Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft




 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Withdrawn. (Non-admin close) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft
This RfC and the way it is worded frames the issue, and it appears to be positioned to bypass or sidestep AfD and the established move proposal processes. Whether intentional or not, it is not appropriate. The RfC has inverted the issue and is presenting it upside down! (As a keep issue rather than as a delete/move issue.)  Discussions should not be allowed to evade the jurisdiction and applicability of AfD and mass move proposals, etc. This would set a bad precedent and a create a loophole.

How does it "frame" the issue? The RfC is worded in such a way as to require the developers of outline articles to build consensus in order to keep them in place.

That's an approval process for articles, and that's plain wrong. Never has Wikipedia required an article to apply for approval in order to exist. Seeking approval (asking for permission) for an article or page to exist runs completely counter to Wikipedia philosophy and the Wikipedia system: creation-on-the-fly is at the heart of wiki-design. On Wikipedia, requesting approval is not required to create a page or to keep it where it is.

On the contrary, it is deletion and moving that must be proposed! That's what deletion (AfD) and (mass) move discussions are for.

To maneuver around those venues, intentionally or otherwise, is not acceptable.

An approval page was set up for portals a few years ago, and it was rejected by the community at MfD. Many of the points raised there apply here.

But the framing doesn't stop there. The way the discussion topic is presented implies that if there's a tie, consensus is not obtained and the pages must go bye bye. This is also upside down!

Ties in deletion or move discussions are decided in favor of an article's continued existence and current location, not against them as could happen with the way this RfC is worded. Framing deletion or move discussions as keep discussions in order to flip the odds around cannot be allowed.

RfCs are not supposed to replace the AfD or move proposal processes. But a "should we keep these here?" RfC does exactly that...

Wikipedia's system is designed for ease of announcing and spotting deletion and move discussions, not keep discussions. The relevant policies and procedures are called Deletion policy and Help:Moving a page, not Keep policy or Keeping a page where it is.

In conclusion, this is an improperly formed discussion page, because it skips the correct policies and procedures on deletion and moving, and because it bypasses the appropriate venues, and especially due to the way it is framed to reverse the effect of a tie.

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist 23:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - as nominator. The Transhumanist 23:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. TTH, quit trolling. – iride  scent  23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As much as I understand that we need to discuss the fate of Outlines asap, the nominator brings up some viable points. I feel that there is just too much negative stigmata around Outlines and The Transhumanist in general that we fail to properly address some concerns. -- penubag  (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Trout TTH again. [speedy keep]. We need an RfC, as almost everyone agrees. You disappear for months at a time, decline to participate in discussions, and ignore multiple requests for assistance cleaning up what are primarily your copy&pasted intros... Yes, an RfC is outside of WP:PROCESS - Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. IT'S A DRAFT. GO EDIT IT. COMMUNICATE WITH US. Try to pay at least some attention to the opinions of all the other editors who have participated thus far. Nobody except Karanacs has even expressed support for the current wording, so I don't know what triggered this mfd. [And other, disconnected frustrated responses.] Gah! -- Quiddity (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I have to agree with what Quiddity has to say above. I've tried to spend time there but RL problems keep getting in my way.  I also suggest that the nominator aid with ideas to help this RFC along. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. There have been significant concerns about the Outline project, and this page is a work in progress.  Yes, we need more input, which is why this has not been presented to the wider community.  TTH has been asked several times to help identify improvements; other users are also welcome to help. Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - responsible effort to create a draft rfc in user space. PhilKnight (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as proper in userspace. This does not reflet on any likelihood or not of adoption - just that it is proper here. Collect (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Just as you wouldn't nominate for deletion a page that has already been deleted, it is equally ludicrous to nominate to keep a page (because it's already kept), unless what you really want to discuss is moving or deleting it. Which means it violates WP:POINT.
 * The only logical reason to nominate (discuss) keeping an article is if someone wants to move or delete it. Without the desire to move or delete a page, keeping it is not an issue.  The phrase "Keep discussion" is synonymous with "Move or deletion discussion".


 * Quiddity, I can't edit the RfC, because it is a defacto deletion/move nomination. I'm against moving or deleting the articles.  Starting an AfD page on an article that I wish to be kept would violate WP:POINT.  The same principal applies here.  I would love to change the opening line to "This RfC is to determine if the outlines should be deleted, or moved to portal space, or kept where they are (in the encyclopedia itself, that is, in article space)."  But you've tied my hands with a Catch-22.


 * Also, since you (Quiddity) are against deleting the articles, you can't start or help word a deletion nomination either. That would violate WP:POINT and would also constitute a conflict of interest (someone who wants to keep a page has no business writing its deletion nomination, because he may write it in such a way as to favor not deleting).


 * Similarly, someone who wants to delete or move an article shouldn't be writing a nomination (i.e., discussion) to keep it, since that also poses a conflict of interest and violates WP:POINT. That is, those who oppose keeping the pages can't legitimately help edit the RfC either. The way the RfC is currently written, it appears to have been authored by someone who favors moving the pages.


 * In this case, RfC isn't outside WP:PROCESS, it appears to be an attempt to supplant it. I'm afraid that the RfC won't attract the traffic that it would if it were proposed as a deletion nomination at AfD (which requires a tag be placed at the top of each nominated article) or a mass move proposal at the Village Pump.  Also, it introduces RfC as an alternative way to post deletion and move discussions, which makes it a loophole, a duplication of effort, and turns RfC into a competing department with AfD.


 * I'm also afraid that the posting of such an RfC will become bogged down with debate over the legitimacy of the RfC itself, for the reasons posted here, and others.


 * The only viable and acceptable approaches for removing the outlines from article space would be for someone who actually wants to delete or move the pages to start a discussion either as a nomination at AfD to delete them, or as a proposal at the Village Pump to mass move them.


 * The Transhumanist 21:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There appears to be confusion. Here's what I think it is:
 * An RfC can be used in exactly the same way as a proposal-thread at the Village Pump. That's exactly how I hope the RfC ends up.
 * If you read the talkpage discussion, you'll notice that I've been saying the structuring is flawed, ever since Karanacs wrote out her draft (November 4). This is the set of notes I started it off with (on October 24, for when you're comparing it to the talkpage dialogue). If you can write something Neutral to replace Karanacs draft - something that Karanacs and other mediating-parties can agree to - then give it a go. (Perhaps at first in your own sandbox, given your propensity for saving a multitude of small tweak-edits... ;)
 * By Neutral, I mean you have to acknowledge that everyone else seems to support some kind of restriction in scope. See User_talk:Karanacs/Outline_RfC_draft for 3 potential ideas - I'm sure there are other good ideas.
 * For example, Outline of family and consumer science is currently untenable - however, read Incrementalism for the important context - that outline might become tenable in 2 or 3 years, when we have a solid collection of core outlines, or when an interested topic-expert who believes we need an outline on that topic turns up.
 * In summary: Nobody has yelled for "all outlines" to be deleted in months. I don't think that was ever a likely outcome anyway. Please help us come up with a positive outcome, rather than wailing about hypothetical bad outcomes. Or at least go back to helping improve the existing outlines, so that they're more defensible. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and ban Transhumanist from any further discussions about "outlines" for a month. Perhaps without him mucking up the works a consensus can be reached. Hipocrite (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, a trout is sufficient. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that is no longer accurate. He was firmly warned about processwonkery and trying to disrupt the RFC already - and was trouted about exactly that. He has disrupted the process. He can either be banned from it now, or he can get a severe final warning - his next processwonking will almost certainly result in a block or ban. Hipocrite (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A severe final warning is fine. And a trout. (And maybe some artificial flys so he catch more trout on his own, as occasional reminders? :) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I withdraw the nomination. The Transhumanist 04:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably too late but Keep, I'm surprised you nominated it TT - Highfields (talk, contribs) 12:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.