Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter trolling (second nomination)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

[...] we're well and truly used to Tony's abuse of closing AFDs, and it's just a miracle that he was considerate enough to actually put it back here and give the community some semblance of a say. Ambi 02:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first comment is by Texture, who despite his claim had never supported me. The second is again from someone who did not support me. Neither of them seems to have any understanding of deletion policy. When there is no consensus, we keep an article. This isn't just my "inclusion ideology", it's Wikipedia policy. It's what I am bound to do. You still fail to understand this. It's quite frustrating, really, that you continually parade your ignorance like this and blame me for doing what I must do.
Yes, unfortunately there are a few who agree with you. They should try to change the deletion policy, not attack those who follow it. --Tony SidawayTalk 07:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When there is not a consensus to delete, we do not delete. When there is not a consensus, we do not delete. When there is a consensus that an article is not to be left intact and there is an obvious alternative (i.e. redirecting the article), it is flagrantly illogical to go against the wishes of everyone who voted by doing the express opposite of the consensus. There is nothing in the deletion policy that makes six delete votes and six redirects votes a keep, as much as you've tried to invent such a policy. Closing has become an issue precisely because a very small minority are so utterly biased in closing decisions; to try to use policy as a justification for your stance just won't fly. Ambi 08:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that is no such thing as a "consensus that an article is not to be left intact" except insofar as there is a consensus to delete. The only operation on Wikipedia that does not leave an article intact is a deletion. A redirect adds to the article an edit to cause it to redirect, a merge causes all or part of an article's contents to be copied to another, usually with the addition of a redirect from the old to the new location. These operations are completely reversible and the result is an intact copy of the original article which can be edited.
Six votes to delete and six votes to merge is an obvious no consensus, and defaults to keep but I would probably follow it up with a merge. And that default to keep is precisely what Wikipedia policy tells me to do. Someone who wants to merge after an AfD close is perfectly at liberty to do so, but I will not do so unless there is a consensus to merge. I'm surprised that you haven't gotten the message yet. You're wrong. --Tony SidawayTalk 09:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop playing word games. There are many options on Wikipedia that do not leave an article intact - deletion, merging and redirects being three. Some of the content may be retained in another context, but the article is gone. If everyone who votes wants the article as it stands gone, defaulting to keep is logically ridiculous. You keep telling me that policy tells you to default to keep in that situation - precisely where does it say that? You're doing something which you know to be against the express wishes of everyone who voted, which is, unless there is some basis in policy, utterly reprehensible. Ambi 09:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but who's playing word games? If everybody who votes "wants the article gone" then they have voted to delete. If they have voted for merge or direct they have not said they "want the article gone". Far from it. A minute ago you even said that someone who doesn't like a merge can revert it. Well that means the article isn't gone.
I tell you that a no consensus defaults to keep because a no consensus defaults to keep. This is the way it is. --Tony SidawayTalk 09:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus is about finding the most agreeable solution, then what you're suggesting defies logic. If someone votes delete, then it's hardly a stretch that they'd rather see that article redirected than kept intact. Instead of doing something which is likely to appease all, or at least most of the voters, you do something which appeases no one. I did offer to prove this to you previously by asking those who voted in the cases below, though you typically declined. Finally, you keep telling me that policy tells you to do this, but upon being asked precisely what policy, you respond "that's the way it is" (according to you). I'll ask you again - where specifically is this in policy? If there is indeed no such basis, I do hope that you'll discontinue using this excuse. Ambi 10:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, consensus is certainly about "finding the most agreeable solution." However if half of editors want an article merged and half want it deleted, it's pretty clear that there will be no solution agreeable to all. The delete voters want the article gone forever, the merge voters want the content distributed into another article. If someone wants to merge afterwards and can in the new circumstances obtain consensus to do so, let him go ahead. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If half want it merged and half want it deleted, it's fairly clear that merging it is far likely to appease most of the voters than keeping it intact. This is acknowledged by most closers, who will, regardless of how they fill out the close template, merge the article in that situation. This way, you've actually got something pretty close to consensus, and can move on with building an encyclopedia. You give people the choice of having to put it up a second time, run around the delete voters telling them to change their votes in case Tony takes the chance to ignore them, or having their votes ignored. When it is quite easy to work out an agreeable solution from what is already there, this would be a tremendous waste of time that could be spent writing good articles, something which you do very little of. Ambi 11:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I cannot see how you would think that a delete voter would be appeased by a merge. I am not a mind-reader; editors, one the other hand, are reasonably skilful writers of English, so there's nothing to stop them saying "delete, or failing that merge to X". And remember that there is nothing in the deletion policy that requires or authorizes a closing administrator to make a decision--a decision which can be made by any editor after the close and which I sometimes, as an editor, perform myself after a "no consensus" close.
There is simply no point in inventing a consensus that does not exist, and that--if it does exist after the close, can be acted on by any editor. You falsely claim that I am ignoring votes, but if I perform a merge when half of the editors voted to delete, I am of necessity ignoring half of the votes. Far better to call it for what it is: no consensus. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
AfD exists to determine a consensus as to what to do with that particular article. In all of these cases, there was an apparent consensus - none of them wanted the article kept intact (except you). You had a choice between following the explicit wishes of half the people and acknowledging the wishes of the other half, or following what you wanted and ignoring the wishes of everyone else. You've suggested that "you're not a mindreader", but it's hardly a logical jump that someone who wanted an article deleted would want it redirected than kept intact. Furthermore, I've offered to test this by asking everyone who voted in the cases below this question, and abide by whatever result - but you've rejected this, presumably because it would stop you having any justification for this racket. People shouldn't have to follow you around to make sure their vote won't get ignored, Tony. No one has to do that to any other closer, because they all take that into account when they close the AfD in the first place. Ambi 03:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now you ask me what policy requires me to keep an article if there's no consensus. You're an arbitrator, don't you know Wikipedia deletion policy?
"To request that a page (or image) be permanently deleted, the request made on AFD/ND/IFD, and any votes or comments relating to a listed page must be made in good faith. At the end of five days, if a rough consensus has been reached to delete the page, the page will be removed. Otherwise the page remains. The page will also remain if it has been improved enough since the initial listing that the reason for the listing no longer applies. This requires a reason to be given initially when requesting that a page be deleted."
Our Guide to deletion (which incidentally is not policy but is generally adhered to) says: "If a AFD discussion yields no consensus, the decision defaults to keep the article. Note that this does not preclude editing, renaming or merging the article, as those actions do not require a deletion vote."
And I interpret the deletion policy in the light of the above. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I, on the other hand, interpret policy as to what is actually policy, and what is in accordance with the wishes of the community. You freely admit that page is not policy, and the edit history reveals that you wrote that clause yourself with minimal input. Hardly representative of community consensus, is it? Ambi 11:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well you've just given away the fact that you're incapable of interpreting policy because you don't even know what it is. Read again, above where I actually cited the policy:
* At the end of five days, if a rough consensus has been reached to delete the page, the page will be removed. Otherwise the page remains. The page will also remain if it has been improved enough since the initial listing that the reason for the listing no longer applies. This requires a reason to be given initially when requesting that a page be deleted.
That is our official policy on conducting and closing deletion debates.
And no, I did not write that. What may have confused you is the second article that I quoted. And I didn't write those words, either. In fact, those words were introduced by [[User:|Radiant!]] in an edit on 19 July. Actually I'm surprised that they're so recent; however they do seem to be a reasonable elaboration of the policy document which I cited.
Ambi, now I think is a good time for you to admit that you've got at least some of your facts wrong here. I've cited Deletion policy and it clearly says that if there's no consensus to delete "the page remains". Over the months and years we've tended to use AfD closing for a lot of other clerica work such as merging, redirecting and the like, and where there is a clear consensus for that I've no problem doing it. However that is not part of the deletion policy. AfD isn't about merging or redirecting at all, really, its purpose is in its name: deletion. The rest is just a nice thing for an AfD closer to do. The only reason for its existence is that deletion cannot be performed by an ordinary editor, and its effects cannot be undone by him either, so (except for speedies which are performed by one person) we require community consensus to perform that act. Merges, redirects and the like, even most page moves, can be performed by any editor--and in the case of page moves there is a forum provided and a mechanism to do it in a consensual manner. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merging and redirect is indeed part of the deletion policy, which is why it mentioned there as a perfectly legitimate vote. You can wikilawyer around this all you want, but your interpretation is one which does not seem to be shared by many others. AfD is about deciding what to do with articles - keeping, deleting, redirecting, merging or transwikiing. All are perfectly legitimate outcomes, and no one else has any issue with closing AfDs with any of these results. They can be performed by any editor, yes, but any editor can close a VFD that is not a "keep", too. I'd be having the same words with a non-admin if they were closing VFDs as "keeps" in this situation as well. It is the duty of the closer - whether admin or not - to follow the consensus of those who voted, otherwise the whole process is perverted. This seems to be recognised by practically all closers apart from you, because I'm still yet to see any incidences of this coming from anyone else. Ambi 03:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "no consensus" keep is the decision which I sometimes have to make when merging is not feasible. There are times when someone, in good faith, makes a merge suggestion without really making sure that such an action is possible. For example, I recently closed

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Esperanto (car) as a "no consensus" because I wasn't sure that the merge suggested was such a good idea. Basically, before I call a merge result, I must consider not only how many people wanted it merged at the AFD debate, but also if merging can be done without damaging the target. If I think that such a merge would be reverted on sight, I don't think it's a good idea to go ahead with it, AFD debate or no AFD debate. Actually, although I don't always think this way when closing AFD debates, calling a "merge" rather than a "keep" is an editorial decision, not an administrerial one, the administrerial decision is whether or not to delete. Editorial decisions such as merging are ones where anyone can just be bold and carry out, so if you disagree with an outright keep result, and think it ought to be merged instead, the best thing to do is just do it and not complain to much about it. One piece of advice for closers of debates who are about to make a decision which may generate some contoversy: Give a reason for your call. If you take a look at Rossami, in my opinion one of the most adept closers of controversial AFDs we have at Wikipedia, you will see that he always adds detailed explanations of his decisions when it's a close call, and when such calls are disputed, he always gets a lot of support for his decisions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

For the most part, I actually agree with you. I know closing can be a difficult process at times, and I know there's plenty of times when there just isn't any apparent consensus (this particularly tends to happen when there is the possibility of a transwiki, I've noticed). In the same vein, I agree entirely that Rossami is a fine example to follow in this area, even though I've disagreed with his calls before. The issue, however, is that the cases I'm referring to are not close. The consensus that people do not want the article kept intact is very clear, and an alternative that would appease everyone or nearly everyone is clear - however, Tony interprets this as a keep, in defiance of the express wishes of practically everyone who voted. This is what is a flagrant abuse of the process. Ambi 08:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ambi, when you originally gave that list below, three people agreed with you that I had abused process and twenty-six people agreed with me that I had interpreted policy reasonably. You claim that the cases below are "not close". This is false. They all had a strong opposition to every single course of action mentioned: no consensus. I cannot take it that a delete voter would prefer a merge, because I cannt read his mind. If he votes "delete or failing that merge" I'll take that into account, but I won't engage in guesswork. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I suggest you actually read the RfC (or even, god forbid, actually take some of its comments into account). There were a lot more than three, and several of them had some choice things to say about it. Secondly, that argument is fallacious. In all of the cases, either no one or a tiny minority wanted the articles kept, and in opposition to their wishes, this is precisely what you did. It is a pure case of instruction creep if people have to say "delete else merge or redirect in case Tony misinterprets this as a keep" on every VFD, when common sense would otherwise dictate finding the most acceptable outcome if possible. Ambi 09:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the RfC, Ambi. Have you? 4 endorsements for the RfC, 27 endorsements for the response. Having people express their opinions on a AfD debate is the whole point of the debate. If they don't then a with Aaron's close of a two redirect, two delete AfD as "no consensus" they'll find that the closer assumes that they have said what they mean. --Tony SidawayTalk 09:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Read further down. Yes, I know it's difficult. Having people express their opinions is indeed the whole point of the debate. If everyone expresses their opinion, and then the closer does the opposite of what everyone wanted, it's hardly consensus. Isn't consensus all about finding the most agreeable solution? Ambi 10:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the whole RfC several times. A small proportion of people who think that I'm doing something wrong does not amount to a consensus that the policies that I follow, or my interpretation of it, are wrong. On the other hand the strong endorsement to my response shows that there is a consensus that the AfD closes you listed were well within policy. I'd have thought that you'd have taken notice of that by now and modified your ideas. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a lot of people voiced the exact same concerns, if you actually read further down that page; while people didn't necessarily agree with Aaron's poor explanation of the events, many agreed with the sentiment. There is no basis in policy for your actions - only a little-known clause in a non-policy document which you wrote yourself, and which you've repeatedly re-added despite being reverted numerous times. I'll tell you what - I'll take notice when you stop ignoring people's votes when you don't agree with them. Ambi 11:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus for merge is pretty rare in the kinds of AfD that I close (I'm usually a tail-end Charlie, clearing up the oldest unclosed AfDs, that others have skipped over). Early on I did close on a merge but I wasn't happy with it. Even though there was apparent consensus, it didn't seem right for an administrator to be doing a merge in a context that might be seen to give it some authority. Now sometimes I'll merge a small article that has scraped through a no consensus keep, but I regard this as an action that I take as an editor, not an administrator. It certainly isn't something I can justify as a result of consensus, I cannot assume that a delete or keep voter wants a merge; if he wanted that he could have specified.

If other editors want to challenge a merge I have done in this way during a close I want them to know that they can do so, just unmerge. No need for red tape. So sometimes you'll see me closing no consensus keep and then being bold. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See, herein lies one of the problems. You seem to have made up the "policy" that the only acceptable results are keep and delete. The deletion policy explicitly states the contrary - that merges, redirects and other such things are perfectly legitimate votes and results. If you don't like merging articles, then perhaps you shouldn't be closing debates where this is a potential result.
I have no issue with people challenging merges that you've made. If people disagree, a merge is easily reverted, and no harm is done. It is the incidences where people have clearly (and often unanimously) backed not keeping the article, and you mark it as a keep, that I take issue with. Ambi 09:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again. You falsely accuse me of fabricating a policy that I don't profess. I've just told you that I've merged articles where there has been a consensus to merge, although I prefer that the merge should be seen as an editing operation.

You're inconsistent, too. You say you had no problem with the recent no consensus closes that I listed by other people. Here's one of them again: Clifford Kung. Three deletes, two merges and one keep. By your arithmetic, shouldn't that be a 80% consensus to "not leave intact" and therefore a merge close? And yet the editor called a no consensus and you're fine with that. And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ggw. Not one single keep vote. Every single editor who voted wanted something done to the article. Most wanted it moved to GGW and disambiguated. A large minority wanted it deleted. Yet the close called no consensus and did the move on his own behalf, precisely as I would do. And you're fine with that because it was somebody else who did it. And then again here's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hornell hall, closed by Aaron, who was your co-signatory on the RfC. Two deletes, two redirects, and he closes it as no consensus and does the redirect as an editor. Precisely as I would do. Give up, Ambi, you cannot defend these actions at the same time you attack me for closing AfDs in exactly the same way.

And you know what, it wasn't hard to find those cases. I can find many of them, closes that are as close to the cases you object to as you'd like. I think you know this. --Tony SidawayTalk 09:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would I single you out? Until I discovered this little racket, I had plenty of respect for you. I don't think we'd ever clashed, and while I didn't exactly agree with all of your views on deletion, I had no major issues with you. In each of the cases you mention, they followed through with the appropriate action, according to the rough consensus in each case, regardless of what they marked the debate as. I saw a few instances of you doing this, but not many, and if I recall correctly, I skipped over each and every one. That didn't happen in the cases below, as I'm sure it has in many since. My issues with you are limited only to this practice of ignoring consensus in votes. Indeed, if there's anyone else doing this en masse, please point them out and I will be just as keen to have words with them about it. Ambi 09:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well there you go again. Whenever you don't have a response to my points, you resort to insult. It's a "little racket", you say. I'm "ignoring consensus", you say. No, irrespective of what they did as editors (and despite your false and malicious claims I have often performed an edit after a close) they called the result as no consensus. It's all very well for you to try to change the subject now, but that is what you said this was about: that the result must not be called as no consensus if there is a "consensus not to leave alone" or whatever form of words you used. And I noticed that you falsely accuse me of responding to your points! Cheek! --Tony SidawayTalk 09:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I said again. I know that you've occasionally performed an edit after a close, and I skipped over every instance where you did that, as the result was there - consensus had been followed. I did go through your entire history of closing VFDs, so I know that it didn't happen overly often. I could care less what the sentence on the archive page says - what I'm concerned about is the encyclopedia. Those guys follow through on the evident consensus. In the majority of cases, as demonstrated below, you tend to just ignore it. Perhaps that's why you're the only active closer who people are concerned about. Ambi 10:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is nonsense, Ambi. I've shown you that other editors are closing AfDs in precisely the same way I do and you're trying to handwave the thing away. The closers all specifically called no consensus because they (as I) determined that the debate arrived at no consensus. Like me, they sometimes did what they thought was best. That is not part of AfD closing and is absolutely not required by the deletion policy. It is a matter of personal preference and good housekeeping. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't shown me that other editors are closing AFDs in the same way that you do. You've shown me three examples where there was a consensus not to keep - and the article wasn't kept, because the closer responded to the wishes of the community. The deletion policy requires that the wishes of those who responded to the discussion be followed. I've given you credit for "doing what you thought was best" in a small minority of cases, where this actually corresponded with policy and consensus. The problem, however, is in the majority - where you write your own policy, defeat the entire purpose of consulting the community in deletion issues and do what you damned well like, consensus be damned. I've told you before - provide evidence of anyone else who does the same thing, and I will express the same concerns. You've yet to do so. Ambi 11:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I first showed you those results, you said "Firstly, those calls you highlight seem entirely justifiable to me. There may not have been any delete votes, but neither was there any consensus on waht to do next." Now I've shown them to you in detail and demonstrated how close they are to my own calls, you suddenly find that you believe there was a consensus on what to do next. I on the other hand have remained consistent, declaring a "no consensus" where I do not see a consensus on what to do next. And the really bad thing about our disagreement is that it's so pointless. Anybody can perform a merge or a redirect. They don't need a AfD for that. Thus your false accusations of ignoring community consensus, which severely pain me, are utterly meaningless. If there is a community consensus to merge or redirect, it doesn't require an administrator to do it.
  • You say "The deletion policy requires that the wishes of those who responded to the discussion be followed." Well actually no, the deletion policy requires me to delete an article if there is a consensus to delete, and to keep it (in some form) if there is not. I've no problem responding to the wishes of those in the discussion where I can find a consensus--and yes, I know, we differ on that, but please let's not go back on that merrygoround, can't you just accept that an honest, intelligent person can differ on whether it is possible to divine a consensual position from 6 delete votes and 6 merges? --Tony SidawayTalk 12:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The deletion policy makes perfectly clear that merging and/or redirecting are perfectly valid options which should be taken into consideration when closing a result, as much as you've tried to ignore that. I will not accept that any closer has the right to disregard the result of an AFD discussion and do their personal preferred course of action when it contradicted with the views of every single person who voted. There is a clear alternative to keeping the article intact from that position, and to prove the point, I've repeatedly offered to go around and ask every single person in those cases below which outcome they would've preferred. That you continue to make the argument while rejecting that offer suggests that you know that what you're doing is the opposite of the wishes of everyone who voted. Your actions make a mockery of the AFD process, and no, I won't stand by and tolerate it. Furthermore, I've repeatedly asked you to find of anyone else who does this, and you've yet to point to even one other person. Ambi 03:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than continue with this sterile and repetitive to-and-fro, I'd like to ask you if you'll join me on my user talk page and see if we can both agree to Rossami's response to my query on what I consider to be the central question (how one should close a 6m, 6d). I find that I strongly agree with most of his views, and I have an odd feeling that you may strongly agree also. If that's the case, maybe we can try working from what we both *do* agree on rather than vehemently defending our viewpoints on the points where we don't. I've a feeling that the disagreement may be a lot less wide that you seem to believe, and that the main problem is a failure of communication--for which I'm sure I must bear the bulk of the responsibility. --Tony SidawayTalk 05:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing in Rossami's opinion, and I've replied there. Ambi 10:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed VfD closings

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Harry_Potter_trolling_(second_nomination)&oldid=23335070"