Wikipedia talk:TNTTNT

Calling TNT disruption
I understand what you're going for here but I think the essay assumes bad faith by saying when TNT is invoked, it is disruption. Our behavioural guideline, Disruptive editing, was never intended to apply to editors participating in deletion discussions acting with the interests of the project at heart. I respect your personal opinions, but I strongly disagree that you should be implying that using TNT is somehow violating our behavioural guideline. I would suggest you make this a user essay per WP:USERESSAY.

Also, I should point out that TNT invokes many of the same arguments as WP:G11, a wide accepted policy. Mkdw  talk 18:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Given your comment, I have removed the flat statement that invoking TNT is wp:DISRUPTION. It's arguable.  Look, this is an essay that is needed to counter the wp:TNT essay, which IMO has been too influential by existing and encouraging too many editors to delete, or nominate for deletion, articles that were okay as they were or salvageable.  The wp:TNT argument is like wp:IAR, it is non-thinking and its effect is insensitive and hurtful, often to new editors.   If a few editors who invoke wp:TNT get their feelings hurt by having that used against them, well maybe they should look at what they've been doing themselves.  -- do  ncr  am  02:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice -- discussion elsewhere of this essay
To get more eyes on this I posed here: Village_pump_(policy)  --David Tornheim (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Nutshell
This still seems accusatory as it says "calls for "TNT" are disruptive..." I suggest a change to "This page in a nutshell: Calls for "TNT" could be self-defeating. Consider tagging an article instead." No finger-wagging "shoulds" or "should nots," but pointing out the counter-arguments that are often raised when an editor attempts to apply WP:TNT, and the reasons that TNT often doesn't detonate. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Alternative?
In light of the issues brought up at VPP and at the MfD (and what I can see), I'm posting this alternative. I think it keeps the spirit of what intended, but removes the bad faith reasoning, rewords some things, and tones it down a bit. I think an essay criticizing use of TNT is reasonable, and I wonder if something like the below would be satisfactory (in the spirit of, you know, not deleting this :) ). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

"The argument to delete a page so that it can be started over without connection to its previous edit history is often misapplied. If "wp:TNT" is invoked as the primary argument in an AFD, and the article does not present a clear BLP or copyright violation, the process could quickly end with a "Keep" decision.

When "TNT" is claimed:
 * (1) It is acknowledging or indifferent to the validity of the page's topic.
 * (2) It is against the spirit of WP:PRESERVE.
 * (3) It may lead to confusion over history of article and alternative points of view, and unhelpfully disconnects it from any previous discussion of the topic (because the Talk page itself will be deleted).
 * (4) It requires editors do the work of evaluating past versions of the page for merit. (If the article could be reverted to any past version, then deletion is not valid.)
 * (5) It is demoralizing and unfair to contributors who have tried to improve the article.
 * (6) It causes more work by categorizers and other types of editors when the article is recreated.
 * (7) It can hide a history of COI editors working to get some topic into Wikipedia, or POV editors striving for some particular slant, which may be useful for other editors to know about, rather than having to reason with less evidence about the same behavior in a new article.

Note the essay wp:TNT states that "Sometimes, the damage is fixable, but the effort in doing so dwarfs the effort involved in merely starting over." Certainly it is sometimes useful to call for a total rewrite of an article. But why should the edit history not reflect the fact that a previous version existed?

In practice, calls for wp:TNT are usually self-defeating, because many editors recognize the issues above.

Consider tagging an article for a complete rewrite instead, by, and explain your criticism of the current article at its Talk page."


 * Thanks for posting this. I insert parenthetical numbers above to facilitate referencing, do let's discuss. -- do  ncr  am  14:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

"TNT" concession of topic validity

 * One change suggested, within point (1), is to suggest that TNT calls may be indifferent to the validity of the page's topic, rather than simply acknowledging the validity, as the original/current version stated ("It is acknowledging the validity of the page's topic.") However, that weakens the point and undermines a "strategy" aspect of this essay.  TNT calls explicitly suggest/acknowledge/confess that the topic is valid.  TNT is literally titled Blow it up and start over, with the "start over" included.  I think it is valuable to point out that the call for TNT has acknowledged the validity of the topic.  I want to bring up short "TNT" users who might not really have noticed that they have in fact acknowledged the validity of the topic, especially when they rant on with other statements that are inconsistent with that.  It is a key part of the TNTTNT suggestion that calling for TNT may be self-defeating, which in turn may have an effect on how often TNT is invoked.  It may be optimistic or forward-looking to suggest TNT is self-defeating;  there has not yet been a systematic study of AFDs as to whether calls for TNT followed by reference to essay TNTTNT (or expression of similar arguments) lead to "Keep" decisions, although I could point to several examples.  But putting some doubt into the minds of "TNT" users in cases where an article topic really is valid is a good thing, IMHO.  The argument that their TNT call is likely to backfire is something that can make sense even to "TNT" users who really don't give a whit about niceties of what TNT actually says or the anti-policy effects of outright deletion. -- do  ncr  am  14:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * TNT calls explicitly suggest/acknowledge/confess that the topic is valid - I don't think this is accurate. Often it does, sure, but that's not a prerequisite. It's just that if the topic isn't valid, there are typically other simpler deletion rationales. I think it's more accurate to say that it's an acknowledgment that the topic isn't definitely invalid, and typically comes up in response to keep arguments based on topic notability (i.e. "keep because it's notable" and then "delete per TNT - maybe you're right and it's notable, but that doesn't really matter here because there's no salvageable content"). It's not unrelated to an "obviously promotional material" CSD, but involves more variables and is subject to discussion. It seems this would need a qualifier (i.e. "if you argue to delete per TNT while affirming the notability/appropriateness of the subject..."). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 04:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for acknowledging something there. Let's try to see where we can agree.  Is it reasonable to argue that if there are simpler arguments, then those argument other than TNT should be made, because TNT implies acceptance (or is reasonably understood to be implying acceptance, or what have you) of notability and then the various negatives come into play (it seems to dismiss contributions, is suggestive of violating contract that edit history will be preserved, etc.)  I think that what has seemed objectionable to me would partly be addressed by this.  Perhaps I was offended that the AFD was nominated or Delete votes made, when the argument was lazy in the sense that they were relying upon TNT as essentially IDONTLIKEIT and not doing the hard work to really address notability.
 * What "TNT" says is to blow up and start all over. In plainest interpretation, that is accepting that the topic is notable.  In AFD arguments invoking "TNT" that I have seen the acceptance of certain or probable notability is pretty much there, and then invokers are saying "but let's just TNT it", despite that.  Perhaps some change to the essay TNT is needed, to emphasize that IDONTLIKEIT does not suffice.  In the meantime, this essay can make such point.
 * I have disagreed with the insertion of "or indifferent to", because I point out that it goes against plain understanding of what "start over" means. I hope you are not suggesting that I am in bad faith for discussing your suggested wording. -- do  ncr  am  17:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

suggestion of bad faith on part of some "TNT" citers

 * About "bad faith reasoning", I think it is worth keeping the essay a bit edgy, suggesting that bad faith is or has been common in AFDs citing "TNT", because in fact bad faith has very much been present in the AFDs which prompted me to start this essay. What I saw was editors utterly trashing articles and editors and policies, in the worst spirit.  I don't want to point to specific examples of bad faith "TNT" usage (though I could), but in fact there has been positive glee about being mean to new contributors and emphasizing that their contributions are shitty and trash-worthy.  It is ironic to suggest that the persons wronged are the "TNT" advocates;  I don't feel sorry for them as a group and I am not sure how much kow-towing to the potentially hurt feelings of some possibly rare conscientious ones is needed, given how negative and bad faith is the TNT essay itself or its usage in practice.  Some degree of suggestion or accusation of bad faith is _needed_ in this essay, IMHO.  This is supportive of principles of wp:AGF.  Also, this is speaking in terms that the "bad" users of "TNT" can relate to (as in "gee, see how it feels when you are trashed like you have just be doing to someone else").  If they are made to feel bad, maybe that is good.  And, this is an essay.  Just because some editors make accusations that the original writing failed to assume good faith doesn't mean this needs to be watered down to be wishy-washy/politically correct/completely ineffective like the wp:BATHWATER essay is. -- do  ncr  am  14:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That you perceive bad faith on the part of people arguing TNT (or even, for the sake of argument, that such bad faith exists, as opposed to a difference of opinion/priorities), means you should have an essay in your userspace. But to be in projectspace it has to have some basis in policy/guideline (including AGF). glee about being mean to new contributors and emphasizing that their contributions are shitty and trash-worthy is absurd. That (and that you're choosing to characterize a toned down version as "politically correct") really gets at the heart of why this is problematic. You might as well say "and btw deletionists have nothing but evil in their hearts and want to eat your babies. just being honest." If you see anyone you could actually characterize that way (or rather, that other people would agree could be characterized that way), they should be indeffed immediately. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 04:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We are not so far apart. I agree that blanket accusation of bad faith is not appropriate in a Wikipedia-space essay.  However some addressing of bad-faith-ness is still needed I think, e.g. perhaps something along the lines that "if you're going to argue for deletion of a possibly notable topic, because you are calling for permanent removal of contributions by good faith contributors you need to avoid the perception of acting in bad faith against them.  Calling for TNT simply because of X does not suffice (because it is suggestive of bad faith).  You need to establish Y also."  I'm not sure about going further along your lines and saying that if you don't, there should be consequence Z for you.
 * In some cases that I am thinking about, there was pretty clear good faith on the part of original contributors to an article, including who were working to respond to criticism. Abrupt arguments of delete because TNT, ignoring any consideration about them, seemed rude to me.  Maybe there is some distinction to be made between articles where good faith efforts have been made, e.g. by a legitimate new editor, vs. articles where it seems likely to be merely a paid, promotional work.  Also, it makes a difference if the would-be deleter has actually reviewed all the past versions of an article;  omitting that and yet calling for deletion, as if to avoid the work and the consideration of other editors, seems "bad faith"-like to me.  Calling for deletion frivolously can be hurtful. -- do  ncr  am  17:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Question for Doncram
Expressed above and in the MfD are views of this essay being problematic for the assertions and assumptions that are made / implied about AfD !voters who invoke WP:TNT. Above, you mention a goal of "putting some doubt into the minds of "TNT" users", refer to the existence of "some possibly rare conscientious ones", and state that "[s]ome deree of suggestion or accusation of bad faith is _needed_". You are entitled to those views as an individual, but they are inappropriate for essays in WP space. So, my question: given that anyone can edit a WP-space essay, do you want this kept in WP space where it will be edited and your views and intent will have the same weight as that of others? Because it will be edited and (as you put it) watered down if it is to express a community perspective on issues around the TNT article, and certainly can't assert bad faith by every editor invoking TNT. Or, do you want it in your user space where you have control and ownership to a much greater extent? I am not seeking to debate your opinion or the essay content, I simply seek to understand your goal... because having it in WP space implies open editing and you as the author cannot assert control over the content of a Wikipedia-space essay as you can a user space essay. EdChem (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To respond directly: I want it kept in WP-space and will accept if the consensus is to reject the language I used in original writing and the points I have made here.  I do not assert "control" or ownership.  Please consider my argument as well-meant, if not well-expressed.  I am deeply concerned by the rude and mean-spirited usage of the "TNT" essay, and I hope that you and others can make an effort to address that in this essay.  Perhaps there is a difference in perspective from differing experience;  I was writing to address the spirit in which "TNT" has been flaunted in a number of AFDs that I have seen...and some have agreed with me...while you and others may not have seen that so much, and you may be seeking to more narrowly respond to the words of the "TNT" essay itself, which may not be so blameworthy.  IMO, it is not merely the technical words of "TNT" which are to be addressed, but rather the package that comes along with it, in how it lends itself to being invoked, and how it has in fact been invoked. -- do  ncr  am  03:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have !voted keep at the MfD based on your desire to keep the essay in WP space, but highlights material and a perspective that is inconsistent with a WP-space essay.  As I see it, your options are agreeing that the essay will be edited significantly including removal of aspersions, bad faith, etc, or moving it back to user space.  Do you see an alternative?  EdChem (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, this is Talk page to discuss what should be in the essay. I accept that editing will be done, including to avoid unacceptable stuff.  I am discussing here in good faith, about what to say about an area where bad faith has been abundant.  Can we please discuss the alternative suggested.  "Question for doncram", a subsection, does not seem to be about that. -- do  ncr  am  17:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

revisiting three years later
Hey User:Rhododendrites, User:EdChem, User:Andrew Davidson, any other possible followers here. I wonder about some rewriting/editing in this essay, now that a few years have passed. There was good-faith disagreement about this essay, including in the MFD that happened. I do think the essay has in fact served a purpose, well: IMHO it changed the tenor of AFD discussions, at least in the AFD topic areas that I have followed. The particular "bad AFD behavior" which I perceived back in 2017, changed, and doesn't happen now (knock on wood); I think this probably could be quantified by an academic study of invocations of wp:TNT before and after, and I think this essay and associated package (including the support/concern of many, and the education that went on in the MFD itself) was the cause of the change. But now maybe some updating is needed, or would help.

Including:
 * Where essay should be located. As User:Ivanvector commented: "This should probably also be moved somewhere that is not a shortcut, like Don't delete just to recreate or something, to which TNTTNT could redirect." Still a valid point. --Doncram (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * About "Wikipedia's fundamental contract": The essay could incorporate some part of, or otherwise address, DES's helpful explanation in response to one source of confusion, at the MFD: "when the essay speaks of the "violation of Wikipedia's fundamental contract" it means not the right to have one's text retained in an article (As per WP:OWN there is no such right) but the right to have ones contributions retained in the history and thus properly attributed. That is required by the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses we use. Strictly speaking, in the case of deletion those licenses are not violated, but when there is very little difference between a deletion followed by a recreation (which is what WP:TNT is supposedly all about) and a simple but total rewrite that retains history, the TNT version does at least violate the spirit of the licenses, or so it seem so me."  GFDL is what I had in mind, specifically.  Nowadays GFDL does not strictly apply, and its terms and spirit are less well known, I think.  It would be good to invoke whatever is the specific current "contract". --Doncram (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * About deletion of really bad stuff or irritating ownership claims:
 * Bad mini-stub articles: I am not sure how to say this, there exists really bad stuff where it does actually seem to me that "credit" should not be preserved, where it should be denied in spirit of wp:DENY. Maybe this is where trolling, in effect, arguably is involved (one of the stated exceptions to the application of this essay).  For example, I have been frustrated by situations where one or a few editors have mass-manufactured a whole lot of what i will call "bad mini-stub articles", with little more (or same, or even less) content than already appeared in list-articles or navigation templates where the topics were redlinks.  Against the objections of good faith editors who developed the list-articles or navigation templates, and who wanted the redlinks to show to properly indicate a decent article was needed.  I and others have objected the mass-creation campaigns appeared to be disruptive to sensible processes, and appeared to be about getting in there with "article creator" claims, as if deliberately to confound and taunt the hard-working editors.  And "tricking" and poorly serving Wikipedia readers, who can no longer tell the difference between links to more/good info, vs. links to nothing more. And totally against positive purpose of redlinks ("redlinks allow wikipedia to grow"). wp:AFD seems not to be the forum to address such bad mini-stub articles, because in practice AFD participants can't get past the fact of there being agreement of all parties that the formerly-redlinked topics are fundamentally notable.--Doncram (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently paid contributions: At least where violation of Wikipedia policies has probably occurred (how define, identify?), these maybe should not be protected, should in fact be sought out and burned? --Doncram (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Longer bad articles needing complete rewrites: As User:Reyk said in the AFD: "But the idea that deletion of an irreparably bad article should be hindered just so editors can own part of the credit for a completely rewritten one is completely backwards."  We can agree that it would be good in practice for a really solid re-writer to get credit as primary author or equivalent.  I'm not sure how to differentiate when an original editor deserves credit (like for identifying the topic is valid, and taking a decent shot at it, albeit limited by the original editor's skills or by availability of sources), vs. when they don't deserve credit.  Or is there some technical way that an original editor and a complete rewrite editor can both "get credit"?  This might be a function of the "pages created" tools that give credit at wmflabs, i.e. xtools and sigma(?), and/or of the fundamental wikimedia software.--Doncram (talk)
 * Address TNT itself or other guidance elsewhere?: On the other hand, keeping the essay short and understandable is a good thing (KISS). Taking a more complex view is maybe not helpful; maybe refinements should be done elsewhere (including perhaps modifying wp:TNT itself).  User:SmokeyJoe commented: "I personally don't agree with it, but others do, and it is fair. Ideally, the best written essays adhere to WP:NPOV, essays and counter-essays work, but are not ideal. The nebulous WP:The Truth is hiding somewhere in between. This does not mean clumsily merge the two together."  Is it time to modify wp:TNT, say?  Or otherwise do some actual merging?  Or leaving two essays separate but simply do some clarifying? --Doncram (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Other concerns from the MFD or otherwise? --Doncram (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free to insert comments above, or develop this discussion any other way. Thanks for your previous participation, and thank you for considering this, already! --Doncram (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

upfront assertion, other
In these edits, an editor changed the essay, dropping the deliberate upfront assertion that calls for "TNT" are almost always invalid. IMO, keeping this essay a bit "edgy" in that and in other ways is an essential part of this essay's effectiveness. I reversed the edits. There were other aspects of change, but overall I think it was not helpful. I do not "own" this essay, and am happy to discuss both the basic assertions and the "strategy" aspects of this essay. --Doncram (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)