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! http://toolbar.msn.com/
Great idea. Should be applied to listing on vfd too. Mark
--- "Eric B. and Rakim" eric_b_and_rakim@hotmail.com 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! http://toolbar.msn.com/
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
Some thoughts:
1) This is quite contrary to Wikipedia's policy to "be bold"
2) Before instituting these hard metrics to de-admin someone, one should have hard metrics indicating this is truly a problem. It's not clear it is.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:20:52 -0700 (PDT), Mark Richards marich712000@yahoo.com wrote:
Great idea. Should be applied to listing on vfd too. Mark
--- "Eric B. and Rakim" eric_b_and_rakim@hotmail.com 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! http://toolbar.msn.com/
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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It isn't. It's yet another example of a small extremist group (why is it that our inclusionists are so much more extremist than our deletionists?) who can't seem to gather consensus on VFD or VFU, and so attempt to change the policies to get around this.
-- ambi
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:13:32 +0800, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
Some thoughts:
This is quite contrary to Wikipedia's policy to "be bold"
Before instituting these hard metrics to de-admin someone, one
should have hard metrics indicating this is truly a problem. It's not clear it is.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:20:52 -0700 (PDT), Mark Richards
marich712000@yahoo.com wrote:
Great idea. Should be applied to listing on vfd too. Mark
--- "Eric B. and Rakim" eric_b_and_rakim@hotmail.com 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! http://toolbar.msn.com/
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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Friday 22 October 2004 05:42, Rebecca wrote:
deletionists?) who can't seem to gather consensus on VFD or VFU, and
What is VFU?
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 05:47:57 +0300, NSK nsk2@wikinerds.org wrote:
What is VFU?
VFU is Votes for undeletion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion and the undeletion policy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy
Angela.
Exactly. No one has ever heard of it. Deletion is much more fun. Mark
--- NSK nsk2@wikinerds.org wrote:
On Friday 22 October 2004 05:42, Rebecca wrote:
deletionists?) who can't seem to gather consensus
on VFD or VFU, and
What is VFU?
-- NSK Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Friday 22 October 2004 22:57, Mark Richards wrote:
No one has ever heard of it. Deletion is much more fun.
I think people need to realise that deleting something does not improve WP. On the other hand, re-writing an article does improve WP. I imagine people prefer deletion because it is easier or because they enjoy "being a cop".
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:19:54 +0300, NSK nsk2@wikinerds.org wrote:
I think people need to realise that deleting something does not improve WP.
That's just too simplistic. Do RC patrol for a week or look through deletion log and you'll see for yourself.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On 22 Oct 2004, at 22:19, NSK wrote:
I think people need to realise that deleting something does not improve WP. On the other hand, re-writing an article does improve WP. I imagine people prefer deletion because it is easier or because they enjoy "being a cop".
Indeed. The "cop" ego trip does enter into it big time. I have made two very bad experiences where people vigorously deleted content they perceived as invalid and (what's MUCH worse) they refused to communicate ''before'' committing and re-committing their view of the world ''even when asked to do so'' and made comments that I perceived as ridiculously impolite and implicitly judgmental. That's actually a reason why I'm a lot more active in "Wikipolitics" at present than I am editing.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
PS: The following might be perceived as bad stereotype stuff, as totally rude and preposterous (and everything I accused others of above) -- so please take it with ''truckloads'' of salt -- it's just a flip thought that popped into my mind: Seeing that US folks in general are said to be the "can to people", maybe the aforementioned "cop ego trip" issues might account for what was mentioned on one of the mailing lists a while ago, namely the phenomenon that European contributors appear to be doing more Wiki-politics and US contributors appear to be editing more. This might be an alienation issue. (Frontier justice attitude? Shoot first, ask questions later? Culture clash of that with the European way?) Then again, this thought might be mental junk.
Hey, then where do us Asians fit in? ;-)
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Jens Ropers wrote:
<snip> The following might be perceived as bad stereotype stuff, as totally rude and preposterous (and everything I accused others of above) -- so please take it with ''truckloads'' of salt -- it's just a flip thought that popped into my mind: Seeing that US folks in general are said to be the "can to people", maybe the aforementioned "cop ego trip" issues might account for what was mentioned on one of the mailing lists a while ago, namely the phenomenon that European contributors appear to be doing more Wiki-politics and US contributors appear to be editing more. This might be an alienation issue. (Frontier justice attitude? Shoot first, ask questions later? Culture clash of that with the European way?) Then again, this thought might be mental junk.
NSK wrote:
On Friday 22 October 2004 22:57, Mark Richards wrote:
No one has ever heard of it. Deletion is much more fun.
I think people need to realise that deleting something does not improve WP. On the other hand, re-writing an article does improve WP. I imagine people prefer deletion because it is easier or because they enjoy "being a cop".
Ahh! The thrill of police brutality.
Ec
On Friday 22 October 2004 05:13, Andrew Lih wrote:
- This is quite contrary to Wikipedia's policy to "be bold"
If "be bold" means anarchy without organisation and process then I think that's a bad policy that should be repealled ASAP.
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 05:49:43 +0300, NSK nsk2@wikinerds.org wrote:
On Friday 22 October 2004 05:13, Andrew Lih wrote:
- This is quite contrary to Wikipedia's policy to "be bold"
If "be bold" means anarchy without organisation and process then I think that's a bad policy that should be repealled ASAP.
Well my point is that "be bold" should work both ways, not just for adding things. There should be some boldness in expunging things too.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
Yes, be bold, but we are bold in the knowledge that the history is kept, so others can moderate excessive boldness. Deletion breaks this, and so boldness should not be pursued. Mark
--- Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 05:49:43 +0300, NSK nsk2@wikinerds.org wrote:
On Friday 22 October 2004 05:13, Andrew Lih wrote:
- This is quite contrary to Wikipedia's policy
to "be bold"
If "be bold" means anarchy without organisation
and process then I think
that's a bad policy that should be repealled ASAP.
Well my point is that "be bold" should work both ways, not just for adding things. There should be some boldness in expunging things too.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado) _______________________________________________ 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
NSK wrote:
On Friday 22 October 2004 05:13, Andrew Lih wrote:
- This is quite contrary to Wikipedia's policy to "be bold"
If "be bold" means anarchy without organisation and process then I think that's a bad policy that should be repealled ASAP.
The wiki thrives on a diet of anarchy. It didn't become what it is by borrowing editorial policies from Britannica.
Ec
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! http://toolbar.msn.com/
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
Mark Richards wrote:
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
True, when I was referring to "we" I was referring to admins. However, I have been monitoring the deletion log lately, and I see very few articles that have been removed incorrectly. Even the borderline ones that I restored and THEN placed on VfD have had legitimate reasons for deletion. See, for example, [[Clairvoyance (album)]]. I restored this and placed on VfD, and the admin explained that as the had no information on who created it it appeared to be a perfect candidate for speedy deletion. Now I disagreed, restored and listed on VfD, but I can also see why he did this.
Incidently, just to let you know: everyone can see the [[Deletion log]]. As I've said before, if someone sees an article on their they beleive should not have been deleted then they should place a message on my talk page. My username is Ta bu shi da yu.
TBSDY
Yes, the problem is that the deletion log does not show the content of the article, so people cannot give oversight to whether or not it should have been deleted. Page blanking is much more appropriate. Mark
--- "csherlock@ljh.com.au" csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
Mark Richards wrote:
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
True, when I was referring to "we" I was referring to admins. However, I have been monitoring the deletion log lately, and I see very few articles that have been removed incorrectly. Even the borderline ones that I restored and THEN placed on VfD have had legitimate reasons for deletion. See, for example, [[Clairvoyance (album)]]. I restored this and placed on VfD, and the admin explained that as the had no information on who created it it appeared to be a perfect candidate for speedy deletion. Now I disagreed, restored and listed on VfD, but I can also see why he did this.
Incidently, just to let you know: everyone can see the [[Deletion log]]. As I've said before, if someone sees an article on their they beleive should not have been deleted then they should place a message on my talk page. My username is Ta bu shi da yu.
TBSDY
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail