Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 6: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:05, 11 March 2008

< March 5	Deletion review archives: 2008 March	March 7 >

6 March 2008

Zooped (closed)

Encyclopedia Dramatica (closed)

Category:Wikipedian random page patrollers

Closed as delete when the results were no consensus. I know it's not numbers alone, but when you have a three on two debate for something that isn't violating anything, and where no one really can prove if it actually is useful or not, and good arguments on both sides, that's not a consensus. No hard feelings on anyone, and I know a lot of people will feel this is a boring topic, but it is what it is, and I'm bringing it to DRV. -- Ned Scott 04:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - Since the focus of an XFD closure should be arguments, rather than numbers, I feel that the closure was appropriate. (Disclosure: I'm the original nominator and a member of this category.) The "keep" reasons asserted the usefulness of the activity of random page patrolling, but did not specify how the category helped in the improvement of articles or was otherwise useful. One does not need a template-populated category to click the "random article" link and then to click "edit this page". Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very weak argument for deletion. No one needs a template or category to do recent changes patrol either, or a large number of other tasks which we give user categories. Some users wish to see how many other users are using or encouraging such methods, and is just as valid as Category:Wikipedian recent changes patrollers. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this category is just as valid as the recent changes category (in any case, that's an "other stuff" argument). Recent changes patrol requires/involves some specific expertise (identifying possibly problematic edits, deciding if/when to revert, deciding which user warning notice to use), whereas random page patrol does not - it's just a general form of browsing and editing. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expertise? Are you joking? I have no doubt there are levels of expertise in recent changes patrolling, but the same can be said for any form of patrolling, including one's own watchlist. Even if you were correct, how does Category:Wikipedian recent changes patrollers help editors when any editor can add themselves, not necessarily an expert or anyone who's good at helping other users? Do users add themselves to this category/userbox with the intention on helping other users, or just telling people that they do RC patrolling? It's perfectly comparable, because recent changes patrolling, with all the mad skillz "required", doesn't need a category to help people anymore than random patrolling. Nor is this an "other stuff" argument, since the example is explained. -- Ned Scott 06:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that "the same can be said for any form of patrolling". If that is the case, then please identify what type of expertise is involved in random page patrolling? As for the fact that the members of Category:Wikipedian recent changes patrollers are not necessarily expert RC patrollers ... well, so what? Using user categories for collaboration is always a probability game; however, we should distinguish between cases where the chances that a category will facilitate collaboration are virtually zero and those where they are slightly or significantly higher.
With regard to your question about the intent of users in this category ... I don't know, nor do I feel it's particularly relevant in this instance. I may add myself to a category just to tell others I do RC patrol, but if someone asks me for advice or clarification regarding RC patrol because of my membership in the category, I will do my best to help. You emphasize the question of "need", but I prefer to look at things in terms of utility (technically, there is no "need" to do anything except eat, breathe, and sleep). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same type of "expertise" in any given form of page patrolling (identifying possibly problematic edits, deciding if/when to revert, deciding which user warning notice to use).
however, we should distinguish between cases where the chances that a category will facilitate collaboration are virtually zero and those where they are slightly or significantly higher. And how are you coming to this conclusion? You've only asserted that you feel it won't facilitate collaboration. Nor have you explained how having a user category for RC patrollers does facilitate collaboration. Personally I think both categories are appropriate because they help other editors see who's using such methods. -- Ned Scott 07:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random page (RP) patrolling only rarely involves identifying problematic edits, deciding if/when to revert, or issuing warning notices. It just involves clicking "Random article" and making small or large improvements to some random article. I come to the conclusion that the collaborative potential of this category is virtually zero based on my previous comment: RP patrolling is not a standard form of page patrolling, but rather a very general method of browsing and editing. Also, I have explained how the RC category could (not necessarily does) faciliate collaboration: someone wanting to become involved in RC patrolling could ask a current RC patroller for information or advice. (e.g. What should I do if I come across an edit that's questionable but not obvious vandalism?)
As for your justification for "appropriateness", why is it important to know who's using such methods? I could understand wanting to know whether a specific editor is a RP patroller, but then your port of call would be the editor's user page, not a directory of RP patrollers. As a statistical tool, categories are completely useless, since one can draw virtually no valid conclusions from them. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Random page patrol:
Random page patrol refers to the process of regularly and frequently checking randomly selected pages through Special:Random.
The patrol is entirely voluntary and carries no obligation.
The guidelines for the Recent changes and New pages patrols apply, merely the search method is different.
It seems to me that you misunderstand what RPP is. People click on the random links and check the page history, the talk page, the past, present, and future. At least that's how I always did it, and that's how it is described on Wikipedia:Random page patrol.-- Ned Scott 04:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The general guidelines do apply, but the specific techniques do not. For instance, a RP patroller often cannot simply revert or rollback edits. In addition, an RP patroller generally should not issue standard template-warnings to users for questionable edits made several months ago. Moreover, RP patrol also involves checking the current status of the page, instead of just checking the the status of the most recent edit(s). The "skills" required for RP patrol are not significantly different from the skills required for regular editing, which is not the case with "recent changes" and "new pages" patrol. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The discussion did not produce a consensus and so it should have been closed as No consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify why you feel that the discussion failed to produce a consensus? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion failed to produce a consensus because the contributing editors failed to agree. One camp saw this as "trivial...no need...what purpose". The other camp said "perfectly good...will encourage others...certainly does help". The balance seemed to be evenly divided and there were no pressing policy reasons to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. Do you not think that one should also consider whether each camp stated why the category is useful or useless, in light of the fact that a claim of utility that is unaccompanied by an explanation is not necessarily informative? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per BF. Valid close. --Kbdank71 18:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to non-consensus Two policy based keeps, three deletes--including 34 or 5 comments from thee d. who proposed the deletion. That's not consensus for a fairly widely used category. the closer closed according to personal opinion, & shoudl rather have joined the debate and let someone else close. DGG (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as per Black Falcon. Just because the category is widely used does not indicate that it is useful; the userbox is sufficient to convey the sentiment. There is no reason why someone would need to identify random page patrollers, and in fact the category is totally useless for collaboration due to its random nature. Horologium (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The closure was not wrong. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion No particularly strong feelings about the issue, but we need to encourage closures that, as noted by BF above, focus on arguments, rather than numbers. And the rationale provided in the debate & close is legit. Eusebeus (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This close didn't focus on the arguments, it focused on what arguments the closer agreed with. Part of establishing a consensus means that even if you disagree with someone else, you at least acknowledge a reasonable argument. I don't see that in this discussion, at all. -- Ned Scott 04:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - IMO, strength of arguments to delete outweighed that of keep reasoning. VegaDark (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would anyone object to a relisting, to help clarify consensus? -- Ned Scott 04:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - over a 100 editors added themselves to this category, which probably means that they thought it's a category that should exist. I'm guessing that at least some of them have good reasons for believing so. Seeing how there are no pressing policy issues with the category, I don't think that the deletion discussion as it was was enough to establish the consensus that the category should be deleted. Zocky | picture popups 06:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, over 100 people added the userbox to their page, which automatically puts users in the category. Only 4 individual users specifically placed this category on their userpage. VegaDark (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is still more than the three people who voted to delete it. Plus, I think we can assume that at least some of the 100+ people at least noticed after the fact that they were in that category and didn't bring it to CFD. Zocky | picture popups 08:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that one of them did; Black Falcon, the nominator, noted above that he was a member of the category. I didn't contribute to the original discussion because a) I didn't feel terribly strongly about it, and b) It didn't appear to be a controversial decision. If I had !voted, would that have made a difference to you? UCFD is not based on numbers, but on strength of argument, and IMO the stronger argument fell to those who advocated deleting the cat. Horologium (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, out of 100+ users that were aware of the existence of the category, 1 thought it should be brought to CfD, and 99+ didn't. I'm not saying that this is a number game. I'm saying that the 3 people who !voted delete probably don't know all the arguments that the 99+ people who thought the category was OK would have brought up. Zocky | picture popups 01:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can't know that 100+ users were aware of the category. 100+ users were aware of the userbox, but it took only one editor to make the category a part of the userbox. There were no "99+ people who thought the category was OK"; there were 2. As for the nomination itself ... practically all deletion nominations are started by just one person, but that doesn't mean that everyone else who knew about the page should be assumed to support its retention (case in point: someone else recently started an AFD on an article I had edited and watchlisted and I supported deletion). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not assume that those editors are stupid and didn't notice the category. Otherwise, It's a matter of scale. An article edited by a hundred people shouldn't be deleted by votes of 3 people, and likewise, a user category with a hundred members (and no pressing policy issues) shouldn't be deleted by votes of 3 people. Zocky | picture popups 02:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One doesn't have to be stupid to not notice one category out of 10 or 20 or 50 at the bottom of a user page; one may just not pay attention to the bottom of one's userpage. As for the issue of scale, articles edited by 100+ people are deleted by discussions that involve 5 or 10 people on a daily basis. Editing an article does not imply support for its retention, just as being in a category does not imply support for its retention. More importantly, consensus is not a complex numbers game that involves evaluations of the ratio of participants to members, or of member-participants to non-member-participants. Five people are just as capable of discussing two sides of an issue and evaluating relevant arguments as are 100 (in fact, with 100 people, discussions tend to become chaotic). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - no rationale provided by the closing administrator, and there's no clear consensus from the debate. Editors were clearly divided over the utility of the category and userbox. Mackensen (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overtun deletion and reclose as no consensus. The length of this post combined with the CfD, in my mind, indicate that there really is no consensus as to whether this category should be here or not, which should default to keeping the category. For what it's worth, any user category, (again my opinion), that is based on a user process (be it new pages, recent changes, vandalism, disambiguating, whatever) is perfectly valid, perfectly harmless, and if it means that even one or two editors, at some point, having noticed the other in the category, collaborate on something because of the introduction through the category, then it has served Wikipedia well. There, I've successfully argued WP:ILIKEIT, WP:BIG, WP:OTHERSTUFF WP:HARMLESS, and WP:USEFUL. A simpler solution perhaps, could maybe Black Falcon, and anyone else, just remove x-self from the category if xe doesn't like it? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn In addition to being baffled as to why anyone would take a second of their time to propose deletion, neither the nomination nor a single one of those jumping on the deletion bandwagon offered any valid justification for why Wikipedia policy would require deletion of this category. As such, I see no choice but to overturn the result. Alansohn (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I think the nomination rationale of "this category does not facilitate collaboration" is in the eye of the beholder, and consensus was weak (different arguments) compared to the opposition. WP:USEFUL is certainly a valid argument for a user category, and I believe Ned Scott correctly argued that while this may not spur direct collaboration on a particular article, it certainly encourages indirectly broader collaboration on Wikipedia generally. Have a thought for the part-time Wikipedians, in other words. --Dhartung | Talk 20:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does the category do this in a way that is substantially different from the userbox which extensively populates this category? While WP:USEFUL may be a valid argument, the utility of the category has not been demonstrated here. As I noted above, due to the random nature of the category, collaboration is not possible, which is supposed to be the purpose of the categorization system. The userbox is a great idea, but it doesn't need the category appended to it to serve its purpose. Horologium (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus in that debate. There's no real consensus on Wikipedia about what to do with user categories. The best thing to do would be to politely ignore the whole mess, but that would be too easy. Ultimately it doesn't really matter if the category exists or not, let's at least all be honest with each other. What bothers everyone is the impression that some people are telling other people what the rules are, especially on an encyclopedia where we pretty much make the rules up as we go along. Rather than relive the deletion debate, rather than wait for whatever admin decides to close this in an impartial manner, can the two sides follow WP:CONSENSUS and actually find common ground? What's more important here, holding on to our divisions or trying to do the best by each other? I'm no good at being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy mixed up world. Someday you'll understand that. No real preference either way. Hiding T 22:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes,it was a premature attempt to force consensus where there really isn't any, just as Hiding says. My own view on the category is that all forms of page patrolling are so essential to the quality of WP that they are to be encouraged, that people engaged in them need to help and teach one another how to do it right, and that all ways of assisting it, such as this category, are positively helpful and beneficial to the encyclopedia. We removed the Rouge administrators category because it might give people the wrong idea (& in fact I agree with that view)--but is random page patrolling also a potentially dangerous idea? Is this peripheral to the encyclopedia? Has it been used in a harmful way? is it likely to? Why then remove things that might encourage a feeling of cooperation in doing it? that is exactly the intended purpose of user categories. DGG (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - administrator did not establish consensus, whereas keep arguments were clearly according to policy. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per DGG, Dhartung, Alansohn, Mackensen and others.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Cube lurker et al Cleo123 (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per the excellent arguments provided above. John254 20:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Harmless, and not in article space. Cowardly Lion (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn — That there are many editors choosing to associate and organize themselves with this category for the purpose of random page patrolling seems to me completely harmless and extremely beneficial to the encyclopedia. - Neparis (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion per DGG and because this was a poor call. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Consensus to delete was achieved. Arguments that random page patrolling is a helpful activity miss the mark since it is the category and not the activity that is under discussion. Comments here that the existence of the category facilitates the activity are out of place (since this is not CfD round2) and more importantly not convincing (to me). Eluchil404 (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 |}
-====[[:Encyclopedia Dramatica]]====
+====[[:Encyclopedia Dramatica]] (closed)====
+{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
+|-
+! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
+* '''[[:Encyclopedia Dramatica]]''' – The result of the discussion was '''keep deleted'''. After carefully reviewing the discussion, I have been remarkably impressed with the ''(mostly)'' civil tone and assumptions of good faith maintained throughout. Despite the volume of the discussion, the issues raised here were reasonably simple (although that did not make the decision easy). Barring a few unhelpful comments from editors determined never to have an article on Encyclopedia Dramatica--regardless of the notability--there were largely two camps I felt were the most important: Those who viewed the references as trivial coverage and those who did not. I must admit from my own inspection it was a very close call. Barring a front page article in the [[NY Times]], the determination of triviality is best left to [[WP:CON|editorial consensus]]. I did not fully discount those raising concerns about the existence of similar articles (i.e. [[4chan]]), nor did I discount those pointing out that this was [[WP:AADD|an argument to avoid in deletion discussions]]. Both comments have merit, but do not pull the weight of the important guidelines regarding non-trivial coverage. The NPOV concerns are important, but only insomuch as they refute the "NEVER NEVER NEVER!" argument. This leaves us with no consensus to overturn what has been many, many, many, community decisions on this matter. I would like to note in closing, however, that the sources are getting close, and this closure does not in any way preclude another draft that is created in good faith (as this one clearly was) existing at some point in the future. – [[User:IronGargoyle|IronGargoyle]] ([[User talk:IronGargoyle|talk]]) 01:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC) <!--*-->
+|-
+| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
+|-
+| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 :{{la|Encyclopedia Dramatica}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Encyclopedia Dramatica|restore]]<tt>&#124;</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Encyclopedia Dramatica}} cache]</span><tt>&#124;</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica|AfD]]<tt>)</tt>
 :'''[[User:Shii/ED|USERSPACE DRAFT HERE]]'''
@@ Line 206: / Line 214: @@
 *'''Permit re-creation''' controversy and [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] doesn't make an article less notable which is what most of the keep deleted votes are based on. It may infact make it more notable. According to [[Alexa.com]], it is considerably more popular than [[Uncyclopedia]] and [[Veropedia]] in all forms (page views,rank etc). The reliable sources are there to proove it and to create a good article.--[[Special:Contributions/91.121.88.13|91.121.88.13]] ([[User talk:91.121.88.13|talk]]) 22:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
-=====ED Break 1=====
+'''ED Break 1'''
 *'''Keep deleted''' per Corvus cornix. <font color="blue">[[User:Shoy|sho]]</font><font color="red">[[User talk:Shoy|y]]</font> 04:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Permit recreation''' Would be a keep if it was a site on another subject.  If we want to keep our npov high-ground we should treat this the same as other sites.--[[User:Cube lurker|Cube lurker]] ([[User talk:Cube lurker|talk]]) 04:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
@@ Line 237: / Line 245: @@
 *'''Keep deleted''' Hasn't changed at all. [[User:Jmlk17|<span style="color:#008000">Jmlk</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Jmlk17|<span style="color:#000080">1</span>]][[User_talk:Jmlk17|<span style="color:#800000">7</span>]] 09:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
-=====ED Break 2=====
+'''ED Break 2'''
 *'''Keep deleted''' as per Corvus cornix, this website at best borderline notable, so no reason to move a stub about it to mainspace. --[[User:Minimaki|Minimaki]] ([[User talk:Minimaki|talk]]) 09:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 *<del>'''Permit recreation''' in an extremely, ''extremely'' tentative fashion,</del> or at very least, '''allow the current draft exist and review later'''. Yes, the site has offended some of our editors, but in the name of neutrality we cannot subject the site to any stricter scrutiny than articles about any other sites. "It annoys us, let me grab my wikilaw book so we can figure out how to kill it" has gone altogether too far. Yet, now that the notability-confirming evidence ''is'' rolling in (one way or another), I am a little bit apprehensive: it'd still appear to me that the site is only approaching notability threshold. Peeking from behind the fence. "Uh oh, we have a new radar contact." Yet, I've seen many times that almost-notable articles had to be recreated anyway later on when the notability is more definite, ''and'' we've wasted tons of Wikipedia: space on this site as is, so I'm starting to wear out and just give it a benefit of doubt for the time being. --''[[User:Wwwwolf|wwwwolf]]'' ([[User talk:Wwwwolf|barks]]/[[Special:Contributions/Wwwwolf|growls]]) 10:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
@@ Line 281: / Line 289: @@
 *:I think the only thing that's "clear" is that it's not clear whether or not the site is notable enough, by our usual standard of [[WP:WEB]]. It's clearly borderline. Characterizing other Wikipedians' good-faith doubts about the site's notability as "ridiculous censorship" is not helpful. Thanks for understanding, and do please expand on ''why'' you find the notability clear. Personally, I don't see it as clear, and if you wish to accuse me of anti-ED bias... then you don't know what you're talking about. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]<sup>([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]])</sup> 17:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Keep Deleted''' Not "notable" to anyone other than WIkipedians. Inclusion of an ED article is asking for trouble and disruption. The long term best interests of the project must be protected. [[User:Cleo123|Cleo123]] ([[User talk:Cleo123|talk]]) 04:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-=====ED Break 3=====
+'''ED Break 3'''
 *'''ARBCOM ruling''' There is an arbcom ruling on ED that should be noted, it is at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Links_to_ED]] and says "Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it". <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Rlevse|<span style="color:#060;">'''''R''levse'''</span>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 12:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 *:Useful to note, but keep in mind that the ArbCom ruling has to do with using ED as a reference or including content from ED here, not having an article about ED.  It seems the question we're not asking regarding notability is what are the chances someone would stumble across references to ED and come to Wikipedia to find out what it is.  I think that is the defining point of notability.--[[User:Doug|Doug.]]<sup>([[User talk:Doug|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Doug|contribs]])</sup> 16:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
@@ Line 327: / Line 335: @@
 *'''Breakdown so far''': My rough and unscientific and probably slightly inaccurate count shows that so far, there are 50 keep deleted votes vs. 32 permit recreation votes. (Yes, I know it isn't a straight vote, its a discussion, etc. The breakout is handy anyway). 32/82 is 39.0% to permit recreation vs 60.9% to keep deleted. [[User:Avruch|<strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch</strong>]][[User talk:Avruch|<sup><strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">  T  </strong></sup>]] 21:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
+|-
+| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
+|}
 ====[[:Category:Wikipedian random page patrollers]]====