Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Z

This proposal should be dropped. It's clearly an attempt to make certain users' votes count "double", so that even if some specific proposals they oppose pass on their own, the proposals may still be killed by this one. This is gaming the system. — Gwalla | Talk 5 July 2005 21:57 (UTC)

If you think this is "gaming the system", then why not offer a counter-proposal that proposes we accept them all? I can barely express in civil discourse how frustrated this "shotgun a bunch of new deletion proposals through" approach makes me. This is awful, poor form, and contrary to the Wikipedia way of doing things.

Each of these points deserves to be intelligently discussed individually rather than throwing a bunch up on the wall and seeing what sticks. Vote... run... vote... run... no intelligent conversation will develop, but someone gets "pot odds" that at least one of their ideas will stick because of their unconventional approach. Look for more of this sort of thing in the future if we tolerate it now. Unfocused 6 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)

Actually, it's entirely the WP way of doing things. It is precisely the manner in which the WP is being written. Everybody throws their article at the WP wall, and those that stick, stay. Those that peel off, don't. Nobody would offer a counter-proposal to accept them all, because it is apparent that some of them are flawed (just as some articles are). It is equally apparent that some of them are very good proposals, though not flawless (just as many articles are), and nobody should support a proposal suggesting that every single one of them is wrong (try suggesting the same about article space). -Splash 6 July 2005 16:12 (UTC)

I agree completely. This is how Wikipedia does things. VfD isn't one decision per day, after all. Neither is FAC. Neither is Pages Needing Translation, or RC patrol, or New Pages patrol. And all of these are happening simultaneously. This is no different. — Gwalla | Talk 6 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)

Surely you recognize the difference between article generation and policy creation. Fecal matter adhesion tests by propulsion and impact against vertical surfaces are poor substitutes for actually discussing the desired policy changes individually, and garnering consensus on each. The underlying structures of Wikipedia have always been built in a much more deliberative fashion than the articles. That's why the policies are so much more stable than the articles. Unfocused 6 July 2005 18:00 (UTC)

People are discussing the policy changes individually. You're acting like these policies are being unilaterally imposed, when that is obviously not the case. — Gwalla | Talk 7 July 2005 20:23 (UTC)

A few are discussing these changes. Most participants are only commenting their votes. There is a very big difference between leaving a comment that explains one's vote and actually discussing an issue. Polls are evil is the relevant article that makes it very clear that this is not the intended method for the Wiki to function. Please read it carefully. Unfocused 7 July 2005 20:57 (UTC)

I'm not going to make a proposal that we accept them all, because I don't think we should. I agree that each should be discussed individually, although I find your conclusion that the best way to do that is to reject them all out of hand slightly bizarre. Blanket votes make for bad decisions. — Gwalla | Talk 6 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)

I've no idea what Gwalla means by his accusation. Honestly no idea, and I find the insinuation rather offensive. When I found out that our discussions had become a vote, I looked down the list to see if there was anything that I could support, and there wasn't, so I added my own proposal. This has produced a vote and associated discussion on an opinion shared by quite a few editors on Wikipedia, some of them with substantially more experience than mine. I expressed this opinion pretty early on and throughout discussion. I have no idea why it was not included in the list of proposals produced by Radiant, for he has been aware of my opinion for some time and quite aware that I regarded this move to extend the CSD's as ill-conceived and potentially very damaging. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 6 July 2005 15:52 (UTC)

If you don't agree with the proposals, vote against them. Voting against them and also trying to get them all thrown out is essentially doubling your vote. Individual proposals should be judged on their own merits. — Gwalla | Talk 6 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)

The wording of this proposal doesn't seem to require that the other proposals be killed should this one pass. -- Joolz 6 July 2005 18:17 (UTC)

Then what does it require? If you remove that interpretation, all that's left is a symbolic vote that means nothing. — Gwalla | Talk 7 July 2005 20:23 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. All votes are symbolic and mean nothing. It is consensus we're after, not votes. That's why this mass vote is so bothersome to many of us. It appears to be contrary to some of the principles that Wikipedia is founded on. Unfocused 7 July 2005 21:03 (UTC)

That was my point, it doesn't require anything, it's just a general statement. Voting for it *is* symbolic. -- Joolz 7 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)

Precisely. Joolz is right about the nature of surveys ("votes") on Wikipedia. They're not so much decision-making apparatus as a way of establishing a consensus.

I was involved in the discussion. I looked down the list of proposals and didn't see anything that reflected my opinion--that this whole has the air of a solution in search of a problem. So I added my opinion as a poll option and a substantial minority seem to agree with me (which is fine). Now I don't want to force anyone to vote for it, but I do welcome discussion on this matter, which happens to be my honestly held opinion as an experienced editor, VfD participant, occasional closer, occasional RC patrollers, and (lately) resurrector of bad speedies. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 8 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)