Misplaced Pages

Template:Cleanup (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I disagree with the "no consensus" listing. Almost none of the "keep" !votes are based in policy: I see several WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:NOTAGAIN, "this TFD is ridiculous" and "but I've never seen it abused", despite the constant evidence provided that it is abused as much as {{expand}} was. Also, it seems some people think that just because it's an "old" template that it gets a grandfather clause, but that wasn't the case with "expand", now was it? Partway through the TFD, the template was amended so that the "reason" field is now mandatory, but that's like fixing a flood with sponges — it's not going to fix the eleventy bazillion drive-by transclusions. I have presented repeated evidence that the template is tag-bombed almost 100% of the time, and I feel that many of my counterarguments have been ignored — particularly, some people think that {{Cleanup}} is useful to new editors who can't find a more specific template, but I feel that if a new editor can find {{cleanup}}, they can also find something more suitable like {{wikify}}, {{copyedit}}, etc. Also, I didn't see any editor present a case where {{cleanup}} was not used in a tag-bombing situation. Finally, I feel that the closing admin just figured that very long TFD = no consensus, which is almost never the case.

I think that, once the arguments to avoid are weeded out, a consensus to keep but deprecate becomes more obvious. Therefore, I propose that this be overturned to deprecate. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 17:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Question. What would be the practical consequence of "overturn to deprecate?" I can see two sides of the argument as to whether the template should be kept or not, and agree that users are too timid to remove them. But expanding the template with text that it should no longer be used is going to do nothing to improve the many, relatively untravelled pages to which it has been added, and will in fact make it even a bigger aesthetic nuisance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Deprecating would also mean removing all instances of the template and replacing them with other more specific templates where necessary, which is exactly what was done when {{expand}} was deprecated. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 21:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• The thing is, TPH, that ATA is an essay, which means editors are free to disregard it. There is no policy basis on which the closer can "weed out" the arguments to avoid. I mean, all that ATA really boils down to is a list of things that some editors think other editors shouldn't be allowed to say, and in places its logic is very shaky. Wouldn't you agree?—S Marshall T/C 19:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• So what you're saying is, anyone can !vote keep or delete just because they like or dislike something. In that case, I think Green Day sucks, let's delete their article. On the other hand, I think it's "useful" to have a whole article consisting of every Little Caesars in Michigan because I like their pizza. I think I'll get on that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 21:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'll tell you what. Why not let me tell you what it is that I'm saying, k?—S Marshall T/C 22:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse, more or less per SMarshall. WP:ATA deals primarily with article content. As that essay points out with regard to navboxes, ITSUSEFUL can be (often should be) an appropriate argument for other types of deletion discussions. Without substantive policy guidance, a closing admin usually shouldn't stray from a headcount outcome. I'd hate to see a discussion over which of two images should be used in an article infobox with a rationale like "the proponents of image 1, although fewer in number, generally have better taste, so they prevail." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Add to the closing statement. When a wide range of users, whose views started anywhere from strong keep to delete and salt, find a common opinion that is increasingly widely held as the discussion progresses, there is a strong indication of consensus. However, DRV is only concerned with whether an admin has done the wiki-equivalent of murder, which Jayron hasn't. It was in his discretion to ignore this trend if he didn't feel it was obvious enough. I would therefore suggest as a compromise that if the decision is kept, that Jayron returns to his closing statement, to add his judgement on the depriciation-related discussion. By at the very least acknowledging it, he would be acknowledging the progress made in the discussion. Acknowledging that, through robust but generally civil discussion from editors with what originally seemed irreconcilable positions, an idea has emerged that could be a workable way forward. By not acknowledging it, I fear that the inevitable fourth TfD will be dominated by the fact that it is a fourth TfD, rather than focus on the issues themselves. —WFC— 11:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse which results in a keep. For cleanup templates, "useful" is a good argument. They are not articles. They're there for practical use, and whether or not they are of potential use is the criterion. DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse I don't read that there was clear consensus to deprecate, or how best to do so. (Although I think that starting a new talk page discussion on how to go about that would be good.) Also, DGG, this is a delrev, not the actual TfD ;) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• I think the comparison to {{expand}} is quite an important one, actually. Look over the TfD for that template and you'll see that much of the support for keeping the template was made with poor (or nonexistent) arguments, whereas there were many compelling arguments given for deletion. It was a long and difficult TfD, and even at the end it only really scraped by. Without that sort of weight behind the movement for change, TfDs for massively popular cleanup tags are going to be unlikely to generate consensus to delete. I don't believe the closing admin's failure to find consensus to do so in this case was due to error in judging how the discussion went. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse, regretfully, given that I supported deprecation/deletion of the tag. There just wasn't any consensus there, at least not now. –MuZemike 01:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse per DGG. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse deleting "Expand" was a big enough error and there was at least some support for that, although the arguments were faulty at best. Rich Farmbrough, 00:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC).
  
• Endorse without prejudice against relisting at TfD PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'd very much like to see this deleted/depreciated, but I don't quite see consensus for that. Hobit (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse though I think that we should revisit this at TfD sometime. I personally do think the arguments for deprecation were stronger here, and would probably endorse the opposite outcome as well, if the administrator had gone that way. Gigs (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

AFD was closed to early. Consensus was not allowed to develop. This is the second early close by an administrator for this attack page KoshVorlon' _{Nal Aeria} 12:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse. I'm personally uncomfortable about the article. Then again, I think it is a valid topic based on Misplaced Pages's non-censorship and notability guidelines. I therefore simply avoided the discussions, because opinions mean nothing in deletion discussions unless they lick up to Wikilaw. But the admin was definitely right here. Given that the consensus was clearly keep eight days ago, and therefore likely to be a clear keep in this discussion, closing the discussion early was if nothing else a courtesy to the subject. Prolonging the drama when the result is inevitable is only going to result in wasted time on all side, heated arguments, and possibly further harm to the subject (on the assumption that harm has been caused so far). Maybe, over time, the tide will turn. —WFC— 12:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• This request is forum-shopping. The AfD was correctly closed early, per WP:SNOWBALL; there was no consensus to delete, it was obvious there wasn't going to be one, and the previous AfD for exactly the same content -- the fourth successive failed AfD for this article -- had finished only days before. -- The Anome (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Ineffective - As we have seen through much discussion and AfDs and such, this is a topic that shows the glaring failure of Misplaced Pages's crowd-sourced approach to editing; "anyone can edit" sometimes means the mob with the bigger pitchforks and the brighter torches can carry the day. Unless someone wishes to contact the senator's people and have them file an official complaint, this article is too well-protected to be taken down by anything short of an office action. Tarc (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse. An RfC that ran from 4th to 16th June on a proposal to rename and merge this article, which attracted 148 comments and a very thorough discussion, did not endorse the merge. An AfD has no prospect of passing at this time. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oh, for crying out loud This article has survived four AfD requests, with three of them ending in clear consensuses to keep (the fourth was closed with no consensus.) It has been reviewed several times with regards to biography of living persons and found sufficiently neutral. The content is notable: there are currently 123 citations; the ongoing efforts to censor the Misplaced Pages by -- and the media attention these attempts are attracting -- only gives weight to its notability. The fourth AfD request was closed early because the recent third AfD was very clearly a consensus to keep. I would provide links, but the recent change in name -- done in an effort to satisfy editors who thought that Santorum (neologism) was too confusing -- seems to have gummed up the internal search engine. The current round of censorship started one week before Santorum announced his bid for President and has been unrelenting since: the latest attempt at purging Santorum's santorum "problem" having failed, partisans are now demanding that the whole article be censored. Because these attempts started a week before Santorum announced his bid for President, it is extremely difficult to believe that these are good faith efforts. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  Please strike that personal attack. — Coren  14:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  I have pointed out the very convenient timing between Rick Santorum's official announcement as a candidate for president, and the sudden, very intense interest in the article in question. That is not a personal attack. However, Tarc, just below, is attacking me. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  I should apologize for creating this distraction - I made this point at the ArbCom case, but the problem was, it turns out that Rick Santorum announced he was going to announce his candidacy on May 26. I just never imagined it would still be a big news item to "announce" candidacy after it's already been declared in that way, so I never even looked for an earlier announcement until I was called on the facts. Wnt (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  Please point to the part of the comment you feel was a personal attack. Protonk (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  Techbear, you do recall that most everyone who has voiced opposition to this ridiculous page on a fake neologism has at one point or another prefaced their comments with a "...as much as I dislike Rick Santorum's politics" or a "while I agree with Dan Savage's opinion...", right? Those who oppose this subject matter are not paid staff members of the election campaign, so I cordially invite you to take that accusation and get stuffed. Tarc (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  A "fake" neologism that has been recognized as such by several reliable and notable sources, according to the citations. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  A nice strawman that ignores your "these attempts started a week before Santorum announced his bid for President" commentary. Lulz, how pathetic. Tarc (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  Very well, since you insist. Let us look at the revision history for Campaign for "santorum" neologism. You will note that the article was pretty stable until May 10, when Cirt begain to improve it by expanding the text and adding many supporting citations. Starting on May 25, an organized effort begins to "clean up" the santorum article and to remove Santorum (neologism) from both the Sexual Slang template and the now deleted Political Neologisms template. These efforts stepped into high gear on May 29, eight days before Santorum's formal announcement of his candidacy on June 6. Like I said, an extremely convenient coincidence. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  Perhaps, upon hearing the gossip that Santorum was preparing a presidential bid, Cirt got to work to head him off at the pass. If we're going to idly speculate about coincidences, we might as well look down both sides of the street. Tarc (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but at least he was working to make sure the article was well written, well cited and as neutral as was possible, given the topic. He was not attempting to censor unflattering material. That is a significant difference. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  Or, he was puffing up a non-issue with inflated and redundant sources to further attack a politician he does not like. Perhaps Dan Savage cut him a check to do so. Perhaps he cut you a check to do write this mealy-mouthed defense. See the fun we can have with this sort of tangent? Everyone's on the take! BTW, the first one to cry "CENSOR!" in a debate is the sure loser. Congrats. :) Tarc (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  "Puffing up a non-issue" with over a hundred citations from sources including the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, the San Francisco Chronicle, ABC News, the Boston Herald and the National Catholic Reporter. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  Again with the focusing one one aspect of an argument and ignoring the rest? Perhaps if you keep it up, we can coin a "techbear" as "a frothy mix of straw and bitter tears" ? :) Tarc (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  Those grapes must be pretty sour. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse; there is clearly consensus to document the attack itself, even though an article that was titled by the faux-neologism was improper. Given that it has since been renamed to something saner, there is no good reason to rehash its existence again. — Coren  14:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse: clearly a snow keep given the recent RfC. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse. KoshVorlon, will you quit forum shopping? By my estimation this is your seventh attempt to get this page deleted this month. Misplaced Pages's deletion process isn't shoot-till-you-win, and your constant refusal to admit that other people disagree with you is well over the line into disruption. – iridescent 14:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse. This is nothing but a sleazy attempt to permanently keep the wording at the top of the article's page. Please block KoshVorlon until he recovers. The rest of us are trying to play by the rules, and this sort of game-playing is counter-productive and unWikipedian. Flatterworld (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse per the RFC that was closed 4 days before KoshVorlon opened the AfD.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Two AfDs over the past 30 days, an RFC, have all resulted in this page's being kept. Give it a rest. - 15:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse and close Snuff out this vilification campaign once and for all. The white stuff seems to have fallen in abundance on the lawn ;-) --Ohconfucius 15:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn. I would have preferred to see the AfD go to completion. Gacurr (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse per 100+ participant RfC that closed the week before and concluded that the article should be kept. KoshVorlon's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is getting absurd. No reason to take a revote on this every day. Khazar (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse, .... absurd. KoshVorlon - You are not helpfull at all! Instead of helping to minimize the BLP (your goal), you are just creating new and new inbound links to the article and helping it to rank even higher (I hope that You just did not realise ...), that all in situation of Zero chance to succeed. Snowball in hell chance. Help with the article, look at discussion, lok up at SlimVirgin's draft - she tried well - to rewrite it, discussion is ongoing. Don't try to do impossible, all are just tired to bring the arguments again and again. or, just read WP:SNOW. --Reo 16:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • While I also endorse the closure, I must point out that these internal discussions do not affect page rank in Google; they are not indexed. Gigs (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse Previous AFDs and RFC have shown there is consensus to keep the article. Captain panda 16:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse and admonish KoshVorlon for disruption. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Snow endorse and speedy close this disruptive nomination.—S Marshall T/C 19:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse. Per WP:FOREGONECONCLUSION aside from all the sound arguments. The RFC discussion and followups makes clear how pointless the AFD was. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse. The topic is obviously notable, and it is not our job to censor things just because we think they are repulsive. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn The creation of articles in support of contemporary political campaigning is blatantly contrary to policy. The Keep voters seem to be just trying to shout down such valid policy-based objections and the specified 7 days should be allowed for debate so that a claque cannot trump our general policy. Warden (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse. The creation of articles that neutrally report on contemporary political campaigning is clearly consistent with policy. JamesMLane t c 23:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse It was already at AfD three times and there was an extremely well-attended RfC about what exactly to do with the article. I'd honestly have no objection to a relist at AfD at this time (the last AfD was closed as no consensus so it's generally acceptable to open a new AfD), but I'd expect to see a keep or even a SNOW keep at this point. The rename has addressed most of the issues. Hobit (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse. This article should not be nominated for deletion until a consensus title and focus is determined and implemented. At such point, a new AfD could be reasonably (though almost certainly pointless given the well-established community view on the matter). _matic 01:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse. Five AFDs with consensus to keep the article and an RfC with feedback from over a hundred editors with consensus to keep the article clearly shows consensus to keep the article. Continuing to beat this horse is a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please stop this nonsense. elektrikSHOOS 02:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse. Close was so obvious that I am shocked someone would bring a DrV.--Milowent • 03:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse and trout the nominator. Protonk (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)