Forum:SH Archive/Trash compactor revamp

As you may have noticed, the trash compactor preload template no longer has the "keep", "merge", "redirect", and "delete" headers.

This was a deliberate decision. Please do not re-add them.

First, these are vague. Merge where? Redirect where? People have a tendency to just vote under one of these without specifying where.

Second, it makes no sense for some articles (for example, if merge is proposed, not deletion), and more options may arise.

A single list, ordered chronologically, is enough; furthermore, it forces people to actually type their decisions and reasoning, which requires more thought than simply voting under an appropriate header. Voting is evil, it encourages sockpuppetry, and makes people adopt inane policies requiring a specific number of edits, which merely deals with the symptoms instead of dealing with a larger problem: the problem of voting vs. discussion.

To anyone who says "We are not Wikipedia": we aren't. But stating a knee-jerk rejection of a process change just because "it's Wikipedia" makes even more sense than mindlessly adopting everything from Wikipedia. I'm not adopting mindlessly; I'm comparing their best practices with ours, and adopting whatever feels more reasonable.

Going by the "a discussion, not a vote" routine, please read Arguments to avoid in trash compactor discussions. - Sikon 11:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments/questions

 * This was a deliberate decision. Did you decide on it or did somebody somewhere agree on it? Were we informed about this before the vfd was put up? If so, where?
 * First, these are vague. Merge where? Redirect where? People have a tendency to just vote under one of these without specifying where. Well, "keep" and "delete" are pretty clear. These were not included in the argumentation. So, what's ambiguous about "keep" and "delete"?
 * A single list, ordered chronologically, is enough; furthermore, it forces people to actually type their decisions and reasoning, which requires more thought than simply voting under an appropriate header. The thought of forcing people into doing something is not particularly appealing. Headerless vfds do not logically prevent voting without reasoning. All it takes is to write "keep" and "delete" and signing unless a policy is implemented which proscribes argumentless voting.
 * Voting is evil Somehow a worrying statement :-P
 * ...it encourages sockpuppetry, and makes people adopt inane policies requiring a specific number of edits, which merely deals with the symptoms instead of dealing with a larger problem: the problem of voting vs. discussion. Ah, okay. Well, the solution you propose does not logically prevent sockpuppetry anymore than voting encourages it. It is still possible to create a bunch of sockpuppets and come up with some arguments for each of them. I'm not sure I fully grasp the part about inane policies and stuff.
 * Please don't get pissed off or annoyed with these comments and questions. KEJ 12:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * When saying "inane policies", I refer to the proposal which, sadly, passed, and which could only arise on a wiki where votes are considered more important than the arguments behind them. (I'm not against filtering out single issue voters, but I'm against elevating this to policy status with arbitrary numbers.) Sockpuppets providing arguments are still better than sockpuppets not providing arguments, and it requires extra effort that may encourage the sockpuppeteer to simply not bother. Obviously, nobody can force users to clearly state an argument (and there should be no policy forcing people to do so), just like on Wikipedia, but it does encourage discussion and compromise-seeking. As for "voting is evil", see Polls are evil and Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. - Sikon 13:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the answers. I fail to see how sockpuppets providing arguments can be better than sockpuppets just providing votes, though. Oh, and I guess, at least on a theoretical plane, there's still the potential for 'single issue argument providers'. KEJ 13:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said: it requires extra effort, and so the sockpuppeteer is less likely to bother. So a system based on arguments instead of vote counting naturally discourages sockpuppetry. After all, the sockpuppeteers can just state all these arguments themselves instead of creating sockpuppets just for that purpose. - Sikon 13:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How, if not by counting votes, are we going to settle whether an article is to be deleted or not? KEJ 13:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (If you think that policy is no good, why not set up a new CT to get rid of it?) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It was only recently adopted, and starting a new CT to get rid of it would mean turning CT into a nomic. And I don't want it to end up like this. The community adopted this policy; I'm not particularly happy about it, but I have no choice but to abide. - Sikon 13:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)