I've closed the conversation here as it's served its purpose. Please place any further comment on my talk page. Dpmuk (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read what I say before commenting. I hope by doing that you can at least understand my reasoning even if you disagree.

I am starting this page to explain my actions around this article and to get feedback on it. At the moment my comments on this are spread across several pages so review is difficult, by bringing it all together here hopefully I can get some worthwhile feedback. I am especially interested in whether anyone thinks anything I did actively went against a policy or guideline (as opposed to the article in question not meeting guidelines). Comments here will help me decide how to take this forward, if at all - at the moment I'm minded to leave the project. I'm interested in all comments good or bad, but I want this to be a discussion not just people having a go at me. I intend to notify everyone involved of this page, no matter what their stated views are as I'm interested in getting everyone's views.

Two important opinions of mine[edit]

My actions have to be seen in the light of two important opinions of mine. At the moment neither is covered by policy or guidelines so others are likely to have different views. However as they are not covered by policy or guidelines I don't think other editors can complain about something I did if their sole reason for complaint is that they disagree with these views.

1. Userfication is the same as deletion[edit]

This is critical to this whole issue. Many users seem to forget that we're here for the readers of Wikipedia and everything else contributes to that goal. I see userfication to be the same as deletion as it removes the article from view for normal readers and therefore I view it should only be done when userfication is allowable. To draw an analogy to hard copy encyclopaedias, if we remove an entry from it I suspect very few people would argue against calling that entry deleted even if a draft or record of it is kept at the publishers (or similar). I don't see the difference between this and userfication.

In short: Userfication is the same as deletion as it results in readers not being able to see the article

2. Process is important[edit]

Many users (including admins) seem to think that as long as we reach the right conclusion how we get there is completely irrelevant. This is a view I couldn't disagree more with. Although I fear making things too bureaucratic I think not following our own processes can also lead to big problems. Yes, we might end up with the right end result but people seem to forget that how this happened can impact on users. I suspect many new users would be completely disillusioned by something being done to their work outside of process and then not reversed because it ended up with the right result. I suspect many new users would wonder how we run things and just up and leave. Disturbingly it's often admins that take this view and use it as justification for admin actions despite the fact that admins aren't meant to be a special class and only act upon consensus - deciding that they can ignore process clearly goes against this.

In short: Process is important due to the effect that not following it can have on users

What happened[edit]

Here I outline why I did what I did at each stage.

Speedy delete / ANI[edit]

This whole issue started when I removed a speedy delete tag from the redirect that had been created by the userfication of this article. I thought that the userfication was incorrect as it had been done without any consensus of any kind something which I think is neccessary in the case of userfication due to 1 above. As the reason I wanted the redirected deleted was to reverse the move (as the R part of BRD if you like), not to delete a cross-namespace redirect up I thought leaving the cross-namespace speedy up was dishonest. Given that I thought the situation was a litle complex and may require some discussion I took this to ANI rather than just add a speedy tag. It was never intended to bring any consequence against the user that userified the page because as there is no policy they were entitled to act as they thought fit (be being bold). In hindsight taking this to ANI may have been a mistake as it just added to the drama.

AfD[edit]

One I'd reversed the move I thought it best to start an AfD so that the current state of the article could be discussed and a way forward arrived at. Originally I thought userification was the way to go but having seen the discussion I was going to agree with the idea of a stub because then it kept the article in mainspace and was more likely to get other editors involved. However the AfD was closed before this took place.

DRV[edit]

As stated in 2 above, I believe process is important. The closure of the AfD was so far out of keeping with policy that I thought I had no choice but to DRV it. If this had been closed by an univolved admin I'd probably have let it stand but closure by an involved admin, largely because he disagreed with my views (which as I stae above I don't believe are contradicted by policy) was unacceptable. My requested at DRV is repeated below.

"There are several reasons why I believe this close was a bad close:

1. Most importantly, the admin that closed it was very far from independent, see this post.
2. The admin has virtually admitted they have not followed process, see this post
3. The AfD was open for under three hours.
4. A new editor had just offered to stubify the article and this offer never got a proper discussion. It is my view that stubifing the article in better than userfying as more users are likely to find it and contribute to it. I think this option deserved discussion.

I realise that my actions in bringing this AfD are open to debate but because this admin disagrees with my reasoning for it he seems to have decided to override process."

Closure of DRV[edit]

That the close of the AfD is not something that can be reviewed by DRV is in my opinion absurd. I think the comments I left on the admins take page best describe my reasoning.

"I know I'm the one that brought it to DRV so aren't exactly neutral but I also seriously question your close. To quote from the DRV page "This page exists to correct closure errors in the deletion process" and by closing it early you're ignoring this. I'd agree that DRV is not the place to take questions about the page after it has been properly userfied but the question here is whether it has been properly userfied. By following your rationalle no one could ever question a keep or no consensus close (as the page hasn't been deleted) even in clearly incorrect cases such as 15 delete votes grounded in policy and one keep vote of I like it - not seeing that would actually ever happen but it is an extreme example of what could happen. Additionally if any editor didn't like the fact that a page was going to be kept they could simply userify the page, close the AfD as moot and never have their action reviewed. Both of these situation, are in my opinion, absurd but possible, if unlikely, situations that could occur if closures such as this become the norm."

Comments by others[edit]

• Stop flogging yourself over this. Pcap ping 15:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

See my reply to Floquenbeam below - I'm not flogging myself. Dpmuk (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think you're showing some signs of burnout, to be honest. You've written about 1000 words to explain yourself and your position, which is a good thing—because it implies that you're considering the possibility that you might be wrong, and it's always nice to interact with editors who can do that. But you don't need all this introspection and justification. One of the things (or in fact, about the only thing) you get in return for your contributions to Wikipedia is the right to be heard at places like AN/I, and there are certainly editors who agree with some aspects of what you say; I can be sure of that because I'm one.

  Read FairProcess, and then it might be a good idea to switch off your computer for a while?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Also see my reply to Floquenbeam below which will hopefully make it a bit more obvious why I spent some time on this - I want to make sure that wikipedia is somewhere I feel I can continue to work. I delibrately took a step back for nearly a day from commenting any where other than here as a way to get away from it all for a while. With here being a personal user page everything is rather stress free! Dpmuk (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• I do agree that userfication is the same as deletion. Strictly speaking, userfication in this case means effectively deletion followed by userfication. While I agree that process is important, I think that it is only important as a framework around which to operate, and sometimes the right thing to do isn't necessarily "by the book". This is why we have Ignore All Rules (which is a very tricky tool to use well). I think that the best way forward in this case is for those who support the article to work on it, in userspace, and for those opposed to the article to leave them alone. I don't think that there is anything to be gained by further discussion at DRV and ANI. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Users have no right to keep any particular content in their user space. Admins often refuse to move deleted articles to user space if they think there is no hope for the article, and inappropriate content is regularly deleted outright from user space. So the userfication of this article shows there is hope that the article can be made into an article of sufficient quality. Guy in particular has a record of supporting articles which have been sufficiently improved or rewritten (particularly with independent reliable references), so rather than pinning your flag to a weak article, you could spend your time and energy more productively by improving it for a relaunch as requested - with proper independent sources. You may find this easier to do if you work in areas you are not emotionally involved in first to see how things work when they are running smoothly. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think I'm emotionally involved? I'm assuming you mean with this particular article. I have no particular connection with this article other than coming across the redirect speedy and thinking it improper. Everything else has sprung from there. The topic of this article only barely interests me. Dpmuk (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you are not emotionally involved. You will find it much easier to fix the article, if you choose to do so. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• PS Don't expect gratitude for working here. Although many (mostly silent) readers will appreciate your work, your own satisfaction and achievement is your primary reward. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not expecting nor have I ever expected gratitude. I would however like an environment in which I feel I can operate and if that doesn't exist I don't see the point of being here. Dpmuk (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The written rules are only an approximation to the actual rules. If you are uncomfortable with this, then you will be uncomfortable here. But the longer you stay, the more your intuition will develop and the easier you will find it. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And I think therein lies a problem with wikipedia - it's outgrown how it originally worked and not kept up. It's an unfortunate consequence of something like this getting larger that it requires more and more rules and that these are codified (it is my view that this happens with any 'group'). I feel that wikipedia is now too large to rely on too many unwritten rules as this makes it seem too much like a cabal as so many people will feel like they have no input on these unwritten rules which are developed by admins and experienced users, which due to the size of the project, they have little chance to interact with. (For example, personally I think deciding "community" sanctions on a board entitled "administrators noticeboard" is seriously wrong as just by the name you're largely limiting the community to administrators. I know anyone can comment but how many new or inexperienced editors realise this?)

• Process is important. But the process on wikipedia is consensus building. The specific procedures we have is merely guidelines that work reasonably well. They are there for the end product. The thing about the consensus is that it really requires opposing vies to move forward, and we as a project have found that opposition merely due to procedural grounds are not a good thing, and does not help the editorial process. Guy's close of the AfD was probably premature, it largely smells like using deletion as cleanup. And usefication is clearly bad here, wikipedia is not a webhost and who is actually working on the article? The reason why the DRV was a non-starter was that there is no editors that seem willing to work on the article, and hence there is no real need to revisit the discussion. So in short, what you did "wrong" in this was objecting on purely procedural grounds, rather than objecting because some editors actually feel they can do something with the article. Admins more often take the view that process is less important than the end product becuase they are on average more experienced editors than non-admins. Taemyr (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As I largely state this above I'll just put this briefly - I think a certain amount of ensuring procedure is followed is important to ensure that editors are not alienated. Yes this has less direct benefit to the project but the two are linked, no editors = no articles, be they good bad or indifferent.

Your final point touches on something which I think is wrong with wikipedia, but at the same time can think of no way to address. Yes admins take this view because they are more experienced but how much of that view has come about because of their experience of wikipedia and how many good editors have never become an admin or left the project entirely because they disagree with the currently accepted view. The process of becoming an admin means we largely end up with admins with broadly similar views as it's generally only experienced editors and admins that vote at RfA. It is also largely this same group that are responsible for forming policy. The views of new users are rarely taken into account because they are hard to get, and as for the poor readers, they're pretty much ignored entirely. Therefore I take any informed wisdom from admins with a pinch of salt as just because most admins agree doesn't mean most normal users or readers would agree. I think admins can also easily forget what it is like to be a normal user. As a case in point one admin has commented that by taking the page to AfD I was biting a newbie and that userfication was nicer to them. However I'm still a relative newbie and am confident that when I was starting out I'd have preferred an AfD as it I could have understood the process and seen that people were asking on consensus, instead of wondering how one person could unilateraly remove my work from the encylopedia. Dpmuk (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

While I can agree that following procedure is important in order to avoid alienating editors, I fail to see which editors we are in danger of alienating. And that is the problem with the drv. There where no editors arguing for a reversal of the desicion made. I do not get the feeling that you felt that the article should be kept. So you where pushing for a discussion between editors who agree that the article should be deleted or userfied in order to avoid alienating a hypothetical editor. Said hypothetical editor would presumably not want usefication or deletion of the article, and so I am having trouble seeing how continued "discussion" aids his or hers interest. Taemyr (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm swamped IRL, and this may be my last post for several days, so please forgive its disorganized nature. But you asked me for feedback on my talk page, so here are some thoughts in no particular order:
  • This was more about process than results. I think most people agree the article is clearly not going to survive in main space without very significant work. I firmly believe that an AFD was always obviously going to result in (a) deletion with a suggestion to recreate from scratch, or (b) userfication. Assuming you consider (a) worse than (b), this was a lot of effort to force people to come to the correct decision in a different way than they already had.
  • If you had not prevented the speedy deletion of the redirect from article space to the userfied article, you could have moved it back to article space yourself, as part of BRD. There was no need for the first ANI thread.
  • If you want more people to see it and work on it, consider talking to User:Nuujinn and moving it to the WP:INCUBATOR. No DRV needed, NO RM needed, no real process needed, just talk with Nuujinn on his talk page, and if he's cool with it, do it.
  • I don't think you need to beat yourself up over this (if that's what you're doing, and it seems like it might be).

Hope it's useful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My views as to why I think it's important to sometime make sure process is followed are outlined above and in my replies so yes I'd agree that this was more about process than results but I still think this was in the best interest of the project.

As I said above, with hindsight, taking it to ANI was very probably a mistake. However at the time it seemed dishonest to let the speedy stand and taking it ANI seemed the way to be most honest about what I wanted.

I'm not beating myself up over it. Part of my reason for starting this was to get people's views on what I did to see if I was completely in the wrong or whether some people agreed with me and so hopefully learn something from all this. At the time I believe I was acting in good faith and doing what I thought was best so I'm not going to beat myself up over it. Another reason for starting this was to see if wikipedia was something I still felt able to contribute to or whether I felt the environment wasn't right for me. Dpmuk (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand how you can edit here for three years and only now realise what the environment is like. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've had my doubts for a long time but my doubts are mainly about how things like this are dealt with and, thankfully, they don't happen all that often! Dpmuk (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• I more or less agree with your general thrust, but I think you've made the mistake of taking them too fundamentally. Userfication is very similar to deletion -- but it is not deletion. It's true, the article is removed from searches and so on, but the very fact of userfication means that someone has proposed that the article in question, which is generally considered not encyclopedic, can be made so, with some effort, and that an admin has agreed that that is reasonably likely to occur in time. The difference is not in the immediate present, but in the longer term: userfication is a tacit recognition of potential in an article. As for process... I'm generally a fan of it; transparency is important to me, even when I feel that consensus on a particular issue is mistaken. But there's a certain point where it becomes an open-and-shut case. When an outcome is uncontroversial, process for the sake of process is pointless bureaucracy. I don't think you acted wrongly here, but I do think you acted needlessly -- why restore the article to mainspace when it clearly could not survive there? If you believed that complete deletion were a better option than userfication, then this would make sense, but if you favor userfication, and if you agree that the article's current state was problematic, then I don't see what's gained from a DRV. (Mind you, I also don't see what's gained by closing the DRV early once it exists... but that's another matter.) Shimeru (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I restored the article to main space as I felt it needed the fuller discussion and longer time scales involved in AfD. As it happens the AfD brought out two options that I feel would have been better than userfication - incubation, which I hadn't considered (it being quite new I didn't think of it) and stubification, my preferred option but one which I thought someone else would be better at doing giving my lack of knowledge on the subject. Neither of these would have come out without discussion (I know there's debate about whether AfD should be used like this but the fact is, it commonly is). I also perhaps put too much weight on the principle that a notable article shouldn't be deleted just because it's in a bad state, although obviously very bad state ones should be. My first thought was that the article fell into the first category and it was only after several comments for delete (including one that said "it would be easier to start from scratch") that I realised it was probably in the later category - hence my comment that I would accept userfication if that was how it was closed, although I'd have liked to have seen more debate to prove the article was beyond help.

As for the DRV I brought it because (as I've often said on DRV) I think it's important that we not only do the right thing but we are seen to be acting correctly. I didn't have a real problem with the close (as I've now stated at ANI) rather with who closed it. I accept that too much process for process sake is bad, bad I think closing AfDs is one area where process should always be followed to the letter and that we are seen to be doing the right thing. Dpmuk (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Should probably also add that the userfication was done with no admin involvement. Dpmuk (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I suppose. Anyway, I don't see that it did any harm, even if it maybe wasn't strictly necessary. Wouldn't worry about it. Shimeru (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• It seems to me that this was an unusual case, and while there's no question that things were bouncing like a superball, that happens from time to time, and I see no permanent damage. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Like I said at AN/I, you did everything right. We even have a userfication policy, and it says that userfication is the same as deletion - it also says the article incubator should be used rather than throwing the issue back at the creator. Editor BMK has a history of intolerance towards articles and article creators that do not meet his personal standard, and it looks like he has tried to find a way around deletion process to impose his views - regardless, the rules are very clear and it is very clear why we have those rules. You followed the letter and the spirit of the rules, at each stage explaining yourself. User BMK explained little to anyone, and did not follow the rules - rules which were made to remedy the very specific situation he found himself in. I don't think you should worry about your actions in this case - everyone can see that your actions will result in either a better article or a better encyclopedia, which contrasts with how it was handled before you came along. Weakopedia (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

@Weakopedia: The day I am concerned about criticism from someone whose entire purpose on Wikipedia appears to be trolling on talk pages (62% of your edits are to talk pages and the Wikipedia namespace) and not building an encyclopedia (only 38% of your edits are to articles)[1] is the day I will probably give up editing here. Have a super-duper nice day. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all and closing statement[edit]

Hopefully most of those who have commented above still have this page watch listed so you'll be able to see this. Anyway thank you all for your comments and I mean all your comments, even those that criticised me.

Anyway, looks like I'm going to stay round wikipedia. The comments here have been much more positive than those on ANI and the like and the fact that there is support for my main two points has made me realised that my ideas aren't completely 'out there'.

Before this whole thing had got out of hand I started a RfC on userfication. Unfortunately to date it has had very few comments (which seems to be a problem with RfCs - maybe we need a new way of making decisions). I'm also starting to consider the idea of an RfC on the "right result" vs "procedure" argument. Although I understand the reasons for things like WP:IAR and indeed think they are desirable I think that now the size of the project is much larger we need to be stricter on procedure and probably have more policies and the like so that people know where they stand better. I think this is an unfortunate consquence of any community growing larger but now we are this large I think it's something we have to live with. Dpmuk (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)