UESPWiki talk:Deletion Review

Removal of overview

I was saddened to see the overview this page gave of deleted articles was removed (hidden, actually). Don't understand me wrong, I think the new categorisation was a job well done, but I miss the ease with which I could see what articles were proposed for deletion with what outcome. I'd like to enable the list again on this page. There is no reason why it needs to be removed; it doesn't make the article overly long, and the housekeeping is minimal as not many articles are deletion reviewed anyway. --Timenn-<talk> 08:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I also see no reason to not list the pages previously reviewed in the hide-able boxes like before. It was nice to be able to see the outcome alongside the nomination. --GK^Talk2me 17:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree either, but that is the quick conclusion I and others came to. It is pretty unnecessary now, but it won't hurt to keep it I guess. –Elliot ^talk 18:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Where was the discussion? Surely a discussion about this article should have taken place on this talk page? Dr Jones 10:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really, there is nothing controversial about hiding the content (since it is nearly redundant content). I fail to see the issue at hand... –Elliot ^talk 03:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

With respect, it clearly is controversial since three editors (including two admins) have asked about it. Now, I ask again: Where was the discussion? If you are having offsite discussions you are circumventing the wiki process. Dr Jones 15:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not. It wasn't so much of a discussion as it was a quick question directed at some editors (frankly, I am not even sure I was asking them about this, since I do a lot on a daily basis). No one expressed concern from what I remember so I went ahead an hid it. Regardless, if I had not asked anyone, I still would have removed. Now, we can sit here and discuss a non-issue (since if you look, I unhid it with no controversy) and make something out of nothing, or we can edit the wiki. –Elliot ^talk 16:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. Please do not pretend otherwise. You obviously realised you made a mistake, but that doesn't excuse or explain the process. If offsite discussions are now the norm, please indicate where they may be found. Otherwise, you should discuss changes on the talk pages of articles, as is standard practise everywhere else. While you look into good wiki practise, you will also find that an edit comment of "sigh" is usually not regarded as polite either. Dr Jones 16:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay... I am done talking about this. I made no mistake because regardless, I would have hid/removed it. I don't remember if what I asked was regarding the deletion review (since you know, I made about 200 edits prior setting them all into categories), so something as minor as removing information (since you know that things can be restored) is not seen as in issue by me. Stop making something out of nothing, please. –Elliot ^talk 16:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You are "done talking about this"??? You have not answered my question! If you are engaging in offsite discussions, please provide information as to where they can be found. Please also tell me if this is now the official way of discussing changes on this site. Dr Jones 16:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

/=> Since you seem to be fascinated with starting something, even if the conversation took place (as I have massively expressed could perhaps not have even taken place), it took place in the IRC. Maybe in a private conversation. It is where non-controversial discussions take place. If something is in disagreement, then they take it to the talk page regarding the topic. –Elliot ^talk 16:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You already said the conversation took place so don't try to wriggle now. Thank you for the link: perhaps you need to read it more carefully in future as you will find this: "IRC is not an appropriate forum for formal discussions, such as making decisions or establishing consensus". As I said from the start and as site policy clearly states, you should discuss changes on the wiki. I'm glad that is clear now. Dr Jones 16:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't tell me what to do. And you might want to read UESPWiki:IRC#IRC_and_UESP. –Elliot ^talk 16:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, but I shall point out policy violations wherever they occur and whomsoever makes them. Thank you also for pointing out the section of the policy page from which I had just supplied a quote. Let me then present this as further proof that you violated policy: "However, even if everyone in IRC approved of your idea, that does not mean that you have the UESP community's consensus." As I said last time, you really should read that section. Please do so before replying again (although I thought you were done?). Dr Jones 16:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have never liked the conflicting policy regarding the IRC conversations and the wiki. Also: Based on the discussion, you might choose to substantially revise your initial idea, or maybe everyone liked the idea as is, and now you feel more confident about proceeding. However, even if everyone in IRC approved of your idea, that does not mean that you have the UESP community's consensus. I hardly need consensus to make a change. To keep it, on the other hand, if people bring up issues regarding it (which happened), there needs to be a consensus on the change (which there was, we decided to change it back). So no, I did not "violate" any policy. –Elliot ^talk 16:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, there's no reason to need a prior community consensus to remove an easily replaced non-policy part of a page. After it was removed, people said they wanted it back, and it was unhidden. No harm, no foul.--Ratwar 16:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I was merely trying to clarify Elliot's ambiguous and evasive replies. Finally, in his last post, he admits he violated policy: "I have never liked the conflicting policy regarding the IRC conversations and the wiki". Now I know that offsite discussions are not official site policy, I consider the matter settled. I hope Elliot will agree that he made a mistake and shouldn't repeat it. Dr Jones 17:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

We aren't the thought police, Dr Jones. People are allowed to disagree or even dislike a policy. That does not mean they violated it. As I said before, he changed a small section of a page. If you care to read UESPWiki:Consensus, we have four points where we require a consensus beforehand, and the only one that it could possibly fall under is "A change that is likely to be controversial." Elliot obviously didn't see the change as likely to be controversial, and I don't really see any reason it would be controversial.--Ratwar 17:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Unlike Elliot, I believe I have read all the site policies. The fact is that Elliot made his change as a result of offsite discussions. He deleted a large (huge!) amount of content that has only ever been added to over time, including additions by you, Rpeh, Nephele, TheRealLurlock and Eshe - five admins. Nobody has ever raised the question of whether or not it should go, so to unilaterally delete it with no discussion is either a deliberate policy violation or a case of massive naivety. In either case, Elliot's subsequent refusal to even admit the possibility of a mistake is worrying. BTW - as an admin you should set a good example and use an edit summary. Dr Jones 17:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

He deleted exactly nothing, he simply hid the content. Look, Elliot was attempting to improve the page, there is no question about that. Thankfully, we have no requirements that Admin edits can only be undone after a discussion, we're editors with special buttons, no more, no less.--Ratwar 17:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the Consensus policy in fact covers this very situation. Summarizing the relevant line, it essentially says: If in doubt, make the change, and if need be, a later consensus can overturn your edit. This mirrors Wikipedia's Bold, Revert, Discuss guideline as well. Elliot boldly made his changes, and when there was some concern noted, he reverted his own changes. How is this a problem? We do that sort of thing all the time, both here and at Wikipedia. —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 18:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

point->miss();

Dr Jones 18:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I missed RobinHood70's reply. Read Elliot's responses throughout this discussion and you will see the problem. The problem - it seems I have to point it out - is that a "senior" editor used an invalid reason to back up a set of unilateral changes, then denied he had done what he said he did, then claimed it was alright anyway. I'm astonished to see that policy violations are so casually accepted these days. Dr Jones 18:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have read them. I see no policy violations whatsoever, and I haven't yet noticed a clear-cut case where you've established that there were. Being edited by 5 admins does not a policy violation make. —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 18:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If there was "the quick conclusion I and others" took part in, that decided what should be done to a page, then you have a policy violation. Discussions should always take place on the wiki and I can't understand why there is any discussion about this. If you are trying to have one policy for ordinary users and another for "elected" staff, you're going the right way about it. For my part, a policy violation is a policy violation if it was committed by a user, a patroller, an admin or Daveh himself. Please stop the denialism. Dr Jones 19:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't need consensus to make a change, especially ones that I believe would be uncontroversial. Some editors raised concerns, and then I unhid it. Why are you freaking out over this? I don't need consensus to edit. That is the huge part you seem to be forgetting/ignoring. –Elliot ^talk 19:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say this? You made a change and then, when it was challenged, you used an offline discussion as your justification. You were wrong to do that! Dr Jones 19:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really: I don't disagree either, but that is the quick conclusion I and others came to. It is pretty unnecessary now, but it won't hurt to keep it I guess. Notice how I agreed with them? Yeah. Nothing will come of this, so why are you pushing it? I don't need consensus to edit. I justified my actions by saying others agreed with me, but I still changed it. Big deal? It is not as if it was a policy change that was decided upon. It was a simple hiding of content (which I would have done if I hadn't talked with anyone, so basically, it was going to happen no matter what). Once Timenn and GK said they would like to have it back, I had no qualms with it. Yet you seem to be pushing something that multiple people have told you is incorrect. –Elliot ^talk 19:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't change your meaning. That's not what was originally meant. The longer you keep this going the more duplicitous you become. You violated policy and were caught doing so. There is no other interpretation. Since you're new here (I see you joined long after I did) I will give you the benefit of the doubt on this occasion. Good day to you. Dr Jones 19:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Jones, at this point you are bordering on harassing other editors. The fact is that the only questionable statement made is the one about "I and others", which Elliot then subsequently retracted ("I am not even sure I was asking them about this", and multiple repeats to that effect). Therefore, there was no off-wiki discussion relevant to this discussion. Furthermore, even with Elliot's original statement there was no hint that a decision was made based on off-wiki discussion -- simply that Elliot got feedback and then that he chose a course of action based on that feedback. The fact that Elliot then chose to change his actions on the article, based solely on this discussion, is proof that this discussion is the only place where any decision about the article contents has been made.

In short, no decision was made based upon non-wiki discussions. Period. Case closed, move on. Insisting on creating an argument when there is nothing to argue about is effectively harassment and is not welcome. If someone other than Dr. Jones has something new to say on the subject, then perhaps there's reason to continue the discussion. However, at the moment, another round of Dr. Jones repeating the exact same non-argument is pointless (as is another round of Elliot trying to reason with Dr. Jones). I would have thought that was already obvious, but given how long this discussion is getting dragged out, obviously not.

Furthermore, the only issue that is relevant to this page is the contents of UESPWiki:Deletion Review. As far as I can tell, everyone was happy with the contents of the article about ten rounds ago, at which point the discussion no longer needed to be continued. So could everybody just get back to actually trying to improve the site's articles? That is after all why the wiki is here, not to carry on arguments about obscure policy points that were never even violated. --Nephele^Talk 19:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Elliot retracted nothing! He might have stepped back from a comment he made but that is not the same as a retraction! What he has done is what is known in the legal profession as "flexible pleading" - ie, he was caught out on one thing and retreated to another position.

If he was not sure he was asking about this, why did he use it as an argument in the first place?

A decision was clearly made based on offsite discussions. Elliot's initial refusal to admit the fact was what caused this discussion.

I find your refusal to discuss this further disquieting. Dr Jones 20:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As someone who does not frequent this site much, I find your refusal to end a pointless argument that has already been settled disquieting. Nephele has told you to stop arguing, and yet you continue. It has been settled, now please go back to contributing to the wiki. --Twentyfists 20:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Forget it. Having looked around the rest of the site, it seems the user concerned is pretty much immune from criticism. Well if that's the way you want it, I hope it makes you happy. Dr Jones 20:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not my intention to heat this up again, but for the record, I would like the make the following clear:
When I posted my concerns on this talk page, the first part played out exactly like my intent was; I raised my concerns over a removal of some content (or hidden, it doesn't matter, nothing is permanent on a wiki) and as I suspected there was not a particular reason for that one element of a series of changes, so it was brought back. Quick consensus.

I'm annoyed when my arguments are used for an ulterior motive which isn't mine. --Timenn-<talk> 10:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)