Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 9

message: Yes, anyone can add the header.
# Anthony DiPierro
# Gentgeen 16:49, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: No, there should be consensus before adding a header.
# —Eloquence 20:15, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC) (strongly)
# Martin 00:04, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: :<Xirzon> I dispute the inclusion of that page in Wikipedia
:<MartinHarper> Hehe.
:<MartinHarper> The irony hadn't escaped me.
:<MartinHarper> Do you understand why I want it, at least?
:<Xirzon> I think it's wrong headed and ugly
:<MartinHarper> I understand that.
:<Xirzon> these dispute headers are becoming a kind of cancer that will eventually kill us all!!!!111
:<Xirzon> at least for accuracy disputes I can see the usefulness
:<Xirzon> because it will hopefully motivate people to fix the articles
:<Xirzon> but for inclusion disputes there's simply not enough fixability, and IMHO it circumvents our deletion process
:<Xirzon> if we say "If you want to delete a page you need consensus"
:<Xirzon> we shouldn't later go ahead and say "but if you don't get consensus, you can still slap this silly tag on the article so you're happy"
:<MartinHarper> I agree that neither NPOV nor inclusion disputes motivate people to fix articles.
:<Xirzon> well
:<MartinHarper> However, I see that as a good thing! :)
:<Xirzon> I believe you see yourself as a kind of community nanny
:<Xirzon> and you want these tags to work in a way to keep the peace, keep the children quiet
:<Xirzon> but that's not what they do
:<MartinHarper> I want to reduce dispute, yes.
:<Xirzon> in effect all they do is create bad feelings, indefinitely
:<Xirzon> for NPOV disputes and accuracy disputes these bad feelings are, to some extent, a motivation to work on getting rid of the tags
:<Xirzon> e.g. on Talk:Mother Teresa I was practically blackmailed to accept another user's wishes because otherwise "the tag stays"
:<Xirzon> not that this is a good thing
:<Xirzon> but at least it's possible to get rid of these tags
:<Xirzon> for inclusion disputes the very idea strikes me as bizarre
:<Xirzon> "It is disputed whether this article should be included in Wikipedia"
:<MartinHarper> Could you not have been blackmailed to accept another user's wishes, otherwise the edit war stays?
:<Xirzon> say that out loud a few times and ask yourself if it doesn't sound completely silly
:<Xirzon> edit wars are not allowed, and we are quickly moving to making that a non-negotiable policy
:<Xirzon> what I basically want
:<MartinHarper> Could you not have been blackmailed to accept another user's wishes, otherwise their version of the article stays?
:<Xirzon> well, not really
:<MartinHarper> How come?
:<Xirzon> in these situations where the talk page is the only recourse, in effect it often depends on who can articulate their arguments best
:<Xirzon> or who has the longest staying power
:<Xirzon> which is of course
:<Xirzon> why I want users to be able to call for votes
:<Xirzon> after a certain period
:<Xirzon> so we end up actually making decisions.
:<MartinHarper> So your feeling is that the situation would have been resolved by a vote.:
:<Xirzon> but we still have the consensus seeking process.
:<MartinHarper> And then the dissenting users would essentially have to lump it?
:<Xirzon> in the mother teresa case, a lot of small issues could have been easily and well resolved through votes
:<Xirzon> yes and no.
:<Xirzon> they had plenty of time to articulate their arguments
:<Xirzon> and to try to convince the others that they are right.
:<Xirzon> but if they failed to do so after a certain period of time, then, yeah, the majority wins.
:<Xirzon> this is the only way to get things done.
:<Xirzon> and it is primarily relevant for the small issues which don't matter much anyway
:<Xirzon> do we want large captions or short ones?
:<Xirzon> do we want this headline or that one?
:<Xirzon> can we use this adjective or not?
:<MartinHarper> Mountains out of molehills.
:<Xirzon> no
:<Xirzon> if you do not have a clear decision making process
:<Xirzon> then you make mountains out of molehills
:<Xirzon> then there will be endless discussions and edit wars about trivial issues
:<MartinHarper> That's what I meant.
:<Xirzon> but if you do, then you can settle these matters within a given timeframe
:<Xirzon> so we need this clearly defined decision making process, and it looks like it is being crystallized out 
:<MartinHarper> Also true. And because they are minor issues, nobody has too hard feelings. They can accept the result of a vote.
:<MartinHarper> I wouldn't want to see too many votes on actual mountains, though.
:<Xirzon> strangely enough, this rarely comes up
:<Xirzon> but in these cases I would prefer not to vote on the issue
:<Xirzon> but to vote on the policy that defines the issue
:<Xirzon> e.g. in the case of mother teresa
:<Xirzon> there was a big edit war about whether the page should have been split up
:<Xirzon> in "controversial" and "non-controversial"
:<MartinHarper> Yes, I recall.
:<Xirzon> of course I objected to such a split-up
:<Xirzon> but our NPOV policy isn't very clear on that
:<Xirzon> so what I had to do to defend my views is basically do exegesis of our policy
:<MartinHarper> No. There were precedents in both directions, if I recall.
:<Xirzon> "In NPOV 4:22 it says, you shall not give preference to one POV"
:<Xirzon> what I want instead is a policy which clearly states whether splitting away controversial issues is allowed
:<Xirzon> so one midterm project of mine is to rewrite the NPOV policy
:<Xirzon> in any discussions policy beats arguments. if people don't like a policy, they should make an effort to change it
:<Xirzon> instead of arguing on the talk page of an article that it is evil/wrong etc.
:<MartinHarper> That's been my feeling. Of course, if a policy is widely opposed, it carries less weight, at least in my eyes.
:<Xirzon> well, that's another poorly defined issue
:<MartinHarper> nod
:<Xirzon> how can we create new policy? do we need consensus or what?
:<Xirzon> right now I think we do need consensus
:<Xirzon> but I'd prefer it if we had some better definition at least what consensus for a policy means
:<MartinHarper> Perhaps. The three revert rule doesn't have consensus, but it will soon be effective policy.
:<Xirzon> how can you be sure?
:<Xirzon> what if wik continues to ignore it?
:<MartinHarper> I see the way the wind is blowing.
:<MartinHarper> All our policies are ignored by some people.
:<Xirzon> I think it will only be official policy if jimbo makes it so
:<Xirzon> yeah, but ignoring NPOV or Wikiquette is a bannable offense
:<MartinHarper> Does everyone heed the NPOV policy? Does everyone heed the policy on personal attacks?
:<MartinHarper> In theory.
:<Xirzon> the arbitration committee can and will ban people for repeatedly violating either policy
:<MartinHarper> Perhaps.
:<Xirzon> it seems to me that Wikiquette violations are much more frequent than clear cut NPOV violations
:<Xirzon> of course one could see the revert policy as a subset of wikiquette ..
:<Xirzon> but that would be highly interpretative
:<Xirzon> by the way, you reverted quite a bit on that inclusion dispute page
:<MartinHarper> True.
:<MartinHarper> As did you.
:<Xirzon> you immediately removed my vote, that was unacceptable
:<MartinHarper> I confess I was a little put out by your tone of voice.
:<Xirzon> if there's one certain way to trigger edit wars it's the complete removal of information
:<Xirzon> I do not recall saying much other than that the page is total crap!
:<MartinHarper> I don't believe there was any removal of information. Your opinion was clear enough: the vote didn't add information.
:<Xirzon> oh, well ..
:<MartinHarper> Not a problem - you have a right to your opinion.
:<MartinHarper> And I'm glad you understand my motivation.
:<Xirzon> bah, that's semantics. the vote is a substantial piece of text, and the removal of substantial pieces of text without prior discussion is always likely to trigger conflict
:<Xirzon> besides, it is entirely legitimate to hold non-binding opinion polls at any time
:<Xirzon> it is not for you to decide who is and isn't allowed to participate in such a poll
:<MartinHarper> In this case, I think my edits served a purpose: they got me breathing time.
:<MartinHarper> So I can have this conversation with you.
:<Xirzon> also, it would be very easy to resolve this issue if you just stepped out of the way and let the vote happen
:<Xirzon> well it's obviously not getting us any closer to consensus
:<MartinHarper> You'd be surprised.
:<Xirzon> So you agree to getting rid of the headers?
:<MartinHarper> You understand my motivations. You understand I want to reduce disputes. You understand that I see the headers as a way of doing that?
:<MartinHarper> You believe that they don't, in fact, reduce disputes?
:<Xirzon> Yes.
:<MartinHarper> Based on your experience with M. Theresa?
:<Xirzon> in part, yes, but also because of the specific nature of the ID headers
:<Xirzon> they are practically permanent fixtures, and that means that they will alwyays be there to trigger new conflict
:<MartinHarper> I understand that.
:<Xirzon> and that's not the only issue with the ID headers
:<MartinHarper> Well, let me discuss this one first! :)
:<Xirzon> see
:<MartinHarper> You set out your stall well - but for me, this is the key point.
:<MartinHarper> If they don't resolve disputes, then I don't want them.
:<Xirzon> I think this issue is totally not worth spending too much time talking about 
:<Xirzon> I think for such trivialities it would be nice to just - get - things done
:<MartinHarper> I understand your impatience. But it bears on the other headers, so I think it's worth a short chat.
:<Xirzon> I see that you enjoy conversation, and I do, too, but I'd prefer much to work on some other issues which I consider extremely relevant
:<MartinHarper> Give me a few mins.
:<Xirzon> well, I have no objection to the NPOV dispute and accuracy dispute headers
:<Xirzon> to the NPOV dispute header a bit, maybe
:<MartinHarper> Disputed included articles are always a source of new conflict. See how many arguments we've had over the Rambot articles, for example.
:<MartinHarper> Do you believe the headers make things worse, though?
:<Xirzon> So do you want to slap an inclusion dispute header on 30,000 articles?
:<MartinHarper> No.
:<Xirzon> well, but you arguably could
:<Xirzon> what would stop you from doing so?
:<Xirzon> after all inclusion dispute headers are allowed
:<MartinHarper> I have a life? ;-)
:<Xirzon> write an antirambot
:<Xirzon> takes 20 mins with some perl knowledge
:<MartinHarper> It's not just rambot. You saw the issue with AKFD happen again, and again, and again. It's like you say about our decision making process being shit.
:<MartinHarper> Hmm.
:<Xirzon> Well, slapping "The inclusion .. is disputed" on AKFD won'T exactly solve the problem
:<Xirzon> especially as AKFD was about redirects
:<MartinHarper> hehe
:<MartinHarper> Ok, if you are willing to accept that NPOV dispute headers and accuracy headers are a permanent feature of Wikipedia, I'm happy to forgo inclusion disputes.
:<MartinHarper> I don't want removing inclusion disputes to be a precedent.
:<Xirzon> well, it's not for me to decide
:<Xirzon> we may argue about NPOV dispute headers again in the future
:<Xirzon> but I'd be more interested in fixing some process details about them than removing them entirely
:<Xirzon> especially "when can an NPOV dispute header be removed?"
:<MartinHarper> I can accept that, certainly.
:<Xirzon> might take as little as one sentence: "You can remove the header after four weeks have passed without significant conflict on the page"
:<Xirzon> four weeks probably too long ..
:<MartinHarper> Your opinion has a lot of influence. If you are happy to consider NPOV disputes a permanent feature, that is sufficient for me.
:<Xirzon> well
:<Xirzon> I hate to say anything is a "permanent feature"
:<MartinHarper> Likewise, I cannot guarantee that nobody else will have the "bright idea" of inclusion dispute headers, but I have a little influence.
:<Xirzon> but I'd be willing to say that I won't question the very existence of NPOV dispute headers unless something unforseeable happens
:<Xirzon> is that good enough? and if so, can I now remove the damn headers? ;)
:<MartinHarper> Hehe
:<MartinHarper> Let's make a couple posts on the talk page so people know what the heck is going on. :)
:<MartinHarper> I'll go first :)
:<Xirzon> Feel free to dump this IRC log, that'll clear things up ;)
:<MartinHarper> Really? That's easy then. I'll "vote" too
So what this basically means, we agree to get rid of the inclusion dispute headers, if the NPOV dispute and accuracy dispute headers are retained.—Eloquence 00:23, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
Yep. Martin 00:34, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: List it on Cleanup and see if somebody else can do something with it.  RickK 00:54, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: IRC log