Forum:VFD is now Pants

Forums: Index > Village Dump > VFD is now Pants

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4671 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Well it's a little bit more pants than it used to be anyway. Hows about... We put VFD back to how it was before it was recently made more pants?

I will save you my rant involving my opinion about why it would be better as it was before and... Oh wait. I was only joking. Here is my rant... VFD should not be about a score or number of votes, but a decision made by an admin based on a discussion. Even mentioning a required score makes people more likely to just vote and not comment and improve the discussion. That's bad. We want VFD to be active, and fun and we want people discussing their votes. If admins are deleting articles at VFD which users don't think they should, they should challenge the admin about it, or contact another for a second opinion. We don't have to make VFD pants just because this happens sometimes.

Having the Elapsed Time turn from green to red appears to make users less likely to vote on the articles which have turned red. The ones which need the votes the most. I'm not exactly sure why, but that does appear to happen somewhat. Having to wait 24 hours to keep something when it's obvious to absolutely everyone that it's not going to be deleted clogs up VFD, and is daft.

• "Allow at least 24 hours before closing a nomination or deleting an article."

should read:

• "Normally allow at least 24 hours before deleting an article."

We should also get rid of the green/red system as administrators can look at the time stamp on the sig of the user who nominated the article to get the same information. The new layout is trying to make VFD a machine. It's not. It's more effort to vote than it used to be and most importantly it's now less fun than it used to be. IMO that's one of the reasons why it's less busy, and so not working as well as it could. /end rant MrN 23:01, Jun 8

Attack MrN here

VFD used to be fun? --ChiefjusticeGameCube 23:03, June 8, 2011 (UTC)

We had monkeys once. MrN 23:06, Jun 8

I dunno, I think VFD is running more smoothly than it used to thanks to all these newfangled templates 'n' junk. Anyone can close a VFD nom now, there's no more arbitrariness and whatnot. I mean, that was what kept me from archiving VFD all the time - being forced to make the final decision about a buncha articles (I just don't do it now cuz I'm lazy). Now it's all clear-cut and stuff. But then again, I'm drunk. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:45 Jun 08, 2011

I believe the new VFD rules came into force because of some possible/alleged dickery on VFD. What basically happened was several people voted against an article in relatively quick secession, not giving the supporters of the article time to vote. It was one of those relatively high profile in-side joke articles. --Mn-z 23:48, June 8, 2011 (UTC)

I hate inside jokes... never bothering to come outside, where it's warm... unless you live in the southern hemisphere, o 'course. Then it's cold on account of being winter 'n' all. But I think most of our inside jokes are of the northern type. Not the northern type, but the upper hemisphere, you know? The better hemisphere. We don't have Africa. Suck it, Africa! And your AIDS. But anyway, yeah, again, lack of ambiguity, that's a good thing I think. It's not like VFD's all that complicated nowadays. In fact, it's lesser complicated than before. Keep? Against? Who can keep track of those crazy things, am I right? But red and green, now, that's something I can get behind. Unless you're colorblind, in which case, you can count to 24 I assume. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:55 Jun 08, 2011

Inside jokes or otherwise, a lack of ambiguity is good. What we really seem to be lacking are folks who can be bothered to vote, kind of like this doctor here who can't be arsed to close nominations. But if they can't be bothered to vote, how in tarnation can we expect them to put in thoughtful reasons? 1234 ~ 00:26, 9 June 2011

I might as well bring this up so we can get to full drama-fest more quickly... the last guy we had who really consistently gave thorough arguments for or against keeping articles (and he'd put a decent amount of thought into it) was accused of dickery, banned for a week, and subsequently left. This 'dickery' was his speaking his mind and being blunt about how he thought things were, which, yes, he could have been a whole lot nicer about it, but trying to get things deleted is inherently not nice, which is a problem. Apparently as a result, another guy I recall who would argue for the deletion or keeption of articles and provide actual reasons whilst doing so got fed up with what he the considered closed-minded dicks effectively running things and left the website entirely. Less relatedly, yet another fellow who would often provide arguments for keeping things was also recently banned for a week and has not been seen since. His ban was for less related reasons, but he likewise tended not to be very nice about his arguments. Another still had an angry IP or some such vandalise him after he put one of its articles up for deletion, with, as was his tendency, thought-out reasons as to why. Though a promising new user, he apparently left as a result and hasn't been seen since.

There's no winning, especially when folks like to read reasoning as to why their articles are bad as personal attacks. 1234 ~ 00:54, 9 June 2011

So basically "everybody thought everybody else was bein' a dick," which is a valid point of view for everybody. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 01:36 Jun 09, 2011

Pret-ty much. Doesn't end well, though, and isn't really conducive to putting much effort into anything, either. 1234 ~ 01:42, 9 June 2011

I don't think the problem is all, hey I can't express my opinions and junk, it's more that people can be serious dicks on that page, y'know what I mean? I mean wow. People get all high 'n' mighty talkin' about how much everyone's articles suck. And granted a lot of 'em do suck, and all, but geez, people can really go overboard, like they're some lords of deletion or whatever, getting a big head and whatnot. Like, being condescending and shit instead of analytical. That's really not cool. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 01:46 Jun 09, 2011

Sure, they can go overboard... but they all can. Not just the deleters or the keepers, everyone involved. It's kind of hopeless, really. 1234 ~ 01:49, 9 June 2011

I think that is more of a issues of established users leaving than VFD in particular. --Mn-z 02:14, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

Point. 1234 ~ 06:43, 9 June 2011

Things which work about the 25-hour policy: 1) No stampeding to a decision. 2) Many more articles are fixed, rewritten or generally bettered. 3) It allows people time to see an article, and many of them are pretty good. 4) People who haven't yet learned learn a little more about telling time. 5) Everyone misses SPIKE. We need to get to the begging stage and give him women. Aleister 1:45 9-6-'11

Is he cute? 1234 ~ 01:49, 9 June 2011

Let me try wording that again...

I have no problem with the 24 hour rule normally being used for deletes. That's a good idea.

If an admin were to override that rule they would need a very good reason, such as spotting old ICU abuse, blatant vanity, new pants article, or similar.

People will be dicks. Even admins sometimes. I agree that VFD is easier to run for the admins now. I'm just not sure that the page itself is working as well as it could. The 24 hour rule on deletes is making it better, but I think the other changes have made it too mechanical now. Just a little anyway. Let me clarify...

I think we should allow admins to be able use judgement as to when to keep an article. What is the point of keeping a nomination on the page if it has 5 keep votes to 1 delete and it's 10 hours old? I don't like showing the age of the nomination in green/red colour because all that appears to do to me is tell administrators if they can huff it or not. I'm hoping that the admins who delete articles at VFD are paying attention enough to know that without needing to have the colour change from green to red. I also think it distracts users. MrN 02:30, Jun 9

Mmm, judgement... so was it what I said on IRC that triggered this? That was not rule, but judgement - I was hoping you would rethink in the future, except the reasoning behind it escaped me and I think there was ranting somewhere, but it might have been somewhere else, or perhaps somewhen else, and what did pants ever do to you, really? You're not secretly Bob, are you? 1234 ~ 02:50, 9 June 2011

AGH! YOU ARE BOB! 1234 ~ 02:53, 9 June 2011

Um. Because of what you said to me on IRC. Um No. Actually I'm almost offended that you are suggesting that. That's not my style at all. I'm doing this because I think VFD can be better. Are you going to answer the questions I asked in my last message? What is the point of keeping a nomination on the page if it has 5 keep votes to 1 delete and it's 10 hours old? and... What does the nomination age and colour change mean to the users? MrN 02:59, Jun 9

I mean no offence, nor am I questioning your motives, at least not intentionally. I am rather tired right now, though, so sorry if I did inadvertently cause some, but cause and effect aren't necessarily linear, is all, especially not with minds. Full of connections. Things bring up other things all the time, remind of things, point to things. Wondering if it brought it to mind, that half-baked request. As for the questions, I was going to leave them to folks more eloquent to say, but if you insist... that situation, yes, may as well wait. 14 hours aren't going to kill anyone, and like Aleister said, folks aren't always up or apt to check in during those other ten hours - it's only fair to give folks wherever a chance to have their say if they want to, won't usually matter, but the odd cases tend to rile people more, and attract greater oddity still. Could be concern with people flocking in just to vote in a direction, usually from IRC or whatnot, because they want to make their own inside joke or some such, as the reverse has already happened, hence the rule - a flood to kill a thing whilst the folks who cared for it were elsewhere. So things most of us really don't want in mainspace could also be kept as a result of folks being quick and sneaky-ish, establishing precedent, which is strangely powerful, here. Or something. I'll just stop talking now because I have no idea what I'm even typing anymore. 1234 ~ 03:31, 9 June 2011

Oh, and I missed that bit about the age and the colours before - they're pretty! And as a user, I can honestly say they're pretty easy to ignore, although they also do a good job of marking which ones are new, so just glancing over, they can be rather useful for that as well. But more importantly, they're pretty. Except maybe having them scale through blue and purple to get to red would be better... we could have this rainbow gradient as the nominations get older! Ooo, this could be so cool. *scuttles off* 1234 ~ 06:51, 9 June 2011

What she said. Timezones + IRC caballing + user cliques + people not feeling like they had a fair chance + it not hurting anyone = leave the 24 hour rule. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 06:11 Jun 09, 2011

I could go both ways on this. Since we have an explicit rule on re-nomming an article within a month of it's first nom, I could see someone abusing the system to get an article keep. Then again, if 5 people care enough about an article to engage in VFD abuse to keep it, I think it should be kept anyway. --Mn-z 21:03, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

After some thought, I think keeping the rules as-is would be a better course of action. I figure the inconvenience of having 100 nominations sit at -4 delete votes for 12 hours is less than that of the drama that will erupt that one time when someone will IRC cabal to abuse the system to save an article. --Mn-z 22:00, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

Stop! Voting Time!

Score: -2 people who want to keep the 24 hour rule on deletes, but otherwise want VFD back the way it used to be

• For -- The Zombiebaron 06:20, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
• Oh are we seriously having a vote now? Okay, fine.  Against. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 06:21 Jun 09, 2011
•  Against. And I think the colours are pretty. 1234 ~ 06:46, 9 June 2011
•  Against. Commenting? Psshh! -- Frosty dah snowguy contribs GUN PLEB 06:50, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
•  Against. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 07:05, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
•  For. -- I want to the 24 rule for deletions, just not keeps. The new colours and score provide NO information of value to the Users (that I can see), and could be confusing so I see no point whatsoever in having them. If someone could tell me what the value of those colours and the score is then maybe I might understand. The colours being "pretty" is not really convincing me. MrN 11:53, Jun 9
• For If it's a clear keep, why not? The N has said that if it looks like it is going the way of the Delete then the 24hr rule will still be all action. mAttlobster. (hello) 11:59, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
•  Pants --ChiefjusticeGameCube 12:09, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
•  'Again 'em' It's proven its weight in gold. Lots of gold. Keeping a VFD up for 24 hours gains good rewrites or fixes, value gets added to articles, and nothing is stampeded. Hopefully this vote will be allowed to run its course over a week or so, and didn't we do this already when the helpful rule was created? Aleister 12:11 9-6-'11
• Get rid of them... I thought they were utter crap when they were brought in.--Sycamore (Talk) 12:37, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
• Abstain. I don't knowwww... --EpicAwesomeness (talk) 15:15, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

I'm very confused by the "gains good rewrites or fixes, value gets added to articles" comment dude. If it's going to be deleted, like you I want it there for 24 hours hoping someone saves it, but I'm not sure how that applies to keeps. Also people can always check the archives if they want to edit recent old VFD nominations. MrN 12:33, Jun 9

This vote is not specific to keeps (oh, I guess it is, just reread it, but still am against), it is "Get rid of the rule we voted in", so it throws out the bathwater with the baby. I'd agree about keeps, although if there was a fun discussion going on it's better to keep in up there. But how this vote is worded gives no hope to articles ganged-up on in the first 20 minutes. That's what occurred in the first place to get this rule in place, and by the way, when are we going to revive Butt-Poop (with four !!!!). That's the major hole not filled, we have no way to vote again on deleted pages. Aleister 12:30 9-6

It does apply to keeps, though. Brings unnoticed articles to light, even if most'll agree they're not delete bad, the mediocre could use attention too. Aleister, I know you like to take some of them and turn them into features, and I doubt you're the only one who's found things you liked. VFD ain't just for deleting things, and even the things that everyone agrees ought to be deleted don't sometimes because someone actually goes and rewrites it, and it's like... oh, nevermind; that works too, and it's generally a better solution for everyone. It just takes longer. 1234 ~ 13:47, 9 June 2011

I really don't like the "VFD is fishing for a rewrite" theory. We already have a rewrite category for that. --Mn-z 21:41, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

People don't care about the rewrite category. Some of them still check VFD, though. For now. Don't worry, it'll soon be as dead as the category, but in the meantime... 1234 ~ 21:46, 9 June 2011

• What no fuck this fuck you all fuck. It's like saying that coal is a better fuel than wind power because people don't like to look at windmills. -- 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 21:38, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
• For tfk y r u always such a dik - Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinAYBCUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at 01:57, Friday 10 June 2011 -
•  Fore! -- >> Hello, my name is Sir Lollipop, and I am Canadian! 02:26, 10 June 2011
•  weak against I've come to the conclusion that process Nazism is a lesser evil than the risk of a dramathon due to IRC caballing, admin dickery (real or imagined), or whatever. --Mn-z 22:41, June 11, 2011 (UTC)