[WikiEN-l] Newbie and not-so-newbie biting

[Surreptitiousness]

Apoc 2400 wrote:
>
> A question for the admins here: When you come across an article wrongly
> tagged for speedy deletinon or prod, do you check up on the user who tagged
> it? What do you do if their deletion tagging is no more accurate than
> picking new articles at random?
>
>   
When I tackled NPP and prods I used to follow up on this, but after a 
while I noticed it didn't make much difference.  I also noticed such 
users would pass RFA's quite easily because of all the people who would 
support them based on their awesome work "fighting" vandals. I burnt out 
fairly quickly I'm afraid on these tasks.  I'm trying to find a new way 
of shaping people's behaviour on Wikipedia such that it is better in 
keeping with the spirit of WP:CIVIL. There was one user I used to nag 
repeatedly to turn off the minor edit check-box to no avail, which I 
found incredibly frustrating.  I think after a while you develop an 
instinct about people who will be good Wikipedians and those that won't, 
but it is incredibly hard to try and generate debate on those issues. 
User RFC's are next to useless, I mean, could you imagine an RFC on a 
user who refused to mark their edits, no matter how contentious, as 
anything other than minor?  It's seen as something rather trivial.
> The issues we discuss in this thread go deep, but here is one change that
> would help a lot:
> * Articles should not be tagged for deletion two minutes after creation for
> not asserting notability. Yes there is {{Hangon}} but how would a newcomer
> know about that, and why should they? Of course an article created a minute
> ago is being actively worked on. If it's not time critical (attack pages,
> copyvios) no tagging should happen the first hour. If this is technically
> difficult then NPP should be modified.
Personally I'd like to see deletion rolled back further, such that stuff 
that was neutral and verifiable and wasn't obvious spam just be kept. 
Let every company that has ever existed have an entry, no matter how 
brief.  If it is verifiable, where's the issue.  An argument can be 
mounted that we are failing to adopt a neutral point of view by 
excluding some businesses over others. If you have a short stub which 
merely states the line of business and the date of establishment, you've 
given due weight and you've gone some way to informing a curious reader, 
further than a red link does.