I'd rather have Kappa, a deletionist and a mergist decide. Mgm On 1/22/06, Haukur Þorgeirsson <haukurth(a)hi.is> wrote:

geni (geniice(a)gmail.com) [060123 06:05]: Doing so is what got us into the present problems and hence just isn't going to happen. - d.

Snowspinner (Snowspinner(a)gmail.com) [060123 06:08]: You hate me! You really hate me! I'm sure everyone would hate my opinions equally. Besides, since you are agreeing with me this obviously indicates cabalism. Also, just to piss even more people off, I'll probably delegate large chunks of the job to Tony. - d.

Snowspinner (Snowspinner(a)gmail.com) [060123 06:18]: I'm so adding that to my user page under "Jobs". - d.

An interesting idea but the research needed to study every single AfD case, read the discussion and make an informed decision to keep or delete is far far beyond what a single person can accomplish. We need lots of experienced people doing that job. Which is exactly the system we currently have. I very much encourage David, Tony, Phil and anyone else concerned with the decisions and discussions at AfD, to participate in the discussions and/or close nominations. They don't need any special powers beyond those of normal admins. If you bring up a good case for keeping an article, AfD will keep the article most of the time. I'd say the biggest problem with AfD is the labels thrown around - "vanity", "non-notable", "ad" etc. - nasty to read for the subjects of the articles. Blanking the discussions after they're done will help a lot. Regards, Haukur

Certainly. And he already has that power, I'd encourage him to use it. Though if the objective is to build a friendlier, more polite AfD then "what the hell are you smoking" might not be the best phrase :) A lot of the deletions Tony and others have been raising issues about were uncontroversial at the time they went through AfD. Nomination, '''delete''', '''delete''', '''delete''' and it's gone. Controversial things usually get kept the way the system is designed, though I admit that there are exceptions. Regards, Haukur

Oh, this is a really bad idea. We don't need set up a special AfD Czar to smite people. Anyone who is "disruptive" on AfD can be dealt with using the methods we use to deal with people anywhere else on Wikipedia.

Only if we expand the speedy deletion criteria accordingly. We really don't want to deal with a three month backlog of garage bands and ads for Bob's Muffler Shop. On 1/22/06, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:

David Gerard (fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au) [060123 10:38]: Gmaxwell has left the project, which is annoying for many reasons, and this reason is because the scripts and such he was running are on the toolserver. But here's two diagrams to start you off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Articles_distinct_histo.png That's how many editors per article. Note that ALMOST ALL articles have one editor, maybe two. And only 200 or so have over 100 editors (123 over 1000 editors), and almost all those are way overedited for the wiki process (e.g. G.W. Bush, which is THE busiest article on the wiki and arguably pathological). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Articles_distinct.png - same thing as above in CDF. Breakdown of editors per article. - d.

David Gerard (fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au) [060123 10:52]: I just asked Kim's permission to quote from him on #wikimedia last night. At the end is the URL with the original data, bz2 compressed (16MB file, expands to about 70-odd MB). I've deleted the words of everyone except Kim and myself. Also, Kim wants to note that: [23:58] <kim_register> you can take my irc discussion too if you like [23:59] <kim_register> though note that I'm a lot less collected on irc [23:59] <kim_register> so with disclaimer [23:59] <kim_register> and I reserve the right to not mean half of what I said ;-) Note also that all credit for the heavy lifting on this one goes to gmaxwell. - d. [23:41] <kim_register> I have something cool to show him that gmaxwell drew ^^;; [00:03] <kim_register> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Articles_distinct_histo.png [00:03] <kim_register> BINGO! [00:03] <kim_register> most articles are only edited by a couple of users [00:03] <kim_register> do you see, do you SEE how far left that single peak is? [00:03] <kim_register> it's almost invisible [00:03] <kim_register> OMG this is cool! [00:03] * kim_register raves [00:04] <kim_register> death to all the wikidemocracy folks [00:04] <kim_register> long live consensus! [00:04] <kim_register> (well, maybe not death to them, but...) [...] [00:05] <kim_register> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Articles_distinct.png [00:05] <kim_register> heres a [[CDF]] view [00:06] <kim_register> GOAAAL [00:06] <kim_register> I mean wooohooo [00:06] <kim_register> sorry [00:06] <kim_register> :-) [00:06] <kim_register> I'm so happy :-) [00:07] <kim_register> thank Gmaxwell too :-) [00:19] <kim_register> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Articles_distinct_loghisto.png [00:19] <kim_register> here's a scaled one [00:19] <kim_register> it's LOG SCALED, so be DARN careful interpreting it, if you're not used to log scaling [00:20] <kim_register> I'm noting how many editors edit each article [00:20] <kim_register> This basically shows that most articles have few editors [00:21] <kim_register> brian0918, I'm using them to show that consensus will still work [00:21] <kim_register> and the whole voting thing is silly [00:21] <kim_register> so we don't need to make drastic policy changes "because the wiki is too big now" [00:21] <kim_register> all that is pure nonsense, is what these graphs prove [00:21] <kim_register> the wiki segments conversations into small managable areas that can be handled by consensus [00:22] <kim_register> brian0918, well, we'll do some more graphs [00:22] <kim_register> but these are pretty darn indicative already [00:22] <kim_register> I don't expect to see drastically different results elsewhere [00:22] <kim_register> if it's this clear here [00:22] <kim_register> it's not going to differ by orders of magnitude elsewhere :-) [00:25] <kim_register> oh gosh [00:25] <kim_register> anyway, I love these graphs [00:27] <kim_register> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Articles_distinct_logcdf.png [00:27] <kim_register> tricky to read one [00:27] <kim_register> (01:27:05) nullc: well there really is only one thing to say.. [00:27] <kim_register> (01:27:12) Kim Bruning: yeah [00:27] <kim_register> (01:27:17) nullc: that articles have few editors. [00:27] <kim_register> (01:27:21) Kim Bruning: *grin* [00:32] <kim_register> * 67.20% have been edited by less than 10 distinct Users/IPs. [00:32] <kim_register> * 86.07% have been edited by less than 20 distinct Users/IPs. [00:32] <kim_register> * 91.90% have been edited by less than 30 distinct Users/IPs. [00:32] <kim_register> * 99.21% have been edited by less than 150 distinct Users/IPs. [00:33] <kim_register> 01:33:12) nullc: 72% of the articles have 11 editors or less. [00:36] <kim_register> so we'll throw out all articles with > 200 editors [00:36] <kim_register> that's maybe 100 or so [00:36] <kim_register> and then see the new graphs [00:36] <kim_register> this is kinda cool ;-) [00:37] <kim_register> I'm willing to bet that the >200 editor set also has trouble with NPOV [00:37] <kim_register> as well as many other things [00:46] <kim_register> Ok, so based on this alone [00:46] <kim_register> normal wikipedia policy should be consensus consensus consensus [00:46] <kim_register> large pages can best be split and transcluded [00:47] <kim_register> transcluded sections will survive AFD anyway, since even those will have like 50 editors or so [00:47] <kim_register> this way we can keep a consistent and coherent policy across the entire encyclopedia namespace [00:47] <kim_register> now we need to consistentize in wikipedia namespace [00:47] <kim_register> this has low priority in theory [00:47] <kim_register> but is going to be tricky in practice [00:47] <kim_register> but like WOOT [00:47] <kim_register> love those numbers! [00:47] <kim_register> yippee! [00:48] <kim_register> we don't need to change much at all, even though we've grown so much! [00:50] <kim_register> well I need to get some cooperative fire support [00:50] <kim_register> you're already helping keep them down ;-) [00:50] <kim_register> I'll have to recruit some more :-) [00:50] <kim_register> I'll start one by one :-) [01:18] <DavidGerard> kim_register: that's fantastic to read [01:19] <DavidGerard> and squares with my experience also: articles are either contentious or ghost towns [01:19] <DavidGerard> with a few in between [01:25] <kim_register> yes [01:25] <kim_register> we're going to have so much fun fixing policy this year :-) [01:25] <kim_register> I'd love to have special dispensation from jimbo though [01:25] <kim_register> otherwise it's going to be hell fighting through wikinomic [01:26] <kim_register> alternately we can just start policy from scratch [01:26] <kim_register> though that too might have some downsides... [01:26] <kim_register> but basically, the graphs show that wikipedia policy will still work [01:26] <kim_register> and that it scales well [01:26] <kim_register> our job is to make sure it STAYS that way ;-) [01:29] <kim_register> DavidGerard, I have the base dataset in my mailbox now. Do you want me to forward you a copy? [01:31] <DavidGerard> nonono, i believe your graphs ;-) what I'm interested in is your writeup [01:31] <DavidGerard> kim_register: jimbo is just a little tired of wikinomic [01:32] <DavidGerard> the stupidity and shittiness of afd is now causing wikipedia lots of real world problems [01:32] <DavidGerard> i.e., the foundation is getting a lot of mail from the aggrieved [01:32] <DavidGerard> and then the fuckwits tried CFDing [[Category:Living people]] or whatever it was called [01:32] <DavidGerard> and jimbo killed the CFD [01:32] <DavidGerard> and it was *recreated* [01:32] <DavidGerard> THREE TIMES [01:33] <DavidGerard> and jimbo saw what moronic shit was said on that CFD [01:33] <DavidGerard> and thunder and lightning came down from the heavens. [01:33] <kim_register> hello mindspillage , greg is messing with lovely pristine numbers. Maybe might be fun if you could help him out :-) [01:33] <kim_register> DavidGerard, *ghrin* [01:33] <kim_register> DavidGerard, what kinda writeup are you expecting btw? [01:33] <DavidGerard> AFD is about to discover that the rest of wikipedia does in fact have a few things to say about the standard of behaviour there. [01:34] <kim_register> and I mean, there's a zillion bits of info :-) [01:34] <kim_register> that we haven't explored yet [01:34] <kim_register> but the graph with the single peak all the way left .. [01:34] <kim_register> that does it for me [01:34] <kim_register> DavidGerard, I'm going to propose killing all > 100 participant pages, one way or the other [01:34] <DavidGerard> kim_register: hah! [01:34] <kim_register> DavidGerard, still need data for wikimedia namespace to be sure that's a great idea [01:35] <DavidGerard> permanent semiprotect? [01:35] <kim_register> no, I mean kill [01:35] <kim_register> as in mark as deprecated [01:35] <DavidGerard> hmm. [01:35] <kim_register> use a different system [01:35] <DavidGerard> :-O [01:35] <DavidGerard> gosh! [01:35] <DavidGerard> case my case please [01:35] <DavidGerard> case by case i mean [01:35] <DavidGerard> but may basically be a good idea [01:36] <kim_register> Well, there are roughly 100-200 cases to consider [01:36] <kim_register> guesstimating by current data [01:36] <kim_register> actually probably much less [01:36] <kim_register> articles as a general case can be split up and transcluded [01:37] <kim_register> leaving only wikipedia namespace stuff [01:37] <kim_register> the latter hasn't been looked at [01:37] <kim_register> not yet [01:37] <kim_register> so these are prelim findings so far :-) [01:37] <kim_register> wikipedia namespace will need some case by case work on splitting, yes :-) [01:38] <kim_register> for all the *FDs, we can replace the whole lot with true wiki deletion I'll wager [01:38] <kim_register> some people will hate it :-) [01:38] <kim_register> mindspillage, we'd need to check stats on that :-) [01:38] <kim_register> DavidGerard, but it would be too early to say things about wikipedia namespace [01:39] <kim_register> in any case, on articles, there should be no problems even now [01:39] <DavidGerard> well. gosh! [01:40] <DavidGerard> i eagerly await your writeup ;-) [01:42] <kim_register> LOL [01:42] <kim_register> I HATE WRITEUPS [01:43] <DavidGerard> cut'n'paste your comments here. or get greg to write it up ;-) [01:47] <DavidGerard> if you make preliminary notes and make your data available (as available as you can), then that will be enough for fun [01:47] <kim_register> grin The data file: http://bruning.xs4all.nl/~kim/kim_query1.bz2 [02:10] <kim_register> page_id | distinct_editors | oldest_revision | rev_count | [02:10] <kim_register> 2004_distinct | 2004_rev_count | 2003_distinct | 2003_rev_count | [02:10] <kim_register> 2002_distinct | 2002_rev_count [02:11] <kim_register> (this is the key to the bz2 file)

"David Gerard" &lt;fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au&gt; wrote in message news:20060123002455.GO27338@thingy.apana.org.au... [snip] Certain editors of my acquaintance will be shitting breeze blocks at this. They know who they are, and they hate templates (hates them precious!). Permission to express grim satisfaction at their pained expression as they squeeze that lump of concrete through their back passage, SAH! -- Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]

Of those 200 per day, how many /should/ be on afd? As opposed to speedyable or should have been dealt with another way (e.g. merge). -Matt On 1/22/06, Rob &lt;gamaliel8(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 1/22/06, Tony Sidaway &lt;f.crdfa(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: That reminds me. Why are people allowed to vote Merge or Redirect on AfD in the first place? -- I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.

On 1/22/06, David Gerard &lt;fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au&gt; wrote: You are channeling me! Stop it!

Haukur Þorgeirsson (haukurth(a)hi.is) [060123 06:33]: Presumably this would only be questioned cases. I am not going to spend a substantial amount of my time exposing myself to that many stupid articles in need of an urgent death. - d.

The blocking administrator for good cause. Fred On Jan 22, 2006, at 11:26 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

geni wrote: Let's just say that given I've been keeping [[WP:AFD/Old]] backlog free for a week, I've seen more than my fair share of priceless AfDs. John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])

On 1/23/06, SCZenz &lt;sczenz(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Deletion review already has powers of content review (which it inherited from its predecessor, Votes for undeletion) under the deletion policy. This fact is not well known and is routinely denied by regular users of that forum. The culture of DRV is in a worse state than that of AFD and it's far more process-bound; I'd suggest that looking there for a solution would be a mistake.

On 1/23/06, SCZenz &lt;sczenz(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Oh even if we had a working process, this wouldn't limit the scope of action of individual administrators and editors. The processes are only supposed to be there to make things easier; let's not fetishize them as an end in themselves.

On 1/23/06, SCZenz &lt;sczenz(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Afd gives all a hand in the process. After I've done a resurrection it's a doddle to tag it for deletion (which sometimes I do anyhow as a matter of form). The response is usually very highly supportive. See for instance the results of the second AfDs of Tally and SuperOffice. The near-unanimous vote to keep in each case is not untypical of my resurrections.

On 1/23/06, SCZenz &lt;sczenz(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I don't have a great overweening analysis of the thing, I just undelete good stuff that gets deleted (and I've had to do too much of that, recently). What I've said on this and other threads is that I agree with the idea of defetishizing the deletion process. I've expressed support for the idea of letting people cut an AfD short by make obvious merges and redirects, for instance.

On 1/23/06, SCZenz &lt;sczenz(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Doesn't work. As you say, what's obvious to one isn't obvious to most. I think we should give editors the ability to edit through the AfD, and let the results speak for themselves. Our greatest asset is the skill of our editors. Show, don't tell. You talk of people feeling disenfranchised because they're not included in a discussion, but if all they have to say is "nn delete" when an article clearly contains salvageable material, I don't think it's a bad thing that they should feel that nobody is taking any notice.

How about we look at a crap UNdeletion nomination, to show that process is not entirely a fetish of the "deletionists." [[Gfxvoid]], currently on [[Wikipedia:Deletion review]]. An article about a non-notable forum which fails [[WP:WEB]] guidelines and received a pile of delete votes - a metric crapload of deletion votes, including speedy deletion votes. Not a single keep vote was cast. An admin sensibly speedily deleted the article and closed the debate. Now here we have it thrown up on Deletion Review for no other reason than "non-notable, spam is not a CSD criterion." Well, so what? I think this just even further proves Tony and David's point, that the deletion process is hopelessly overbureaucratized. -FCYTravis

Maybe there are a few specific problems--like the ones Jimbo identified recently--that can be addressed quickly, and then more discussion about what to do with the "culture"? I don't see the need for the kind of sweeping changes you've suggested. SCZenz On 1/23/06, David Gerard &lt;fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au&gt; wrote: