By 'we' I presume you mean admins, so not scrutiny can be given by regular users since they can't see the content of the deleted article. Mark
--- "csherlock@ljh.com.au" csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
OK, I'm topposting and loving it!
Firstly, deleted articles are not permanently deleted. We can retrieve them. See [[Wikipedia:Undeletion policy]]. Secondly, if an admin is making consistent deletions and not listening to others, they can be de'sysoped after a request from other wikipedia editors. Just go talk to the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee]]. See also [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_abuse]].
Basically this suggestion is truly horrible and I am strongly opposed to it.
TBSDY
Eric B. and Rakim wrote:
Let's make a policy. The policy goes like this:
"If an administrator speedily deletes an article
and it then turns out
that the article in question was not a real
candidate for speedy
deletion, that administrator is awarded a point.
If an administrator gets more than 3 points during
a 3 months period,
that administrator loses admin privilegies."
Very easy. To many bad mistakes and you're out.
The exact number of
points and the number of months is not important.
Maybe it should be 5
points in 12 months or 2 points in 2 months or
whatever. Then the policy
need some more text:
"Articles that are speedily deleted but then
restored and kept in some
way are not real candidates for speedy deletion."
I.e. pretend I write a three-line article about
some obscure math topic.
Some admin thinks it is rubbish and deletes it.
Then a math-guru admin
comes around and restores it. What probably
happens is that the admin
who did the deletion realises his or hers mistake.
So he or she gets one
point. Borderline cases are put on VFD. In
practice it is very easy to
determine whether a speedy deletion was motivated
or not.
And then the policy need some important lines to
not make anyone angry:
"The intentions of the administrator does not play
any role in how
points are awarded. It should be assumed that the
admin acted in good
faith and didn't mean any harm to Wikipedia by
deleting the article.
However, good intentions affecting Wikipedia in a
negative way cannot
continue to go unchecked."
Like noone is angry that newbie sysop deleted four
articles about
classical poetry because he or she thought it
sounded like rubbish.
Mistakes happen. But if you cannot learn from your
mistakes you are not
fit for the job.
"The current score tally is kept on
[[Wikipedia:Mistaken Speedy
Deletions]]"
Because the information has to be recorded some
way.
This is an awesome policy. I hope y'all understand
what I mean even if
it is late and writing legal sounding texts in
English is hard. I'm not
a newbie, I'm not being sarcastic/ironic and this
proposal is serious.
And I think it is good. But what do YOU think?
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar -
get it now!
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com