Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Eyrian

Comment - The main point of this RFC was not that User:Eyrian seems to be trying to make a point, although the editor has created that impression. I am not saying his actions in that regard were intentional. The main point is that, perhaps without thinking it through, the editor has disrupted the AFD process. Ultimately, we need a broader discussion about how to separate "the goats from the sheep" -- the listcruft from the good stuff (useful, educational, and respectful). Wholesale AfDs creates chaos, and that ought to be discouraged. Bearian 16:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree with this sentiment. SamBC 18:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Are you then going to strike your opening comment, which is ostensibly the reason you opened this RfD: "The user/editor, Eyrian, is overwhelming the articles for deletion process to make a point without first going through preliminary steps to resolve the foundational issues. This is causing many unnecessary discussions and "votes" on WP:AFD." You know, since you just said that that was not the purpose of this RfC? CaveatLectorTalk 04:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not going to strike my opening comment, as I just clarified it. I opened this RfC because the user's actions have had the effect of disrupting an important process at WP, even if it was not intentional.  Yes, perhaps I should have worded it differently, and I was being harsh.  For that I am sorry.  Your quote of mine is exactly why I opened this discussion.  Somebody can make a point recklessly, that is without intent or premeditation.  Actually, I agreed with a few of his nominations. The problem is that by nominating so many of them, the system has become backlogged, and he know or should have known of the risk. Bearian 12:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Take a look at WP:AfD right now. There are only 1,300 sysops to close debates, and editors keep rejecting RfA's.  There have been 160-175 new AfDs per day, many of which have been created in batches by Eyrian et al.  There is currently a backlog of 50 more open AfDs per day.  There is no time to make reasoned decisions here, so people are copying and pasting responses and "voting". Bearian 12:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't see that the good faith, or otherwise, of any person who does this kind of blanket deletion proposal is at issue. The problem is that deletion proposals are not taken seriously enough. When a poorly thought-through deletion proposal goes through, when it should not (due to specious arguments or apathy or inability to keep up with a flood of nominations) it's equivalent to vandalism on a large scale, and worse, irreversible vandalism. Even when such nominations are properly checked, a great deal of time has been wasted in making the effort to preserve important parts of Wikipedia. The problem is not with the nominator's good faith but with the system -- here we have what amounts to the death penalty for articles being applied with ridiculously few safeguards and an entirely haphazard process.

As a very first step toward remedying the situation, there ought to be an absolute cap on the number of AfDs that any user can submit per day. I'd suggest one. This at least deals with the flooding problem, and gives editors more time to consider the nominations; right now it's quite possible that many fine articles are being lost simply because there is not enough time to scrutinize them all. RandomCritic 15:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment These are very good points. I, myself, have found myself getting really tired over the amount of AfD's at this point, and find them really hard to keep track of. Maybe it is time to slow down a little bit. Also please see my talke page and DGG's talk page for some suggestions of how to improve this area (rather than deletion, which I admit I may support too strongly at the moment) and the possibility of getting a group to collaborate in order to repair and police them. I still think, however, that this RfC was the wrong way to go and that perhaps the mediation cabal (if there were one...) would be been a better help. CaveatLectorTalk 15:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Caps I am about to make a suggestion for this on the talk page for WP:AFD--not that it will necessarily be decided there, but as a first step.( It'll be the second in a series of suggestions--the first, which I just listed, is to require notification of all significant contributors.) My feeling is that the ideal number is two similar ones, at least at first. Two at a time helps compare. The first one of a new series can look abnormally good or bad. Perhaps we need some mechanism for saying postpone for 2 weeks, as an alternative to non consensus. Relist is of course used when there are not enough contributors, but it has also been used when the discussion has been really messed up for one reason or other. Perhaps it should be more widely used as a close.


 * choice of remedy I did not intend this RfC to be seen as an indication of hostility--I joined it in an attempt to call attention to the several problems from others than those contributing to the AfD discussions, which I see as one of the benefits of the RfC procedure. what I'll say now is that perhaps it should be taken as a sign that the degree of unhappiness is serious. Consensus implies compromise, and the strength of the views should be taken into account as well as the numerical representation and the basic policy. I am a little less concerned about specific guidelines--we can have whatever specific guidelines we want to have--they are not a constraint, but the way of expressing consensus.


 * fundamental issues what I see as the truly fundamental issue is not the way to have useful discussions at Afd, or even the desirability of these articles. I see it as the willingness to accommodate each other and to compromise. The interpretation of the rules can always be compromised, and IU saw in these discussions at AfD an unwillingness to reach any accommodation. I can see this if it's a matter of honesty or fairness. I can not see it if its just a matter of what content to include in WP. Notability is always going to be a compromise.  the views that we should have nothing that would be inappropriate in Brittanica on the one hand, and that we should include everything in the universe on the other, are incompatible with building a useful modern comprehensive general purpose encyclopedia. But where we go between that is negotiable. So whenever I see people going into a discussion with the fixed view that we must eliminate (or keep) all articles of a particular stripe, I get concerned. And I really get concerned when those thinking this way try to steamroll the opposition. I don't like top-down compulsion, and I don't like bottom-up manipulation.  Those are the really fundamental issues here.DGG (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)