User:Czarking0/Survey responses: Difference between revisions

Add below this line

____________________________________

1. What is your username? User:Vigilantcosmicpenguin
2. Do you think the AfD process worked well in this case? Please only answer Yes or No. No
3. How many times did you comment on the AfD? 2
4. What is the diff of your first comment on the AfD? 1304295703
5. How did you vote? Keep and banner
6. What editors influenced your vote ? Barkeep49, Levivich, Mike Christie
7. Were there any editors you particularly disagreed with? I disagreed with the users voting to delete, such as Tamzin, the first user in the discussion to argue that the article could not follow Wikipedia’s content policies. (I considered the partial removal of information to be in line with the BLP guidelines.)
8. Did you ever change your vote? If yes please state each vote and what changed your mind No
9. Did you read all of the discussion before you voted? Yes
10. After you voted did you go back to the page? Yes
11. After you voted did you read all of the additional discussion? No
12. Did you read the closing comments? Not until now
13. Did you agree with the closing comments? Yes, I agree with the opening statement that “This was an unusual deletion discussion”.
14. Given the way the discussion was closed would you change your vote? No
15. Given the way the discussion was closed would you have liked to make an additional comments? No
16. Do you feel like others read your comments? Yes
17. How do you think the AfD process could be improved? Not applicable with regards to this case, as I believe the issue was that the case should not have been brought to AFD. It should have used a different discussion venue as AFD is better equipped to handle more conventional deletion reasons.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. What is your username?

   1F616EMO.

2. Do you think the AfD process worked well in this case? Please only answer Yes or No.

   Yes.

3. How many times did you comment on the AfD? (filled in automatically)

   9 on Caesar DePaço.

4. What is the diff of your first comment on the AfD? (filled in automatically)

   Special:diff/1304279090

5. How did you vote?

   I responded with detailed elaborations on the value of the WMF, goals of the Wikipedia, existing policies and guidelines, as well as cross-referencing my experiences on the Chinese Wikipedia, my home wiki. All arguments must find their roots in the above for it to become a “proper concern,” as it is required that discussions must be based on “using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense,” i.e., not the beliefs of individuals. Both sides of the AfD raised solid and proper concerns, so to “vote”, a comprehensive elaboration is needed, and that’s why I wrote an essay’s worth of text just to support my point: “Do what Tamzin said, or at least delete it.”

6. What editors influenced your vote?

   I would not have proposed bannering the page if Tamzin had not expressed their point. Their proposal were never seen in deletion discussions on both the Chinese and English Wikipedia (AFAIK), and were so good that the majority who went against having an article supported bannering instead of technically deleting the page.

7. Were there any editors you particularly disagreed with?

   I do not disagree with “editors,” I disagree with the points. I did explicitly mention ​Barkeep49’s point, and that’s because he was the first one who proposed keeping the article, and almost all pro-keeping editors had agreed with his arguments. Responding to his arguments is enough to respond to 90% of the pro-keeping points, and that may create an illusion that I particularly disagree with him. But no – I disagree with keeping the thing as-is.

8. Did you ever change your vote? If yes please state each vote and what changed your mind

   I did not change my “vote”, but I did raise a concern that the community statement would collapse on mobile view. That’s unrelated to the main discussions and is more like a “side quest” to the AfD.

9. Did you read all of the discussion before you voted?

   Yes, I read them all. Of course, I skipped the “per XXX”-only “votes”, as those are not meaningful in terms of determining which “side” is more rational in Wikipedia’s context. (I used the word “side”, as editors in the AfD emerged into “two chief camps” like two sides of an argument.)

10. After you voted did you go back to the page?

    Yes, especially when someone mentioned me using the {{reply to}} template. It was a mess to join a discussion when there were no level-2 headings to “subscribe” to, but I managed to come back every few days and replied to some comments.

11. After you voted did you read all of the additional discussion?

    Almost. The AfD quickly gained attention and went into chaos, and I had no time to check them all. (By “chaos”, I mean new ideas are flooded in very quickly, and smaller arguments and concerns may be lost in the flood as others comment and gain others’ attention.) I forgot when I left the discussion, but I did not stay til the last minute.

12. Did you read the closing comments?

    I did.

13. Did you agree with the closing comments?

    I greatly appreciate the efforts made by the two administrators, CaptainEek and 331dot, who closed the AfD. Their summary covered all major points in the discussion (there are no “dissenters” holding very solid ground or, as the Chinese version of WP:CON says, “the major dissenting voices”, that did not align with either side, so there were practically no “minor points” to consider) and gave an in-depth analysis on whether consensus was made on the topics. I was delighted to see that the two administrators recognized that there is more than one major concern with the article and decided to address them all, rather than just focusing on the delete/keep issue. I have no reason to object to the closing comments.

14. Given the way the discussion was closed would you change your vote?

    No. Everything went on track and worked as the community intended.

15. Given the way the discussion was closed would you have liked to make an additional comments?

    No. IMO, the major philosophical difference between the two chief camps was on who our readers are. The pro-keeping editors believe that we are serving “the general public” and should therefore keep as much information as possible. The pro-deleting (or bannering) editors believe that we only serve those who agree with our values. This diversion is not easily changeable in a few comments.

16. Do you feel like others read your comments?

    I am not sure. It is enough to understand most people’s point by looking at the rationales held by the two key leaders; therefore, it is understandable that newly joined editors decided to just read the first few comments, either because it is unnecessary to read the rest, or out of laziness.

17. How do you think the AfD process could be improved?

    Use level-2 headings please…

1F616EMO (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to fill out the whole survey, but wanted to drop by with my opinion. Commented to keep and not blank, personally; did not read all of the comments before me but I likely read the top ones. Frankly, I think the AfD process went pretty well in the case of Caesar DePaco: it did what it was supposed to do, which was be a discussion (albeit a long and nightmarish one, but all I had to do was drop in and drop out, so I didn’t have any problems). As for improvements, I think all discussions in general could use an updateable thing at the top with the pro and con’s most refined arguments, like an election guide like they give out in California, so that you get the substance without having to read the 200 previous comments (this is generally a thing people do not do). If you want to know how I interacted with it, as I said, with big discussions it’s best to just drop in your vote and voice and get out of there. Mrfoogles (talk) 11:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like Alalch E. and CaptainEek, I believe that the unusual Caesar DePaço AfD is a poor benchmark for suggesting reform to the process. Since I only left one comment and a response to a reply there, both of which were sufficiently clear as to which editors shaped my view, I will skip filling out the survey. I am only replying here to express that Mrfoogles’ proposal seems unproductive. First, the subjective determination of which arguments are strongest on each side would inevitably split the AfD discussion between the main issue and whether the summary is fairly representing that discussion. Second, when an article reaches six arbitrary breaks, I do not think that we benefit from giving late arrivals an election guide when AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE, such that the intention in the second week relist was to seek additional arguments, not tally additional usernames on each side. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 16:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. What is your username? TarnishedPath
2. Do you think the AfD process worked well in this case? Yes
3. How many times did you comment on the AfD? 1
4. What is the diff of your first comment on the AfD? 1304940924
5. How did you vote? Blank and banner
6. What editors influenced your vote ? Tamzin. I agreed with her argument that if outside influence made it such that the article was unable to be policy compliant, then it shouldn’t exist until such time that they outside influence ceased.
7. Were there any editors you particularly disagreed with? No
8. Did you ever change your vote? No
9. Did you read all of the discussion before you voted? Yes, that existed at the time I !voted
10. After you voted did you go back to the page? No
11. After you voted did you read all of the additional discussion? No
12. Did you read the closing comments? Only as a result of this survey
13. Did you agree with the closing comments? It does a good job of assessing consensus
14. Given the way the discussion was closed would you change your vote? No
15. Given the way the discussion was closed would you have liked to make an additional comments? No
16. Do you feel like others read your comments? I have no idea, as I didn’t go back and read any comments after I made mine.
17. How do you think the AfD process could be improved? In general AFD could do with more participation; however, that was not an issue in the one I participated in.

TarnishedPath^talk 11:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. What is your username?

   ToBeFree (talk · contribs)

2. Do you think the AfD process worked well in this case? Please only answer Yes or No.

   Yes

3. How many times did you comment on the AfD? (filled in automatically)

   1

4. What is the diff of your first comment on the AfD? (filled in automatically)

   [1]

5. How did you vote?

   This may seem like a nitpicky answer but I didn’t provide a bolded vote, just an insight for the discussion.

6. What editors influenced your vote ?

   N/A

7. Were there any editors you particularly disagreed with?

   No

8. Did you ever change your vote? If yes please state each vote and what changed your mind

   Yes, I did so in the past and would of course do so again. When I was newer, I learned a lot about notability from the others’ answers and noticed they were right.

9. Did you read all of the discussion before you voted?

   Yes

10. After you voted did you go back to the page?

    Yes

11. After you voted did you read all of the additional discussion?

    No

12. Did you read the closing comments?

    not closed yet; I will

13. Did you agree with the closing comments?

    not closed yet; very likely to agree; not a difficult decision

14. Given the way the discussion was closed would you change your vote?

    not closed yet; unlikely

15. Given the way the discussion was closed would you have liked to make an additional comment?

    not closed yet; unlikely

16. Do you feel like others read your comments?

    Yes

17. How do you think the AfD process could be improved?

    It’s fine.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• What is your username? – Cyclopia
• Do you think the AfD process worked well in this case? Please only answer Yes or No. I cannot answer ‘yes or no’, it’s complicated.
• How did you vote? “Keep, banner and indef full protect per all the comments above.”
• What editors influenced your vote ? – Several in the discussion, as indicated by my !vote
• Were there any editors you particularly disagreed with? I guess yes?
• Did you ever change your vote? If yes please state each vote and what changed your mind No
• Did you read all of the discussion before you voted? Yes
• After you voted did you go back to the page? A couple times
• After you voted did you read all of the additional discussion? I don’t remember
• Did you read the closing comments? Yes
• Did you agree with the closing comments? More or less
• Given the way the discussion was closed would you change your vote? No, why?
• Given the way the discussion was closed would you have liked to make an additional comments? Not really
• Do you feel like others read your comments? I have no idea
• How do you think the AfD process could be improved? I think it’s basically as good as it gets, given the complexity of these decisions.

cyclopia^speak! 12:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. What is your username? Hiobazard (talk · contribs)
2. Do you think the AfD process worked well in this case? Please only answer Yes or No. Yes
3. How many times did you comment on the AfD? (filled in automatically) One
4. What is the diff of your first comment on the AfD? (filled in automatically) Didn’t fill auto – hope this helps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Caesar_DePa%C3%A7o#c-Hiobazard-20250806174500-Arbitrary_break_4
5. How did you vote? Banner – yes. Keep. ECP indef.
6. What editors influenced your vote ? No particular order, and incomplete, but: Tryptofish, Tamzin, VeryPolitePerson, Isaidnoway, Toadspike, VigilantCosmicPenguin, ChildrenWillListen, 15224.
7. Were there any editors you particularly disagreed with? Horse Eye’s Back, content AND tone.
8. Did you ever change your vote? If yes please state each vote and what changed your mind No
9. Did you read all of the discussion before you voted? Yes, at least superficially.
10. After you voted did you go back to the page? Yes
11. After you voted did you read all of the additional discussion? Only just now…
12. Did you read the closing comments? Yes
13. Did you agree with the closing comments? Yes, they were excellent, accurate, and efficient.
14. Given the way the discussion was closed would you change your vote? No.
15. Given the way the discussion was closed would you have liked to make an additional comments? No, the words to information ratio around here is high enough as it is.
16. Do you feel like others read your comments? I don’t know; I hope so. Most of the intellectual/philosophical heavy-lifting had already been done before I arrived.
17. How do you think the AfD process could be improved? I am an AfD newbie, but it seemed fair and at least reasonably civil. The work done by the closers was exemplary.

☣︎ Hiobazard ☣︎ 14:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. What is your username? Tryptofish
2. Do you think the AfD process worked well in this case? Please only answer Yes or No. Yes.
3. How many times did you comment on the AfD? (filled in automatically)
4. What is the diff of your first comment on the AfD? (filled in automatically)
5. How did you vote? Keep, do not blank, banner, protect.
6. What editors influenced your vote ? multiple
7. Were there any editors you particularly disagreed with? multiple
8. Did you ever change your vote? If yes please state each vote and what changed your mind No
9. Did you read all of the discussion before you voted? Yes
10. After you voted did you go back to the page? Yes
11. After you voted did you read all of the additional discussion? Yes
12. Did you read the closing comments? Yes
13. Did you agree with the closing comments? Mostly, yes.
14. Given the way the discussion was closed would you change your vote? No
15. Given the way the discussion was closed would you have liked to make an additional comments? No
16. Do you feel like others read your comments? Some
17. How do you think the AfD process could be improved? This was an extremely atypical and complicated case, so it isn’t representative of AfD as a whole. Because of the complexity of the issues, I wouldn’t expect this to offer much to go on, in terms of refining the AfD process as a whole.

—Tryptofish (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. What is your username? Iggy Pop Goes The Weasel
2. Do you think the AfD process worked well in this case? Please only answer Yes or No. Yes
3. How many times did you comment on the AfD? (filled in automatically)
4. What is the diff of your first comment on the AfD? (filled in automatically)
5. How did you vote? Blank and add a banner
6. What editors influenced your vote ? Tamzin
7. Were there any editors you particularly disagreed with? Sandstein
8. Did you ever change your vote? If yes please state each vote and what changed your mind. I didn’t change my vote.
9. Did you read all of the discussion before you voted? I read much of it to get a feel for the strongest points.
10. After you voted did you go back to the page? No.
11. After you voted did you read all of the additional discussion? No.
12. Did you read the closing comments? Yes.
13. Did you agree with the closing comments? Yes
14. Given the way the discussion was closed would you change your vote? No
15. Given the way the discussion was closed would you have liked to make an additional comments? No
16. Do you feel like others read your comments? No, but my comments were not detailed, just a support for someone else’s rationale.
17. How do you think the AfD process could be improved? I think it works reasonably as well as it possibly can already.

Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]