User talk:Harej/Deletion advocacy

What are your thoughts?
I'm not necessarily saying this will replace anything or get off the ground, but I think this is worth considering, thinking about, or hell, even trying in a few cases. @harej 21:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Overall, a cool idea. Really, I think the only way to judge the real application and effects would be to have a few test cases. The only issue I have is who gets to be the advocates. I think it would be best if advocates pulled from the general deletion discussion as a final measure; that way others can chip in and boldly add. I think that might kill much of the distinction between AfD and your DelAdv, but it would be the best compromise. In short:
 * Reduces reading (possibly) for admins: good
 * Provides simpler views to weigh for admins: good
 * Hard to say if each point is fully and fairly represented: bad
 * Shuts out well-meaning contributors: bad.
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the fact that this limits discussions to three people, and that all three must declare who they are in advance. (The deletion advocate would basically be the guy who nominated for deletion). I'd be more interested in compromising if I was interested in actually implementing this, but as it is, I intend on this carrying on the traits of an idiosyncratic alternative process. @harej 01:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What we could do is have people "cheering on the sidelines" so to speak, putting in their opinions on the talk page. This would preserve the discussion format while allowing many people to contribute in a way. @harej 01:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is an intriguing idea, but a way to expand it beyond just 3 people, one advocate on both sides, would make the proposal better. --Reubzz (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am reluctant to have the discussion format changed because the novelty of this proposal is centered around making it more like a 1-on-1 debate than a vote of several arbitrary people. It is definitely unique, but such should be expected in an experimental process that is never expected to gain widespread traction. I think what I posted above is a decent compromise. @harej 03:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is a good proposal but the idea still seems to strike at the general point of content-issues. Content disputes are supposed to be concluded and resolved through consensus. This is why content issues have no 'Arbitration Committee' per se, we have the Mediation Committee (which makes no ruling, just tries to reach consensus). A person acting as Judge could kill this ability of innovation and discussion. If these concerns could be alliviated, this proposal would sound better as a pratical matter. --Reubzz (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How would this avoid the problem of 1 or more of the 3 actors playing their role poorly (but perhaps not blatantly) on purpose, in bad faith? --Cyber cobra (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Strongest possible oppose ever
...so strong that I need a whole new paragraph for it! :) Seriously: This is wrong on so many levels that I really don't know where to start. But the main point is that this destroys the whole concept of consensus between editors. AfD is not a vote in the meaning (as far as I can understand it) to avoid meaningless boilerplate "Keep" or "Delete" votes based on WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT-like arguments being taken into account. But this doesn't mean that the closing admin has to completely and utterly disregard community feelings, once they have been reasonably argued. If there are 10 sensible arguments to delete and 1 sensible argument to keep, the consensus is clearly to delete, and it is deleted usually, even if both arguments may have been on par, because that's what the community wants. Deletion of articles is serious business, because it requires admin intervention to be reversed and removing information shouldn't be taken lightly. There must be a reasonable consensus of the community about that. Keeping with the legal metaphor this proposal seems to come from, we need a jury. And that's what the current AfD provides.

Moreover, the decision of who is the keeping/deletion advocate is not in who could probably make the best argument, it seems, but only who picks up randomly the AfD first. This means that we could have had a better advocate for either side which will never show up, and all the decision depends on the random choice of who happens to have the best rhetorical skills/confidence with AfDs that time. We could as well stop AfD at all and create WP:TCfD at this point -the outcome won't be much more random. -- Cycl o pia talk  10:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Cyclopia makes a very good point. AGK 12:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. I fail to see anyway that the procedure proposed here would be better than the current AfD process. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Bad ideas can be very stimulating to debate (some brainstorm exercises demand people deliberately create bad ideas)... This is a really bad idea. But stimulating. Rd232 talk 20:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Where to begin... First, as Cyclopedia mentioned, Wikipedia is about consensus, not putting articles on trial. Should the life or execution of an article be left to the wikilawyering abilities of one or two advocates or detractors? Absolutely not. There have been many cases I've witnessed where a series of "Met too" votes (either in favor or opposed) have been completely shot down once someone knowledgeable about the history of the article has a chance to chime in and explain things. If that person had been locked out of the discussions because s/he was not one of the designated wikilawyers arguing the case, then the outcome would have been quite different. And this is not an inclusionistic or deletionistic argument, because I have seen discussions go both ways based on the comments of one person late to the discussion. Is that fair? Of course! The more people who participate in a discussion, the better an idea you get for the overall issue.

Second, I will not sit out on the discussion about an article I care about or have committed my time and effort on. Regardless of how good a job the wikilawyer does in debating the case, I will still contribute my own thoughts on the discussion. Sure, I could get banned for speaking my thoughts against the new rules, but that's better than censorship. I am sure I'm not alone. Sure, the person who nominates the article gets a say, but what about each of the primary contributors who put their efforts into the article? Don't they each deserve a voice? And what about other people who have pertinent knowledge about the topic under discussion?

The comment that this new streamlined procedure would be a good idea because it would reduce the amount of reading that closing admins have to do is ridiculous. Any article worthy of undergoing a deletion discussion (i.e., not patent nonsense or other things meeting WP:CSD criteria) is worthy of a thorough discussion and careful consideration by the community and by the closing admin. Any shortcuts to limit that process are unfair to the topic of the article, to the editor(s) who contributed to it, and to the potential readers that might benefit from the knowledge.

For articles that are kept, the process itself is usually a very good thing. It causes many editors to scrutinize each article, look for ways to improve it, find more reliable sources, improve the readability and accuracy, and even restructure or rewrite the article in a way that benefits all the readers. This doesn't always happen, but it happens enough that the whole of Wikipedia benefits from the process. And that process is at risk for being lost under this proposal. The process is a natural occurrence resulting from the many comments made by multiple editors. Sure, that's not what happens when one person nominates for deletion, eight others !vote for Keep without much useful input, and the article is kept based on the 8:1 vote. So, the system is not always perfect. What human system is? But when it does work, AfD can create some wonderful improvements.

AfDs are also a great (albeit highly stressful) way for new editors to learn about Wikipedia process, policies, and guidelines. I remember dealing with a large number of AfDs when I first started editing. It taught me how to look at an article critically, how to evaluate an article to see if it could reasonably be improved (and how to do so) or if it was a better candidate for merging into another one. It also taught me about the collaborative and consensual nature of Wikipedia. It taught me that I do have a voice here, and that by participating, I can make a difference. This is something that many disenfranchised members of society (the young, the elderly, the low-income, minorities, or whomever) often don't feel when looking at government or court proceedings. In AfD discussions, it's possible to clearly state your opinion (if you want), and affect the outcome of things. It doesn't mean you will always win your case, but at least you had your say.

This proposal KILLS that entire connection that people should have to the process.

I say we KILL this proposed process before it gains traction and risks harming Wikipedia and its users. &mdash; Will scrlt ( “Talk” ) 04:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Also oppose: it is common for whoever is first advocating for deletion to make a very poor proposal, giving inadequate reasons, that later contributors to the discussion expand properly; it is even more common for those initially supporting an article to make poor arguments that later people expand properly. Even the best of individual arguments on both sides will often not cover all the points--I think I have some experience at giving  arguments at AfD, but people will generally supplement mine, & it is often those supplements that are decisive.
 * AfD is not a contest--it's a discussion to see whether the article can be improved, or whether there are alternative to deletion. Different people normally present different views on this. The true purpose of AfD is to figure out how to improve the encyclopedia, not keep or delete articles. All this would be lost in the proposal.
 * Not to mention that we already have many closer deciding on the basis of their personal views. This would certainly increase the tendency.  DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Qualification
If all of the parties have been qualified[suggestions welcome] I can agree to a trial run otherwise I must oppose this proposal. -- allen四names 17:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And how do we qualify the people involved? A new user who contributed to the article should automatically be qualified due to his/her participation in the article development. But if we say that qualification requires 150/1000/5000 edits, admin status, or whatever, then we risk disenfranchising people. Where you say "qualify", I hear "segregation", because everyone can edit this encyclopedia, but only some people are qualified to discuss the merits of what is worth keeping? That's not very Wikipedian to me. I do see the point that an anonymous IP address with no edit history shouldn't really be the one arguing the case, but then again, if that IP address made a significant amount of the contributions, then I don't see what that IP couldn't argue it. &mdash; Will scrlt ( “Talk” ) 04:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternative proposal - collaborative arguments
Instead of two participants, why not make the format so that everyone can contribute to unsigned arguments laid out in Keep, Delete, or Merge sections? This would be similar to the deletion process in French Wikipedia, where arguments are divided into "Conservation" and "Suppression" sections, but would go further by presenting only a single collective argument on each side.

This would avoid leaving the fate of any article down to the rhetorical skills of two contributors. This would apply our collaborative wiki editing skills to developing arguments rather than to articles. At the end of the process there should be coherent arguments presenting the best cases for keeping, merging, redirecting or deleting the article, which will be easier for an admin to judge than the lengthy screeds AfD now produces, and would avoid issues of personalities, pile ons, vote stacking, sock puppetry, and vote counting. Fences &amp;  Windows  20:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that would be worth trying. I've argued before for "collaborative position statements" in RFCs, and it could work here too. Rd232 talk 20:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. This is something that I've been thinking about for a while, myself. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 21:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an idea. That would solve some of the objections people have above, and would still help with keeping reading down to a minimum. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That idea I like. Would be an intriguing alternative that avoids TLDR and vote-stuffing problems. --Cyber cobra (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * An interesting idea, and a good one too. By stripping out the numbers, we enforce the idea that deletion is not up for a vote, and keeps the focus on reasoning.  A good argument should not be defeated by a plurality, nor impeded by a poor argument.  The current style might be argued out on the talk page, restricting the process to the core debate - separate the arguing from the bickering.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting and I'm all for things that avoid TL;DR problems :), but again, this washes out the consensus, which is in my opinion the most important part of the process. There has to be some kind of count, because we have to know what the majority of informed and meaningful opinions say, not only how they weigh. A collaborative website that systematically goes against the desires of the community cannot go far. Also, the AfD discussion is interesting in being an interactive discussion, where you can rebuke point-by-point each argument while it arises. However I don't deny it is a much interesting proposal and probably some of the points I've made above could be solved. I am only unsure the advantages overcome the disadvantages. I'd say that for now we could propose anyway to put keep and deletes separated (a bit like support & oppose in RfA) to have a clearer image of what's going on for the closing admin, and we can in the meantime discuss this proposal. -- Cycl o pia talk  10:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if, particularly at first but maybe permanently, having collaborative summaries would be the way to go. So there would be individual comments, to and fro perhaps, but in addition a collaborative summary of each position. Rd232 talk 10:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know, it only seems to add burden to the process. -- Cycl o pia talk  14:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For simple discussions, yes. Once they reach a certain complexity (around the WP:TLDR point), summaries will be very helpful. Rd232 talk 15:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * anyone who chooses to can already give their own summary near the end of a complication exchange, and people do that from time to time. Like all other comments, it represents their own views. Sometimes such a summary can be very helpful. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * One editor's summary is one editor's summary. This idea is to give a collaborative presentation of the arguments for each option. I could be instead of individual arguments or it could work alongside. We could even go ahead and trial it on some AfDs to see if it works. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Great idea - one flaw
I think this is a great idea, because AfD should be essentially procedural: determining whether an article should, according to policy, be deleted. It will be opposed by those who think that Wikipedia is a democracy, and who like mob rule rather than efficient decision making.

Anyway, the one problem is the selection of the "inclusion advocate". I don't see why a) there should be only one, and b) why that person should be able to self-select. In a bad-faith situation, nothing would stop a second deletion advocate signing up as the inclusionist. Or what if someone acting in good faith is simply incompetent? If the deletion advocate is incompetent, no real harm is done, and the issue can be revisited later. But if you delete something worthwhile, on the other hand...

But yes, it's time to move to a more sophisticated debate rather than "support per nom". Stevage 07:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that policies and guidelines are often open to a lot of interpretation. AfD cases are borderline almost by definition: articles which are obviously deletable by policy go speedy deleted or PRODded. AfD cases are exactly the ones where you cannot be simply "procedural". That's why we need what you mock as "mob rule", but which is not mob rule at all -it is vital discussion within a community, which often leads to significant source research and improvements to the articles. It is not a full democracy because votes are weighted according to arguments, but we need absolutely a community discussion on such cases. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Practical reality of AfDs
Hi! I really respect and admire your willingness to come up with new thoughts and experiment with new ways of dealing with deletion debates. However, I think there are several key flaws in your reasoning, that would continue to stand against your idea even if the procedural issues of who nominates and how are resolved:


 * That every contributor is equally capable of framing a cogent argument - They're clearly not. AfDs are littered with people making arguments for or against deletion with no reference to policy.  An article shouldn't be deleted simply because a new user signed up for the "Keep" side.
 * That every useful contributor contributes in the same way - In my experience, the valuable contributors at AfD contribute in different ways. Some, for example, are excellent at finding new sources for unsourced articles.  Some have a long experience with deletion policy and can argue both the policy and reasoning behind it.  Some come with an understanding of arbitration disputes and can quickly identify bad faith nominations or abuses of process.  Some contributors are really good at restating the arguments of others in an understandable way.  It's through the synthesis of these contributions that strong arguments are made.
 * That the correct arguments for keep or delete can be made at the moment of nomination - Often the truth of an article is only teased out by discussion. As new sources are revealed, as the article is improved, as analogy to additional policy is made, new and better arguments can be added to the debate.  The quality of discussion at the end of a debate is often (but not always) higher than at the time of nomination.
 * That the process is focused only on reaching the correct outcome - AfDs are about more than deciding whether an article should be kept. They also represent a place for creators and substantial contributors to articles to feel like their views are heard, and to enlist the help of other editors to improve and rescue the article for deletion.  Their importance as a forum should not be underestimated.
 * That the best arguments are the only relevant ones - Bad arguments are valuable too, even where they're not based on policy. They may identify other problems with the article, other problematic articles, problems with policy or the way policy is phrased, or any number of other surprising things.  Rebutting bad arguments also helps strengthen debate by requiring people to go to the effort of proving things that they thought were obvious (but often aren't).
 * That all contributors have equal resources - It's a truism that "who cares, wins". Those willing to commit the most resources to the argument are able to find more sources and write more reasons.  A single passionate advocate can overwhelm a committed but uninvested opponent.  In the AfD process, the community nature of the debate means that single passionate advocates can be countered by the combined small-scale efforts of a group of opponents.  Reducing the process to only two advocates brings the time and resources issue back into play.  (There's a reason lawyers charge money!)

For all these reasons I would reject the concept of a two party AfD process. But again, thank you for trying to improve the system! - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Cab rank
Limiting input to two advocates seems unhelpful and I can't see it working in practise.

The part of this proposal worth saving is that the closing judge is selected at the outset. This would improve the current process because the judge would be able to supervise the proceedings and help direct the arguments - limiting debate once a point had been made adequately and encouraging unexplored points to be developed.

To further improve the process, the judges should be assigned on a cab-rank basis, as happens in some courts with both advocates and judges. This would ensure that judges did not appoint themselves in a corrupt or biased way, as may happen at the moment. A bureaucrat or bot might be appointed to assign judges from a queue to help ensure impartiality and evenness.

Colonel Warden (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Best to propose this at WT:AFD, I'd have thought.
 * I agree that two advocates is a bad idea, but collaborative editing of summary arguments could be useful. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)