4 ms·

> Articles for Deletion votes -- original with comments > > Summarizing it, 5/7 for delete have accounts, and 1/4 for keep have accounts. Not along after the

> Articles for Deletion votes -- original with comments > > Summarizing it, 5/7 for delete have accounts, and 1/4 for keep have accounts. Not along after the final vote, a Wikipedia admin deleted the article. Being a little bit lax with my language, the majority's consensus agreed that Odin isn't notable, and the article had no reliable sources. important clarification about a popular misconception: "Articles for deletion" discussions on English Wikipedia are not decided by vote. For more details, see - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion#Not-votes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_sub... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Overview_of_the_deletion_process_at_AfD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Ov...

econ 3mo ago
[flagged]
- Alpha3031 3mo ago
  > I use to play this game where I gently rub as many established users as possible the wrong way. > I do this as an IP editor as I've seen them fabricate excuses to ban users often enough. You know there's no need to fabricate an excuse to indefinitely block someone for trolling right?
  - econ 3mo ago
    You can't report someone for constructive improvements, quality citations and polite talk page discourse.
    - Alpha3031 3mo ago
      You've openly stated that you were intentionally acting in bad faith, hounding other editors to provoke them and doing so while logged out to evade scrutiny. Retreating to "you can't prove I did anything wrong" is not the defense you think it is.
      - econ 3mo ago
        It's kinda sad to see the only website with such elaborate guidelines fail to follow them. Your argument appears to be that you don't need real evidence to dispose of editors. It seems we agree?
        Alpha3031 3mo ago
        Assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. If you consistently aim to disrupt the project then you obviously should be CBANed. I can't comment on the evidence available in your block discussion, only what you've presented here.
        econ 3mo ago
        I have no block discussion. I just read other peoples talk pages. Besides from the obvious cases it is quite subjective what disrupting the project even means. I'm not trying to stop the character assassination article but I will be a nuance to the process. I will argue this valuable to the project. Im kinda curious, if a topic is considered a fringe theory, say fringe physics (where the consensus among surviving editors is that it must be denounced as fake until published in a high quality journal) would you oppose including other high quality sources or would you exclude them to help portray the topic as fake? If one was to reliably demonstrate 1) there to be [say] a giant time travel laboratory, 2) a hundred million research budget and 3) prominent names involved. Should they now be banned? (No, I don't believe in time travel)
        Alpha3031 3mo ago
        I will not concede that it is at all "subjective" what being disruptive means in the specific case of your intentionally bad-faith trolling. You may choose to categorise that either as an obvious case or refer to my previous comments.
        econ 3mo ago
        Larry Sanger was right.
- _def 3mo ago
  Are you seriously complaining that you are not getting taken seriously anymore after creating a track record of acting in bad faith? You literally can't create constructive online communities if you don't do that.
  - econ 3mo ago
    You describe the concept of being taken seriously. We use this a lot in real life. It's arguably a very useful concept. Wikipedia has elaborate guidelines for everything but users have their own ideas. For example, the guidelines don't grant you the privilege to delete contributions because you've decided not to take the editor seriously. Imagine reverting and putting it in an edit summary: I don't take this guy seriously If there are insufficient independent so called reliable sources to establish the so called notability of Odin but it does have 11k GitHub stars. Then you put an infobox on the article that describes the problem. You then attempt to find sources. If you find nothing that Wikipedia accepts you might have a conversation about sources for programming languages. Then you end up reading things like the AFD for hackernoon (22 May 2026) Not even worthy of a stub? Then you wonder how any programming article established so called notability. I've just looked at php and I don't see any reference from mainstream media, definitely nothing specifically about php. It doesn't seem notable?
lerno 3mo ago
What kind of happens is that there are some people who invest their lives in Wikipedia, their opinions is what ends up mattering. This has boths pros and cons. The good thing about it, is that these people are deeply invested in Wikipedia and therefore have a lot of incitament to do what (they believe at least) is the best for Wikipedia. The downsides are: (1) that just because you invested a lot of time into Wikipedia you don't have biases (2) you are not immediately qualified to determine whether some article/source is bad or not from a factual point of view. Also, it's very HARD to become a regular contributor, because you'll have to invest an insane amount of time initially to build up goodwill and reputation, when at the same time anything you do might just get reverted because someone thought it was too much detail or bad in some other way. So it's a very punishing environment which makes sure that the actual group of Wikipedia editors is a fraction of what one could expect. (Also, the Wikipedia markup... it's really the worst dialect of Wiki syntax) Anyway, all of this is probably not good for Wikipedia in the long run. LLM's will be much better than humans at creating "beginner" articles, and it will be increasingly hard to know what's LLM-authored. So I expect Wikipedia to go the way of Stack Overflow in the long run.
- baranul 3mo ago
  Sounds like you are describing Grokipedia (Grok), where the general public has rejected it as a replacement for Wikipedia. Way too much hallucinating, tainted algorithms reflecting political preferences, gossip, and unverified or disreputable sources.
  - lerno 3mo ago
    No, Grokipedia is just a crapfest. I'm talking about actually asking ChatGPT
- lerno 3mo ago
  And as an example of bias: I personally witnessed a wikipedia editors adding their own interpretation of a certain written article. This interpretation was very politically biased and not justified by the text, but these were influential wikipedia editors so that it stayed in. I then asked the author of the article on Twitter if this interpretation was correct. I was unambiguously told NO. This information (including the public twitter conversation), was rejected by the wikipedia editors because it was first hand accounts. Which led to the rather odd result that the interpretation of an article's message by a Wikipedia editor was favoured over the explicit statement by the article's author. Here I would have thought that it would have been prudent to simply leave out that part of speculation, but they adamantly insisted it should stay. I must add that this happened on Swedish wikipedia, not the main English Wikipedia – which I actually found much more balanced. But the problem is that this mechanism exists in the first place. It was at the time (5-10 years ago?) well known that the Wikipedia of some language – I don't recall which one – was at the time pretty much hijacked by a group. Oh, wait I found it - the Croatian Wikipedia. This is unlikely to happen to the main Wikipedia, but it does demonstrate a certain brittleness and risk of bias in the system.

econ 3mo ago

[flagged]

Alpha3031 3mo ago
> I use to play this game where I gently rub as many established users as possible the wrong way. > I do this as an IP editor as I've seen them fabricate excuses to ban users often enough. You know there's no need to fabricate an excuse to indefinitely block someone for trolling right?
- econ 3mo ago
  You can't report someone for constructive improvements, quality citations and polite talk page discourse.
  - Alpha3031 3mo ago
    You've openly stated that you were intentionally acting in bad faith, hounding other editors to provoke them and doing so while logged out to evade scrutiny. Retreating to "you can't prove I did anything wrong" is not the defense you think it is.
    - econ 3mo ago
      It's kinda sad to see the only website with such elaborate guidelines fail to follow them. Your argument appears to be that you don't need real evidence to dispose of editors. It seems we agree?
      - Alpha3031 3mo ago
        Assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. If you consistently aim to disrupt the project then you obviously should be CBANed. I can't comment on the evidence available in your block discussion, only what you've presented here.
        econ 3mo ago
        I have no block discussion. I just read other peoples talk pages. Besides from the obvious cases it is quite subjective what disrupting the project even means. I'm not trying to stop the character assassination article but I will be a nuance to the process. I will argue this valuable to the project. Im kinda curious, if a topic is considered a fringe theory, say fringe physics (where the consensus among surviving editors is that it must be denounced as fake until published in a high quality journal) would you oppose including other high quality sources or would you exclude them to help portray the topic as fake? If one was to reliably demonstrate 1) there to be [say] a giant time travel laboratory, 2) a hundred million research budget and 3) prominent names involved. Should they now be banned? (No, I don't believe in time travel)
        Alpha3031 3mo ago
        I will not concede that it is at all "subjective" what being disruptive means in the specific case of your intentionally bad-faith trolling. You may choose to categorise that either as an obvious case or refer to my previous comments.
        econ 3mo ago
        Larry Sanger was right.
_def 3mo ago
Are you seriously complaining that you are not getting taken seriously anymore after creating a track record of acting in bad faith? You literally can't create constructive online communities if you don't do that.
- econ 3mo ago
  You describe the concept of being taken seriously. We use this a lot in real life. It's arguably a very useful concept. Wikipedia has elaborate guidelines for everything but users have their own ideas. For example, the guidelines don't grant you the privilege to delete contributions because you've decided not to take the editor seriously. Imagine reverting and putting it in an edit summary: I don't take this guy seriously If there are insufficient independent so called reliable sources to establish the so called notability of Odin but it does have 11k GitHub stars. Then you put an infobox on the article that describes the problem. You then attempt to find sources. If you find nothing that Wikipedia accepts you might have a conversation about sources for programming languages. Then you end up reading things like the AFD for hackernoon (22 May 2026) Not even worthy of a stub? Then you wonder how any programming article established so called notability. I've just looked at php and I don't see any reference from mainstream media, definitely nothing specifically about php. It doesn't seem notable?

lerno 3mo ago

What kind of happens is that there are some people who invest their lives in Wikipedia, their opinions is what ends up mattering. This has boths pros and cons. The good thing about it, is that these people are deeply invested in Wikipedia and therefore have a lot of incitament to do what (they believe at least) is the best for Wikipedia. The downsides are: (1) that just because you invested a lot of time into Wikipedia you don't have biases (2) you are not immediately qualified to determine whether some article/source is bad or not from a factual point of view. Also, it's very HARD to become a regular contributor, because you'll have to invest an insane amount of time initially to build up goodwill and reputation, when at the same time anything you do might just get reverted because someone thought it was too much detail or bad in some other way. So it's a very punishing environment which makes sure that the actual group of Wikipedia editors is a fraction of what one could expect. (Also, the Wikipedia markup... it's really the worst dialect of Wiki syntax) Anyway, all of this is probably not good for Wikipedia in the long run. LLM's will be much better than humans at creating "beginner" articles, and it will be increasingly hard to know what's LLM-authored. So I expect Wikipedia to go the way of Stack Overflow in the long run.

baranul 3mo ago
Sounds like you are describing Grokipedia (Grok), where the general public has rejected it as a replacement for Wikipedia. Way too much hallucinating, tainted algorithms reflecting political preferences, gossip, and unverified or disreputable sources.
- lerno 3mo ago
  No, Grokipedia is just a crapfest. I'm talking about actually asking ChatGPT
lerno 3mo ago
And as an example of bias: I personally witnessed a wikipedia editors adding their own interpretation of a certain written article. This interpretation was very politically biased and not justified by the text, but these were influential wikipedia editors so that it stayed in. I then asked the author of the article on Twitter if this interpretation was correct. I was unambiguously told NO. This information (including the public twitter conversation), was rejected by the wikipedia editors because it was first hand accounts. Which led to the rather odd result that the interpretation of an article's message by a Wikipedia editor was favoured over the explicit statement by the article's author. Here I would have thought that it would have been prudent to simply leave out that part of speculation, but they adamantly insisted it should stay. I must add that this happened on Swedish wikipedia, not the main English Wikipedia – which I actually found much more balanced. But the problem is that this mechanism exists in the first place. It was at the time (5-10 years ago?) well known that the Wikipedia of some language – I don't recall which one – was at the time pretty much hijacked by a group. Oh, wait I found it - the Croatian Wikipedia. This is unlikely to happen to the main Wikipedia, but it does demonstrate a certain brittleness and risk of bias in the system.