Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revotes on Vfd

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep due to no consensus to delete. moink 01:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Revotes on Vfd
Summary:
 * Delete 15: RickK, Mackensen, Zzyzx11, Carnildo, Mike H, Postdlf, Moncrief, Grace Note, Megan1967, Firebug, Skysmith, Radiant, Calton, Korath, Feco
 * Keep 10: Pioneer-12, Master Thief Garrett, cesarb, TenOfAllTrades, Dpbsmith, SPUI, JYolkowski, Stoph, SuperDude, BlankVerse

15/25=60%. No consensus to delete. (Note, I am not using just numerics, but I'm calculating them openly as a guide for myself).

Attempt to create policy out of whole cloth in order to get a revote on a pet article. RickK 23:20, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. I was taken. He suggested it in the Vfd of his article as if something he'd found in passing, but he did NOT divulge that he had just invented it. He then begged me to use this new procedure in his stead since if he used it it would look like he was trying to save his article. So I read the rules, it said if two people changed their votes it could be used, so I dutifully started it in the hopes that it would solve the huge debate that had previously raged. I cannot say whether he was intentionally decieving me or not... Master Thief Garrett 23:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) it was all a misunderstanding... Master Thief Garrett 04:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Where did he do the begging? I looked at both your talk pages and don't see any conversation about this. android&harr;talk 23:51, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, nono, not "beg" in the actual sense, but he said "Yes, I call for a revote. You seem to know the proper procedure for doing that. Since you have more experience at this then I, could you please put the header in place or whatever needs to be done? If I do it, some people will perceive it as "founder of the article bias"." so it was basically like he wanted to do it but couldn't, so I did it instead... Master Thief Garrett 00:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Did he actually point you to Revotes on Vfd at some point? android&harr;talk 00:03, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * He did mention Revotes on Vfd before on the same discussion; probably Master Thief Garrett didn't notice his hint that he was the policy's creator. --cesarb 00:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course he did, otherwise I'd never have found the page. "How does this sound? Revotes on Vfd. I would not propose a revote if I didn't think it was justified." I confess that I did not notice the hint (it was certainly no more than a hint) because he'd written like 5 paragraphs at once and I was trying to grasp the content of them. Master Thief Garrett 00:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Hold. We don't delete policy proposals. We either accept them or reject them. If they are rejected then they go to "rejected policy proposals". I made this proposal in a good faith effort to make the system better. Was it inspired by problems I encountered on wikipedia? Yes. Isn't every proposal similarly inspired? However, don't disparage it just because it was made quickly.


 * MTG, you misunderstood what I wrote. I never intended for the proposal to be taken as anything other then a proposal. I was told that there was no revote policy, so I said in response "How does this sound?" and "Well, for what it's worth, there's the "how to do a revote" proposal for all to consider." On the proposal page, I clearly put "This is a proposed policy." on the top of the page, and listed it on the Wikipedia policy thinktank for proposed policy accordingly. (Look at the original version of the page and you will see this. .) I made every reasonable effort to indicate that this was a proposal and not official policy. Also, knowing that some people would take things the wrong way, a couple hours after I posted it, realizing that the proposal would just cause more controversy in the short term, I said forget about it; I said that I would not ask for a revote. Then Master Thief Garett said, that, it's alright, you can ask for a revote. So, I asked him to do the how and why or whatever needs to be done so that the revote procedure would be done in a regular and traditional way and be free of any perceived bias.


 * I did not intend for Master Thief Garret to use this proposal. The fact that it was used is about the worst possible thing that could happen. The whole point of asking MTG to initiate/supervise a revote was so that it would be unbiased and done in a verifiably unbiased way. There was no attempt to deceive. MTG, I'm sorry that you misunderstood my statements. - Pioneer-12 03:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Hold. I second this vote. This has all been an unfortunate misunderstanding blown out of proportion, and we really need to wait until such time as this can be assessed correctly. We ideally need to wait some time for tempers to cool. Then, and only then, should we decide what to do with this. Master Thief Garrett 04:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment My perception is that it is all just an unfortunate misunderstanding, though Pioneer-12 might have been just a little bit to energetic in defending "boner->blunder" article. Unfortunately, this has all gotten a bit of a life of its own and I suspect the two of you will just have to sit there and watch things play out. I suggest not worrying too much about it, it will all die a natural death, and by the way I don't think anyone really thinks its a big deal. Just let it blow over and shrug it off. You might even consider taking all the relevant pages off your watchlists. Do not yield to the temptation to respond to everything. Some comments will be offbase or unfair or misunderstandings; don't try to correct all of them. We tell everyone to be bold. Well, the consequence of that is, when you're bold, you sometimes goof. And when others correct your goofs you sometimes you should just sit back and let it happen. A hundred years from now it'll be all the same, right? Cheers. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. He didn't even slap the  on it – CesarB ended up doing so. android&harr;talk 23:46, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * OH! You're right. I don't think that tag was even there when I saw it... Master Thief Garrett 23:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that you had to use the template. I put "This is a proposed policy." at the top of the page instead. What's wrong with that? I've seen a number of proposed policies which do the same thing. - Pioneer-12 03:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It is a new template, created in the last month or so, to help reduce the constant confusions as to what was policy and what wasn't. Most semi-policy and policy thinktank pages have already had that added. Since I noticed yours didn't have it yet, I added it &#9786;. Notice that even on the edit box I said "add bright yellow box", which is almost the only real difference adding it made. --cesarb 12:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I accept that Master Thief Garrett was taken in by the article's author, and I bear no ill-will. I'm more concerned with clearing up the myriad redirects created by the constant page-moves. Mackensen (talk) 23:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Policy" created in bad faith, to try to save an article which ended up in VfD with such a high amount of people voting because he bragged about it on the Village Pump in the first place. --cesarb 00:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * ...ahhh... I wondered where they'd all come from!!! It's the biggest amount of voters I've seen outside of that Canada vs. New Zealand thing... Master Thief Garrett 00:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The original discussion is at Village pump (miscellaneous). --cesarb 00:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * ...AND HERE'S THE SMOKING GUN! Notice the "clever" attempt at rewriting history; he removed the key sentence, "Let's show those pesky deletionists who's boss.", which was in the original comment. "The only reason it even got listed on VfD is because some people misunderstood the original title.", eh? --cesarb 00:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As noted below, I prefer to interpret this as evidence that he decided he ought to remove his foot from his mouth. That's a Good Thing. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Saying that the only reason it was listed on VfD was because of the title, when it quite clearly was because of his dare, is a bit of stretch to believe was done on good faith. If it wasn't for that, I agree that there would be no problem in him removing that comment. --cesarb 00:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was on Vfd before I posted that on the commons. The article was on Vfd about 10 seconds after it was created because someone saw the name as inappropriate. I posted that bit in the commons in the hopes that the post would draw objective, open mined people into the discussion (of at least people who didn't want to see the article deleted)--people who would see the inherent usefulness of the article and help improve it, but the post clearly had the opposite effect. People seemed to take offense at being called "pesky deletionsts" (in retrospect, that's kind of obvious), and a few even seemed determined to delete the article at all costs. However, I must say that the majority of people have mellowed in the past day or so. The war drums have stopped. I actually have much more respect for the deletionist point of view now, thanks to the efforts of some very wise Wikipedians. See my home page for details. - Pioneer-12 03:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Changing to keep, since it looks like it will turn into a real policy proposal (and I'm convinced now it was all a big misunderstanding). --cesarb 22:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. For all the reasons stated by RickK. Zzyzx11 | Talk 00:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, discuss at Wikipedia_talk:Revotes on Vfd, and delete when it is clear that there is no consensus on the policy. Yes, I think the proposal was made for the specific purpose of keeping a article and was not made fully in good faith. Yes, I think User_talk:Pioneer-12's conduct with Master Thief Garrett was not entirely honest. I oppose the proposal and have noted at Wikipedia_talk:Revotes on Vfd that I oppose it. Oppose oppose oppose. X-treme oppose. Double-plus-oppose. However, it is a well-articulated proposal that is entitled to a discussion on the merits. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) Hold everything while I check out what cesarb said. No vote yet. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm going to be perceived as a bit of a wingnut for that vote.  For what it's worth, I don't support this policy.  I think it should be allowed to live as a proposed policy for a little while so it can gather some sensible comments, then be archived as a failed policy proposal.  It will save us from having to deal with this notion the next time someone wants a recount.  Even if the policy proposal was created in bad faith, it's still an idea that is worth formally dismissing. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I choose to interpret Pioneer-12's removal of the "pesky deletionists" remark as a genuine attempt to remove his foot from his mouth. Too bad about the History. So, I reinstate my struck-out comment above: discuss at Wikipedia_talk:Revotes on Vfd, and delete move to rejected proposals when it is clear that there is no consensus on the policy. Yes, I think the proposal was made for the specific purpose of keeping a article and was not made fully in good faith. Yes, I think User_talk:Pioneer-12's conduct with Master Thief Garrett was not entirely honest. I oppose the proposal and have noted at Wikipedia_talk:Revotes on Vfd that I oppose it. Oppose oppose oppose. X-treme oppose. Double-plus-oppose. However, it is a well-articulated proposal that is entitled to a discussion on the merits. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as long as notpolicy stays up top. --SPUI (talk) 00:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Bad-faith attempt to change policy. --Carnildo 00:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mike H 01:10, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Postdlf 01:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, leave the notpolicy tag on it, and get author to write a policy document on how to remove obsolete or unaccepted policy documents (-: JYolkowski // talk 01:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. For many of the reasons above. Moncrief 01:32, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. not policy. - Stoph 01:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per RickK. Look, if the page changes, people can change their votes. You can message the delete voters on their talkpages and ask them to reconsider. It's often done. That route has been working quite well. Please use it rather than make up policy every time something doesn't go your way. Jeez, the one thing we are not short of here is policy!Grace Note 04:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, attempt to subvert the vfd process. If you have rewritten an article, you should leave a message on the voters Talk pages to argue why it should be kept. If you want an article to be recreated after being deleted you should make a request at votes for undeletion. This is the normal procedure for saving articles. Megan1967 04:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Subvert? There's a loaded word. It's an attempt to revise the vfd process. The current process is ridiculous. Leaving a message on every voter's talk page = cumbersome. Wrongly deleting and then having to undelete = absurd. There must be a better way.


 * The early votes were done before any discussion occured. That's like holding an election first and THEN having an official debate about the election. It makes no sense. Either some sort of process should exist to redo early votes, or voting shouldn't even happen until the relevant issues have been discussed. - Pioneer-12 09:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, process circumvention. Firebug 04:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, This is a good guideline for newcomers and dull-minded Wikipedians. --SuperDude 04:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - policy attempt created for a specific purpose in certain time, therefore questionable - Skysmith 08:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:POINT okay maybe not WP:POINT, but it certainly qualifies as needless instruction creep. Thus delete. Radiant_* 11:22, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Policy proposal with suspiciously convenient timing and suspicious provenance. --Calton | Talk 11:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, legitimizes trolling. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 11:27, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. policies on policies and meetings about meetings... yeehaw! Feco 12:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP! This article in the Wikipedia namespace is properly categorized as a thinktank article, and has the appropriate notpolicy template. A vote at WP:VFD is NOT the way to handle a proposed policy that you disagree with. Blank Verse   &empty;   05:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.