Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:13, 28 February 2020

This is an RfA talk page. While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy. Please remain calm and civil in discussions on both pages, avoiding personal attacks and harassment. Uninvolved administrators can still fully intervene in RfAs. Discussions should stay on-topic; consider moving or continuing discussions that are going off-topic elsewhere. Move discussions not germane to the candidacy here, then link them with {{subst:rfan|dm|name of section header}}, indented to the original vote. Be conservative in using the template; obvious trolls and disruptive participants need not be noticed. Otherwise, avoid starting discussions here if they would be of interest to RfA participants and can fit on the main RfA page; generally, discussions should begin at the "General comments" section or as an indented reply to a vote.

Lightburst's oppose

1. Oppose The amount of delete !votes at AfD and virtually non-existent keep !votes is reason enough. We are building an encyclopedia, not erasing an encyclopedia. Also strong oppose per Ritchie333's remarks above. Lightburst (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

   Lightburst, After the rhetorical comment above, I suppose you will also start an RfC next to rename AfD (D for deletion) into AfC (C for creation) cuz, hey, we are here to build, not to erase. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 08:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

   Your sarcasm is noted. Some editors know that many nominated articles should not be deleted. Simply because they are in AfD does not mean they are unworthy. You are free to !vote as you see fit, as am I. The candidate only found 7 articles out of 555 !votes worthy of keeping: that is a problem. Additionally Ritchie333 has raised a valid concern in their !vote, and I appreciate and respect the opinion. Carry on. Lightburst (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

   It’s 7 out of the last 200, not all 555. And once you remove their own nominations (from NPP), it becomes 7 out of 76, or about 10% keeps, which lines up perfectly with our project wide average of 90%+ of AFDs being deleted (because editors generally don’t nominate keeps). So, their keep percentage is normal. Hence why reflexively voting based on AFD stats is not recommended. Levivich (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

   Levivich, Fuzzy math which is twisted to make a point. Sadly your wrong about AfDs and about the !voting record of the candidate. The editor visited 555 AfDs and deemed 7 worthy of keeping, and !voted 2 speedy keeps. Feel free to make some contributions to the encyclopedia's content now, these un-instructive comments are wasting bytes. Lightburst (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

   Lightburst, it's not fuzzy math, it's math. Look at the AFD stats. That's not "7 out of 555", it's "7 out of the last 200". Then from there, you have to remove the editor's own nominations. OBVIOUSLY an editor can't !vote keep on their own nominations. Out of the list of their last 200, you can see that 124 are their own nominations, and 76 are not their own nominations. So out of their last 200 – 76 of which weren't their own nominations – they !voted keep 7 times. Hence, 7 out of 76. Oppose if you want, but your statement that The candidate only found 7 articles out of 555 !votes worthy of keeping is demonstrably, factually incorrect. It's 7 out of 76. And just to prove that it's not "7 out of 555", here are links to 9 keep !votes they cast: (ironically, the last one was their own nom). Also, your statement that The editor visited 555 AfDs and deemed 7 worthy of keeping is equally wrong. They did not "visit" 555 AFDs; of those 555, something like 245 were their own nominations . (The AFD tool is not entirely accurate, so all of these numbers should be taken with a grain of salt.) But bottom line: the allegation that they visited 555 and voted keep 7 times is just not true. You should strike your factually-inaccurate accusations and revise your !vote rationale accordingly. Levivich (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

   Your tendency be tedious is a maddening tactic. Interpreting the data to suit your opinion does not change the fact that the candidate is a deletionist. My !vote and rationale stands as posted. I base part of my oppose on Ritchie's points as well. As an editor in good standing I should be free to !vote without histrionic screeching and sarcasm. Lightburst (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

   Lightburst, you need to stop making comments like the fact that the candidate is a deletionist. Labelling and dividing up editors into factions is not OK. There is no place in a collegial environment for this kind of persistent battleground mentality. Misplaced Pages is NOT a battleground between inclusionists and deletionists. Levivich (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

   You're accusing Levivich of all the stuff you're doing. Reyk _YO! 05:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

   I don't understand what is a patroller supposed to do...? Patrol the page, see the page meets deletion criteria, and go - oh well, the wiki needs this page, let's pretend this article is okay. Inclusionists advocating for inclusion of articles that deserve to be kept make sense, otherwise it's just equivalent to hoarding garbage. --qedk (t 桜 c) 05:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

   Levivich Actually there is one scenario where you can vote keep on your own nomination: noms you complete on behalf of IP editors, who can't do it themselves. I've sometimes come back later to put in an actual vote. Here is one where I ended up voting keep. The AfD stats tool does seem to interpret these correctly though. Reyk _YO! 05:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

   Lightburst, No, although My own Keep count is much much higher than him, I dont really see that as a problem. Here is a scenario that I can think of. It might be the case that he tries to actively avoid controversial AfDs and only participates, in those AfDs that he thinks are sure to be deleted and casts a delete vote there. This sort of strategy perfectly explains the low Keep count and I dont see anything wrong with it. If he has regularly made terribly bad calls at AfD then those must be pointed. But opposing due to this reason is not valid, which is why I had replied. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 18:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Lightburst might I remind you about a recent discussion we had about civility? Levivich hasn't asked you to change your vote, and he hasn't made any personal comments about you - he pointed out a factual error in the statistics you quoted to justify your vote, and followed up with diffs to demonstrate that your figure is indeed unambiguously wrong. You have responded with a number of uncivil remarks - saying he is tedious, accusing him of screaming histrionics, etc. I find this level of hostility in response to a civil approach quite shocking, and I'd seriously like you to consider your attitude here. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Second that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Note that WP:CFD used to be "Categories for deletion" years ago, but was rightly changed to "Categories for discussion", neating avoiding renaming the acronyms etc. Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)