Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/AfD

< Wikipedia:Requests for comment
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFC/AfD)
Shortcut

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 06:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 10:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute

edit

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description

edit

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

  • Members of the meta:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and meta:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians (and local chapters, where they exist) consistantly vote to keep or delete articles list on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion without giving reasons other than terse abbreviations (eg. "nn, d."), blanket claims of why their vote is justified (eg. "all schools are notable", "cruft"), and continually brag about the achievements of these "organisations" (eg. "we are winning the fight againsts school deletion"). This is not just about schools, but the unworkability of AfD in general.

Evidence of disputed behavior

edit

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crescent Park Elementary School
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cromer high
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hialeah Gardens Elementary School
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ada Merrit Elementary School
  5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Base Elementary School
  6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia Earhart Elementary School
  7. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Freehold_Circle
  8. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laurelton_Circle
  9. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flemington_Circle
  10. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/White_Horse_Circle
  11. Many more...

Applicable policies

edit

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:POINT

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

edit

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Again, pick just about any AfD.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

edit

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Alphax τεχ 06:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Phroziac(talk)  01:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

edit

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Zach (Sound Off) 07:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. InShaneee 19:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response by inclusionists

edit

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

I don't disrupt AFD. Deletionists are mean people, who historically burned books. I believe in pooling the sum total of human knowledge for the benefit of mankind. They believe in biting nubes and generally annoying Daniel C. Boyer. People, schools, and pokefolk are notable. 'Nuff said.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Sam Spade 21:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nicodemus75 21:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Redwolf24

edit

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

This RfC seems frivolous and I have no idea what its meant to accomplish, although I do respect Alphax immensely. Redwolf24 (talk) 07:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Redwolf24 (talk) 07:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Soltak | Talk 18:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 05:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC) I think phrasing the tiresome inclusionist vs. deletionist debate as a "user RfC" is not the best way to deal with this issue. We shouldn't send the message that people in either camp deserve what may seem like a personal RfC filed against them merely because of their stance on this issue.[reply]
  4. Although I am non-partisan in the inclusionist vs. deletionist vs. mergist debate, I see no purpose to this. I will change my mind if given the chance to ask at least one editor, "Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians, or the Association of Mergist Wikipedians?" — Phil Welch 05:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Nicodemus75 15:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Rob Church Talk 01:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Acetic'Acid 03:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. 24.12.228.154 05:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Extreme numa numa endorse. ~~ N (t/c) 14:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by McClenon

edit

This RfC does look frivolous. However, on thinking, it does illustrate two issues. First, as a minor point, this is not really a user conduct RfC. It is not an article RfC. SlimVirgin has suggested that there should be something called an issue RfC. This really should be one.

Second, it illustrates a philosophical issue about what should be the scope of an electronic encyclopedia. I think that the inclusionists and deletionists are not really disrupting Wikipedia to make points, but are arguing over philosophy. That discussion is contentious because it illustrates the need to find consensus-based guidelines on what is and is not notable. Many of the AfDs that are cited are descriptions of schools. The underlying issue is the lack of consensus as to when schools should be included and when they should be deleted.

The way to avoid having every school AfD appear to be a war between inclusionists and deletionists will be to establish guidelines on when schools should be included. The same statement also applies to any other category of article. The certifier of this RfC has a valid point that AfDs are contentious, and that guidelines are needed to establish deletion or inclusion criteria. Robert McClenon 14:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. "For my usual reasons." Idont Havaname 17:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Soltak | Talk 18:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This RfC calls attention to problems with both RfC and AfD. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This RfC is essentially an attack on the philosophical views of both deletionists and inclusionists who are doing nothing more than expressing their philosophical view on whether or not articles should be included or deleted on WP. Most of this RfC is blatantly specious, as the vast majority of the "members" of AIW and ADW are not voters on any of the example AfDs listed in this RfC. To my knowledge, there are no "local chapters". Because an editor holds the philosophical view that "all schools are inherently notable" this makes him neither disruptive nor any different from an editor that holds the philosphical view that "all countries are inherently notable". The votes seen on AfD for schools (which are the only examples listed in this RfC) are a reflection of a consistently applied philosophy.--Nicodemus75 15:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This RFC doesn't look frivolous, and isn't. However, I agree substantively with the rest of Robert's comments -- the solution to the schools issue (or any other issue so substantial that it leads to this sort of misbehavior among otherwise well-behaved editors!) needs to be the formulation of a balanced consensus policy. Balance meands that both sides need to be willing to give in a little, to reach a consensus that everyone can live with. To start with, they need to give up their dismissive and petty attitudes towards each other. For what it's worth, I don't think this is a problem with AfD -- it's a problem with people who have decided to bicker instead of seeking agreement. --FOo 18:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Add-On by McClenon: RfC on Schools

edit

I have created an RfC to try to reach a consensus policy on schools. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Schools. Robert McClenon 18:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Zscout370

edit

I highly suspect this is being used with the overall reform of WP:AFD. Zach (Sound Off) 07:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:Zoe|(talk)

edit

I would like to see this expanded to include everybody whose arguments for Keep or Delete on school articles only point to WP:SCH without expressing their own personal opinions. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. I would like to add them, along with fully listed the members of the AIW and ADW. 15:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC) 14:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by gkhan

edit

For full discosure: When it comes to schools, I am a rabid deletionist. High schools? Come on....

The ultimate solution: create a guideline for schools similar to WP:MUSIC that would be clear and fair enough so that most people could agree with it. Actually the ultimate solution would be that we would all live in paradise, there would be no hunger, no wars, and everyone would own puppies. That is about as likely as that there ever is going to be a guideline on schools most users can agree with.

In the mean time, people need to have respect for the lack of consensus. We don't need consensus on inclusion of articles, but we do need it for deletion of them. That is how it works, that is how it has always worked. This means that the "deletionists" need to respect that the articles are going to be in the 'pedia!

So this is my comment: Stop bickering! Get the bile out of the discussion! Unless Jimbo dictates policy (which he never do in these kind of cases), it is up to us to set it. If there can't be a consensus for deleting schools, they stay in! That is how wikipedia works.

So again: Stop this mindless bickering! That goes for both sides

gkhan 06:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Doc (?) 12:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC) It is why I always abstain - what's the point of voting, or more to the point nominating schools, when you know that the answer you will get is 'keep (no consensus)'. The deletionists have either to accept the inclusion of every school (yuk), look for a compromise (as in WP:MUSIC), or persuade the inclusionists to change tack. Nominating schools is simply a war of attrition that they cannot win. (But the inclusionist should seek compromise too)[reply]
  3. --Apyule 12:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC) I'm not a deletionist when it comes to schools, but I agree with the rest of the statement[reply]
  4. Hell yes. ~~ N (t/c) 14:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. True. Very true. Example: I don't like school articles much, but I think that even having all elementary schools on the world in the database would be far less damaging than the constant faction infighting on AfD. In the case of traffic circles, maybe inclusionist should compromise. I don't really care who compromises where, as long as there's less drama on AfD. Ironically this RfC will do nothing to calm the waves, but then again, what does. -- grm_wnr Esc 14:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Phil Welch 19:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. As an inactive member of ADW, damn straight. Johnleemk | Talk 16:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Sjakkalle

edit

I don't think there is as big a divide between deletionists and inclusionists as one might easily get an impression of. The division is visible on the subject of schools, and some other issues, but for the most part, I think they would agree. Present 10 random AFD debates (and these are the relatively borderline cases, the ones not so bad to merit speedy deletion or valid enough to never go to AFD in the first place) to a deletionist and an inclusionist, and they would most likely agree on at least half of them.

In general, inclusionists tend to vote "keep" on articles they think should be kept, and abstain entirely from articles they think should be deleted. Deletionists tend to vote "delete" on articles they think should be deleted, and abstain from those they think should be kept. There are excellent contributors in both camps. Inclusionists favor a large amount of detail, while deletionists favor quality. Usually they are very capable of working together on articles and other discussions, and that is a good thing.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nicodemus75 15:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Soltak | Talk 16:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 01:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Idont Havaname 05:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Doc (?) 14:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ~~ N (t/c) 14:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Wikiacc (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --DDerby-(talk) 05:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. — Phil Welch 19:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. As a member of ADW, I attest this is truth. Johnleemk | Talk 16:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. the wub "?!" 13:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Nickptar

edit

This is silly. AFD is supposed to respect, and determine consensus based on, the views of all Wikipedians who care to participate. The fact that some people form organizations and vote as blocs, while it does result in some degree of polarization and is therefore regrettable, is inevitable in any issue as important and disputed as this.

You don't like the fact that there are arguments on AFD? Tough. There always will be, because it is vital that discussion and consensus be involved in deletion of articles (unilateral deletion is not going to work outside the tiny class we call "speedies", which I doubt can be expanded much further), and discussion on this issue will always lead to rancor.

Additionally, if you don't like terse, blanket votes, tough. There is nothing wrong with having no reason to keep/delete an article other than general philosophy like "keep all schools". People's opinions should not be devalued because they don't have specific reasons or because they're a member of a bloc.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. ~~ N (t/c) 14:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Phil Welch 19:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Soltak | Talk 23:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Eclecticology

edit

When I first heard of the "associations" for deletionists and inclusionists my first impression was that someone had put these forward as a sarcastic joke. I am seriously dismayed that so many people really take them seriously. Although I philosophically favour one particular camp, I would not be so idiotic and shameless as to want my name associated with the corresponding list. A speedy delete of both of those pages would be a step forward from the current mess; having these pages on Meta only makes matters worse because it carries the implication that this is something that applies to all projects, not just en:Wikipedia.

If someone proposes a deletion and can only support it with a cryptic notation, maybe it should be removed immediately as an invalid request without any further voting whatsoever. Comments from any other participant on either side should be optional. Nevertheless, if the person proposing the deletion makes a clearly reasoned argument for the deletion the principal opponent would damage his own case if he did not do likewise. Putting the primary burden on the person seeking deletion is akin to requiring the plaintiff in a courtroom to show that he has a case. Eclecticology 18:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Alphax τεχ 04:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Jacquelyn Marie 01:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. RSpeer 18:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:Horsten

edit

First, I can't get why anyone would feel the need to organize into "clubs" of deletionists and inclusionists. To me, it appears like a vehicle that is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, deliberately creating controversy instead of working towards consensus.

The behaviour of creating factions like this should in itself be condemned. If there is indeed enough controversy about what should be deleted and what shouldn't, the people involved should work actively to clarify the policy and achieve consensus in the broader community, instead of simply declaring that they belong to one camp or another.

Creating an RfC over this, with two apparently large groups accusing each other, will never result in anything good. If the idea is to eventually take the deletionists per se to arbitration, what do you really expect will happen? That the Arbitration Committee will impose a blanket ban on "deletionists" against removing schools, for example? Come on, that's not likely to happen.

A dispute like this should be resolved by the proper procedure for clarifying the policy aiming for community consensus, not by turning it into a "them vs. us" style of childish ego-asserting holier-than-thou mudfight. TH 08:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view by the wub

edit

This deletionism/inclusionism (delete as appropriate) has gone far enough! There is only one true path, and that is to join the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist (AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. the wub (General Secretary of the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD) 13:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Alphax τεχ (General Secretary of the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD) 09:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

edit

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/AfD&oldid=1089910206"