User talk:Flatscan/RfC draft: Merge, redirect at AfD

Numbered options

The numbered options are based on something I used for a previous RfC at WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 58#Revisiting Merging during live AfD. I want to make their wording fair. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Feedback

Copied from User talk:S Marshall (permanent link), replies interspersed Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that asking others about a page, elsewhere to the page, so as to reduce necessary attribution of the page, is contrary to the spirit we embrace, of providing attribution.

If I were to provide non-trivial input

eg

Point 1 "Should be immediately followed by speedy keep, with discussion referred to the article's Talk page."

The meaning of this is unclear. Does it mean that a redirect argument is invalid if not followed as per this rule? Does it mean that discussion about the redirection is not allowed on the AfD page?

Point 2 "Must be refuted – proven false – before a delete outcome is possible."

Proof is only for mathematics or alcohol. What about the practice of ignoring bad ideas? What if an overwhleming majority establish a consensus differing to an early redirect opinion?

and if this input stears future development, shouldn't I be attributed? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The note is meant to discourage direct editing, on top of being in my user space. If I write it myself, attribution is not required, but I added a note, since you asked. Flatscan (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Well now, that opens a can of worms. "Ignoring bad ideas" is an issue. Surely if an idea's bad, it would be dissected and refuted in the debate, so that the person proposing the idea will learn. If an idea seems to be accepted in the debate, then in what circumstances is it appropriate for the closer to ignore it? Surely only where the idea directly conflicts with policy.

  Incidentally, I've used "refuted" again above, and a point I'll be making during the RfC is that Wikipedians know perfectly well what I mean by "refuted". Using it to mean "formal logical proof" is a red herring. I'll also be saying that I think there are two questions being conflated here. The first question is, "Is deletion the last resort, requiring all alternatives to be exhausted before it's appropriate? Or is a majority opinion sufficient to delete material?" and the second question is, "How much weight do we give to arguments that attract support from one side but are ignored by the other?"—S Marshall T/C 10:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: ignoring bad ideas. If an idea is weird, unsupported by any other, and not convincing, then it is normal practice for it to be ignored. We don't nail shut the coffin on failed ideas, instead we pick the best and run with them. Insisting that every suggestion requires refuting is to empower trolls.

"Proof" is an impossible standard, and the word has no place here. I suggest it be dropped. I think "refuted" is too strong as a requirement. Expecting every plausible suggestion to be refuted or accepted is to ask too much of the participants. I think that "not supported" is a sufficient test for the rejection of an idea.

I do not think it is reasonable to ask that all "alternatives to be exhausted". Exhasuting all alternatives can be exhausting. I think it sufficient to require that all "alternatives are considered". "Majority" is another word that we would do better to not use. Unqualified and unquantified, it confuses people. Quantified, it turns contedned debates in to numbers games. There is a subtle but important distinction between a "majority opinion" and a "consensus opinion". It involves weighing strengths of arguments, and fuzzy logic.

An argument that has attracted diverse supporters and has been otherwise ignored is one that cannot be ignored. By ignoring a supported position, you are silently accepting it as valid. An alternative interpretation is that the position has been lost in the noise, or is not so obvious, and you would do well to directly challenge the opposers with the position succinctly re-posed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• So let's say "effectively countered" rather than "refuted", and "all alternatives to be considered" rather than "exhausted". I agree that if an idea is broached, attracts support, and is not countered, then the closer should not ignore it (and that was actually my point, in the discussion that gave rise to this).—S Marshall T/C 23:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  If an idea is broached, attracts support, and is not countered, then the closer should not ignore it. In those terms, I don't see how someone can reasonably disagree. Perhaps the idea contradicts policy? In this case, it more important to educate than to close the discussion. Perhaps the closer felt entitled to counter and to close in one go? We call this a supervote, and don't approve. (From what discussion did this rise?) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  I agree generally with the italicized sentence. I try to be as specific as possible when I participate at AfD, addressing relevant arguments. The closer has to judge addressing/countering carefully. To use a hypothetical example from an episode → episode list, I think a recommendation like "Delete unencyclopedic, uncited WP:PLOT", while sloppy, contains an implicit rejection of merging, but not of redirecting. (WP:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 23#Canada–Tonga relations, I think.) Flatscan (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the definition of "refuted" confuses things, and I have replaced it. I sometimes consult The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage – see the last item in FAQs on Style. Flatscan (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the change from refute to rebut. Co-incidentally, I considered but rejected suggesting "deny" and "rejected". I think I prefer "rebut" to "counter" by a small margin.

I don't support the adverb "convincingly", but this opinion comes from my disagreement with the entire sentence:

"At AfD, merge and redirect arguments: (2) Receive a large amount of extra weight ... Since deletion is a last resort, they must be convincingly rebutted before a delete outcome is possible."

I don't agree with the use of "deletion is a last resort". While it is supportable based on close examination our processes for deletion, it conveys on overly hesitant use of deletion that is contrary to practice. Often, articles are deleted due to a lack of interest in pursuing other viable, preferable options.

I think a weaker statement, "At AfD, supported merge and redirect arguments should not be rejected if not convincingly rebutted" is better. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Deletion is a last resort. That's been enshrined in policies like WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE for a very long time. I agree that too many closers pretend otherwise. (I think that's symptomatic of a much more general problem we have where substantial numbers of administrators don't understand that they're elected to enforce the rules the community has written; there are too many administrators who see themselves as judges, rather than clerks to the consensus.)

  I think that in matters of editorial judgment, policy should document practice. But I think that in matters of administrative judgment, policy should dictate practice. It's not a good idea to encourage administrators to challenge our rules by disregarding them. (I came to this view after a small but vocal group including several administrators decided that "no consensus" BLPs should default to delete and started closing debates accordingly. When challenged, their rationale was that they had not been able to gain consensus to change the policy.)

  I agree absolutely when SmokeyJoe says, often, articles are deleted due to a lack of interest in pursuing other viable, preferable options. There are those who remove material because it's easier than fixing it. And I think those people, by and large, don't understand why there's any problem with that; deletionism is a very content-focused view, where we improve the encyclopaedia by getting rid of the crap. Inclusionists tend to be a bit fuzzier, concerned with the "collaborative" side of this collaborative encyclopaedia, and interested in how potential content writers might feel about how Wikipedia's processes treat them. I think that historically, the "collaborative" side ranked higher in Wikipedians' perception and the "content-focused" side ranked lower, which is how come blatantly inclusionist policies like WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD came to be enshrined in our rules. They're not just there to annoy the more extreme deletionist faction.—S Marshall T/C 12:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The "last resort" wording was originally written by Jclemens at the previous proposal and repeated by S Marshall above. I wrote (2) to represent their views – if S Marshall is satisfied with its wording, I will leave it be. Flatscan (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The wording is quite neutral enough that I wouldn't want to delay things by quibbling it. It seems a very satisfactory RFC to me, and much better than others I have participated in. I don't think I'm quite a "2"--on the scale in this draft RFC, I would put myself at about 2.5: "Merge and redirect arguments attract extra weight from WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. If they are presented and attract support from other good faith editors, then other debate participants should rebut these arguments before a "delete" outcome would be appropriate."—S Marshall T/C 12:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Great, I'll post it soon if there are no objections. Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Posted at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#RfC: Merge, redirect. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Full RfC archived

RfC completed, closed, and archived to WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect. Flatscan (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)