Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GRider/Schoolwatch

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:GRider/Schoolwatch and User:GRider/Colleagues

Highly inappropriate user page. GRider is making a deliberate attempt to subvert the VfD process, by contacting dozens of people whom he believes would agree with him, and asking them to vote. check his contrib log. This is very similar to those cases where an article on an internet forum is put up for deletion, and people on that forum are asked to come here to vote. I should point out that an Arbitration process is underway against GRider for his abuse of VfD and abusing WP to make a point.

To establish a consensus on a group of articles, one should put them up in a public place (such as RfC, a WikiProject, or policy consensus on VfD). What is being done here is the opposite - not finding a consensus, but trying to out-shout the other party. He is also unilaterally removing opposing opinions from this page (diff here).

From the VfD Guide, "The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action. The votes are a means to gauge consensus, and not the ends in themselves (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a democracy)."

Radiant_* 08:53, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with some points of the complaint against GRider ,but I feel this falls within the bounds of the acceptable. It's on his own user page, and while there are limits, I don't find this all that objectionable. Why, indeed, should he be prevented from notifying people who might be interested in a particular vote but don't follow vfd? I quote from Wikipedia:User page:
You can also use your user page to help you use Wikipedia more effectively: so you can use it to list "to do" information, work in progress, reminders, useful links, and so forth. It's also good for experimenting with markup (a personal Wikipedia:Sandbox).
Another use is to let people know about your activities and opinions on Wikipedia. So you might include current plans, a journal of recent activities on Wikipedia, and your opinions on how certain Wikipedia articles or policies should be changed.

GRider, whatever my opinions of his methods, has every right to his user page, within the wide boundaries we've set as a community, and I don't see what he's doing as all that inappropriate. There's a big difference between inviting people to spam and inviting established editors to make their voices known. Keep this page. Meelar (talk) 09:31, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, I can't agree there. There's a big difference between putting something on your userpage to tell people what you're doing, and actively engaging in ballot-stuffing, which is the only purpose these two pages can hope to serve, particularly when you look at "what links here" on the Schoolwatch page and find that it's been spammed to other users' talk pages in a deliberate attempt to get a sympathetic hearing for each case. You might want to check the wikipolitical stance of each of those members that have received a message on their talk page pointing to this. Precedent in the past has been to delete material which interferes with or attempts to get around VfD, so I see no exception in this case. Chris 11:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Meelar has a point, however there is a difference here. When an article of <foo> is nominated, it would make sense to alert some fans of <foo> because they can explain why the article should be kept. But GRider does not get people to explain something, he gets people who simply vote as he does. I know that high schools are a controversial issue, but this is not the way to resolve it, as it only encourages factionalism. Next thing you know the other faction will be similarly gathering votes to 'balance' it, and the result would only be that VfD gets even fuller than it is already. Radiant_* 14:11, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I regard this Vfd as an attempt to get around the Vfd process by restricting discussions and votes to hardcore vfd users. Kappa 12:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Discount vote as user is involved in said jury-rigging. It is not an attempt to restrict discussions. It is an attempt to stop one user from flooding VfD with users with a specific agenda to keep anything and everything, even beyond the point of common sense. Chris 13:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • What, my vote is to be discounted because some guy talks to me on my user page? Kappa 13:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • You've been approached by GRider for his crusade, and by all accounts it looks like you've taken the bait. How do we know this vote is independent, and not a result of being motivated into action? In the latter case, your vote would essentially be a vote by GRider, by proxy. Chris 13:30, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • So motivation is now banned from VFD? One cannot even mention a vote to other users? Absurd! --L33tminion | (talk) 01:20, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
          • Er, Chris, Kappa is well-known to frequent VfD and to vote on a large amount of articles. I would assume his vote is in good faith, and see no reason for discounting it. Radiant_* 14:11, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Polls are evil, Wikipedia:Don't vote on everything, and in conclusion, Voting Is Evil. The majority has no claim to the truth. Until policy is enforced and VfD is deleted, Keep. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Discount vote as user is involved in said jury-rigging. Chris 13:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, there is nothing that prevents people who support deleting schools from keeping that page on their watchlists. - SimonP 14:27, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The argument that this page amounts to vote-stacking is nonsense, since deletionists can just as easily keep it on their watchlists as keepers can. If it is actively maintained it is a useful resource for anyone interested in the issue. It would be even better to make a policy about school articles and stick to it so that we don't have to bother with this silly dispute. --Zero 14:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep. This has gone way too far... This entire nomination is invalid and should be delisted immediately. There is nothing wrong in the slightest with someone publishing a list of articles to be improved upon within their own personal namespace. The argument that making such an improvement list is an attempt at vote stacking is a logical fallacy: deletionists can place it on their watchlist too, just as Zero points out. As much as I would like to assume good faith, it seems as if this listing is nothing short of an attempt at revenge by a small minority, and that's a shame. Inclusionism is not a crime. —RaD Man (talk) 16:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP! this is no more invalid than a list of schools on the Inclusionist page on Meta! I strongly resent this being listed on VfD. How about if we all go list everything in radiant's namespace? It'd be doing the exact same thing. Radiant this petty revenge crap has to stop now.  ALKIVAR™ 16:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • No personal attacks please, Alkivar. This is a legitimate concern that you may or may not share, but it certainly isn't revenge. I wouldn't even know what it could possibly be revenge for, since GRider hasn't done anything personally against me, to the best of my knowledge. Radiant_* 21:56, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, user space. --SPUI (talk) 16:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not a big fan of people acting as a self-appointed party whip to get votes in order on a topic, but it is not a blatant violation of any policy. I admit I've been tempted to do the same at times, particularly when a worthless article is a single vote from deletion, but I have refrained. If GRider wants to then there's not much anyone can do. At times I've asked users to add their comments to discussions, which I think is perfectly fine, and this is only a bit beyond that. In any case, I've seen similar things on others user pages, without issue made. As a final note, I do find it rather poor to insist other's votes not be counted because they were solicited by GRider. I'm sure many would have voted to keep either way. -R. fiend 16:41, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as VFD has no jurisdiction over userspace. If you have a dispute with a user, take it to RFC or arbitration. — Dan | Talk 16:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. There are really two separate questions this VFD raises:
(1) Should Wikipedia have a formal policy against informing like-minded voters of the existence of VFDs?
I would say "No." Because VFDs are not simple majority votes, it is technically not possible to stack the vote. If GRider's "Colleagues" raise intelligent valid points on a VFD page, their voices should be heard. And if they don't, admins are free to ignore them in reaching a decision.
Perhaps more importantly, I believe that the ethos of Wikipedia is inherently pro-information, rather than anti-information. I object to many of GRiders other actions--but in this particular case, he is simply providing information to people he believes may be interested in it. If you disapprove of the results, I'd encourage you to find a response that increases the spread of information (EG, noting possible bias of contributors in VFD; encouraging people with your views to participate in VFDs) rather than decreases it (by attempting to hamper GRider's efforts to communicate with other Wikipedians.)
(2)In the absense of such a policy, should a VFD be used to forcibly remove parts of a userpage?
I would say "No" in the strongest possible terms. Tampering with a user's personal page should be done only in the most severe cases, and it seems self-evident that a rule must exist before violation of it can be considered severe.

--Jacobw 16:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: I think this nomination ignore the fact that it's perfectly legitimate to improve articles while on Vfd, and the sooner that happens the better for the article's prospects. I'm not sure how many of the "colleagues" have actually worked on schol articles under threat, but I certainly have, and I'd work on more if they weren't going be deleted anyway. Kappa 17:10, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Editors should be welcome to keep lists of articles in their user spaces. There is certainly a valid concern that GRider pushes the bounds of acceptable behaviour on VfD (RfC1, RfC2, RfAr) but I can't really argue with his right to maintain a personal list of articles. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Futile. Besides the above, almost all of which is valid anyway, deletion would do nothing to prevent GRider from continuing to spam post lists of schools on vfd to scores of user talk pages. —Korath (Talk) 18:30, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. While I am reluctant to mess with people's user space, we wouldn't tolerate such obvious vote stacking coming from a message board or another website, so we are hypocrites if we tolerate it here. Gamaliel 18:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • reluctant Keep. While I am strongly against the notion of vote garnering, I do not believe these pages in and of themselves should be deleted. Vote garnering is bad because it sets a bad precedent. I could find a bunch of people who think that all pokemon articles should be deleted, and then notify them whenever one is nominated. You can say that vfd isn't a majority vote rules situation, but the number of votes one way or another still influenecs the outcome. There is nothing wrong with the existance of these pages. It is the way GRider uses them that is wrong. As such, mention this in his RfC and keep. DaveTheRed 19:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I find it useful to know what schools are up for VfD so I can vote "delete" on them. Further, there is no basis in the VfD policy for deleting this page. --Carnildo 20:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • VfD is a very large page. Nominator, please ensure any future nominations are legitimate borderline articles that it is ambiguous whether policy requires us to keep or delete the article. This isn't. Pcb21| Pete 21:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • This could arguably fall under the 'inappropriate user page', nor am I the only one who thinks so. Nomination is valid, even if consensus says keep. That happens. Radiant_* 21:56, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • Many apologies to you, I had forgotten that was included on vfdable things (though I do think it should be somewhere else really). Under the circumstances you were within your rights to post the vfd.
  • Keep. Except when inappropriate, what users do in their own userspace is their business. This is certainly not inappropriate. →Iñgōlemo← talk 00:24, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
  • Okay, point taken. Let me put it differently... frequently, articles on schools are submitted to VfD. For reasons that elude me, this is apparently the single most controversial thing on VfD. Any school nomination gets a number of axiomatic votes (e.g. keep, school and delete, school) and several have turned into shouting matches. Would it be possible to establish a consensus on this, rather than to keep repeating this almost daily? Radiant_* 21:56, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. User space. RickK 00:43, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Keep. It's user space, the notion of deleting these pages strikes me as a little too far-fetched. Nevertheless, I'd like to make clear that I consider this a perfectly legit nomination. Wikipedia_is_not_an_experiment_in_democracy: vote stacking is absolutely repproachable, contradicts the consensus driven approach that is the core of Wikipedia's philosophy, and should be avoided, even if it targets other editors. Gathering people to vote Keep or Delete is not the proper way to settle this dispute over the notability of schools. I've been constantly concerned these last few days that VfD might eventually become the battlefield between inclusionists and deletionists, and not a place for arguments and discussion. VladMV ٭ talk 04:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If it's not a personal attack or harassment in some way you can put it on your user page. The only way a user's page should be deleted is for the offensive username criteria, clear harassment or an arbcom judgment. However, this does show why simple vote-counting on VfD is probably a bad idea (thought I admit I don't have a better). Demi T/C 10:03, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
  • mild keep. This is a separate issue to the spamming (which I am totally against). I am not in favour of an automatic keep (or delete) for schools - it should be a vote on the individual article. To try and provide balance I have this page on my watchlist, and have mentioned it on a couple of VfDs, and I've also placed a link to it at m:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. Thryduulf 10:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • After further consideration, including GRider's behaviour elsewhere, others comments on this page, and the comments on several school deletion articles currently ongoing, I am changing my vote to strong delete. Thryduulf 01:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Can someone tell me why we won't accept this kind of behaviour from message boards, but we will accept it here? Anyone care to say why someone going to a message board outside and soliciting comment from sympathetic users is different from someone soliciting comment from sympathetic users on WP? Ultimately, sending this message out to "deletionists" as well as "inclusionists" (I don't particularly like to use those terms, I prefer to think of them as "people not using their common sense" and "people without any common sense" respectively) doesn't do any better, because it attracts more users with an agenda, and does even worse to drown out the valid reasoning that normally goes on here. If this user page isn't deleted, then we can never delete another school article again, regardless of any policy that is formed, simply because the debate will be filled with sympathetic users with an agenda to push. If someone can put school articles beyond deletion, what's to say they can't get less worthy things a permanent place here by securing sympathetic hearings in the same way? For once, we have a case where the slippery slope is not a fallacy, because we're seeing it for real in front of us. Chris 14:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, can someone tell me how this does not constitute use of that page for vote-stacking/jury-rigging/whatever-you-want-to-call-it? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] Some of these links are to current revisions at the time of writing, and may cease to work later Chris 14:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem isn't the going out and getting support, but the non-Wikipedians voting. If a Wikipedia sees a message on an outside message board and votes because of it, that's fine. --SPUI (talk) 15:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Please tell me what you think constitutes a "Wikipedian" and a "non-Wikipedian", without reference to the existing policy pages (I already know what those say - I'm after your opinion here). Sorry, I've just read this again. Let me get this straight, you're saying that vote-stacking should be allowed, as long as it's done by active members!? That's like saying "Rigging the general election is fine, as long as it involves established members of a political party"! Chris 15:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • The idea is that someone who actively contributes here will actually look at these articles and vote on their merits according to Wikipedia standards. (In practice, I've noticed a whole lot of identical votes copy-pasted into ten vfds over the space of two minutes.) —Korath (Talk) 16:45, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
          • Even if this were the case, Wikipedia_is_not_an_experiment_in_democracy: although votes are an essential part of VfD, we should try to reach a consensus through discussion and arguments, not just tally votes. VladMV ٭ talk 16:57, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Besides the actual act of voting, how is filling a discussion with people with an agenda to push any different from getting them out to vote? Chris 17:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • I'm not sure I follow your line of argument here. If one pushes the matters far enough, every vote is biased and thus compromised with an agenda. If you're stating there's no sense in discussing when people have an agenda, I take you to imply there's no sense in discussing anything on VfD, and it all comes down to tallying votes. I strongly reject this idea. VladMV ٭ talk 20:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Ideally VfD should only be used in cases where precedent and policy do not adequately cover whether to keep/delete a borderline article. In practice however the same old nomination-types keep coming again and again, and they're hardly fertile soil for novel discussions and arguments unfortunately. Pcb21| Pete 17:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • Why don't we start a policy discussion on banning vote garnering. I'd support it. DaveTheRed 19:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                • I'd support it. Thryduulf 20:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                  • Ditto. We need some way of making sure each article is judged fairly, on its merits, and not on blanket beliefs. Chris 20:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                  • You mean, like the blanket belief that schools are not notable? --Zero 23:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                    • I at least don't have such a belief. I beleive that not all schools are notable, and those that are need to show in their article why they are. In other words, I maintain that schools must do the same as any other type of article has to do. Thryduulf 23:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                    • I don't think there is such a blanket belief. Nobody (to my knowledge) has claimed that "no schools are notable". The debate is between "some schools" are notable, and "all schools" are notable. Not that that makes it any easier. Maybe staring a WikiSchools project would be the solution. Radiant_* 08:44, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
                      • Phrasing the debate in those terms suggests that "non-notability" is a well-understood, well-defined acceptable reason for deletion in the first place. All polls on the issue have agreed that "notability" is very problematic (although more progress has been made in defining notability for schools - BEEFSTEW). Pcb21| Pete 09:28, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                      • Funny thing is that nobody really objects to the 'band inclusion guidelines' or the 'biography inclusion guidelines' - both of which boil down to notability. As one of the most often words used in voting here, notability (or lack thereof) is a de facto deletion criterion. It is, of course, not well-defined, but the same applies to several other VfD criteria. But aside from this, much information given in high school articles is not verifiable. Radiant_* 09:05, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a legitimate user subpage, and this VFD is simply harassment. I would like to see this, issue brought to a policy discussion, but until then, it is not policy that organization on votes is prohibited, and I don't like seeing it treated as such. --L33tminion | (talk) 01:20, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • It is not harassment, it is a valid concern. "Inappropriate user page" is still a valid deletion criterion. The fact that consensus disagrees with me about this article doesn't make it bad faith. Radiant_* 08:28, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • People here may also be interested to note that a seemingly similar page was tried in the past, but has been abandonded since November 2004. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/High schools. Thryduulf 01:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep userpages. What you do on your own userpage should be your own business provided it's not a basis for a personal attack, criminal activity or subverting the VfD process. I see nothing wrong with GRider's pages. Megan1967 04:09, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, user pages that are obviously related to work on Wikipedia. It's not like GRider is abusing user space as a free hosting service. And these pages don't contain personal attacks, recreations of deleted articles, or any other potential policy violations. If some kind of problem results from him using the "Colleagues" page to distort votes, that can be addressed in his current arbitration case, but the issue would be with GRider's conduct, not the existence of the page itself. --Michael Snow 13:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. User space, and use to which it is being put does not violate policy. Jayjg (talk) 17:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A valient attempt to improve school articles, and thereby improve the quality of Wikipedia. --BaronLarf 21:28, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I think ArbCom's case takes precedence. JuntungWu 04:26, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • One of Wikipedia's greatest strengths is its editors communicating with each other on content questions of common interest. Strongest possible keep. Samaritan 18:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I see nothing inherently wrong with having this on a personal user page, although it is clear that this issue should be resolved elsewhere once and for all. Fawcett5 01:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Spinboy 07:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GRider/Schoolwatch&oldid=1167430569"