Wiki143 talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch
On Kappa's votes
I moved this long digression about the way Kappa votes from the VfD page because it seems to be off topic and was cluttering up the discussion. Of course, if you disagree, please put it back there. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Of course. Kappa, you should just put "keep" into your signature, it'd save some time. If this project can de-stubify or at least merge nn schools into the towns/cities they are in(to me, all towns and cities are notable), then it's worth it. If it's just an excuse for inclusionists to advocate against VfDs where they're needed, I'll change my vote, but until then I say Keep. Karmafist 14:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- Please do not test my ability to remain civil. Kappa 16:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- Likewise. I construed the "of course" comment by you as a continuation of WP:Point with your point apparently being "all articles should be kept, no matter what." since you always vote keep on vfds. Karmafist 18:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Lying about megrossly misrepresenting me doesn't really help. Kappa 22:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- Karmafist, your argument is empirically incorrect. Although Kappa is certainly an inclusionist, a simple glance up and down this vfd page confirms that he is not voting keep willy-nilly just to make a point. -- BD2412 talk 23:35, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Please explain how i'm empirically incorrect or how i'm lying. First off, if I construe something, then it's my opinion -- opinions are never true or false, only the facts that craft them. As for empirical evidence, just look at his record on vfd on the 13th alone...
- Here's Kappa's keep votes, they often come in quick succession and are fairly short:
[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6](This one was mine, and I was proven wrong, this should be rewritten, not deleted),[7],[8],[9],[10],[11]
And this is just today. If we go back, there are alot more. He did have a speedy[12], and also a delete, which leads me to...
He put this article up for vfd to save it from going to speedy from User:-Ril-. Having a record of even speedy deletes is good and fine, but this was a preemptive vfd to give the article less of a chance to be deleted. Once again, this is from the 13th. I haven't checked if there are more instances like this in his past, but I'd bet there are, because he's gathered something of a reputation, as per this quote from...
(And it should be pointed out that a no vote from Kappa is like a vehemently strong delete from most VfDers... ;) ) JDoorjam 19:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable to ask when Kappa votes on vfd whether he is voting on the merit of whether the article should be deleted or not or whether he is doing it because he's predisposed to or preprogramed to, or...trying to prove that every article should be kept. His speedy was after he made the reply comments to me, which once again, might have been because the article should have been speedied, or because he was trying to prove to me and everybody else that his vote is not an automatic keep.
If anyone sees this as an ad hominem attack from me, I apologize. If there's anything from towards Kappa directly, it's concern that he may some kind of article related thanatophobia or that he'll eventually become used as a consensus roadblock by those who wish to save their articles that should be deleted. I have more to say, but this is probably very close to the line
My larger concern about this is ultimately about Wikipedia's decision process. In theory from what i've heard, all users should look at issues as objectively as humanly possible, and try to evolve each others' perceptions of what are going on, and attempt to reach a consensus on the issue. However, it's rarely that simple, and this is a good example, because objectivity is hard to achieve, and even harder to make others believe you've achieved.
When users look at comments from overly deletionist or inclusionist or any ideologue, they will either lose all meaning and their comments will be ignored or will have grossly distorted meaning and users will decide their votes upon their reputations (such as with Chess Theory Opening Table), thus eliminating the purpose of that theory of what decision making should be.
If mediation or arbitration is needed, please let me know, i'm going to ask some people outside of the debate to give their advice here. I'm something of an intermediate Wikipedian(slightly over 1,000 edits), and I know that I don't have all the answers yet. Karmafist 03:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Generally when I believe an article should be kept, I vote keep. When I believe an article should be deleted, I usually don't need to vote, because other people will do that anyway. Articles don't need 6 delete votes, 2 will do fine. I tagged that particular article for speedy because it contained a personal attack and needed to be removed ASAP. If my vote was an automatic keep, there would be keep votes for every article on Vfd. This off-topic discussion is bloating out the vote, if you wish to continue it please do so on my talk page or somewhere else. Kappa 09:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Will do, although you'll probably see me elsewhere on vfd before that, and I will continue to try and temper and improve your reasoning behind what your votes. Karmafist 01:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I might mention that Kappa does consider the article before voting to keep it, and does sometimes vote delete against a keep vote. I remember Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Miller technique. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Actually listing for deletion to pre-empt speedies sounds like an excellent tactical move if one disputes the judgement of one sysop. Have the issue be decided by consensus rather than a create/delete war in which the deleting sysop may be prone to describe you as a vandal merely for recreating an article he is repeatedly deleting. I'm not sure who it was that VfD'd Monique deMoan article yesterday, but repeated speedying became rather difficult once the article was listed on VfD. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)