Forum:More VFD stuff

Forums: Index > Village Dump > More VFD stuff

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5147 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

So basically I've seen some admins applying their own rules to the deletion process. I'm not pointing my finger at any particular admin, but I think we can all agree that admins should use the same rules to judge a VFD entry. I hope we can reach a consensus in this forum, so the rules can be written down somewhere for future admins to see and no confusion about this has to occur ever again. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:47, 14 August 2010

The options

I'm mentioning the main options here. If you want to propose a different variant, feel free to add it to the list, but make sure to list it in a somewhat logical order. Also, these options can overlap, for instance we could say this many keep votes saves an article, even if there's a majority of 4 delete votes or higher. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:47, 14 August 2010

A delete vote majority of a certain number ensures deletion

A majority of 4 delete votes ensures deletion

This has been the way things get deleted for the last two years or so. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:47, 14 August 2010

Score: 4

1.  For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:47, 14 August 2010
2.  For. I agree that some of the admins have been deleting articles prematurely, and we should get a score of at least 4 before we pull the trigger. Saberwolf116 03:04, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
3. Comment: I've always gone with five unless the article was super shitty and/or there were four votes with my own deletion of it counting as the "fifth". It's been awhile since I've deleted anything on VFD though, and I missed out on the revamp. Is it okay to delete articles after 24 hours have passed (as long as there's enough votes)? --Roman Dog Bird 03:57, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

   Unless there's a reason to wait some more, stuff can be deleted after 24 hours. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 04:18, 14 August 2010

   I like to wait at least 72 hours before deletion, unless it's a clear 0/5+ outcome. We all have different methods and discretion in these issues seems to be something that's been working for years. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," and all that jazz. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 04:31, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

4. Comment This question, coming before the other sections, seems too simplistic, and if it "passes" will cause things. Bad things. Under the cover things. It does not take into account the flaw in the number system, that of articles which have been edited and worked on since some delete votes have already been voted. And as it's worded here, the vote could be 12 to save, 16 to delete, whereas some of us think that if five regular users want to save something that's more than enough to assure its pleasant stay here. This comment is too long already, must now go. Aleister 4:25 14 8

   That's exactly the reason why there are sections below this one, Aleister. And as I mentioned a bit higher up, "these options can overlap, for instance we could say this many keep votes saves an article, even if there's a majority of 4 delete votes or higher." —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 04:28, 14 August 2010

5.  For. Although, I believe it was technically 5 net delete votes, but the admins often throw in their own unwritten delete if its at 4 net delete votes. --Mn-z 13:13, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
6. Casting aside my thoughts on the word "ensure" (sorry guys), for the way things was. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 20:33, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

A majority of 1 delete vote ensures deletion

I've seen a couple admins use this instead. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:47, 14 August 2010

! --Roman Dog Bird 03:58, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Score: 0

A certain number of keep votes ensures keption (keep votes with good reason)

I've seen this proposed in some other forum. Feel free to propose a number you find appropriate. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:47, 14 August 2010

I think when there's a certain amount of keep votes, an article should be kept, whatever the majority may be. I'm not sure about the exact number though, so I'm gonna propose a few and people can decide which one they like best. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:42, 14 August 2010

7 keep votes

Score: 3

1.  For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 05:29, 14 August 2010
2.  For. --Mn-z 13:32, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
3.  For. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 21:59, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

6 keep votes

Score: 4

1.  For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 05:29, 14 August 2010
2.  For. --Mn-z 13:32, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
3.  For. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 21:59, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
4.  4 |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill | 11:17, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

5 keep votes

Score: 5

1.  For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 05:29, 14 August 2010
2.  For. --Mn-z 13:32, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
3.  For. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 21:59, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
4.  For. Aleister 22:01 14 8
5.  For. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 23:02, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

n keep votes

Score: n

1.  For. How can you vote  For. for 3 distinct numbers of keep votes? pick one and stick to it. otherwise, let's just say it'll be n votes -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 22:14, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

   Well, because not everyone might agree with that number. For example, if you think 7 keep votes would be more appropriate than 5, then you can vote for that option instead. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:06, 18 August 2010

No such rule

Score: 0

1.  For. For any proposed number, a clique can grow to that number and misuse the process to protect a bad article based on the fact that a teammate wrote it. If a vote is running 12-5 to delete, that's consensus. Advocates of such a rule underestimate the fact that VFD voters do look at the article, vote based on its quality (even though they have varying abilities to explain their vote), and are open to reason and occasionally flip. Spıke ¬ 09:31 14-Aug-10

   Yeah, if we see this kind (or any kind for that matter) of vote rigging, the votes can just be invalidated and the people involved can be banned a little (or a bit more if appropriate). —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 09:46, 14 August 2010

   Back in day,(as in 2009- early 2010) we had a de facto version of the "enough keep votes = keep" rule since "high profile" noms didn't get a flood of "against" votes and a couple of the regulars tended to vote "bandwagon keep" on anything with 3 or 4 keep votes. Anything that got 5 or more keep votes was safe simply because it would be very unlikely that the article would get 15 total votes (5 keep, 10 against). --Mn-z 14:08, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

2.  Against. per the theory of MrN9000 that we should avoid deleting stuff that has a significant portion of the community wants to keep when we are overwhelmed with equally bad or worse crap that noone cares about. (With exceptions, such as any libel, cyberbulling, articles that tend to spawn other bad articles, psuedo-maintenance templates that tell the reader to foul up and article, et cetera. But I digress). Deleting stuff that nobody cares about requires less community effort, clearing up more crap per man-hour, and it tends to generate lessw drama. That the reasoning behind my "bandwagon keep" votes on VFD . --Mn-z 13:32, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
   • The bandwagon keep is basically not voting for the right reasons and is one of the reasons I don't really bother with VFD anymore. mAttlobster. (hello) 17:20, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
3.  Against.Per above. Why delete articles that a number of people care about when we could be deleting articles that nobody cares about? Besides, some articles may survive VFD one time, only to be deleted on VFD at a later time, when the bar has been raised.-- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 21:59, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
4. Conditional For all the other options. Criteria changed to "five keep votes with good reason" -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 18:24, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

   I think you mean "Conditional Against", compared to the other votes in this section. Anyway, that's basically what I meant with "well argumented" in that other forum. I'll change the header, presuming that the keep voters won't object to stating their reasons for voting keep. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:30, 16 August 2010

   Fantastic. Then you can completely ignore this I guess? -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 01:12, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

A certain number of delete votes ensures deletion

Percentage required for deletion

These +# votes don't get to the heart of the issue... there needs to be a minimum majority level to have an article deleted at any specific time point. Say... 4/5 @ 24 hours, 3/4 @ 48 hours, 2/3 @ 72 hours: if an article doesn't meet that minimum level of survivability at that time frame it continues on; then it is at the admin's discretion.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  14 Aug 2010 ~ 05:47 (UTC)

Wait. What? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 05:52, 14 August 2010

Too much math for an assumed decision. Like I said when I nominated NotM, I wouldn't delete it if the vote was 22/26 just because the score was +10. Bigger decisions require a bigger margin and a bigger length of time, and this is something that can be calculated simply by looking at the nomination without the need of fancy percentages. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 05:54, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Rereading your suggestion, I'm now of Socky's opinion. What? -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 05:56, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

I was told that knowing $math$ was one of the prerequisites to becoming an admin? (Or we get a formula template to figure it out.)

The point I was trying to make is that there should be a large majority of delete votes to equal an automatic deletion (without further discussion/comment) at a given point in time. That the margin should lower over time. That the times in question would be at 24/48/72 hours. That if the vote did not meet minimum requirements at that time it would be up to the admin(s) on what to do.

Clear as mud now right?  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  14 Aug 2010 ~ 06:06 (UTC)

So you mean it's the percentage of delete votes that should decide whether something's deleted and not the amount of delete votes there are more than keep votes, right? So what are the percentages you envision then? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 06:34, 14 August 2010

In a word: yes. (There should always be more delete than keep votes for an automatic deletion.)

My thoughts were to have a certain percentage level to equal automatic deletion, possibly (votes for deletion) greater than or equal to 324% at 24 hours, >=248% @ 48, >=172% @ 72...? I picked those percentages at random to be easy to remember (and demonstrate the lowering over time) but they can be anything really, the percentage doesn't matter to me as long as they are agreed to and set by consensus. (The time factor just allows more users to weigh-in on any given article to get a better voting result.)

This is just an aid to the admins to make a quick determination if an article is a "slam-dunk" for deletion, ie: Step 1, does this meet the minimum percentage for deletion? Yes=delete, No=additional time/make an admin-level decision.

(The percentages should be set fairly high so that, Yes=delete, 1.) should not cause controversy. 2.) should be the normal case, barring rare excessive argument(s)/circumstance(s) to the contrary in the comments section (then=admin-level decision).)

The exception to this would be if another rule discussed here was implemented which modified automatic deletions. (For example, I can see us putting into place a rule which would stop this auto-delete if a minimum number of keep votes were present at any given time. A simple if/then sequence (program/flow chart) could be built to drop the delete/keep number totals into if that is the case.)  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  14 Aug 2010 ~ 07:45 (UTC)

Score: 0

1.  For.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  14 Aug 2010 ~ 05:47 (UTC)
2.  Nah. While not a bad idea per se, I think it'd be too hard to implement and deciding which percentages should be used would be pretty difficult too. Also, the highest possible percentage of delete votes would be 100%, just saying. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 08:59, 16 August 2010

An appeal round in certain cases

EMC mentioned something like this somewhere. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:56, 14 August 2010

Score: -1

1. I'm down with this as an addendum to "Don't 'ensure' anything" in case a user disagrees with the admin's decision. The "court" should probably just be talk pages, though, unless someone comes up with a nicer, simpler idea that also ensures mediation. Let's not throw in some more bureaucracy than we need. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 04:50, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
2. I'm  For this one too. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 05:30, 14 August 2010
3.  Against. While I can see the reasoning behind this, I think it will create more drama then it will prevent. If vfd is working right, there should not be articles that "slip threw the cracks" and get deleted in the first place. If we wanted to have a two-tier deletion system, one for removing universally unwanted crap and other for dealing with controversial articles that need a community discussion, I would suggest MrN9000's pants template idea if anyone remembers it. (Basically, it was a quick version {{Fix}}, except anyone could remove the template for any reason.)
   How VFD is set up now, its supposed to a deliberate discussion. Adding an appeal discussion afterwards will probably only result the same vote/discussion being done twice. Granted, there were a few instances when VFD deleted something probably "against community consensus". But, what is stop everything that gets a keep vote with feeling behind it from being appealed? That would result in pressure to quicken the appeal process, probably causing to make as many mistakes as the current process. Actually, it would probably be worse, since every disputed nom would require twice as much work for the same amount of deliberation.
   I wouldn't object to some sort of two-tier voting system (in theory), but implementing it would require systematic reworking of our deletion processes. In order for that to work, the main system would need to be faster than the current VFD and appeal would need to be slower and more deliberate than the current VFD. I think a 24 hour limit and 5 keep votes = keep rule would solve most of the problems without totally reworking the system. --Mn-z 14:39, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

   This would only be implemented in cases which seem to require an appeal, not just when someone votes keep. If it's obvious that everyone's just gonna vote delete again, then an appeal would indeed be pointless. But if that's not obvious at all, an appeal certainly wouldn't be pointless. Also, the system doesn't need to be changed at all. If a couple people can make a case for appealing a previous delete vote (on a forum or an admin's talkpage or wherever), then an admin can just create a VFD appeal entry at the VFD page. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:04, 14 August 2010

   What is to stop someone from making appeals on everything? And if we have some sort of process to stop bad appeals, what is to stop that process from being used to deny valid appeals? And finally, even the you can figure a fair process for accepting or denying appeals, that would add a third layer of voting/deliberations. --Mn-z 00:03, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

   Fine. Fine. Just stop messing up the formatting. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 00:07, 15 August 2010

4.  Against. If, despite our best efforts on these issues, we design a new VFD voting procedure that regularly makes bad decisions, the solution is to go back to the drawing board, not invent a VFD Appeals Board that corrects the decisions. To the extent they decide differently, it's instant drama between VFD voters and Appeals voters. Let's just fix the problem instead. Spıke ¬ 17:19 14-Aug-10
5.  Against. I have a feeling that this would just have us deleting and restoring articles in an infinite loop. We really don't have a huge need for this.--HM (T) 17:38, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

   An appeal vote is just a second vote which would be allowed when deemed necessary and the same people who voted for the original vote can vote for the appeal vote too. Taking that into consideration, an infinite loop seems highly improbable. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:49, 14 August 2010

   Plus, I can only see this happening in very special situations that would probably just be complained about in a forum anyway with no ultimate consequences. So, yeah, still for this. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 20:32, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

6.  Against.--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 22:45, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Don't "ensure" anything

Score: +1

1. I don't know if this is the right section to put this but I feel, as an admin, like legislation like this is strangling. I feel that if the race is not-too-tight and not-too-obvious to assume a uniform user consensus, a bit of admin discretion isn't a bad thing. Anything in the +1 to +3 range can easily be an innocent article deleted, but it can also be a piece of crap saved on a technicality. As an admin, it's assumed that we exercise caution and responsibility with our deletions. I may not peruse every word of the articles I delete, but I do far from deleting an article based strictly on votes, especially on close cases. If you remove this discretion then it effectively reduces the admin role to that of a glorified janitor on a tight leash, which is a trend that we've been taking on this site lately. I'm also changing the name of this section because it's pretty clear you haven't kept an open mind to all sides on this issue by assigning a throwaway, slanted title to one stance. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 04:27, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

   Well, yeah. Haven't you been paying attention lately? Uncyclopedia is conspiratorially run by an elite illuminati of administrators and bureaucrats. We the sheeple have to WAKE UP and grab control of the controllers so they can no longer exploit us and the site for personal gain. --Andorin Kato 04:31, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

   I don't see what that has to do with anything I just said. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 04:34, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

   It's a sarcastic take on the "glorified janitor on a tight leash, which is a trend that we've been taking on this site lately" bit. Personally I think room for admin discretion is fine, hence the sarcasm (which is more directed at everyone else than you specifically). --Andorin Kato 04:36, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

   If it really is QVFD/ICU-worthy crap, then you can outright delete it. If it's not, then I wouldn't think leaving the decision up to the voters is a bad thing. It's VFD after all, and admins can vote too, ya know. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 04:37, 14 August 2010

   But this would only change things after the voter's decision has apparently failed or become outdated (which is Aleister's point). At that point, there's no clear consensus based on the current votes. That's when I don't think it's entirely crazy for an admin to step in and decide the next direction for the vote to go. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 04:41, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

   But the voters ought to know when an article is gonna be deleted. If "admin discretion" results in the deletion of an article with +3 majority, I don't really mind. But if that happens with +2 or +1 majorities, I imagine people might object. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 04:57, 14 August 2010

   +2 is pushing it a little and +3 is usually the point that I intervene, but I assume +1 is a narrow keep in all instances. Like I said below, anything you construe as abuse of power or an incorrect decision can easily be appealed by contacting the admin (or another admin, if they're obstinate) on their talk page. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 05:02, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

   But 90% of those discussions can be prevented by officially instating some "basic rules", so people at least now when they're deviating from these basic rules. That still leaves room for admin discretion. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 05:11, 14 August 2010

   This could just stem back to your word choice "ensure," which seems to imply that if an article doesn't get +4 it's automatically kept, and that's a line you can't toe over anymore. I'm for a "+1 vote = Keep and also check timestamps on votes and changes to make sure major changes haven't been undergone since the last delete etc" thing, but I feel like a bit of discretion is necessary for +2 and 3, especially on smaller low-stakes votes with little more than 5 votes total, or something. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 05:24, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

   If it's just about my use of "ensure", just imagine "(with some admin discretion allowed)" at the end of the section header. I just want to establish the basic rules, not rule out admins judging things case-by-case and slightly deviating from these "basic rules". —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 05:38, 14 August 2010

   Alright, that's fine by me. Seems like we're just putting already-held unwritten sentiments on some sort of paper, but I'm not against it. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 05:43, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

2.  weak for I would support some sort of disclaimer on VFD to the effect (and maybe less wordy) that "vfd survival does not guarantee immunity from deletion for articles, such as those that are qvfd bad, copyright violations, or against community standards; or deletion in the future by another VFD nom or other means" --Mn-z 13:54, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

   Though your point is completely different from TKF's, that's again not what I mean with "ensure". —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:45, 14 August 2010

Only allow users to nominate 10 VFD's per article they write

I know we all do different things here on the site but I don't think VFD should be anyone's full-time or first-time job. (And as much as I hate to push writing in this case I think it's appropriate.)

Score: -4

1.  For.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  14 Aug 2010 ~ 05:32 (UTC)
2. Strong No. VFD serves more important purposes aside from just deleting the crap, which is important enough anyway. Most importantly, it brings articles to people's attention in a much more effective way than a rewrite template. The reason why this issue has a forum now is because so many people have been improving or rewriting VFD entries that would have otherwise gone unnoticed. Also, many users on this site simply can't push out articles no matter how hard they tried. Writing requires inspiration and certainly not be a prerequisite for maintenance. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 05:39, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

   Then maybe we need to focus more on rewriting instead of deleting articles. VFD should not be used to force people to rewrite things. Etc. etc. grumble, grumble.

   "Writing requires inspiration and certainly not be a prerequisite for maintenance." Fine; Only allow users to nominate 50 (or whatever) VFD's per article they write. The point here is to appreciate the process it takes to create an article. The point is to contribute rather than destroy. Boot camp for all VFDers before they can nominate... it will be a new world order and ordered in a new way.... Schmeggans!!!!  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  14 Aug 2010 ~ 05:57 (UTC)

   The reason why VFD works better than a template, a decree, or anything else is that there's a sense of urgency, and urgency is the best motivation aside from generosity (which VFD also provides). No one's forcing anyone to rewrite anything, but by exposing the cracks in Uncyclopedia it gives them the opportunity to fix them with enough motivation to get it done. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 06:06, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

   I concede your point.

   But from my point of view when I see an article on VFD I believe it's fate is sealed to the vote, and for an article leaning towards deletion unless I do a massive rewrite & then campaign to the do-not-keep voters immediately it isn't worth my time because the work I poor into it will be destroyed. I'd suggest an article purgatory before deletion for a given time period for close calls but I think that would be far more work than it is worth to the dmins/poop-smithes.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  14 Aug 2010 ~ 06:12 (UTC)

3.  Against. Let's not bend this debate on VFD rules to try to dictate where people spend their time on Uncyclopedia. Yes, it would be nice if people wrote articles. (HELPME, you still owe me your first!) But VFD has been a catalyst for me to return from UnNews to mainspace. Listing on VFD hardly seals an article's fate, though it guarantees the first vote toward deletion; some articles are quickly saved, either as Uncyclopedia showpieces (good or bad) or after study. Last month we had three Keeps in a row. Spıke ¬ 09:26 14-Aug-10
4.  Against. per above and it would be accounting nightmare and it will spawn image macros in order to up someone's article count. Additionally, we really shouldn't be encouraging people to write too much, in the sense that is better to silent then write crap. --Mn-z 13:41, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
5.  Strong against. To be very blunt, this idea is idiotic, mostly for reasons explained above.--HM (T) 17:41, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
6.  For in principle but  Against in reality. Because VFD just wouldn't work that way. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:57, 14 August 2010

Grumble, grumble. You win. Stupid idea. People don't have to be competent writers to recognise shite.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  14 Aug 2010 ~ 20:05 (UTC)

Elapsed time before poopsmithing

This probably doesn't require a formal rule but, as we have recently guaranteed the right of those logging in only daily to vote on VFD before an article dies, I'd ask admins to likewise wait 24 hours after closing the vote either way before they move the vote to the archive. Spıke ¬ 09:44 14-Aug-10

Not necessary. Articles are usually kept for a few hours, and if a user has a bone to pick with a deletion they can easily find the vote in the archives. I don't see really old deletions not causing much controversy, and even then those are still pretty easily found. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 20:35, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Controversy aside, I'd like to see the outcome of the vote before it disappears too quickly and I have to go to the archive. It's just a convenience. Spıke ¬ 22:05 14-Aug-10

However, leaving the articles there would cause some difficulty for those making new VFD noms, as they would have to manually count active noms to see if VFD is at/over its 20 article limit or not. --Mn-z 00:08, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

These should be exceptions to the rules

In some cases it might be appropriate to bend the rules slightly. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:47, 14 August 2010

If an article has been edited extensively

In which case it should be given some extra time so the delete voters are given the opportunity to change their votes. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:47, 14 August 2010

Score: 9

1.  For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:47, 14 August 2010
2.  For. This is the only thing here I really care about.--HM (T) 05:08, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
3. For. = Re-vote.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  14 Aug 2010 ~ 05:18 (UTC)
4. Yeah, and also for popular or well-known topics. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 05:30, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
5.  For. And I'm sure Aleister will be here soon! The admin (not the editor, it's easy to call your own changes "extensive") should be able to close the vote and renominate the article, just above, with a blank slate. Once only. Spıke ¬ 09:16 14-Aug-10

   Did I hear my name? Where am I? Who dares disturb London Underground!? Ah, I mean Aleister. Aleister 18:07 14 8

    For. close/blank slate. 96.18.94.243

6.  For. And this is precisely what I did with an article recently. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 19:51, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
7.  For. The only question is how MUCH extra time to give it...another 24 hours? -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 21:54, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
8.  For. This is only the half of it. Many people won't even look at the page again, so what's the use of having this rule unless the admin working the site takes the edits into consideration too, with the only requirement being "Would this now be nominated for VFD?" Aleister 22:05 14 8
9.  For.--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 23:09, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

The whole reason Socky did this...

Was because Olipro has been bending the rules quite frequently on VFD-he's been deleting articles with only a +2 score. Just thought I'd make it known. Saberwolf116 04:51, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Something similar also happened with ChiefjusticeDS once, but I explained the situation and we came to an agreement. I just want to avoid having to do that over and over. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 04:55, 14 August 2010

I'm going out on a limb and infer that "having to do that over and over" means "talk with Olipro, too", which would have also been a good solution to this issue. "Fuck this, I'm making a forum," can't really be a solution to all our problems, especially since it's a problem that just concerns the decisions of one or two people at a given time. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 04:59, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

That's why I want to involve more people in this. I don't want to be the one telling admins "Hey, you're doing this wrong" and having to write essay-length stuff before we come to an agreement. That's a waste of time not just for me, but for the admin too. If the community agrees on what rules should be applied, is that really a bad thing? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 05:06, 14 August 2010

I feel like this issue isn't flagrantly abused enough to have a community vote at the threat of causing a controversy, which is what usually happens with community votes about stuff. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 05:20, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

I feel like risking a bit controversy to prevent flagrant abuse isn't a bad thing. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 05:22, 14 August 2010

That's not what I meant. What I'm saying is that there isn't any sort of general, administration-wide flagrant abuse going on. This is a problem with Olipro and the discussion could easily be limited to being just with Olipro and anyone else who wanders by, too. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 05:26, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

I strongly believe the rules should be written down and should mean what they say. As in a previous debate, "discretion" is pronounced "whim" when you don't agree with the outcome. (Disclaimer: I have made this argument not just on VFD but in other aspects of the creative process, regarding communicating to authors what you expect of them, and repeatedly been told by Mordillo and Mr.N that "this isn't Wikipedia.")

Let's discuss rules and not personalities. "If you have a problem with a specific individual, please settle it in the appropriate forum. The parking lot." Spıke ¬ 09:36 14-Aug-10

I assume by "bending the rules" you mean "bending the unwritten rules I think we should be using". I have absolutely no objection to setting minimum scores or similar shit, but it is quite fucking irritating when you're bandying about accusatory statements; if the "rules" you refer to aren't written into UN:DEL then it's not policy. Once consensus is reached in this forum, those policies need to be written in. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 19:03, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

You see, Olipro, I expected you to say that. Chiefjustice said something similar back when I discussed this with him. And you're absolutely right in saying that policies ought to be written down somewhere. I made this forum to come to an agreement about what should be the "official policy", because I don't have the right to dictate the rules to the admins and an admin is in his full right if he decides not to trust my judgement. I've observed the last couple years the "rules" (unofficial ones) that were being used and how some "new rules" (unofficial ones too) have been applied lately. That's why I think there's a need to have "official rules", so different admins don't use completely different rules. That's why I made this forum. But, Olipro, if at any time I accused you of anything, I apologise. I honestly didn't intend to talk bad about anyone. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:42, 14 August 2010

Duly noted, no harm, no foul -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 17:45, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Before anyone replies to this any further I want you all to remember rule 1, I'm growing increasingly tired of the impolite and inconsiderate way a number of people are speaking to each other here. It ends now, speak to everyone else civilly or you can sit the discussion out for a day and consider every possible meaning of the words "Behave or GTFO". I don't care what has already been said to who by him/her/it. Now let us continue to discuss this policy change as if we were adults. --ChiefjusticeXBox360 20:42, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's rule 2, you big unfunny stupidhead -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 21:32, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting me Olipro, would like a cookie? You great unfunny arsebiscuit. --ChiefjusticeXBox360 21:34, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Yes please, you stultifyingly boring fannycandle -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 02:17, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Olipro, before I go, I got three words: Tits or GTFO! And I'm being civilised and that Tits or GTFO! is protected by UN:R. |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill | 11:14, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Remember

Just because you don't read something in doesn't mean others don't as well.

Just because you think something is right for VFD doesn't mean others will think so too.

... looking over the redlinks on my watch list ...

HAPPYTIMES ANGRY!!! HAPPYTIMES SMASH!!!!!!

~ 14 Aug 2010 ~ 04:13 (UTC)  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  14 Aug 2010 ~ 05:32 (UTC)

Tiered voting

A whole lot of the time, this seems to be coming down to the people on the Keep side feeling much more strongly about an article than the people on the Delete side. I'm big on impartiality and you have to draw the line somewhere, whilst maybe some people might want to bias the voting system towards keep voters, this could inevitably end up in a lot of cruft being kept for no good reason; a far more objective system would be to allow voters a sliding scale of 0.1-1 or 1-10, whatever floats your boat psychologically; at least this way you would have a VERY GOOD barometer of how people feel about a given article and you would naturally also expect the final score to reflect the consensus on the article, meaning that there's no need to fuck around with saying "oh, 4 people more are needed to vote delete", if it has > 0, it gets deleted. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 19:46, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Yes I am tired of voting... what? Oh, sorry.

Sometimes I see the delete votes are really  Meh. votes. For me a lot of times I look at an article & think... well this little guy isn't hurting anything & isn't too terribly bad. Sometimes I look at stuff and go, that's crap but this part here is so funny it made milk come out of my nose. And rarely I'm all EXTERMINATE!. I guess what I'm trying to say is sometimes what we delete would be ok if left alone & VFD should be primarily focused on removing the truly true crap from the site.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  14 Aug 2010 ~ 20:05 (UTC)

Some people on this site are naturally more dramatic than others and could inflate the size of their votes to tip the scales towards their opinions every time. In fact, if we implement this system I can easily see this happening on almost every vote in the future. On almost any site where a ratings system with user input exists, people rarely vote 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, or 9. It's almost always a 0, 5 or 10, and much more often the extremes than the middle as well. I've noticed on Pee Review several users tend to naturally underscore while others do the opposite (I've gotten a review of 44/50 and was told it's "not quite VFH" or something similar) and things won't be different here. The only difference is that the stakes are much higher on VFD.

We can take this idea to a much more radical extreme and implement an entirely new system that I would be in support of. Rather than an outright vote, each nominated article will be the subject of an (extensive) 48+ hour debate on its cons and merits. The side than brings up the best points would, in turn, have the most "points," and the outcome would be ultimately decided by a small group of impartial admins and/or poopsmiths. Again, this leaves a lot of room for discretion, but as I said, these users have been trusted with these powers in the first place so we shouldn't have much to worry about. Plus, it makes the role of poopsmith more important, which is something I've been feeling should have happened for a while now. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 20:28, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, if some people are "more drastic" then everyone's going to see that and they will adjust their votes in response; it would only ever be a problem if the majority of people voting are "drastic" or in other words, being dramaqueens/tossers, which I find unlikely... So basically, I would expect things to normalize themselves fairly rapidly. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 02:21, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Weak keep and Weak delete are already methods of proposing that one's vote be underweighted, as the rules seem to let admins do. In the case of extreme indecision, there's the Comment box. I use these infrequently, mostly assuming you want an independent viewpoint and will give it full weight, even if it concludes that an article near and dear to someone's heart is crap.

I think we have solved the only real problem that existed--occasionally insufficient notice before an article was huffed--and we are now looking for new problems that are not as severe as any of the proposed complications. Spıke ¬ 20:30 14-Aug-10

I do think the "against" vote floods that we now see on VFD are a bit problematic. The wiki is about as deletionistic as I seen it. I think our older de facto policy of keeping anything that has some following (with exceptions) worked better. Although some crap was kept, it tended to generate less drama. --Mn-z 22:05, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

My radical plan

There are two words, and two words only, for the revamping of how we vote in VFD (and VFS, VFH, Useless Gobshit of the Month, etc.): EXTREME OVERHAUL. Yes, EXTREME OVERHAUL. We have to overhaul the voting system to the point that it would be all the same, whethter it's VFD, VFH or VFP. And to the point that Mordillo and his croniesadmins can control the majority. |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill | 11:12, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me

That this whole issue has been greatly overcomplicated and all VFD voters and deleting admins will now need a 35 page manual to operate VFD, and we'll be getting more more like Wikipedia by the day. I think a simple guideline like:

1. 24 hours minimum period (already implemented)
2. Minimum 5 votes to delete or a majority of +5 to delete (so you always have at least 5 more people wishing to delete an article than the keepers) will cover this whole issue nicely. You don't need to over complicate.

Thoughts? ~ Mordillo where is my SPICY CUNT FUCK? 07:56, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

I like it. Setting a deletion minimum will hopefully encourage people to vote on VFD. --Andorin Kato 07:58, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Also, hah. "Mordillo (where is my BONER?) > Andorin Kato, the BONER" --Andorin Kato 07:59, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

I can support that, but if the community wants to instate an extra rule or two, I don't think it'll make things that much more complicated. Also, as I explained above somewhere, if those are the rules, they should be written down somewhere. And while we're in the action of writing down rules, I thought we might as well take a few additional options into consideration, as I think a few good proposals were made at this other forum topic. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 08:11, 16 August 2010

The problem is, that if you don't set simple rules that cannot be interpreted, you'll get deletion dramas over and over. A simple majority cannot be interpreted while deleting an article based on how much was it edited in the past or based on the personal opinions of the voters as stated in the deletion page, is leaving the whole process wide open which is what we're trying to eliminate here. ~ Mordillo where is my SPICY CUNT FUCK? 08:19, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

So, wait. Which of the rules that have been proposed and gotten some support aren't simple or are open to interpretation? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 08:30, 16 August 2010

The article being extensively edited part and the tiered voting. With the percentage bit I think it will cause too much headache and I don't see why it's needed if we agree on a simple majority. ~ Mordillo where is my SPICY CUNT FUCK? 08:34, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

What he said. Some of the stuff suggested on here made my eyes cross. VFD should be simple, and I've always tried to treat it as such. +5 minimum and 24 hours minimum. Fine. Deletion should not be the most important thing on here, and we shouldn't have to have a baffling array of processes to make it work. If it's clear that enough people think it sucks, it goes, otherwise it stays. Article creation should be the most important thing on here. --UU - natter 08:48, Aug 16

It's also important to keep some of the articles that are created, UU. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 08:52, 16 August 2010

Yes, but it shouldn't take a huge amount of time and effort to decide if that's going to happen, which is the point I'm making. As an admin, you want to nip in to VFD, see a vote with 6 to delete and none to keep and know you can delete it, not have to get the bloody calculator out to work out it it meets all applicable criteria. --UU - natter 08:57, Aug 16

The undisputed deletions will still be as simple as they are now. It's just the articles that might be worth keeping that get some extra attention. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 09:01, 16 August 2010

It often happens that an article is greatly rewritten while it's at VFD. It seems only fair to allow the voters some more time so they can make up their minds and the article isn't deleted because of votes on what's actually a different article. The two other proposals you mention weren't made by me and I don't think they can work. If people don't feel strongly about their votes, they should probably consider not voting, instead of applying some sort of tiered vote system. The percentage thing would mainly just abstract things further and deciding which percentages should be used seems pretty difficult as well. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 08:50, 16 August 2010

Than make a bold remark in the remarks section saying - "DELETING ADMIN PLEASE NOTE THAT ARTICLE IS UNDER REWRITE". If it got deleted, it can be restored in a stroke of a button. ~ Mordillo where is my SPICY CUNT FUCK? 09:26, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. As it currently stands, I haven't yet seen an article with heavy editing, in which the editor has notified the VFD vote of the changers, actually be deleted. Even if it is, then still what Mordillo says. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 18:22, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Well, Expert was deleted after Aleister had removed lots of cruft. It might not have been improved sufficiently for the delete voters to change their votes though. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:30, 16 August 2010

Yeah, most delete votes were after-the-fact. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 19:15, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Voting Reasons

The main problem with VFD is people voting for reasons other than whether the article is funny or not. Reasons such as 'it will only come back worse' and 'bandwagon keep', make a mockery of the whole thing. People should vote on the quality of the article and pull their cocks out of the faux-intellectual stew. mAttlobster. (hello) 17:25, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. This is why I'm extremely hesitant to implement the "five keeps and it's safe" rule, because a pointless keep vote can be as common as a pointless delete vote. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 18:19, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
• Yes. "Bandwagon keep" is the "Per ___" vote (which was accused of being a bandwagon vote but adequately defended in the previous forum) plus the admission that the vote is cast in view of the number (and perhaps identity) of the reviewers and not the attributes of the article. The traditional view has served us well--that it takes an excess of 4 or 5 to delete and that admins have some leeway to consider the stated rationales. "It will only come back worse" is speculation about what will happen in the future, though the statement that an article is an inevitable IP magnet is valid. That an article is worse than having a red-link is a valid criterion; an assertion that huffing it will induce someone to write a good article is just speculation. Spıke ¬ 22:46 16-Aug-10
•  Against. per the fact that this will only cause voters to simply lie about the reason for voting keep or delete. MrN9000 came up with the bandwagon keep idea. (Or the theory behind it, if not the actual practice). And back in my day, we didn't get a rush delete votes on high profile noms: if something got 5 keep votes, it was effectively guaranteed a keep. Also, appeals to authority and past practices are completely valid arguments. --Mn-z 02:20, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

  If a person has to lie to come up with a reasonable reason to vote for something then why are they even voting in the first place? -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 09:15, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

  The person's reason is reasonable to themselves. They are forced to lie because the arbitrating admin doesn't regard the real reason as good enough. --Mn-z 10:47, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

  No one is "forced to lie." Spıke ¬ 10:51 17-Aug-10

  Mnbvcxz, if you're talking about 'bandwagon' voting, then the reason isn't good enough. If this forum comes up with a decent set of rules for how many keep votes/delete votes are needed and then a user votes using a stupid voting reason, it wastes everybody's time who's looked at the article properly and tried their best to make an informed decision. mAttlobster. (hello) 11:25, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

• Yes 'Bandwagon Keep' is just plain stupid. If it does 'come back worse' then just renom it. Keep things simple. Mnbvcxz's comment about this forcing people to lie about their votes is invalid in my opinion. VFd relies on honesty anyway. mAttlobster. (hello) 07:16, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
• Yes. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 12:38, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
•  Meh. So which one is it: funny or quality? I've seen some unfunny (to the voters at that time), but with quality, articles disappear in the past and I think that is wrong.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  18 Aug 2010 ~ 06:03 (UTC)

Fair comment. I guess that's up to the voter to decide - both are valid keep reasons and both are about the content of the article. I was talking about not using reasons that were not about the actual article like 'it'll only come back worse'. mAttlobster. (hello) 08:40, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Guys, we (the admins) cannot judge weather a vote is more valid or has more weight. We can only determine if it's kosher or not (ie - sockpuppet, vandal, drama-related etc). I don't think we can run with this one. ~ Mordillo where is my SPICY CUNT FUCK? 11:20, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting it's something that's policed - just that as a guideline people should not vote 'keep' for the reason of 'bandwagon delete' or 'it'll only come back worse.' These reasons are not based on the quality of the article. If people want to ignore the guidelines then I accept there's nothing much that can be done. mAttlobster. (hello) 13:34, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

 deference & bandwagon "for" on what Mordillo said --Mn-z 21:34, August 18, 2010 (UTC)