Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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  Keep

I am closing this one day earlier than usual. There is a consensus on the underlying issue is within the longstanding conduct of one editor (for reference, see a previous ANI discussion), which has led to the contested legitimacy of the project itself. This nomination has achieved its purpose of initiating community discussion on a wider scale. Any further attempt to resolute this matter should be re-directed to the ongoing RFC and the current ANI discussion in regards to Tony’s behaviour. Alex ShihTalk 16:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Four Award


This "award", although initially well-intended, has become disruptive and divisive. The self-proclaimed director, TonyTheTiger, has been blocked once already for edit warring when individuals attempted to remove themselves from the list of "honorees", and continues to view himself as "the lone Brave standing against a cavalry stampede demanding a change in the FOUR award", which is very much a battleground mentality unconducive to desperately needed further changes to this award. The individual continues to revert anything he disagrees with (1, 2), snark (1), and assume bad faith or other gaming of the system (1, 2, 3). To prevent further disruption, I believe this "award" should be discontinued, and either deleted or marked historical. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or mark historical I think the Four Award would not be a major loss and it does not seem worth the divisiveness and confrontation it is causing. I would favour the replacement of this award with one that rewards editors who take an article from creation to FA, also taking into account collaborations and the like. I have always found it bizarre that an award that is supposed to reward editors who take articles from creation to FA is for some reason withheld if GA status is skipped. That's just never made sense to me. If it's good enough to pass FA, why should it waste time at GAN first? If the intention really is to encourage article development from start to finish, it seems odd to me to place so much emphasis on jumping through hoops in between, and against Wikipedia's principles to disallow articles on which users have successfully collaborated. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep There is a forthcoming RFC regarding the future of FOUR and the suggested "desperately needed changes", which will be held when Category:Wikipedia articles rejected for Four awards populates, which could take another week or two. Why MFD this before the desperately needed changes come up for discussion. I don't think FOUR is broken, but why MFD it before discussing how to fix it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There were attempts to discuss, at WT:FOUR. Enjoy the (re)reading. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a lot of discussion of this RFC here. Make a talk page on the RFC and we can hash things out over there. This MFD is not the talk page for that RFC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That pseudo-RFC is being used in !keep rationales, so it is pertinent here. That the RFC as currently written would have very little chance of affecting change is a direct counter-argument to the point that an RFC could fix things without deletion or being marked historical. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Should I read this to mean that you don't think it will result in the outcome you desire? You are invited to come to its talk page and discuss restructuring.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 06:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Erm, I never said anything about the outcome I desire. I said it would have very little chance of effecting change; a stop to the bickering would be a change, would it not? Now, you brought up the pseudo-RFC here, it has been used in rationales, so it is a valid topic of discussion here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If the only change you are worried about is the bickering (which is a very short term issue only created by the newly propounded 24-hour rule), it will end after the RFC (on my end). You will get all the change you want just from the RFC. All you have to do is make sure I have raised all the controversial issues in the RFC. You are welcome to comment on the RFC at its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 13:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have already, in case you haven't noticed. And you've already been told (by me, among others) to keep that RFC focused, so you know very well I won't be adding even more questions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Is your priority that it be brief or that it end the bickering.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 14:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My priority is that it follows protocol, is neutral, is easy to parse and reply to; this gives a solid consensus. Such priorities seem beyond the pseudo-RFC you have prepared. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or mark historical - it's become a vanity project that is out of step with the goals of the encyclopedia, regardless of any planned RfC. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Silly bickering, about an obviously good award that is supportive of the Wikipedia project. -- do  ncr  am  16:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Bickering, perhaps, but not so silly. That in the RFC to which Tony refers he plans to use leading language like "Some have raised the issue of removing South Side, Chicago from the list for reasons that may be for no other reason than to contest any authority I claim over the project. No arguments were presented ..." (note the large section at WT:FOUR) is indicative of a deeper issue, one in whence neutrality is sidelined for an "I'm right and this is why" mentality. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This nomination is premature. At least wait until we see how the RfC turns out.  Little Mountain  5  16:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or mark historical - As it stands, this is utterly broken. Speaking frankly, I see a bad case of WP:OWN on the case of its 'director', and frankly the fact that this is being treated as a "list of awards" which are handed out to people whether they want them or not, or whether they nominate them or not - "Look at the leaderboard. The number one person on the list has clearly never even nominated an article" - rubs me severely the wrong way. Either this needs to be changed severely - either to a "nominate your article" structure or a "here's a barnstar" structure - or it needs to be done away with, and unfortunatly given the current situation I don't see the former happening at all. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep let's wait on the RFC. That being said, I'll probably vote to keep under any circumstances.  I have about a dozen and they are meaningful to me, as articles I took all the way from ideas to a successful FAC. Sorry about the disagreement, it's regrettable.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Question - If the issue is, at it appears from this nomination, one person behaving questionably and WP:OWNishly toward the award, why are we MfDing the award rather than dealing with the user's behavior through conduct channels? Is there an independent reason why the award needs to go, or a reason why Tony's behavior can't be dealt with independently of the award? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * He was blocked for edit warring on FOUR. Post-block, there was no change except that he didn't edit war again. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * By that do you mean the battlefield attitude is still present, or...? Ironholds (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, but it sounds like his behavior is still an issue. Why not pursue a topic ban or something, rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater by deleting the award itself? I'm trying to understand what's wrong with the award that it needs to be deleted, and so far all I'm seeing discussed are things "wrong" with a self-appointed giver of the award. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * , yes., I'm not a huge fan of the award itself either (see Khazar's point), but I don't think the community would go for a topic ban here. Tony is disruptive and trying to own the award, sure&mdash;but most people are going to see it as a storm in a teacup (which is is) and vote "meh". If I had confidence that such a topic ban would actually happen, I would have proposed that at ANI long ago. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you don't know until you do. If his behaviour is disruptive around this page the problem is the user, not the project. Ironholds (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WTF, you block me for 48 hours, I come back and say I will set up an RFC, but it going to take a few weeks because the necessary facts are not available yet, then you edit war with me in my own user space, and now I am going to be topic banned. What am I suppose to do? If after a controversy, I agree to hold an RFC, what behavior are you trying to curb?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 20:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How about you let someone neutral look at the edits you revert, Tony, and say if they were warranted? This one, for example, which was calling you out for making false accusations in a supposed-to-be-neutral RFC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, you were blocked for five reverts in a 24-hour period, a good block per WP:3RR. See ANI discussion and diffs: 1 2 3 4 5. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This seems to be a complaint about a user, rather than the award. It encourages the development of articles, which is a good thing. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark historical: I really don't see the need for nominations, and there's nothing subjective or open to interpretation here (the article history has all the required conditions, or it does not, either thing can be checked with 100% accuracy). However, the concept itself of a "Four award" seems valid, so I would simply move the current page to another location and reformulate the current one as "A four Award is X thing, here is a userbox you can use if you want". Similar to User Featured articles, which is optional, and nobody has to go though any nomination to use it (that is, besides the FAC itself). Cambalachero (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - I admit I've never been a big fan of the Four Award; by rewarding editors for seeking out a topic no other Wikipedian has ever written about, the award seems to me to incentivize some of Wikipedia's best editors to focus on our least-read, least valuable content. But Wikipedia is always short on encouragement and recognition, and if the award's important to other editors, that's good enough for me to support it. (I do think the award list should be governed by community consensus, however; hopefully the ownership problems here can be dealt with by consensus, and failing that, administratively.) -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Reading Resolute's comment below, I agree that this just be treated as a barnstar. No reason for formal oversight; if someone feels they deserve it, let them claim it. Policing user page infoboxes seems like a waste of time better spent on content. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep (or mark historical). I completely get where Crisco is coming from, and agree with a large part of his statement.  However, the problem is not the existence of this award itself, but with the behaviour of its creator Tony.  It is basically a barnstar and nothing more.  If it is treated as such, then it is fine.  But the idea of a "director" for a barnstar is absurd and screams WP:OWN very loudly even before any potential battleground issues are identified. If it comes to it, this is more likely an issue for ANI than it is MFD. Resolute 17:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark historical: Reading through all the comments here, the "mark historical" option seems to be the choice most would agree as acceptable (even if not their first option). However, I find Cambalachero's proposed solution a fine way to resolve the problem at hand.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 18:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep for now - tricky one. Only because I think it is an incentive to improve articles. I think it is fascinating that the existence of it is a pointer to how unfinished the 'pedia is. The benefit of it outweighs the issue, which is not about the nature of the award per se. Early on I saw it much like how Cambalachero mentions it above, no big deal at all, and patently obvious if something qualifies or not. Agree we need to do something to halt the acrimony though, and if it is not unsolvable then maybe we have to live without it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Although as your record amply demonstrates,this award is hardly necessary to promote the development of excellent content... Eusebeus (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, it is fascinating to see what content on a macro level ends up listed here and can be developed from scratch after a decade of the 'pedia's existence. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * For those saying wait for the RFC. Just check it out here. I question how something as inherently against our description of the process (don't forget, per RFC statements should be short and neutral) can get results. I'm tempted to tag it for POV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that Tony's RfC seems like a trainwreck waiting to happen; it's both too sprawling and too forcefully one-sided, occasionally bordering on insulting ("the Nick-D and Ian Rose article type that has so many panties in a bunch"... "Some have raised the issue of removing South Side, Chicago from the list for reasons that may be for no other reason than to contest any authority I claim over the project"). Tony, I'd urge you to have a third party draft a neutral, concise version of this instead; you can still post your version of events in the comments. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that using "panties in a bunch" is a nice illustration of the cliche "this is why we have a gender gap". (h/t User:Keilana) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank God I wasn't drinking when I read that comment, Ed. You'd have owed me a new laptop. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep for now pretty much per Cas Liber. I think that WP:FOUR is a good idea, and should be part of the solution of the problem where editors who develop articles to FA status often don't receive formal recognition. Tony's recent conduct has been unhelpful, and I fear that there may be a case to topic ban him from WP:FOUR to end his (ultimately well meaning) disruption of processes to improve the awards, but that's not a matter which can be solved through this forum. I entirely agree with Crisco's above comments about the draft RFC - it's not likely to lead to a useful result and is an exercise in POV pushing (stuff like "Lets look at the Nick-D and Ian Rose article type that has so many panties in a bunch" and "The only way to protect the stability of the project is to authorize a directorship" really grabs attention for all the wrong reasons given that this runs entirely against Wikipedia's collaborative ethos). Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you should know that I have responded to your comment by amending the RFC. Panties comment has been removed. Feel free to come discuss how we might further change the RFC so that it can be productive at its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 07:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and deal with OWNership issues by electing a board of directors with at least three members. Binksternet (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep -- I sympathise with the suggestion to cull the award, given the recent strife, but I won't go back on my long-standing support for it. I was quite aware, and said so in the nomination statement, that the joint award I proposed recently might be a test case.  I was surprised and saddened to see the vehement opposition it engendered from one editor, and equally surprised and heartened by the support it received from many others.  What only saddened was that some felt they had to withdraw from the award entirely in protest at Tony's stand, and that he himself was banned temporarily, when I'd hoped the concept just needed discussion and refinement. I share the fears expressed above that things won't be improved by the RFC as it stands, but that's another matter. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark historical per the problems described above, and possibly future Ownership of articles problems if this is highly publicized -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or mark historical – per all the above arguments. What was suppose to be based around community consensus has now been completely marred by WP:OWN issues by a so-called director dictator.  If one can decline barnstars, then why not the Four Award?  Enough is enough! —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or mark historical – Was planning on voting keep until the RfC had run, however I spent the time completely reading through WT:FOUR, and have changed my mind. I'm not sure what the objective of WP:FOUR is, and I'm clearly not the only one. This whole concept just looks like a bit of a side show that is probably not worth the energy. Enough is enough. WP:FOUR does not need to exist in order to acknowledge peoples hard work. – Shudde  talk 09:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Four Award is a worthy award, recognising a legitimate and decent achievement. The disputes, and the apparent ownership issues, are definitely regrettable, but I remain hopeful that it can be fixed. Tony, I think the best thing you can do for the Four Award at this time is to step away. J Milburn (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep all the issues seem to be with behaviour, not with the existence ofthis page which seems to be a perfectly valid use of Wikipedia space. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that the problem is with Tony's OWN-like behavior (I don't mean to underestimate his long-time efforts there, which are much appreciated), but that doesn't mean we should remove the award completely. Instead, what we need is to reform the process with community discussion and consensus (I thought that applied everywhere in WP?). If the community wants collaborations to be recognized, then so be it, even if that means some see it as devaluing of the award.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  13:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note Since Tony's draft RfC has proved both controversial and interminably delayed, I've boldly opened a simple one in the meantime that seems to me to address the main issues. Tony, you're obviously still welcome to add the extensive explanation of your position you drafted to the comments section. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The aforementioned RfC can be found here.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  15:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have Moved to table an RFC for several reasons, most notably because this MFD is ongoing and that is a confusing sidelight that is probably a distraction.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Deletion discussions are not the place to deal with the behavior of a single editor. Fun  Pika  21:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks like the only issue here is Tony's behavior. C'mon guys, why delete a page because of someone's behavior? Deletion discussions are not the place for this, StevenD99  Chat 22:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Deletion is far too drastic here. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 23:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Once the RFC finishes then further processes can sort out any other questionable details. Deletion is far too drastic here and it appears that Tony's behavior is being looked at anyway. PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 07:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - The basic award concept still seems valid, its actual problems and shortcomings are no convincing reason for a complete delete. Hopefully the disputes among interested editors can be solved in another, more collaborative manner. GermanJoe (talk) 06:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 02:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly.   GregJackP   Boomer!   07:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Sounds like an editor's behavioral issue, rather than a problem with the project itself. So maybe the solution would be to put someone else in charge (if there is anyone who wants the task). !voting Neutral because I don't know the background and am not interested in taking the time to read up on it. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - I know nothing about the award, and, actually, care nothing about it either, but the problem here appears to be a behavioral on the part of TonyTheTiger. I suggest that dealing with that will allow things to settle down, and then it can be decided if the award needs overhauling, deletion or whatever. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - a nice idea, but keep it as a barnstar. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 10:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * keep' per Beyond My Ken. MfD isn't dispute resolution. Mangoe (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * keep. I found this award a useful idea and an encouraging one to set editing goals. Happy to be part of discussions to tweak its details, and people can always create other awards or lists, as Tony pointed out somewhere in these discussions. Deletion would be a perverse way of targeting an editor yet making many other editors casualties in the process. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is a great award that rewards steady work on a single article, not only with a banner but the record of those editors. Considering how many thousands of stub articles I've waded through, by contributors who just want to churn out new pages, we should all be encouraging new editors to go for a Four Award. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: The Four Award is like an Oscar. Whether you want it or not, if you do what's needed, it's yours. This award recognizes the hard work needed to take an article from its creation directly to FAC, going through all the assessment processes, and I think that this should still exist. If there are problems, solve them, but don't kill it. — ΛΧΣ  21  14:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the FOUR award is useful; it stimulates dedicated editors to deliver high-quality content. Anything that fulfills such a purpose has a place on Wikipedia. JFW &#124; T@lk  15:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep:Are re really going to argue for throwing this away because of one user's actions? No, we shouldn't. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, the idea of deleting something because of the actions of one particular user is ludacris. Under the assumption of this deletion discussion everytime someone edit wars over an article it should be deleted on the basis that it is causing disruption, and we'd be deleting hundreds and thousands of articles a day. The award itself is not the issue, I didnt actually know of its existence until I casually browsed wikipedia. The idea of the award is decent but some of the wording is a little leaning towards ownership but a separate discussion will address that. It also needs to be developed and better overseen, much like the featured lists project. Overall the notion of this discussion is a severe misjudgement. AfD's are not a forum for discussions about issues with editors. AfD's are specially for articles which do not meet notability guidelines. Please take this to WP:ANI or WP:EDIT WAR.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  17:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "we'd be deleting hundreds and thousands of articles a day." - Citation please. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: I wanted one of these for years and finally earned one in the past year.  It's a GREAT incentive for people to start and maintain quality articles.  I agree with those who state that whatever is going on with any individual, the concept itself is NOT the issue.  Seriously, if personality disputes and editing conflicts mean an award is disfavored, then the next thing you know, GA and FA will also go the way of the dodo.  Sheesh.   Montanabw (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and suggest a WP:SNOW close - This Mfd nomination is borderline abuse of process, and a trouting is due the nominator, at the very least in my view. Jus  da  fax   19:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, valuable harmless incentive, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or mark historical. Backslapping built upon backslapping and completely worthless to the vast majority of editors uninvolved with the daft "DYK" process. —  Scott  •  talk  19:40, 20 August 2013 (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.