sock puppetry used to manipulate the vote. Deletion Review board unanimously viewed that I was in violation of WP:AGF for accusing another editor of making false accusations of sock puppetry - even though they really did make accusations, and the people were proven not to be sock puppets! How odd.
• An article that was deleted after a 1/4 count with 0 rationale made by the 4 deleting votes, after previously surviving 4/0. Once again I got personal attacks and harassment against me for daring to make this case.
• An article that was deleted after a 1/0 count of delete (my vote being the only one) and was improved during the AFD was deleted. I asked to look at the history, but they didn't let me, refused to relist it to gain consensus and went around "back patting" the admin concerned. "Best closer around", apparently. So deleting after 1/0 with the 1 who voted delete (me) then claiming that I might not have meant delete makes them a brilliant closer? Uh.... Not sure if you can get much worse, especially when the closing statement was (sic) "I know that this will probably be undeleted". Brilliant closer? This is one of 2 closers who can't count and regularly makes inconsistent closes, which henceforth statistically makes them one of the 2 worst closers on Wikipedia. If they are brilliant, then everyone is!
• An article that was deleted after a 4/4 count with 5 of the 8 voters stating alternately "redirect", thus actually being a consensus to redirect, not to delete (it was actually a no consensus if ignoring the alternates). I had also put in REDIRECT after the closer incorrectly deleted the article, and the article was speedy deleted as "recreation of previously deleted content", in spite of it being a redirect. Deletion review were actually in agreement, open and shut case, before a few "back patters" came along to back up their friend, including people who had previously acted as "back patters" in support of other admins in previous cases where I'd proven that they hadn't followed correct process. So, fully ignoring both process and evidence, they deleted it. And then someone else made it a redirect, and indeed it was recreated 4 times before there was an agreement to leave it as a disambiguation page. Utterly, utterly ridiculous.
• An article that was deleted due to being advertising/spam in a 6/2 vote in spite of there being 100% agreement that it was a notable topic. I requested to be allowed to write the page neutrally, and this was eventually agreed, but I did it as a subpage first. Eventually was allowed. Woah. Only to find that the newbie I'd helped out then started to add POV to it lol. The one time we win and the newbie I help turns out not to have deserved it! Its irony in stereo.

Other than those ones (which take the cake for bad deletions), I have witnessed the following other examples of horrendously bad deletion process:

• An article that was nominated for deletion for being "nonsense" and "vanity" that had 4 speedy delete votes as its first 4, then a 5th that was a "delete" vote, hence meaning that if I hadn't rescued it, it was about to be speedy deleted, meaning the only way to return it was through the obviously inadequate deletion review process. I then fixed up the article, and it ended up being a unanimous keep vote on a hugely notable subject.
• A user wrote an article about themselves, in a neutral way, and proved notability, which was unanimously agreed. Votes were 7/3 in favour of keep, hence it should have been kept. However, the closing admin used "discretion" to Userfy the article, in spite of consensus. Incredible use of "discretion". The only people that voted "delete" did so because they thought it was in violation of the controversial autobiography policy.
• An article on an upcoming film was deleted in spite of its release date confirmed and it being a sequel to an enormously popular series. Apparently Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, even though IMDB confirmed it.
• One of the most popular forums in the world with 50 times the recommended minimum user levels was deleted because a number of users viewed its content as "useless", as their own personal opinion. Rather than the article going through Deletion Review, instead this prompted a review of the WP:WEB guidelines, since they had been so severely violated in voting delete on this article.
• Another forum was deleted, this time with only 10 times the recommended minimum user level, notability established in terms of news reports and how it affects other things - because a number of "relatively new" users voted to keep it (i.e. users with less than 50 edits). Even though keep was the majority, they all had different IPs and all had contributed to other articles before this, it was deleted. People commented that the reason for the deletion was sock puppetry, as opposed to any reference to its notability.
• Another article written by someone about themselves was deleted because it was a violation of the controversial WP:AUTO rule, even though they had valid claims to notoriety. At least votes were in favour of delete. Another case of steamrolling. "Delete violation of WP:AUTO", "delete per x" etc, with no explanation or argument given.
• An article deleted because it was too "explicit" in spite of being very notable word and Wikipedia not being G-rated.
• An article deleted about a porn star with 100s of movies because we don't know her real name, even though we don't know most porn stars' real names and indeed there is a policy that porn stars' real names are not to be released on Wikipedia.
• Another article written by someone about themselves was deleted because they were writing it in an allegedly biased way - but was still deleted even after conforming to NPOV, then claiming lack of notoriety, in spite of equally notable people in the exact same area being included and surviving keep votes. Newbie biting, anyone?
• A revolutionary new product with masses of Google hits, news reviews etc is speedy deleted as "recreation of previously deleted content" in spite of 8/5 in favour of keep, and its content not being the same as what was previously deleted. The article in fact is protected from recreation!

Those ones will do me. Not going to quote them here as that would be bashing and create a lot of hostility for the people involved. I don't want to point fingers as to who is responsible, since I think that everyone is responsible.

Corruption is going to exist everywhere. Where there is power, there is corruption. In addition, the Deletionist mindset is such that everyone regularly participating in AFD is going to be bullied towards deletion on a regular basis.