Wikipedia talk:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/General talk

The talk page Wikipedia talk:Proposal to expand WP:CSD was split into individual talk pages for each proposal, to limit the size of the talk page and facilitate individual discussions on each proposal. The history and attributions for the comments made before the split can be seen by following the history link on the /General talk page.

Good article potential

I would support I, II and IV if there was a clause like "and the article is not likely to ever become an encyclopedic article" or words to that effect. One of the thing that makes wikis work so well is that you can only add a little at a time. Take a subject where wikipedia should have a good article, and where it would be possible to write a decent-sized article eventually. Maybe all I know about the three-toed sloth is that it's a sloth with three toes. Maybe all I know about Mithras is that there's this one website that talks about him. Maybe adding this info is such a small step on the path to making a decent article that it's barely worth my time to do it. I still don't see why we should delete this positive (though marginal) step in the right direction.

However, if it's a subject that has no realistic hope of ever becoming a good encyclopedia article, then it should be deleted. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 23:52, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that an article consisting entirely of content like "A three-toed sloth is a sloth with three toes" is practically as bad as no article at all. Ten minutes of research would yield enough facts on most subjects to make a decent article, although perhaps not a spectacular one. Joyous 03:07, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, an article that is absolutely no use to a reader is worse than no article at all. It should also be noted that Prop I and Prop II articles are today routinely speedy deleted, and adopting these propositions would merely be updating the rules to match reality. - SimonP 17:38, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, we disagree. If you don't think that clause should go in, then that's fine, but I'll vote against them.

Here's my reasoning: Let's say all Arthur knows about subject X is that there's a good website on the topic. He's lazy, and doesn't want to add more than that. So he makes the article, and it's just a link, and it's about as good as useless. Betty sees the article, and can add a basic dicdef, but doesn't want to add anything else. Chris adds a template, Debbie adds a see-also link, Ernie add a category, and Francis adds info which is obvious from the title. At this point, the article is a reasonable stub. Greg sees it, and realizes there should be more info in the article, and he fleshes it out to a good article. But Greg never would have started the article on his own.

I don't think this is far-fetched. I find articles all the time marked for deletion that I expand on enough so that they are obviously not deletion candidates. Others see them in Recent Changes, and add their own two cents. That's how the wiki works.

Certainly I would agree that Arthur's work alone is just about pointless, and I would encourage him to add more. Betty, Chris, Debbie, Ernie, and Francis also are contributing so little, that it might not be worth their time to start an article with only that info. But do you believe it's actually worth someone else's time to delete that info, when there's a good chance it will end up in a good article? Even if Greg had made the article from scratch, he would have had to re-create all of Arthur's and Betty's (etc.) work. Why not accept the contributions these people made, no matter how minor? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:24, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Let us take the example of an article I just created: Judaism in Canada. It meets no current deletion criteria, but has no real content and is of no use to readers. It took me about thirty seconds to create it. The question is whether annoying readers by presenting them with this article that is of no use to them is worth saving a future editor the hassle of redoing the minimal work I have already done. I personally believe that the encyclopedia should always serve readers first and editors second, and that deleting useless articles is thus necessary. - SimonP 23:13, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

• We're never going to be complete -- encyclopedias are always a work-in-progress. Remember too that readers and editors are, hopefully, largely the same people. It's not hard for me to dig up some info on Judaism in Canada and add it to an existing article, and the existance of the article in some sense is encouraging to me to fill it in. I'm not quite as likely to think of random, encyclopedic topics like that as I am able to fill them in. That's why I judge articles for deletion primarily on whether the topic is good. Sadly, people often write articles on the worst topics, and I'm keen to kill those. I figure eventually we'll fill in the stubs on good topics, there's no hurry. --Improv 17:58, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why not accept the contributions these people made, no matter how minor?

I cite Wikipedia:Your first article. It states: "...please don't create... A single sentence or only a website link." Also, "...be careful about... Extremely short articles that are just definitions." I also cite Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "What Wikipedia articles are not... Dictionary definitions. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so please do not create an entry merely to define a term." "...Mere collections of external links." BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Those are good reasons not to create articles like that. But in my opinion, they aren't good reasons to delete those pages, once created. Which should we spend our time doing: deleting these sub-sub-stubs, or improving them? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 00:53, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

IMO? Deleting them. That way the article will be a red link somewhere, and someone knowledgeable might notice there's no article and create a decent one. For instance, we have a Wikipedia:Requested articles, a place listing uncreated articles... but we don't have a Wikipedia:Articles with very little content, or something of the like. Additionally, if a reader were to click Special:Randompage and get a page with only a template or a see also section or a external links section, it makes us look less credible as an encyclopaedia. Coz such articles aren't USEFUL. Sometimes an article with practically no content is worse than no article at all. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why create extra load on the server and waste the time of people reading recent changes and/or monitoring Category:Candidates for speedy deletion when we can improve these articles? Brianjd

Simply because improving something like that takes maybe 10 minutes to become a reasonable stub - deleting takes ten seconds. And in the 10 minutes that administrator will not perform the RC patrol, and more garbage comes in. Of course, if I notice something such bad which I care about I do the fixing, but normally starting from scratch is better. Sometimes it seems users throw in substubs to make someone else work on a topic they want to learn about, like a requested article. andy 14:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What should happen is anybody else on RC patrol should be able to hide that edit because somebody (preferably we would have enough admins that it doesn't matter) is working on it and look at other changes. If nobody feels like working on it, they should add the appropriate tag to it at least (cleanup, stub, substub, bio-stub, etc). Brianjd 05:19, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

"but we don't have a Wikipedia:Articles with very little content, or something of the like. " We actually do have stubs, substubs, very short articles, etc :) --Sketchee 02:21, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Here's my take on this. Sure, there are certain topics that could be very good articles, but just because someone has written something, anything, under that heading does not mean it's essential that it's kept for improvement. Many times the existence of a contentless article is less likely to be made a real article than nothing at all. A redlink will draw attention to a lack of content. Someone could write only the word "The" as an article under a worthy title and it seems some people would argue that such an article should not be deleted but expanded, as it is the start to many an article. I think it can be both: deleted as useless, but later rewritten as an expanded article. A puerile substub that says nothing is generally worse than no article at all. I think by now, with nearly half a million articles, there are very few topics whose absence here is really an unforgivable oversight. By now it seems that if we don't have an article on it, it's likely a realtively obscure topic that many encyclopedias don't cover, or is at least covered briefly somewhere else in WP. If someone sees we have no article on something, they are likely to be more forgiving of that than of a nothing article. Besides, deleting an article does not mean it can never be created. I think if, in order to write a proper article on a topic, the first thing a person would have to do is delete all current content then we might as well do it for them. Too often people argue "this should be kept and expanded", then do nothing to expand it, as if voicing their opinion alone somehow improved the article, or they add an "Expand" template that is then ignored, as they so often are. If no content is deleted, then, in effect, nothing is really deleted. Most of these proposals deal with deleting contentless articles. -R. fiend 23:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Addendum

I think the biggest concern that everyone has about expanding the speedy deletion requirements is that good content will be deleted and no one will notice in time to restore it. It has previously been discussed at Wikipedia:Viewing deleted articles that any logged in user should be able to view deleted content, this idea was rejected last month.

I do, however, think adding a limited form of this idea would make expanding speedy deletion far more palatable to users who are concerned with the idea. Giving any logged in user access to deleted pages for a seven day period after deletion would make the material that no more accessible, as under the current system the content sits on Copyright problems or VfD for that time, or longer. This would also increase the pool or users who can check up on admins and ensure that articles that were deleted in accordance with procedure.

I thus propose an addendum to the vote:

If two or more new categories for speedy deletion are adopted in this poll then the software will be changed so that all logged in users will be able to view deleted pages for a period of seven days after deletion. After seven days has elapsed the material will only be visible to admins.

This addendum would automatically be seen as approved if any two of the proposed criteria are adopted. This provison will help maintain the same level of accountability that now exists despite far more material being speedy deleted. - SimonP 19:34, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

• While I respect the idea, I don't like it. Not here. The vote is going to be complex enough, with five subsections. I really don't want to add this on. I think it'll just make a mess out of everything. I'd really prefer that were done seperately, at a more appropriate location. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:21, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Yeah, sounds like a good idea, though making it a consequence of some function of the acceptance of a set of other proposals is just plain evil. I fully agree that whether that 7-day deletion viewing gets accepted or not would influence how a lot of people vote, I suggest we either add it as a separate proposition and allow people conditional votes based on whether that proposition passes (complex), or that we vote on the 7-day deletion viewing proposal before voting on these proposals. --fvw*† 22:21, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
• I concur with the proposed addendum -- our acceptance of the proposal is based on acquiring this, and it is related, so it's not a bad idea to have it be part of this proposal. --Improv 22:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • If this addendum were added would it convince you to vote in support of more of the proposals? If the addendum fails to allay the concerns of those, such as yourself, who are understandably wary then I don't see it being worth complicating the present poll. - SimonP 23:31, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • It would have a chance of swaying me. More I cannot guarantee --Improv 02:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • The ability to view deleted articles for 7 days would change my vote from no to yes for all but proposal 3, where it would change my vote from no to no vote. anthony 警告 21:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would maybe support adding this if it were made a seperate proposal, not contingent on the success of the other proposals. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 02:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. And everybody who thinks about this, please read Wikipedia:Viewing deleted articles if you have not already done so. This idea is very controversial, it got a clean 30-30 split in the last vote. The main problem is that this allows copyvios to remain visible, and that's just not acceptable for many. When you've got people like Angela and Anthere opposing this, you know there are some serious issues at stake, regardless of what you think about it. If you really think we cannot allow these proposals without first increasing accountability, then make that a separate issue and get back to this later. Don't do it the other way around. JRM 20:16, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

JRM, how hard, in your opinion, would it be for us to have a special deletion for copyvios that's separate, so that articles deleted for that reason won't be visible for 7 days, but articles deleted for other reasons remain there? I know it's an additional complication, but I think it's a price worth paying for this functionality. --Improv 02:52, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, you're asking the wrong person, really—I'm not a developer, so I can't judge how hard it would be. :-) Speaking as I do from my comfy chair, however, and assuming you actually meant "have everything visible for 7 days except copyvios" (your wording was a bit unclear), it's something that would get my vote. Unfortunately, looking at the page (hey, people are still voting! I thought it closed!) I see that a lot of people are not just concerned about copyvios (which this would solve) but also that "deleted" should be "deleted" (I don't get why this is supposed to be a rational objection rather than an article of faith, but maybe that's just me). You need to sort out what's really motivating people here, besides keeping copyvios, linkspam, and providing free hosting for vanity articles/hoaxes (all of which admit simple technical solutions).
However, this should all really be taken to Wikipedia:Viewing deleted articles. It's a separate issue. If Blankfaze cares, it might be worth considering postponing the CSD vote until an amended and rebooted VdA vote is sorted out, because a lot of people will be more positive about these proposals if it gets implemented. I don't know. I do know that I will (would) vote on the proposals here independent of whether people get to view deleted articles or not, because I basically trust our admins. Maybe that's just crazy, I don't know. :-) JRM 03:48, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

Here is the question, from Wikipedia: Viewing deleted articles: Should non-admins be given access to view deleted articles (except those that Wikipedia is legally required to remove)?
As I understand it, Wikipedia (Should that be the Wikimedia Foundation?) is legally required to remove copyvios, so the outcome of that vote would have made no difference as far as copyvios were concerned. Brianjd 05:29, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

Quarantine

Some time ago at several policy pages I proposed to introduce the notion of quarantined pages. I am a bit surprised at lack of interest. Here it goes again, with some changes.

• This idea comes from my understanding that the urge for speedy deletion comes from the desire to keep garbage away from wikipedia.
• At the same time, the primary opposition is that the notion of "garbage" is well-defined only in extreme cases. Other cases must have a fair share of benefit of doubt, if only because of limited experience of any of us. Even "no google hits" criterion is not always valid, e.g., for notable persons from non-notable countries that are still far behind on the road to computerization.

Possible solution: AFAIK, wikipedia has a means to exclude certain pages from search engines. These are the thingies which make nonsense propagate, not the silly articles themselves.

Hence the suggestion: The articles that may be reasonably classified as garbage must be moved into a non-searchable space, so that people may see them and deliberate whether they are garbage or not, without rush, say, for 2 weeks. All keep/delete discussion is to be at their talk page. Once a reasonable number of non-anons vote to keep, it is moved into a regular VfD. etc....

Mikkalai 03:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Once a reasonable number of non-anons vote to keep, it is moved into a regular VfD. Sounds unnecessarily complicated to me. I don't see how this would reduce the need for VfD which is the thrust of this proposal. I think it would be a great aid for VfD as it is now, though. Johnleemk | Talk 03:48, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't insist, just an idea to discuss. Mikkalai 03:56, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kind of quarantine or "editing limbo" for articles that come from anons could be appropriate. Of course, it would not solve the problem of the most persistent trolls and POV-pushers who would just create new accounts. However, that is probably a separate issue (like "speedily deleting user accounts" or "probationary editing rights"). - Skysmith 11:47, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I must agree that this is unnecessarily complicated. I hope nobody comes up with the idea of "speedily deleting user accounts", speedily deleting articles is bad enough! Brianjd 05:32, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

Proposals II, III

It seems to me that proposals I, IV and V will probably pass fairly easily. I think that these are rarely challenged now. However, II and III are extremely contentious. They are far too "interpretable". Take "X Smith was an opera singer". It can be argued that anyone looking up "X Smith" knows they are an opera singer, so this is obvious. However, it can also be argued that this is just a stub. I don't think I'm alone in not feeling we should give a licence for the deletion of stubs. I personally believe a stub encourages expansion, while a redlink can be a bit daunting. Proposal III is out of the question. There will be endless fighting over it. It would allow deletionist admins to delete articles that they think are "notable" by claiming they are "extremely blatant vanity". There are already articles listed on VfD that are listed as "vanity", when in fact they were articles in good faith and were kept as such. I do not think either that any proposal for expanding CSD should a/ mention Google or b/ mention notability. Just my 2c and worth what you paid for it. Dr Zen 06:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding Prop II, it applies to only articles with no information not explicit in the title. The tile "X Smith" does not tell me they are an opera singer, so this article cannot be deleted under this rule. What this tells me is that the wording of this proposal needs to be changed. Any suggestions? - SimonP 06:49, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, I will certainly be voting for Prop II. Recently I have deleted a lot of articles whose contents consists solely of the title of the article. I'm told they are created by some kind of vandal bot, and that certainly needs to be stopped. Deb 18:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We should have a speedy rule for blatant vanity articles, but it needs to be more specific and objective than Prop II. First, the band vanities. It's not hard for an unknown group to record and sell an album these days, so that point is not useful. Also, the rule for wikipedia is that someone has to be notable, not famous. How about band articles that

1. do not name an album by the group, or
2. say that interest in the band is limited to some local area

the rest would have to go to vfd. Gazpacho 18:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think notability should be limited to locale. Otherwise, we would be basically saying we don't want bands that are local to say Detroit. It wouldn't be a far stretch to say that a band popular in Peru isn't notable. So what level would make the threshold between notable and not notable under the limited local area suggestion? International acclaim? Winning an American award like a Grammy? Many of the opera singers I've made articles on were local to Chicago opera houses, others were local to Broadway and others were local to Italy. Interest in these many of these types of performers would similarly be limited to local areas. --Sketchee 02:37, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Personal vanity articles: I think this should be limited to

1. self-admitted vanity
2. stubs about a person that give no indication of notability, or only speculative or nonsensical claims of notability

I'm totally against having "blatant" as part of a speedy rule. I once saw an article nominated as a vanity when the article said the subject was dead. It's just not workable. Gazpacho 18:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What are we achieving here?

Now I think about it, most of these are already speedy delete candidates. Going through one at a time:

• Proposal I: Already seems to fall under criteria 4 "Very short articles with little or no context" and often also criteria 3 (vandalism) "Adding inappropriate external links for self-promotion".
• Proposal II: Already seems to fall under criteria 4 "Very short articles with little or no context".
• Proposal III: Not already a candidate, but seems unlikely to gain consensus (in my opinion).
• Proposal IV: Already seems to fall under criteria 4 "Very short articles with little or no context" (at least, most of the time).
• Proposal V: Putting copyrighted work on wikipedia is a form of vandalism, see criteria 3.

So what do we have left? A slight expansion through proposal IV, and a big expansion through proposal III that doesn't seem very likely to pass in its current form. Shane King 07:41, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

It's helpful to clarify some of the cases, Shane, don't you think? I agree that I is already covered. IV is an expansion because it would allow deletion of longer dicdefs. I don't agree with your view of V because a person just might not be clear on the copyright policy and do it accidentally. II would allow the deletion of "Red Rum was a racehorse" as it stands, which would be no good. III surely won't pass. However, you get Blankfaze's point. As Simon pointed out, none of the articles it's aimed at are at all controversial. We'd all delete Shumaker, I think. Something that allowed CVs to be speedied might be useful. Perhaps Blankfaze would consider withdrawing I and V and suggesting them on the CSD talk page as simple additions to clarify the text? Dr Zen 08:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is this really clarifying though, or just adding more instruction creep that actually complicates things? I'm starting to wonder, that's why I posted.

As far as the copyrighted works issue goes, I give people enough credit to know they're not allowed to just copy stuff from websites. Especially since the edit page says "By submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself, or copied it from public domain resources — this does not include most web pages. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!". How else should we interpret someone who flagrantly violates that instruction other than that they're acting in bad faith and hence vandalising the site?

As for II, I don't believe it says that we can delete "Red Rum was a racehorse" if it's at Red Rum (the racehorse bit isn't explicit in the title). If it's at Red Rum (racehorse) it can be deleted, and I think that's fair enough. For it to be disambiguated like that, there must exist a Red Rum page that's a disambig page, and hence already tells us Red Rum is a racehorse. We lose no information by deleting such pages.

Anyway, I'm just grumpy that everything seems to be about voting. Policy pages are editable by everyone for a reason I'd think. Perhaps policy should be ammended by being bold and making the change, and only resorting to a vote if the change is contested on the policy talk page and a consensus can't be reached on how to resolve the conflict? It seems at the moment we reflexively go to a vote as a first, rather than last, resort. Shane King 16:41, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

I think Blankfaze opened the vote because the proposed changes were and then contested on the policy page. Then they got very little discussion on the talk page.

Your point about instruction creep is a good one. Unfortunately, I do not agree with your analysis above that proposals I and II already qualify under case 4 though many admins do agree with you. I have come to the conclusion that case 4 is being stretched way beyond its original intent. Speedy deletes should always be completely obvious and non-controversial. They should not be dependent on how you or I interpret case 4 differently. Judgement calls belong on the full VfD page. An unambiguous clarification of the cases will allow us to focus on improving the encyclopedia instead of arguing over the interpretation of case 4. That's my hope, anyway. Rossami (talk) 17:45, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As to proposal V remember that we have a certain definition of vandalism laid out at Wikipedia:Vandalism and to include copyvios would require expanding that page, which is no easier than adding a new speedy delete criteria. - SimonP 17:54, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

One thing worth noting, from a skeptic on the proposal, is that if you fail to get a clear mandate confirming current process, it might be construed as causing you to lose the ability to execute what currently might be vaguely current policy. Be careful what you ask for. I suspect that, to draw an analogy, if the U.S. constitution needed unanimous revalidation every four years, it would've expired sometime between its formation and now. --Improv 18:09, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In response to all this:

First of all, I can understand Shane's apprehension to voting. However, there was a not-so-small edit war at WP:CSD not so long ago over changes that someone added. I'm afraid being bold simply won't work here.

Secondly, I really don't think that any of the proposals are reasonably covered by existing WP:CSD rules. See Rossami's comment. And even if they are, it's debatable. Why not clear things up? I don't see this as instruction creep. I see this as making things less complicated. "An unambiguous clarification of the cases." BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Improv makes a good point though. Deb 18:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dangerous ground

I believe that in expanding CSD that we should be very cautious. WP is to some extent developed under the notion of consensual direction rather than cabalistic or elitist direction.

Speedy is a method of deletion where there is no room for discussion. Consensus cannot occur if there is no room given to assess the consensus i.e. to discuss it. Speedy subverts the consensual imperative in the interests of efficiency.

I argue that there are two types of "obvious deletion" -- objectively obvious deletability, and subjectively obvious deletion.

• Objectively obvious deletion candidates are cases where the invalidity of the article is without any doubt. Fundamentally, any such definition should be conceivably automatable by a computer program. Random junk characters, previously VfD'd topic strings and article content, empty articles, banned user submissions, foreign language articles, etc.
• Subjectively obvious deletion candidates are cases where an article or topic flies directly in the face of Wikipedia policy. Content policy of this sort is (should be) clear to most humans, but is not clear to a computer program, as it involves integral knowledge of the English language and of human thought. But as a result of all human policies, there are or can be exceptions, considerations, reasons for pause, etc. In order to be determined, they need to be assessed via human understanding.

CSD is not a suitable Wikian solution to subjectively obvious deletion, because it by definition excludes the forum of human understanding from the process. We should then take care to ensure that CSD only applies to objectively obvious deletion candidates, and that subjectively obvious ones continue to be dealt with by some assessment of consensus.

Regards, [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 18:27, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think you are misrepresenting the current CSD criteria. There is a great deal of subjectivity in terms like patent nonsense, vandalism, and "very short articles with little or no context." - SimonP 18:42, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I think that much of the current CSD criteria as written is often misunderstood in a broader sense than intended. I know I did at first. While in general use the term "patent nonsense" may be subjective, the term is explained at Wikipedia:Patent nonsense in a fairly narrow sense and with many exclusions.

I agree that vandalism has the potential to be subjective. I'm not sure I agree that it should be a CSD case, unless it falls under the other categories such as patent nonsense.

As for "very short articles with little or no content", note that the line item for it on WP:CSD also includes a caveat to err on the side of redirection rather than deletion.

Even abuse cases should be dealt with in a consensual manner. Some might decide that my creation of first grade through tenth grade stubs after the failed VfD for fifth grade ended, was abuse, but its actual intent was comprehensiveness. Speedy shouldn't be used for this, either.

Perhaps you're right, using the entirety of current CSD criteria to defend my argument about the appropriate Wikian place for the concept is flawed. For the most part, though, the overall spirit of CSD cases is to expedite the removal of articles whose invalidity is obvious beyond a shadow of a doubt -- regrettably a concept that most legal systems have had ample opportunity to prove is a difficult one for humans to fully appreciate.

Ultimately, CSD is summary judgement, and therefore it shouldn't apply to cases where room for objection exists.

- [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 20:34, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Your concerns are appreciated, but please keep in mind that unlike, say capital punishment, deletion in wikipedia is not totally destructive and irreversible. First, there is an option to appeal and undelete. Second, if the topic is really important, someone sooner or later will recreate it. In the broader view of the totall summa of knowledge I don't see much difference between deletion and merciless editing of some articles, when 100% of content of the original article is eventually replaced. Mikkalai 05:53, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First, there is an option to appeal and undelete. Yes, but this option requires a majority in favor of undeletion. anthony 警告 21:22, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could just greatly lower the standards for undeletion of articles which are speedily deleted. Then admins can be as subjective as they want, but if someone objects, we can reverse their action. anthony 警告 21:20, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Any admin can, and should, immediately undelete a page that was deleted out of process. Perhaps we should have a separate page listing candidates for speedy undeletion, so that these cases can quickly be brought to attention and perhaps moved to VfD. - SimonP 21:34, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

The current policy is that an article must be "obviously deleted 'out of process'" to be a candidate for speedy undeletion. That's a bit too high of a standard, in my opinion, as it implies that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the admin making the deletion decision. I think the benefit of the doubt should be given to those who want the page kept. After all, admins aren't supposed to have any authority. anthony 警告 02:11, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New Proposal

If it doesn’t get a single ‘keep’ vote from any editor having more then 100 Edits (excluding the original author) with in a day or two. Or alternatively we can chose the thresh hold of 4 ‘delete’ vote from ‘non-sock puppets’, without a single ‘not delete’ vote excluding original author. If within 5 days (may be more time) any ‘non-sock puppet’ asks for undelete. It should be voted for deletion by normal method.

Zain 14:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You probably want Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion. This is speedy deletion we're talking about. There's no voting on that (hence the "speedy"). Unless you're talking about votes for undeletion—in which case, use Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion. In any case, I don't understand what this new proposal has to do with the current ones. JRM 19:12, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

I definitely think we need a procedure for expedited deletion of articles that is faster than the full VFD process, but slower than speedy deletion, but that isn't what we're discussing here. --Carnildo 22:38, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Obvious hoaxes and pranks

Obvious hoaxes and pranks listed on Category:Articles which may be hoaxes at least for 3 days without any improvement or dispute.

It would only codify existing practice of speedy deleting hoaxes as a vandalism. (Propable reasoning - adding pranks to wikipedia is inherently bad faith behaviour.) --Wikimol 20:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I agree that adding hoaxes and pranks to wikipedia is inherently bad and I do consider it a form of vandalism. Unfortunately, I do not believe we should try to turn them into speedy deletes. As individuals, we have a very poor track record of identifying the "obvious hoaxes and pranks". Many are truly hoaxes but a significant minority of these articles have turned out to be true (though obscure) topics. As a group, on the other hand, we are very successful at sorting them out. The VfD notice at the top of the article's page is an inherent disclaimer that no reader should trust the content during the discussion period - at least not without reading the VfD discussion thread. Five days on VfD is not too high a price to pay for the very good articles that have been saved but which would have been deleted without review if hoaxes were speedy candidates. Rossami (talk) 06:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is 70% consensus?

I wish we could talk out our policies instead of insisting that the majority should get its way. Still, it would hardly be Wikipedia if we actually did try to get things done by consensus!Dr Zen 02:55, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Consensus is when the people who think there isn't consensus aren't numerous, loud, or persistent enough to shout down those who think there is consensus. :-) Seriously, the truth is that waiting for decisions to be near-unanimous can take forever. Poland used to be governed by consensus among the nobles, and it's one of the reasons they were conquered so often; they couldn't get anything done most of the time.

In answer to your actual question, I'd say that 70% is consensus for some purposes but not others. For something like speedy deletion candidates, I'd say it's too low, because speedy deletions are supposed to be uncontroversial. You don't want an article speedy-deleted when 30% of Wikipedians think it shouldn't have been. Isomorphic 08:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Protection of the proposal page

Protection is completely unacceptable. The original author (User:Blankfaze) and another admin (User:Neutrality) have reverted and protected it to prevent addition of a new proposal which both of them personally disagree with. According to Wikipedia:Survey guidelines, "Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts." Assuming the mantle of "author" or "owner" of this proposal is a direct slap in the face to the wiki process. -- Netoholic @ 06:45, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

You're talking to the hand with those guys. If they were interested in the "wiki process", we wouldn't be having a vote. On a protected proposal at that! So much for you can edit any page!Dr Zen 07:44, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, the proposal was protected (I assume) because voting starts in less than 72 hours and it will only make things messier if the content of the proposal is flopping around right before the vote. Secondly, my opinion as to your proposal's merit has nothing to do with anything. I've only stated that I don't believe it belongs here. No one "owns" this proposal. No one owns any page on Wikipedia. I didn't make the decision to protect; you'll have to take that up with Neutrality. I do, however, see his reasoning, and I don't think it's "unacceptable" in the least. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If there is question about the format of the vote, the start should be postponed. There is no provision in the protection policy for protecting a vote page for any amount of time leading up to the start. -- Netoholic @ 08:05, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

The obligation is to find consensus before adding a proposal. - SimonP 16:15, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Sure, which I did by adding a discussion about it to this talk page above #Tag and bag proposal about two weeks ago. Noone objected at all, and even the "author" of the original proposal said "I don't like the idea, but that's just me. I can't stop you from taking a vote on it". I made the effort, and now a few days before the vote's scheduled start, I added it. Now is not the time to moan, unless we postpone the start date of the vote. -- Netoholic @ 16:29, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

Why would we demand consensus before the vote? Isn't that defeating the purpose? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 13:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Even a quick read of this page would show something at least as important as the holy grail of consensus... goodwill. Clearly (Blankfaze) and many others on this page have only the intent of improving internal process. Protection of the final wording of a proposal is as old as Robert's Rules of Order and I'd warrant that even in our enlightened age we can use a few established principles to guide us. --Bookandcoffee 18:03, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I may be wrong but I don't believe Robert's Rules of Order was a wiki.Dr Zen 23:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to include this proposal (although, at first glance, I shall probably vote against it myself). I certainly see no good reason to edit war over it - why not just include it and let the votes decide? -- sannse (talk) 20:23, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• With seven sub-proposals, this vote is already more complicated than I wanted it to be. Netoholic's cause is a complicated one in its own right and would be better suited for discussion and voting on a separate page. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:43, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't see that another proposal added will make a lot of difference, and this addition may be a part of peoples decision on the current suggestions. If someone has concerns about increasing the criteria, this suggestion may change their mind. The two seem too closely linked to me to make this a new page. More importantly in my eyes - this is an unnecessary dispute - surely there is some way to come to an agreement here -- sannse (talk) 00:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is silly. We don't need a separate Wikipedia:Proposal to expand Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD, do we? The page belongs to Wikipedia now, not to Blankfaze. If you object to the proposal, simply do not vote on it. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 13:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Individual talk pages?

Would it be useful to set up individual talk pages for each proposal, to make discussion simpler when the vote begins? It would be similar to the recent arbitration vote's pages. As it is now, people are going to start a new thread each time they have a comment, rather than reviewing this entire page. --Ben Brockert < 04:42, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Done —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 01:51, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Some of the comments couldn't be moved easily because they address more than one proposal. If you authored one such comment, your assistance in cutting it and pasting it into the appropriate page in chronological order would be most appreciated. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 01:59, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

I really wish the vote pages hadn't been split into the same articles as the talk pages. I know it makes sense from an article creation standpoint to do it that way, but it makes watching the talk impossible as the votes keep bumping up my watchlist. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 05:25, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

General comment

Most of this is a codification of existing administrative judgement, however it will be good to have these existing "as law", so to speak, though these measures will not really impact much on the Monster That Is VFD... Dysprosia 06:08, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is a bigger issue at hand

While the goal of adding what is a CSD is admirable, I find that the bigger issue at hand is the one of Votes for Deletion. A proposal regarding VfD was struck down recently, b ut that doesn't change the fact that it is a monster that is ineffective due to its massive size. While no one can agree on HOW to solve it, the fact that there is a problem there is almost universally accepted; this will slightly remedy the problem, but I still feel that this only adds as law a few interpretations that have already become standard practice anyway. I think that the attention of the 'pedia at large needs to be focused more on VfD than on CSD. Just my 2 cents, though. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 07:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I surrender

Despite the fact that this proposal has turned into a circus and a free-for-all, with the unilateral additions of ridiculous, poison-pill amendments, I'm not going to fight the addition of anything anymore. I don't have the time. I wanted this vote to remain simple and on-topic. I was not able to do that. Whatever happens, happens. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree, the vote should have been protected (however effective against admins that would be) and made stable once the vote was announced and upcoming. --BesigedB ^(talk) 21:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that this project wasn't very well publicised until the vote was announced. I've been a strong supporter of expanding speedy, and I didn't hear about this proposal until yesterday. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 21:50, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Think of it this way, Blankfaze: the newest additions are the least thought-through and the least discussed beforehand. That makes them the least likely to pass. And once they have failed once, they will be difficult to bring up again. Prematurely putting them to vote may kill them more permanently than your attempt to exclude them from the vote. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 02:26, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Heh. I wasn't really trying to exclude them based on their content. I just wanted to keep the vote simple, and now it seems like a big, complicated mess. But we'll see what happens. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 05:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is a big, complicated mess. But it seems to be working, to some degree. I didn't mean my comment in a negative way, it came off wrong. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 01:44, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Many-in-one proposals

I think this multi-pronged proposal structure should just be abolished. Outlawed. Hooted out of town. This is like passing amendments, with everyone tacking on rider bills when they feel like it, even at the last minute when there's scant room for discussion. Even Blankfaze's original, which seemed innocent enough, might have been too bold. Let's not pretend these proposals are completely independent — especially proposal IX. Vote on one thing. That everyone can edit a proposal is dubious enough as it is (what are we voting for, then? To get community consensus on a proposal that was edited to consensus by the community? Huh?), let's not make it even more confused by throwing together everything that's fit to print.

One proposal. One thing to vote on. Even if it's a lot of small things. If you want, put all the small things together and have the thing pass as a whole or not at all — your choice. But no subproposals. Not policy, just advice. It's too late for this proposal, but let's not do it again. JRM 22:41, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

"Reject" is rejected.

There's no need to add 50% more options to the voting. Having two no votes and one yes vote is a bad idea and will only result in debates on how to interpret the ensuing vote. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 00:40, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Having a vote in the first place was a bad idea. Allowing even qualified majorities to set policy means that policy is never consensual. This means that those that oppose changes to the policy, if it's opposed, are not heard and still oppose it. Dr Zen 01:40, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a new proposal on whether proposals supported by the majority should become official policy. :-) I see your point, though. Getting it done by consensus is always better than getting it done by majority. Then again, you should just vote "no" on everything if that's a concern — and I have a feeling quite some people will do just that, especially since we're talking speedy deletion. JRM 01:53, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

I agree with that since I think we should be creating policies that we can all live with by discussing what should be included in the first place. In that case, would it be better to vote on smaller pieces of policy than larger ones all at once such as this proposal? --Sketchee 02:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

It was a little more subtle than "two no votes and one yes vote" — it was, rather, one positive, one neutral, and one negative vote. Since it was clear that both the positive and negative votes required a majority, there was really no ambiguity. A 30% minority of disagree votes would have blocked both agree and reject and led to no action being taken. But I'm comfortable with proposal IX as it now stands.

I admit I hadn't quite noticed at first that the agree vote required a 70% majority; if I had, I'd have made that proposal mirror the main vote properly. JRM, thanks for catching that.

By the way, why does this proposal ask for a 70% majority rather than a simple two-thirds majority? It can be quickly determined whether a vote has the two-thirds majority; one need only check whether one side has twice as many votes as the others combined. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 03:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Disagree" is hardly neutral. As you point out, a third choice would easily poison the vote, and it will be impossible for any of the option to truly pass or fail. On 2/3rds, the objective is to have "consensus", and the consensus on Wikipedia is that "consensus" is roughly equal to 70 or 80 percent. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 04:06, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

It was neutral in that it was essentially a vote to keep the status quo. I doubt the third option would have affected the vote; it was just a subset of disagree anyway. It isn't "poisoning" to split the neutral position. If the positive side was going to receive a majority, it would still get the majority (see Independence of irrelevant alternatives). It has always been the case that the vote was biased in favor of the status quo: that side does not need a majority, but it can overrule the majority with only 30% of the vote.

...We don't even have a policy on Wikipedia:Consensus. How ironic.

If it really is consensus you're after, you should probably read consensus decision making. What we have here falls far short of a consensual process; there's considerable reluctance to even consider new proposals. Can't we admit that Wikipedia hardly ever actively tries to develop consensus? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 06:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am taking the consensus is that consensus is roughly equal to 70 or 80 percent home and framing it. Only on Wikipedia, a place where consensus supposedly rules, could someone say that and mean it! Thanks for the link, Eequor. Should be required reading for everyone here. Dr Zen 11:40, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There may have been a small amount of jest in my statement. I sometimes forget that Wikipedia has no sense of humor. :) —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 20:08, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

That was jerkish, JRM. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 01:50, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Erm... What on earth are you referring to? The only thing I can imagine is creating sense of humor. If so, I must point out that I created it in response to exactly just such a link on User:Eequor's user page. I wasn't trying to ruin your joke, or something. (This reply wasn't even directed at me! How low would I have to go?) I do realize I'm basically screwed because I'll never be able to "prove" this. Take my word, which I have never given lightly, and which I have never broken once given: I did not do anything to anyone here with intent to insult or annoy. That's the best I can do. We hardly know each other, and based on what little we have interacted, I think it's altogether too soon to start off as enemies. :-) See also my other comments on my unshakeable faith in everyone's good intentions here. JRM 02:30, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

"Accordingly U-3 and lesser degrees of unanimity are usually lumped in with statistical measures of agreement, such as "80%, mean plus one sigma, Two-Thirds, 50% plus one" levels of agreement. Such measures do not fit within the definition of consensus given at the beginning of this article." So say the people in the Wikipedia article. Dr Zen 11:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, there is actually one place where Wikipedia works toward a real consensus! I'd forgotten.... It's Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, of course. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 14:04, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The articles Eequor mentioned are really good stuff, especially if you think you know what "consensus" means. Now combine this with the nature of WP:CSD, and consider again whether a majority vote is the way to go here. Damn. I'm going to have to abstain from all votes; I need to mull this over first. JRM 14:46, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

^_^ ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 15:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Postponement

I've postponed the vote four days so we can resolve the differences between proposal III and proposal XI. Offering two choices may lead to neither proposal receiving enough votes to pass — and if both of them pass anyway, we would be in the awkward position of having to incorporate elements from both into CSD. Better to work toward a satisfactory version of proposal III now, rather than instate a version nobody officially voted on. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 23:15, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted this. This vote has been scheduled for weeks and should not be postponed over an amendment that was added mere hours before the vote was set to begin. If there is a problem with the amendment, it should be removed. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hm, Wikipedia talk:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal III (Vanity articles) shows that Wikimol proposed this on December 20. Never mind. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 23:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bringing it up on a talk page is one thing. Ideally he should have added it to the official proposal days or weeks ago. With less than an hour left, there's no time to discuss any issues with it. However, the entire vote should not be held up because of Wikimol's procrastination. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can I ask what the general rush is? If there are any questions as to the format of the vote, there is no harm in a postponement. That is a far better option than getting it off on the wrong foot. -- Netoholic @ 23:31, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

No rush, it's just that this vote has been discussed and mulled over for almost a month. It's unfair to derail it thanks to a very last-minute addition. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:34, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Postponement won't "de-rail" anything. It is fair to all to delay all of the open questions as to the format. Let's combine the measures which deal with similar items and stabalize the format. -- Netoholic @ 23:38, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Blankfaze. Wikimol had most of two weeks to change proposal III to sen liking; se didn't have to wait until hours before the vote. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 23:39, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Other concerns about ther format of this vote (and even the need for it at all) have been raised. By not postponing, everyone of us is saying, in effect, that we believe there is a reasonable chance of each proposal passing (regardless of our individual views). If that is not how we all feel, then why put them to a vote? Why not work on them until there is consensus at least with that thought? -- Netoholic @ 23:46, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

First - I'm very sorry for adding it to "official vote page" so late. I've been offline for a week. Proposals are conceptualy different, I dont see how they could be "merged". --Wikimol 23:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see. Why do you feel they are conceptually different? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 23:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Prop III relies on the competence of admins, IMO too mush for CsD. Prop XI relies on the community, and the work of admin could almost be automated. (Of course the admins judgement remains as a last check).

Other motivation for adding it was my guess Prop III won't pass. --Wikimol 00:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nnn. Neutrality reinserted XI. I don't see how we can reasonably vote on both proposals. Who feels XI should be considered? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 00:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I see that Eequor has listed this proposal on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Article_content_disputes - I would just like to make it clear for users coming here from there that there is no disagreement. There is only Eequor, who has numerous times attempted to unilaterally postpone this vote. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense; see above. Netoholic also objects to the vote. I see that my inclination to agree with you was in error. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 00:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

blankfaze.. .will you please stop with the snide attitude? -- Netoholic @ 00:32, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Snide attitude? I'm only stating the case. Either way, all anyone has to do is look at WHO is opposing the start of the vote. That tells a lot. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In anycase, I'm not in agreement with the content either. I was actually pretty suprised when I came here and the voting had started. I know it was supposed to start to day, but I certainly thought it would be postponed until consensus. :/--Sketchee 03:12, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Me too. You've got to also look at who is pushing the vote ahead. That tells a lot.Dr Zen 05:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Listing of possible sock puppet voters

According to Wikipedia:Sock puppet, it is typical to not count votes for accounts with less than 100 edits, or a questionable contribution listing. Please list here any accounts which may fight these guidelines. This will be easier than marking them under each voting sub-section.

This is a misrepresentation of Wikipedia:Sock puppet, it does not say that "it is typical to not count votes for accounts with less than 100 edits". What it does say is this:

"If it appears that sock puppets are being used as part of an edit war or to distort the outcome of a vote or survey, one possible rule of thumb is the 100-edit guideline. This suggests that any account with more than 100 edits is presumed not to be a sock puppet, but accounts with fewer edits are considered doubtful, especially if there are unusually many of them participating.

This means that If there is evidence to suspect a sock puppet campaign, then such a possible guideline could be used. I see no evidence for such a sock puppet campaign here.

Paul August ☎ 16:05, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

• User:Max rspct (contribs, talk) - slightly over 100 edits, but about 40 are to his own user page, and he's got less than 20 article edits. -- Netoholic @ 00:47, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • User:Max rspct is relatively new to wikipedia and low edit numbers should be understandable. who are you suggesting User:Max rspct is a sock puppet of? Xtra 01:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I dunno who or even if for sure, which is why I listed here. The guideline is about 100 edits, and this user's light contributions make me question his votes. Why would someone so new become involved with voting so soon after hitting 100 edits? -- Netoholic @ 01:12, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
      • i dunno. my first ever edit was a vote. Xtra 01:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• User:Ral315 (contribs, talk) Votes on these proposals seems to have been this user's 100th edit. -- Netoholic @ 08:00, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • I am the user referred to here, and I'd like to confirm that I am NOT a sock puppet; I recently took an avid interest into Wikipedia, and that's why my edit amount is so low. I guess it's just a statistical anomaly that the vote was my 100th edit. Ral315 00:17, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

• User:Lee S. Svoboda (contribs, talk) - less than 100 edits, with lots of recent votes. -- Netoholic @ 08:00, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Why I voted disagree on everything

I'm going to vote "disagree" on all proposals, because I don't think the proposal process is proper to begin with. I think we should go for proper consensus, and not a majority vote, especially since we're talking about something individuals must act on. Looking at the CSD talk page, I see no real attempt at working towards consensus, just the usual "here's why you're wrong" back-and-forth arguing. That's a good start, but hardly the prelude to a full-blown vote. The current page has quite a few proposals that didn't seem to get any consensus on the talk page — what's a vote supposed to establish? If it's merely a handy way of getting lots of people to state what they think, it's going overboard by immediately stamping the things the majority likes as policy.

We need more discussion. A vote will get more eyeballs, but a vote, and especially a majority vote, is not discussion. Unless someone tells me we have officially abandoned consensus as a realistic way of getting to policy, I can't in good faith agree with this. I have thought about abstaining, but decided against it; as that sends no signal at all. I must stress that my "disagree" votes are not meant to express spite or dissatisfaction with any individual proposer, and I'm not even trying to express opinions on how the CSD policy should look — just that I don't think it's good to change it in this manner. I have no doubt that these proposals will see enough voters to ensure my votes won't "sabotage" the process. JRM 01:03, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

• If your complaint is with the process rather than the content, the proper thing to do would be to abstain. Just my opinion. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  Generally, you would be right. But in this case, voting "disagree" on everything is expressing the opinion that the current policy should not be changed in any way — and that's about right, if not for the reason that the subproposals themselves are bad. I can hardly start an after-the-fact meta-proposal on whether this proposal is appropriate. :-) Eequor's "maintain the status quo" alternatives were removed (and probably rightly so), but that's what I'm voting for. "Abstain" simply doesn't cut it — remaining silent is agreeing, as the majority is over all voters, not over all Wikipedians. JRM 02:26, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Voting no on everything hardly helps to make consensus. Some of these would go through without a single "no" vote if there weren't people like you voting against the process, rather than the proposition. And no matter what your own definition of "consensus" is, I would think that a unanimous vote would fall into it. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 21:03, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Let me repeat your edit summary here, because I think it's rather important: you're disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. I will agree to a lot, but not to tacit accusations that I'm wilfully breaking policy (even if it's just proposed policy — I happen to agree with it). Let me put it this way: I stand behind all my disagree votes. I do believe none of these cases should be added to WP:CSD, and that is what this vote is about. Questioning my reasons for voting this way (reasons which indeed stem from the process) is one thing. Going so far as to imply disruption because such votes fail to go with the presumed unanimous flow is a bridge too far. Your logic is backwards: if only I (or others like me) kept silent, we might have a unanimous vote, which is definitely consensus, so I shouldn't vote this way because it breaks consensus? That's not my understanding of consensus. What next? Asking all people who object to these proposals passing by vote to please not vote so the people who "really stand for something" get their say? Isn't the whole point of this vote to determine whether there is a majority in favor? If the majority really is in favor, how can my vote possibly be taken as disruptive? How could a majority of people who feel the process is inappropriate make their opinion known, if not through voting? Do you really think this vote could be challenged any other way? Wouldn't there be massive pressure to accept the outcome of this vote as policy, because "the majority wants it this way"? Again: the majority spoken of is the majority of voters, not of Wikipedians. If I don't vote, I don't get a say, and I want a say. It's as simple as that. A true consensus acknowledges this; a vote cannot. I might agree that I'm "disrupting" the vote, in some sense, but I'm not agreeing that this works against consensus, and certainly not to disrupting Wikipedia. No, sir. JRM 22:21, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

I disagree. If he's against the process, then he is not supporting that these proposals be passed. In which case, it seems the appropriate vote is against the proposals. YMMV --Sketchee 22:19, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps he's not voting against the process, either, but against proponents of the proposals who are incapable of believing that anyone could disagree with their opinion of them. Keith D. Tyler [flame] 20:33, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

And perhaps he also thinks some people are better off voicing their opinions as their own, rather than implying that others are thinking just the same way. ;-) For the record: I think Blankfaze (and everyone else who added a proposal) is acting in perfectly good faith here. I just think more could have been done to reach consensus. Ben is just annoyed at what he probably sees as petty filibustering; we are at odds there, but that's all. Don't try to recruit me in some personal crusade, please. I don't know anything about it, and frankly I don't care. I care about the way we're building policy, here, and that's as far as it goes. JRM 21:15, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

I think JRM's actions are perfectly reasonable, and he is in no way engaging in "disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point". Making such an allegation is out of line. Paul August ☎ 20:54, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

It was hardly an accusation; it was a flippant remark in the edit summary. I had some strong arguments to make here, but I procrastinated adding them and they matter not now. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 03:50, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

I feel a great deal of conflict about it. I think this is altogether the wrong way to change policy. It's extremely anticonsensual to have a majority vote win the day. Policy that a third of the community does not agree with is not going to be good policy (and yet it will still be bandied around as though it were the will of God, as other policies are). There is already far too much of a "like it or fuck off" attitude here, and I'm not at all sure that's the spirit. However, if I and others who feel the same abstain, we allow proposals we really don't want to have pass to become "policy" and, not being an admin and not likely to become one, I can't do a thing to stop bad policies from being misused (if they are bad policies -- the point with a consensus is that effort is made to convince everyone that the policies in question are good).Dr Zen 05:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IMO there is a strong concensus deletion policy has to be changed somehow to relieve VfD. The general debate was ongoing for months, with outputs such as Preliminary Deletion proposal. CSD policy is not respected like the will of God, many admins are deleting articles more or less out of the current policy. Because usualy everybody agrees the deleted article should be deleted, there are very little complains about it. (And those complaining, like me, usualy dispute only the fact it was deleted out of the policy, not the deletion itself.) --Wikimol 14:00, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's all true, Wikimol, and I think Blankfaze could simply have made a proposal on the talk page of CSD, dealt with objections and adjusted the policy. Had he publicised his policy change on Village Pump, the mailing list etc, and perhaps by personal messages to editors he knows are interested parties, he could have received views that way.Dr Zen 23:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Many of the proposals were dicussed on the talk page of CSD; in fact, that's what prompted me to start this proposal. This proposal was publicised ... on Village Pump, the mailing list etc, around a month ago when it started. Also, it's been publicised on Wikipedia:Goings-on for about two weeks. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 17:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Yes I know. I contributed to the discussion. But the discussion was, I believe, all aimed at crafting proposals for a vote, not towards making a consensus to change policy. I don't recall any message that said "let's get together and think about how we can change policy".Dr Zen 23:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seem pretty obvious that despite all shrouds of equity, the method of determining policy in the deletion sphere latel has been crafted such that CSD expansion would be assured to pass, and Wikipedia:Preliminary deletion would be assured to fail. Preliminary deletion had to reach a 70% consensus (that's a higher margin than Congress has to make to veto the President!), not a simple majority. And of course, plenty of people objected -- after the vote -- to the stated way the votes would be counted (which I agree was unorthodox and inadvisable, but it was clearly stated in advance). There is a terrible lack of rules here to determine how policy should be made. We shouldn't be making any policy until we can come up with a policy on changing policy -- and sticking to it! - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 20:39, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

As the original crafter of Preliminary Deletion and its two votes, I don't see any overt move by the cabal (if such a thing exists) to guarantee the passage of certain policies. Policy crafting operates on consensus. The problem now is that we've grown so big, achieving meaningful consensus grows harder and harder. As we grow larger, so does the number of extremists in our midst. Achieving a middle of the road or common sense policy grows harder as Wikipedia grows, because the extremists will staunchly oppose such measures. It's no longer the good ol' days where we could make policies that just make sense. Nowadays everyone has a gripe with the policy and to achieve consensus, policy writers have to try to please everyone. I seem to recall one of Aesop's fables (is that it?) of the man and his son with the donkey.

The problem now is, if we don't use consensus for creating policy, what do we use? We've come up with a middle of the road method, commonly known as voting. The problem is, voting is inherently bad. After watching several polls, I'm not too convinced it would be a bad idea to outlaw voting entirely. It's a slipshod process that destroys discussion. However, voting originated because of no discussion. Preliminary Deletion had got few complaints, and a lot of positive feedback. After a while, they stopped trickling in, so voting was opened. Then people came up and mouthed off about the policy a little bit and took off. No matter; if the vote didn't pass, we could try working it out through discussion. The proposal was listed on the pump, mailing list (twice) and RfC. Only two people stepped up to discuss, and one came away with a changed opinion.

I'm now quite sure voting is, more often than not, bad, and voting should be expressly banned except where otherwise permitted by some authority. Because the possibility to vote exists, people save their feedback for the poll. Then they complain about it and vanish until the next vote. Worse still, some may just vote and not explain why. Repeat ad infinitum. If we removed this possibility, people would have to discuss a proposal, or it would never pass/fail.

I of course realise this is an opinion not shared by many, if any, Wikipedians. It's just that atfer Preliminary Deletion I've been so utterly frustrated with the manner of working out policy here. I looked for discussion and got none. Then when the second vote opened, I was berated for not seeking discussion. After the first vote anthony told me there surely must be some way of drawing discussion. The problem is, nobody cares. It's easy to cast a vote. It's much harder to defend your stance in a protracted debate.

I close with one last thing to say. Jwrozensweig explained on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship that he never casts a vote without stating his opinion and reasons for casting his vote, because he views a vote as a manner of working out consensus, not some construct that determines numerically whether something fails or passes. If every voter took that attitude, it would be much easier to craft policy, if not pass it. Sadly, many, including myself, don't. Johnleemk | Talk 10:26, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

John, thanks for that cogent comment. I agree wholeheartedly that votes are bad. Whenever I do vote, I try to engage in a discussion (to the frustration, sometimes, of those who just want to vote, get their way and leave) because I truly believe that it is good at least to try to work for a consensus.

I'm very sorry that your proposal on preliminary deletion did not get the discussion it deserved. I think you've hit the nail on the head. People just hang out for the vote, don't bother talking it out, and you're hit over the head with a mass of criticism and negativity in one chunk.

I think I will dig out the policy and look at it properly. I think I voted against it, but I would happily discuss with you why. I think I was probably too new when it was being discussed. But I feel sorry that you did not get the fair shake you deserved, having put the effort and thought into it.

If we ever have a vote on votes...Dr Zen 11:30, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Talk message

"To keep this page from becoming confusing and difficult to read, please direct all discussion to the proposal's talk page."

We might want to move this to somewhere more prominent. The contents and jump to vote messages easily let me skip past it. =o --Sketchee 03:51, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

I've tried twice to make the message more prominent, but both attempts have been reverted by User:blankfaze without explanation. -- Netoholic @ 04:23, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Oh, so YOU were the chap doing that? Sorry. The big gray box with double-border looked really bad and unnecessarily large. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Early withdrawl of failing proposals

The vote is big, I don't think anyone will disagree with that. Would it be possible to remove proposals that have already failed? What would be necessary to do so, the agreement of their submitters, or just common sense? Proposals three, four, five, seven, eight, and nine all furthest from consensus, all having more disagree than agree votes, and are very unlikely to swing the other way in the next ten days. Proposals 7 and 9 are currently (and have been since the start) the worst off, at 8:74 and 2:75, respectively.

Withdrawing before the end of the vote is certainly not unprecedented. It would streamline the process significantly. The withdrawn proposals can get an early start on reformulating for the next attempt at this, in six months or whenever. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 04:11, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

• I wouldn't oppose the withdrawal of any proposal with less than 40%. However, anyone who would take it upon themselves to remove them would have to be willing to assume any possible ensuing flack. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• No, it's bad enough there were major concerns with even starting this vote on Jan 2, it is not right that we change the parameters of the survey mid-stream. -- Netoholic @ 04:24, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
  • Not right, how? What is the harm that offsets the benefits? —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 05:01, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Let it be. The minimal benefits of streamlining for the few remaining days aren't worth the future heartache when people start screaming that they were disenfranchised. Rossami (talk) 05:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I oppose withdrawing any vote which has not been given the opportunity to run its full course. Xtra 05:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Darn. Now I can't withdraw the proposal to withdraw failing proposals. FTR, things are withdrawn before the vote concludes on VfD, RfA, and presumably every other voting-based doodad on Wikipedia. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 05:34, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Let them die a natural death. I don't think it's hard to see that people don't like it when you try to change the "rules" in the middle of the "game". Paul August ☎ 06:17, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)