Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Straw polls

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn

Nominator withdraws nomination, all other opinions are to Keep

Kim Bruning 07:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Straw polls[edit]

Basically this abandoned page was reopened to fork WP:PNSD, which is the actual guideline in this case. People are trying to game wikipedia policy on this one, they've gone forum shopping, they've been to mediation, they've tried to get their opponents banned over and back. And they've been warring for over a week on silly page titles. When I tried emulating Solomon in this discussion, my result was "delete both" from proponents of Wikipedia:Straw Polls, and "Keep Both" from proponents of PNSD. If I remember my solomonology correctly, that means that someone is up to something, and Straw straw polls is the page to be deleted. O:-) --Kim Bruning 02:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC) (note: Short version: People are playing Nomic in the project namespace -> on this page. This must stop)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination --Kim Bruning 07:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Bruning, your saying that you are, "keeping a copy on my hard drive" so "once the dust has settled maybe we can make a tidy guideline anyway" ←[1] does not correspond to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. (→Netscott) 03:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to delete the copy from my hard drive, and should we salt the page? --Kim Bruning 03:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per User:David Levy below this type of page does not get deleted regardless of its designation. That and your own statements make evident the illogical nature of this MfD. (→Netscott) 03:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I'm keeping a copy on my HD is to use it as a reference on what to avoid in future. :-/ At some point we're still going to want a polling guideline. --Kim Bruning 04:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like this version. I'm not steeped in this debate and I don't know how this page went from a simple guideline to a complicated essay that was so disputatious that it had to be protected. I think perhaps this page is the victim of overemphasis on process over results, and of writing rules over writing an encyclopedia. If the choice is between a complicated contentious process or nothing, let it be nothing, but can we go back to simpler days? Thatcher131 02:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I don't see why we can't go back to simpler days while the "merge to form" discussion goes forward. (→Netscott) 02:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I actually thought the (current) version Netscott helped with was starting to shape up, It still needed a lot of work of course, but then people dropped the actual work and started playing nomic instead (that kind of sucks). So this MFD is sort of a last resort to make that stop. I'll keep a copy of the wikicode on my local HD, and maybe in a month or two I can salvage some of the good sections (+tidied) for PNSD. :-) --Kim Bruning 02:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm sorry but your language and that of User:Tony Sidaway is rather accusatory here. You must admit that both you and I made efforts to bring Wikipedia:Straw polls into shape but with User:Radiant! making edits that essentially thwarted them, the going was rather difficult. As far as the accusations of Nomic behavior and "gaming", that is just nonsense. Once User:Ned Scott tagged this page for merging with "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" to make one centralized guideline page about polling, to me that made more sense than to have two seperate pages as guidelines for polling. Given that User:David Levy proposed this same exact idea months ago I am particularly convinced that such an idea is logical. (→Netscott) 03:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got a feeling that this one will have to go to arbitration, but I think Kim is right about the gaming. If deleting this obsolete page is enough to stop the disruption, fine. If not, then it'll go where it needs to go. --Tony Sidaway 02:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Netscott. In response to Kim Bruning, if any "gaming" has occurred here, it was making WP:PNSD a guideline even though it has never had consensus. The process of merging WP:PNSD and WP:STRAW into WP:Polling should continue, and not be disrupted by deleting one of them. 6SJ7 02:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You agree there was gaming, then? --Kim Bruning 03:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming that I do, I doubt we agree on who has been doing the gaming or what the consequences should be. And, quite frankly, this MfD seems like part of a game as well. It strikes me as rather amusing that in the middle of this whole discussion of polling, it was you who started this page which, while officially labeled a "discussion", looks a lot like a poll. 6SJ7 03:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This looks like a potentially useful start on a revised guideline on the subject. It appears that until recently, a good deal of productive discussion and editing was occuring here, and i see no reason to assume that can't restart. Clearly this isn't finished yet, but why toss it out? I might add that I think Kim Bruning and perhaps some others misunderstand the nature of Nomic. It was, in fact, originally created as a tool to teach consensus-based decision-makign and governance. (note that in nomic all decisions must be unanimious until there is a unanimious decision to the contrary.) That said there does appear to have been some rather poitless and unproductive edits here recently, but I would hope that could be put behind us. DES (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomic teaches governance mostly by allowing people to Stuff beans up their noses. I'm nominating this particular instance of the page for deletion, because further editing in this atmosphere is simply going to be unproductive. I hope to try again maybe a month from now or so. --Kim Bruning 03:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is nothing wrong with taking a straw poll to determine whether there is support for something. Lately we seem to have a minority veto of proposals becoming guidelines, where shrillness and persistence count for too much. There is much to be said for lining up and counting noses, however much it is asserted that this project is not a democracy. What is the alternative? Autocracy? Anarchy? Caucus race?Edison 03:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The page doesn't say that. In fact it says the opposite. Are you sure you're reading the right page here? ^^;;; --Kim Bruning 03:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Maybe I should stop responding before it looks like I'm responding to everyone... which I probably am <sigh>[reply]
  • Keep. Quite frankly, I don't know what the hell Kim is doing. We're simply trying to have a normal discussion, and he keeps posting bizarre messages about mandating that we wait until next month (or next year) to act, this Nomic game that I've never heard of, and now this.
    For the record, I'm a long-time supporter of Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion (and even suggested the name), but I believe that it could be improved via a merger with some material from Wikipedia:Straw polls (whatever is backed by consensus). I don't appreciate Kim's attempt to divide everyone into two camps ("proponents of Wikipedia:Straw Polls" and "proponents of PNSD"), and I don't know where he got the idea that we delete longstanding project pages (let alone former guidelines) or pages that have been the focus of editing disputes. At worst, if absolutely nothing from any version of the page is consensus-backed, it's an {{essay}} or a {{historical}} record, not a deletion candidate. —David Levy 03:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If by "normal discussion" you include folks trying to get each other banned on the community sanctions noticeboard, and getting their case rejected by the mediation committee, then sure! :-/ --Kim Bruning 03:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're holding all of us accountable for the actions of...what, two users? And what does that have to do with your attempt to delete a longstanding project page? Is that your new solution to every editing dispute — just delete the page? —David Levy 03:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page was never descriptive of anything people were actually doing, so removing it is no big deal. No one was making any kind of effort to restrain or tell off those two users. They rather seemed to be encouraging them. --Kim Bruning 03:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be frantically searching for a solution to a problem that already has been resolved. The nastiness appears to have largely subsided (in favor of constructive discourse that you've continually striven to shut down because you don't realize that the bad part is over). It's as though the flames have been extinguished, but you're running around shouting, "where's the fire?!" and chopping through walls with an axe. —David Levy 04:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd been informed beforehand that this kind of situation might occur. I don't think the current state is at all stable. --Kim Bruning 04:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And your solution for unstable pages is to delete them? —David Levy 04:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying that for this page. Any better idea? --Kim Bruning 04:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Withdraw this disruptive nomination. —David Levy 05:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are accusing me of disruption? (A blockable offence) --Kim Bruning 05:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've openly acknowledged nominating a potentially useful project page for deletion because you're annoyed about an editing dispute. What do you call that? —David Levy 05:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't recall saying that. Could you provide a diff? --Kim Bruning 05:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[2]
That does not say what you claim. --Kim Bruning 06:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In what respect(s)? —David Levy 06:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm mistaken (and the nastiness persists), the proper course of action is to address this matter with the editors involved, not to delete the page that the conflict concerns. —David Levy 04:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That ground has already been covered. Escalated to CSN and MEDCOM requests. --Kim Bruning 04:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and that's over with (and you're tilting at windmills). But if I'm wrong, appropriate measures can be taken to address these users' behavior. Deleting the disputed page (which at least some editors are discussing in good faith) is not such a measure. —David Levy 04:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Define "over with" --Kim Bruning 04:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the nastiness appears to have largely subsided. Why you've gone out of your way to halt the subsequent discussion (in which users with no connection to the aforementioned dispute have participated) is beyond me. —David Levy 05:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather early to draw that conclusion. I don't think it's been more than 24 hours since the medcom rejection. --Kim Bruning 05:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As of this moment, the nastiness is not ongoing. But as I said, if I'm mistaken (and it resumes), feel free to take the appropriate measures to address the two users' problematic behavior. Again, proposing the deletion of a longstanding project page that they happened to be arguing over (and that other editors are discussing in good faith) is not such a measure. —David Levy 05:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see what you're basing your conclusion on that things are not ongoing? You seem terribly convinced. <looks puzzeled> --Kim Bruning 06:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of drama, we were having an ordinary discussion...until you arrived. —David Levy 06:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this never actually was a legitimate guideline, it's still either an {{essay}} or a {{rejected}} proposal. We don't delete such pages. —David Levy 04:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amending to "mark as rejected" is easy. We can do that. --Kim Bruning 04:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that page (in its entirety) has been rejected, and neither do you. This is a disruptive nomination. —David Levy 04:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that page will gain consensus anytime in the next one or two months at least. Do you? --Kim Bruning 04:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but I do know that prohibiting discussion and deleting the page won't bring us any closer to attaining that goal. —David Levy 05:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a balance. It will unblock (rather more productive) discussion occurring elsewhere. --Kim Bruning 05:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't even begin to wrap my mind around that claim. —David Levy 05:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page merge is totally uninteresting. Unfortunately it has now taken up 100% of contributor time, and is not going anywhere. It would be much handier to work on gaining consensus on an NPOV description of best practices. We can worry about trivialities like page titles and final locations again later. Much later. --Kim Bruning 05:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors (myself included) had absolutely nothing to do with the ugly dispute that broke out. We were calmly discussing the idea of merging two longstanding project pages. There was some support and some opposition, but everyone seemed to be getting along. Then you showed up, announced that the situation was hopeless (apparently based solely on the aforementioned dispute between two users), demanded that all discussion cease for at least a month, accused us of playing a game that I'd never even heard of, and nominated one of the pages under discussion for deletion (despite your belief that it contains useful text), again because of a dispute involving two editors.
Now, instead of discussing the potential merger, 100% of my time is being spent debating this with you. —David Levy 06:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO one of the pages in question was/is currently under heavy editing, and merging would be most unwise to begin with. But I'm willing to listen to reasons for merging anyway? --Kim Bruning 06:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that anyone has proposed that Wikipedia:Straw polls be merged in its current form. The idea is to slowly analyze its text (along with previous versions), determine which portions are backed by consensus, merge them into Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion (along with any additional polling information deemed useful) and leave the rest behind. —David Levy 06:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
←

→ It might help to wait until Straw polls settles down then. --Kim Bruning 07:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite troubled by your statements that the page contains text of value (which you're saving on your hard drive), but you want to delete it anyway (because you're annoyed at two of the editors). —David Levy 04:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm troubled too. I'm open to suggestions. --Kim Bruning 04:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about allowing the good-faith merger discussion to continue? —David Levy 04:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That turns out to be a Loaded question. Can you rephrase? --Kim Bruning 04:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that I've been attempting discuss the matter in good faith, and I assume that others (including those with whom I disagree) have acted in kind. —David Levy 05:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to change the subject. :-) I assume you just missed it in passing. Just rephrase the question so it's no longer loaded? --Kim Bruning 05:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you want me to say. If you lack my belief that the users in question (or at least most of us) are acting in good faith, I'm sorry that you've become so cynical. —David Levy 05:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The merger discussion may or may not have started in good faith. Let's assume it's in good faith for now. After seeing what a mess it's made of things, continuing the discussion much longer cannot possibly be seen as good faith anymore. People should drop it for more constructive pursuits. --Kim Bruning 05:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is discussing a good faith (and logical) merger not constructive? I too do not understand your thinking Kim Bruning. Getting the merger under the belt and then continuing in that direction by incorporating the relevant content from Wikipedia:Straw polls (regardless of which version we're talking about) and Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion to make Wikipedia:Polling makes perfect sense from the here on out. (→Netscott) 06:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People have been fighting over this for days now. It's pure Yak shaving. I would gladly cooperate if we could move on to greener pastures? :-) --Kim Bruning 06:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC) pun not intended, honest![reply]
(e/c) Well I see progress, particularly as David Levy brings well reasoned logic to the table and "mediates" the nonsense that had been occuring prior to his deeper involvement of late. I too feel that with more eyes on this and further steps at dispute resolution passed, this prior unproductive cycle has been broken. (→Netscott) 06:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You were one of the people fighting though --Kim Bruning 06:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed there was a dispute that centered around myself and one other editor... (of which we tried to engage you in coming to a resolution over but were dismissed). The state of affairs has progressed since then. (→Netscott) 06:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't/didn't see any further discussions with Radiant though? --Kim Bruning 06:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're conflating a conflict in which most of us played little or no role with the constructive discussion that followed. As I said, the flames had just been extinguished, that that's when you showed up with an axe and began chopping through walls. —David Levy 06:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced of the constructiveness of the disussion. Can you demonstrate how and why it is contructive?
We were calmly expressing our ideas and opinions in an organized fashion...until you appeared, insisted that all hell had broken loose, and demanded that we stop. —David Levy 06:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite certain that I have been tracking the case up to this date. Were you not aware of the Medcom request? ^Demon left a message on my talk page less than 24 hours ago. --Kim Bruning 07:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You and I conversed on its talk page, Kim.
I perceived that request (an attempt at dispute resolution) as the point at which the ugliness died down and sanity began to take hold. With that out of the way, things seemed to be going rather smoothly. —David Levy 07:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The request was denied. Ok, maybe I am a bit cynical :-/ Typically the next thing to happen is that the excrement strikes the ventilation device. --Kim Bruning 07:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A civilized discussion need not be constructive by the way. But alright... what do you hope to gain by merging these pages at this particular point in time? --Kim Bruning 07:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was constructive because we were gaining a better understanding of each other's opinions on how to proceed.
I said nothing about merging the pages now. I merely want to discuss the matter now. The goal is to eventually create a comprehensive polling guideline. —David Levy 07:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
←

→Ok, that's innocuous enough. It did spark a major fight between two established contributors though. I'm also somewhat worried that parties might grasp the merge as an opportunity to insert limited/POV viewpoints (like happened with Wikipedia:Attribution). The failsafe approach is to delete if uncertain. --Kim Bruning 07:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to decide what other people discuss, nor do you get to delete a page because you don't like the fact that people are discussing it. —David Levy 06:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that is entirely correct in abstract, but I don't see how it pertains to the matter at hand? --Kim Bruning 06:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. —David Levy 06:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Straw_polls&oldid=1078599616"