RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation
Articles for deletion...
To whit; 'Balanced Budget Amendment'
Noted this last night [some 22:00 BST] on way home from work. Came on now to reply on this, discovered it had already been ended.
Whoever closed it - I accuse you doing it too quickly.
I also believe there should be a minimum amount of hours an AFD should be open before it is closed. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think the Balanced Budget Amendment is missional, though the article as it existed… well, I'm not that well-informed on the subject, so I had no reason to disagree with the "Delete" votes stating that the article as written was a misrepresentation in need of a complete rewrite. --Luigifan18 (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- What I thought about it [chances are, my reply would have been as big as Gee's] is irrelevant because I didn't get the chance to say anything! Plus, what I said might have even swayed a vote or two [it has in the past]. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't even aware it was up for a vote. Minimum time for a deletion vote might be a good idea. I'm not sure it would have saved this page though due to its stubbiness. Bongolian (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- While we're at it, I also think we should put in a quorum. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- How about we keep them open either for a week or until there is a difference of 7 votes either for keep or delete, what happens first? Also maybe we should consider some criteria for speedy deletion. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Good idea. I'm now remembering the VenomFangX AFD that was open for a really long time… --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe those would be good limits, I'm pretty neutral on the specifics. On speedy deletion, I think it boils down to, if it would have been fine to just delete a page without holding a vote, then there's no reason to drag it out with a vote. That could go for hopelessly tiny stubs, hopelessly off-mission, spam, vandalism, etc., the pages usually deleted with no controversy. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- How about we keep them open either for a week or until there is a difference of 7 votes either for keep or delete, what happens first? Also maybe we should consider some criteria for speedy deletion. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- While we're at it, I also think we should put in a quorum. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't even aware it was up for a vote. Minimum time for a deletion vote might be a good idea. I'm not sure it would have saved this page though due to its stubbiness. Bongolian (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- What I thought about it [chances are, my reply would have been as big as Gee's] is irrelevant because I didn't get the chance to say anything! Plus, what I said might have even swayed a vote or two [it has in the past]. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
We could reopen the vote? Carthage (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- My position is, if an article that was previously spared AfD can be nominated again, there's no reason why an article that was previously deleted can't be given a second chance if it's improved; in fact I have recreated a couple of deleted articles like Fun:Guam. I would have no objection to someone working on this in draftspace or similar. Plutocow (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- That article was, as I argued on the Afd page, beyond redemption, so it would be better to wp:TNT it instead of ressurrect it IMO. That being said, you said yourself that you don't know anything about the subject, so I sincerely think you shouldn't do it yourself. There's also the missionality issue. As I said, even if the article was better, I doubt it would have much space here. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Where in my text does it state that I would be the one to reopen the vote? I was curious to hear what KP had to say, and clearly there is a simple solution to this issue given that KP is complaining that the vote was closed too early. Carthage (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, you asked if we could reopen the vote, so I thought you were interested at keeping the article. As far as I understand, this thread is more about creating general rules, not about this specific case. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- I complained because I suspect something may have been something worth out of it - that is, if I'd been able to read through it properly [not that the vote should be re-opened]. I am currently pre-drafting a RW article on 'Austerity' which can be seen as a real-life attempt doing a 'balanced budget amendment' - for example, in the UK the Chancellor Osborne talked about getting rid of the 'structural deficit' within five years and getting the debt/GDP ratio declining by the end of the decade, as well as examples of say, Greece, Spain etc. I also have a lot more cynicism regarding 'monetary policy' being effective [also is not a real option for example, nations in the Eurozone] than Gee does. Lastly, I vaguely recall the article in question not really noticing the political side of such a policy - the desire was clearly a chronic 'starve the beast' [to death, really; play any 'balance the budget' simulator - I managed it but only by axing Medicaid, the ACA, diability benefits, SNAP, free school meals, HUD housing, colleges, all cultural/art/non-school educational programmes and the elimiation of tax refunds to the poor] but any surplus will immediately be earmarked for tax cuts. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Anyway, on the rules for AfD votes; I think that unless the page is clearly wrong/spam/shilling/libellous, I'm happy to accept Gee's idea [though 168h not 7 days, to take into account time-zones] and a quorum of 10. I also suggest we put in a maximum of three weeks [504h]; that if a decision is not found by that point, the motion fails. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I complained because I suspect something may have been something worth out of it - that is, if I'd been able to read through it properly [not that the vote should be re-opened]. I am currently pre-drafting a RW article on 'Austerity' which can be seen as a real-life attempt doing a 'balanced budget amendment' - for example, in the UK the Chancellor Osborne talked about getting rid of the 'structural deficit' within five years and getting the debt/GDP ratio declining by the end of the decade, as well as examples of say, Greece, Spain etc. I also have a lot more cynicism regarding 'monetary policy' being effective [also is not a real option for example, nations in the Eurozone] than Gee does. Lastly, I vaguely recall the article in question not really noticing the political side of such a policy - the desire was clearly a chronic 'starve the beast' [to death, really; play any 'balance the budget' simulator - I managed it but only by axing Medicaid, the ACA, diability benefits, SNAP, free school meals, HUD housing, colleges, all cultural/art/non-school educational programmes and the elimiation of tax refunds to the poor] but any surplus will immediately be earmarked for tax cuts. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, you asked if we could reopen the vote, so I thought you were interested at keeping the article. As far as I understand, this thread is more about creating general rules, not about this specific case. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Where in my text does it state that I would be the one to reopen the vote? I was curious to hear what KP had to say, and clearly there is a simple solution to this issue given that KP is complaining that the vote was closed too early. Carthage (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Cross-wiki vandal "Svex" has appeared
TAFF J1809-2400b's contributions make it unmistakable. This is the same "juvenile criminals" and number-of-years and letters-numbers and astronomical technobabble vandal known to Uncyclopedia and Illogicopedia. See Svex, LSD 11 among Uncyc's LSDs. Previously, the same vandal created the now-deleted nonsense page smass. The former stuff is basically identical to things we have edit filtering for on both wikis. It's a very persistent vandal, but highly predictable; unfortunately it took a large edit filter to shut this vandal down (possible given the extreme repetitiveness of their activity). We'll see if we need to extend edit filtering here, but if so, I have Illogcopedia's version to draw upon. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Psst! Don't tell them we're on to them, or they may change up their modus operandi to evade the filters! --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe there's a point in not being too specific. But this is not a scheming vandal, it's someone who acts almost like a bot.
- I mainly posted this so, if more stuff like this comes in (socks and junk pages or edits), people here know what it is. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)