I think most of us on this list treat newbies fairly well. Now what about the people that showed up a few months ago, never contributed much, and spend their time biting newbies?
Let's say I register a new account right now. I go to new page patrol and start indiscriminately deletion-tagging any article by an inexperienced user. If they ask me about it, I reply with an impersonal but perfectly polite note referring them to WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:OR and WP:CIV while ignoring anything they say. For how long could I do this before I get blocked? How many could I scare away?
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?
This discussion is about biting newbies in general, but I focused on deletion for personal reasons. I know the rules well, but I have had to fight deletions too. Asahi Kasei, one of largest chemical companies in Japan was tagged for deletion at least twice. When I am working on an article I often discover related subject lacking articles, so I create quick stubs for reference and later expansion. Very often they get tagged for deletion. They are on perfectly notable subject, so I can save the articles, but I would rather spend my time working on the main article.
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.
/Apoc2400
For how long could I do this before I get blocked?
Quite a long time, if at all, I'm afraid. You would probably get a WQA, RFC, and an arbitration case justifying your actions long after there's any discussion of blocking you. More than likely, you'd be banned from new page patrolling, and blocked when you don't follow that ban if it gets to ARBCOM.
How many could I scare away?
Many new people, and a few oldsters, as well.
When you come across an article wrongly tagged for speedy deletinon or prod, do you check up on the user who tagged it?
As a non-admin new page patroller, I wish more admins did just as you have suggested above. That way I am more likely to learn from my mistakes.
Of course an article created a minute ago is being actively worked on.
That's almost always true, but every so often it isn't. If the above isn't true, it's usually made by a school kid, or someone "in the know" of what's considered to be courteous enough to publish their article when the article is done.
Yes there is {{Hangon}} but how would a newcomer know about that, and why should they?
Is there any way to make it more blatant about what to do when your article has been tagged for speedy deletion?
If this is technically difficult then NPP should be modified.
Yes, this is technically difficult, and it would be technically difficult for NPP to be anything else than other what it is, unfortunately. It would be hard for a bot to be accurate in knowing what is an attack page, and what isn't, what is a copyvio and what is in the public domain, etc. and to hide any other article for an hour. I really can't think of any other way NPP could be modified.
Emily On Sep 18, 2009, at 4:07 PM, Apoc 2400 wrote:
I think most of us on this list treat newbies fairly well. Now what about the people that showed up a few months ago, never contributed much, and spend their time biting newbies?
Let's say I register a new account right now. I go to new page patrol and start indiscriminately deletion-tagging any article by an inexperienced user. If they ask me about it, I reply with an impersonal but perfectly polite note referring them to WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:OR and WP:CIV while ignoring anything they say. For how long could I do this before I get blocked? How many could I scare away?
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?
This discussion is about biting newbies in general, but I focused on deletion for personal reasons. I know the rules well, but I have had to fight deletions too. Asahi Kasei, one of largest chemical companies in Japan was tagged for deletion at least twice. When I am working on an article I often discover related subject lacking articles, so I create quick stubs for reference and later expansion. Very often they get tagged for deletion. They are on perfectly notable subject, so I can save the articles, but I would rather spend my time working on the main article.
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.
/Apoc2400 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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.