The Cunctator wrote:
My idea is to treat article deletion like the rest of page editing. AfD came about originally because deletion was not reversible, so it was necessarily A Big Deal. Once deletion was made reversible (Brion?) deletion didn't need to be a Big Deal.
So the elements of my experiment would be:
- Turn off AfD.
- Make deletion/undeletion a common power.
- Follow the rules for edit/reversions to police whether deletions
are done properly.
The problem is that a great deal of policing depends on people using their watchlists and/or Recent Changes. Deletion and undeletion show up on neither.
--Michael Snow
On 12/9/05, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
The problem is that a great deal of policing depends on people using their watchlists and/or Recent Changes. Deletion and undeletion show up on neither.
Deletion is evident in CDVF.
Kelly
On 12/10/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/9/05, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
The problem is that a great deal of policing depends on people using their watchlists and/or Recent Changes. Deletion and undeletion show up on neither.
Deletion is evident in CDVF.
It's easy enough to make a watchlist for articles your interested in, and to spot their deletion. Simply create a list containing links to those articles (like the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tony_Sidaway/Watch, which was created for a different purpose). Whenever you look at the list, the redlinks are the articles that have been deleted.
Having said that, I don't like this idea of turning deletion into a content matter. We would in effect be condoning and encouraging edit warfare by making page-blanking an acceptable edit. For some people, it would be an irresistible invitation to vandalism, for others, a way of suppressing inconvenient statements.
Having said that, I don't like this idea of turning deletion into a content matter. We would in effect be condoning and encouraging edit warfare by making page-blanking an acceptable edit. For some people, it would be an irresistible invitation to vandalism, for others, a way of suppressing inconvenient statements.
Or delete articles against concensus. If anyone can delete and undelete, the deletion log will be clogged up with school articles and forums. Sure, they can be undeleted again, but AFD is supposed to make a somewhat final decision that can only be overturned by logic and arguments, not a single editor's mood.
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Having said that, I don't like this idea of turning deletion into a content matter. We would in effect be condoning and encouraging edit warfare by making page-blanking an acceptable edit. For some people, it would be an irresistible invitation to vandalism, for others, a way of suppressing inconvenient statements.
Or delete articles against concensus. If anyone can delete and undelete, the deletion log will be clogged up with school articles and forums. Sure, they can be undeleted again, but AFD is supposed to make a somewhat final decision that can only be overturned by logic and arguments, not a single editor's mood.
It's this notion of a "somewhat final decision" that's the problem. Two editors, at least one of whom must be a sysop for technical reasns, should be all that's needed for undeletion.
Ec
It's this notion of a "somewhat final decision" that's the problem. Two editors, at least one of whom must be a sysop for technical reasns, should be all that's needed for undeletion.
Ec
Why should 2 people be able to overthrow a bunch of others in case where there's nothing wrong with their judgement? You'd need a bloody good reasons for an undeletion. If you have evidence they were misinformed, undelete. If you know they didn't provide a valid rationale, undelete. If they provided a now outdated rationale, undelete. But undeletions as well as deletions should be proofed and checked by the community before they happen.
What makes you say only two people are needed?
Mgm
On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Why should 2 people be able to overthrow a bunch of others in case where there's nothing wrong with their judgement?
One person can do it. Why should "a bunch of others" *not* be wrong in their judgement?
You'd need a bloody good reasons for an undeletion.
Like getting it wrong.
But undeletions as well as deletions should be proofed and
checked by the community before they happen.
Seldom works like that. Anyone who thinks that AfD is the forum most conducive to assuming bad faith should spend a couple of days reading Deletion Review. We do have an undeletion policy, but deletion review is conducted in an atmosphere where any attempt to quote that undeletion policy on the page is repeatedly reverted.
On 12/11/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Why should 2 people be able to overthrow a bunch of others in case where there's nothing wrong with their judgement?
One person can do it.
Not if they want to stay an admin.
Why should "a bunch of others" *not* be wrong in their judgement?
Why should two people be right in thier judgment.
Seldom works like that. Anyone who thinks that AfD is the forum most conducive to assuming bad faith should spend a couple of days reading Deletion Review. We do have an undeletion policy, but deletion review is conducted in an atmosphere where any attempt to quote that undeletion policy on the page is repeatedly reverted.
It isn't a policy page.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 12/11/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Seldom works like that. Anyone who thinks that AfD is the forum most conducive to assuming bad faith should spend a couple of days reading Deletion Review. We do have an undeletion policy, but deletion review is conducted in an atmosphere where any attempt to quote that undeletion policy on the page is repeatedly reverted.
It isn't a policy page.
We're not talking about developing policy, but about quoting it. A policy page is about developing the policy. This is about applying the policy as it is, right or wrong. By your reasoning a person defending a case in court would not be able to quote the law in his own defence. Put in another way, if one of us were charged in court with copyright infringement he would be able to claim fair use only if he did not quote the relevant sections of the law.
Ec
On 12/11/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/11/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Why should 2 people be able to overthrow a bunch of others in case where there's nothing wrong with their judgement?
One person can do it.
Not if they want to stay an admin.
Is that a threat? Read the undeletion policy. Administrators are empowered to undelete out-of-process deletions unilaterally.
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/11/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/11/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Why should 2 people be able to overthrow a bunch of others in case where there's nothing wrong with their judgement?
One person can do it.
Not if they want to stay an admin.
Is that a threat? Read the undeletion policy. Administrators are empowered to undelete out-of-process deletions unilaterally.
Things that have been through ADF are not out of process.
-- geni
On 12/11/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Why should 2 people be able to overthrow a bunch of others in case where there's nothing wrong with their judgement?
One person can do it. Why should "a bunch of others" *not* be wrong in their judgement?
You'd need a bloody good reasons for an undeletion.
Like getting it wrong.
But undeletions as well as deletions should be proofed and
checked by the community before they happen.
Seldom works like that. Anyone who thinks that AfD is the forum most conducive to assuming bad faith should spend a couple of days reading Deletion Review. We do have an undeletion policy, but deletion review is conducted in an atmosphere where any attempt to quote that undeletion policy on the page is repeatedly reverted.
I agree, DRV is making it quite hard to get valid stuff undeleted, but if one allows just two people to agree on stuff like this I expect a lot of deletion wars. Addressing people ignoring the need to undelete when new evidence is presented in DRV seems more useful to me. Have you got any particular case in mind?
Mgm
On 12/11/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I agree, DRV is making it quite hard to get valid stuff undeleted, but if one allows just two people to agree on stuff like this I expect a lot of deletion wars. Addressing people ignoring the need to undelete when new evidence is presented in DRV seems more useful to me. Have you got any particular case in mind?
Not just one case. I take issue with the general tenor of discussion on DRV, which contrary to the undeletion policy actively discounts and, with considerable success, attempts to disenfranchise views on the acceptability of the article content. Sometimes I've seen a statement along the lines of "I don't think this should have been deleted, but the AfD was within process so we cannot undelete it."
I have attempted several times to quote the undeletion policy "Article wrongly deleted (ie that Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored)", but the clique on that page does not recognise the undeletion policy and reverts any such edits, claiming that there is no consensus for them. There are false claims in templates on the page to the effect that this isn't the place to go if you disagree with an AfD result--which is utter nonsense. In short, the undeletion policy is being actively traduced by DRV.
See a recent DRV - where a user is merely asking for a deleted article to be made visible to see if the content can be re-used elsewhere. Someone posted:
I don't like this kind of request very much, and yes, I know what the
blurb just up there
says. The fact is that this material has been rejected by AfD, and
this feels like working it
back in through th back door.
Ugh.
-Matt
Heh, it's time to start afd-l, a mailing list which automatically mails out any article nominated under AFD. (I used to have a bot which did this, minus the mailing out part, but due to a whole bunch of different factors that bot is no longer in service).
On 12/11/05, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
See a recent DRV - where a user is merely asking for a deleted article to be made visible to see if the content can be re-used elsewhere. Someone posted:
I don't like this kind of request very much, and yes, I know what the
blurb just up there
says. The fact is that this material has been rejected by AfD, and
this feels like working it
back in through th back door.
Ugh.
-Matt _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/11/05, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
See a recent DRV - where a user is merely asking for a deleted article to be made visible to see if the content can be re-used elsewhere. Someone posted:
I don't like this kind of request very much, and yes, I know what the
blurb just up there
says. The fact is that this material has been rejected by AfD, and
this feels like working it
back in through th back door.
Ugh.
It is unfortunate that DRV has been overtaken by an assumption of bad faith to a far worse degree than AfD. The above comment is not so unusual.
The heart of the problem with AfD, DRV, and the rest of the deletion suite of pages is this: It is increasingly a pile of rules. Rules encourage playing to win. Deletion, like most of Wikipedia, used to be based on principles. Principles do not encourage playing to win. Principles encourage playing to get it right. But now we have rules. Now if an article is improperly speedied, it has to be brought to DRV where the masses can vote to send it to AfD and we can have a whole AfD with virtually no votes to delete because nobody ever actually wanted the article deleted, they just mistakenly thought it was a recreation of old content. And let's not forget that the AfD, being the second AfD for an article of that title, requires our second AfD template, because HEAVEN FORBID we just use one AfD template for all our nominations. No, no, we need a second template for second nominations. We also, I believe, have a third for third nominations.
In a setting like this, it is no wonder that people begin to think the goal is to win - we've totally abandoned all notion of figuring out the Right Solution and implementing it. Instead we value this absurd game of Nomic, because we've apparently come to believe that the winner of Nomic must be right.
Screw shutting down AfD. Let's shut down AfD, TfD, CfD, RfD, IfD, MfD, DRV, RFC, RFA, RFM, RFAr, AN, AN/I, AN/3RR, and CVU, and get back to a system based on understanding what we're doing and doing it instead of this goddamned alphabet soup.
-Phil
I must say that I strongly disagree. Contention in AfD has nothing at all to do with the rules that are needed for it's implementation. Look, for every AfD-nomination on wikipedia created, there is atleast one user who really, really wants it in the encyclopedia, and one user who really, really doesn't (ie the creator and the nominator). One of them is going to be pissed of, either the nomination fails or succeeds. No ruleset, however simple is going to change that deletion is going to piss people off.
Listen, wikipedia works on a few basic principles, as you say, but the fact is that the english wikipedia is creating an enourmous encyclopedia of over 800000, and it has to coordinate thousands of users from all over the world to cooperate to do it. Without the very strict ruleset that we have (which, by the way, arose quite naturally, none of the rules excepting the core principles was forced, all of them came out from consensus) it would never work. Take RfA for instance. Most of us will agree that it works pretty smooth (atleast I think so). The reason it works is that the procedures are fixed and the rules rigid. When someone complains, we say "Well, he did have 85% support and the bureocrat thought it was a good nomination, so he was promoted. That's the rules". And it works fine!
Another example, take WP:MUSIC. Many nominations on bands and such go very smoothly because inclusion-criteria is fixed and rigid. If only we had such a good guideline (read: rule) for every subject!
Wikipedia doesn't work in spite of the rules, it works because of them!
Have as few or as many templates as you want. Have as few or as many different alphabet soups as you want. Make it as easy as you want to nominate or whatever. The deletion problem will still be there, because the heart of the deletion problem is that people have a fundamentally different idea of what should be in the encyclopedia. And that wont go away.
On 12/12/05, Snowspinner Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
The heart of the problem with AfD, DRV, and the rest of the deletion suite of pages is this: It is increasingly a pile of rules. Rules encourage playing to win. Deletion, like most of Wikipedia, used to be based on principles. Principles do not encourage playing to win. Principles encourage playing to get it right. But now we have rules. Now if an article is improperly speedied, it has to be brought to DRV where the masses can vote to send it to AfD and we can have a whole AfD with virtually no votes to delete because nobody ever actually wanted the article deleted, they just mistakenly thought it was a recreation of old content. And let's not forget that the AfD, being the second AfD for an article of that title, requires our second AfD template, because HEAVEN FORBID we just use one AfD template for all our nominations. No, no, we need a second template for second nominations. We also, I believe, have a third for third nominations.
In a setting like this, it is no wonder that people begin to think the goal is to win - we've totally abandoned all notion of figuring out the Right Solution and implementing it. Instead we value this absurd game of Nomic, because we've apparently come to believe that the winner of Nomic must be right.
Screw shutting down AfD. Let's shut down AfD, TfD, CfD, RfD, IfD, MfD, DRV, RFC, RFA, RFM, RFAr, AN, AN/I, AN/3RR, and CVU, and get back to a system based on understanding what we're doing and doing it instead of this goddamned alphabet soup.
-Phil _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Dec 11, 2005, at 7:27 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
The deletion problem will still be there, because the heart of the deletion problem is that people have a fundamentally different idea of what should be in the encyclopedia. And that wont go away.
This wasn't always the case, though - at least not on the level we're seeing now. And as evidence, note that it's still not a problem on articles. Why? Because "cite sources," "verifiability," and "NPOV" are principles. And so our article editing still gets done. It's our administrative facilities that are grinding to a halt.
We don't need massive checklists and rules for article editing. Just for deletion. Because they "bring order to the system." Except they bring a bad order - an order marked by playing to win, terrible decisions, hostility, and suspicion. And by ignoring policy and principles in favor of process. We would be better off without them - we'd be better off with admins capriciously and arbitrarily deleting what they want and undeleting what they disagree with. Because that, at least, would be a decision making process instead of a game.
We settled what should be in the encyclopedia ages ago. [[WP:NOT]] is an ancient page. Our deletion policy is ancient. We've had that settled. But then we got rules. And this belief that the rules trump our long-established policies.
It's very, very bad.
-Phil
Snowspinner Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote: We would be better off without them - we'd be better off with admins capriciously and arbitrarily deleting what they want and undeleting what they disagree with. Because that, at least, would be a decision making process instead of a game. Oh, so you're suggesting I, as an admin, should have the unchecked ability to delete [[George W. Bush]] if I wanted to? My word, I could just see the delete wars sparked by that. I've seen these arguments for how AfD is broken, etc., and I have yet to see an article deleted that I thought should be kept or vice versa. I don't think AfD is broken.
-Hermione1980
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
Without the very strict ruleset that we have (which, by the way, arose quite naturally, none of the rules excepting the core principles was forced, all of them came out from consensus) it would never work.
This is not consistent with reality. The only consensus is built by and from people who like rules. Many people just go about their daily business of improving articles in the subjects that interest them, and have done so back to a time before those rules were "adopted". A person who has done this for say three years will be completely surprised and shocked when a newbie administrator suddenly attempts to impose a rule that was "adopted by consensus" one year ago. For that newbie the rule is law, and he won't hear of having the rule reconsidered no matter how inappropriate the rule. Dedicated editors do not spend their time paying attention to the nuances of rule-making; if they did they would never get anything useful done.
Ec
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
This is not consistent with reality. The only consensus is built by and from people who like rules. Many people just go about their daily business of improving articles in the subjects that interest them, and have done so back to a time before those rules were "adopted". A person who has done this for say three years will be completely surprised and shocked when a newbie administrator suddenly attempts to impose a rule that was "adopted by consensus" one year ago. For that newbie the rule is law, and he won't hear of having the rule reconsidered no matter how inappropriate the rule. Dedicated editors do not spend their time paying attention to the nuances of rule-making; if they did they would never get anything useful done.
I've run into editors who have been editing for years (much longer than me), but haven't felt the need to abide by various newfangled rules like Cite your sources, Verifiability and Neutral Point of View, which have often been completely ignored, especially in the early days.
Jay.
On 12/12/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
I've run into editors who have been editing for years (much longer than me), but haven't felt the need to abide by various newfangled rules like Cite your sources, Verifiability and Neutral Point of View, which have often been completely ignored, especially in the early days.
NPOV has never been completely ignored, not even close. Even in the early days. Though I still can't stand the Sanger/Wales definition of the concept or the promulgation of its usage.
And verifiability has pretty much always been a major bugbear. The only rule which is significantly new is Cite Your Sources, and until the software does a better job of making it dramatically easier for users to do so, it will continue to be a problem.
Non-empty edit summaries should be mandatory except for edits marked as minor.
The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/12/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
I've run into editors who have been editing for years (much longer than me), but haven't felt the need to abide by various newfangled rules like Cite your sources, Verifiability and Neutral Point of View, which have often been completely ignored, especially in the early days.
NPOV has never been completely ignored, not even close. Even in the early days. Though I still can't stand the Sanger/Wales definition of the concept or the promulgation of its usage.
And verifiability has pretty much always been a major bugbear. The only rule which is significantly new is Cite Your Sources, and until the software does a better job of making it dramatically easier for users to do so, it will continue to be a problem.
Non-empty edit summaries should be mandatory except for edits marked as minor.
That sounds like an encouragement to mark everything minor, or at least to have a stock of boilerplate to stick in.
Ec
On 12/14/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
And verifiability has pretty much always been a major bugbear. The only rule which is significantly new is Cite Your Sources, and until the software does a better job of making it dramatically easier for users to do so, it will continue to be a problem.
Non-empty edit summaries should be mandatory except for edits marked as minor.
That sounds like an encouragement to mark everything minor, or at least to have a stock of boilerplate to stick in.
Assume good faith. Marking non-minor edits as minor would obviously be cause for sanction. Accurate boilerplate would be fine.
From: Snowspinner Snowspinner@gmail.com
Screw shutting down AfD. Let's shut down AfD, TfD, CfD, RfD, IfD, MfD, DRV, RFC, RFA, RFM, RFAr, AN, AN/I, AN/3RR, and CVU, and get back to a system based on understanding what we're doing and doing it instead of this goddamned alphabet soup.
Wikipedia is getting bigger and bigger, and can't be run like a small message board with a couple of moderators. It's not the tight community it once was, and people in distress need places they can go for assistance.
Jay.
On Dec 11, 2005, at 8:07 PM, JAY JG wrote:
Wikipedia is getting bigger and bigger, and can't be run like a small message board with a couple of moderators. It's not the tight community it once was, and people in distress need places they can go for assistance.
Of course not - but it can be run like a really big message board with a whole lot of moderators.
-Phil
JAY JG wrote:
From: Snowspinner Snowspinner@gmail.com
Screw shutting down AfD. Let's shut down AfD, TfD, CfD, RfD, IfD, MfD, DRV, RFC, RFA, RFM, RFAr, AN, AN/I, AN/3RR, and CVU, and get back to a system based on understanding what we're doing and doing it instead of this goddamned alphabet soup.
Wikipedia is getting bigger and bigger, and can't be run like a small message board with a couple of moderators. It's not the tight community it once was, and people in distress need places they can go for assistance.
Of course it's not the tight community that it used to be. Still when people want help they should not be faced with an alphabet soup that the senior members don't pay attention to anyway. Just imagine what the US Constitution would look like if its size had grown in proportion to the population of the country. We've only been at it for five years. What will Wikipedia rules look like in the year 2230? :-)
Ec
Matt Brown wrote:
See a recent DRV - where a user is merely asking for a deleted article to be made visible to see if the content can be re-used elsewhere. Someone posted:
I don't like this kind of request very much, and yes, I know what the blurb just up there says. The fact is that this material has been rejected by AfD, and this feels like working it back in through th back door.
Ugh.
Send such requests to me and I will make the material available.
And could someone beat the author of the above comment around with a very large cluebat? In the most loving manner and the very best of good faith, of course.
- d.
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 12/11/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
But undeletions as well as deletions should be proofed and
checked by the community before they happen.
Seldom works like that. Anyone who thinks that AfD is the forum most conducive to assuming bad faith should spend a couple of days reading Deletion Review. We do have an undeletion policy, but deletion review is conducted in an atmosphere where any attempt to quote that undeletion policy on the page is repeatedly reverted.
I agree, DRV is making it quite hard to get valid stuff undeleted, but if one allows just two people to agree on stuff like this I expect a lot of deletion wars. Addressing people ignoring the need to undelete when new evidence is presented in DRV seems more useful to me. Have you got any particular case in mind?
That you are able to recognize that it's difficult to get things undeleted is important progress.
The agreement of two people to undelete does not imply that the undeletion will necessarily be permanent. Under the right circumstances it could be deleted again, and two new people could undelete it again, but my guess is that very few articles would go through the entire cycle more than twice. The deletion wars that you anticipate may be there shortly after a two person undeletion is passed, but will likely tail off within a month or two when the policy has had a chance to stabilize.
This is not about any particular case. Policy designed to fit a particular case is usually bad policy. Either side can choose a case that best supports his view, and it becomes a straw man in support of issues that have nothing to do with the case.
Good policy reflects the way that people do things; it recognizes that there is no need for enforced policy when the normal operation of human nature gets us there anyway.
Ec
On 12/12/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
I agree, DRV is making it quite hard to get valid stuff undeleted, but if one allows just two people to agree on stuff like this I expect a lot of deletion wars. Addressing people ignoring the need to undelete when new evidence is presented in DRV seems more useful to me. Have you got any particular case in mind?
That you are able to recognize that it's difficult to get things undeleted is important progress.
The agreement of two people to undelete does not imply that the undeletion will necessarily be permanent. Under the right circumstances it could be deleted again, and two new people could undelete it again, but my guess is that very few articles would go through the entire cycle more than twice. The deletion wars that you anticipate may be there shortly after a two person undeletion is passed, but will likely tail off within a month or two when the policy has had a chance to stabilize.
I've found that listing an article on AfD, and the ensuing strong keep vote, is a pretty effective way of damping down deletion wars that sometimes result from undeletion. It's not ideal but it's probably all that can be done while people are ready to speedy delete stuff on purely procedural grounds.
Having said that, lately we're getting articles that are being undeleted by DRV and then listed on AfD when no real reason exists for wanting to delete them, and also cases where DRV is being used to endorse bad speedy deletions.
[[Brian Walters]]. Prominent Melbourne barrister and civil libertarian. Article stated as much, and it's easily checked. There were numerous votes on DRV to keep it deleted until I did a quick google, undeleted and expanded it. The person who originally speedied it could have done the google and saved himself the bother of deleting.
[[The Form of Preaching]] Nominated by someone who thought the article was OR (presumably didn't google either). A few sheep-votes sealed it deletion. The guy whose student created it came to DRV and pointed out that the piece was very important in medieval rhetoric. For some reason, although undeleted, it got listed on AfD *yet again*.
[[Mary Welsh Hemingway]], prominent international journalist who, after covering World War II, married Ernest Hemingway. Was undeleted and, for no real reason, relisted. Speedy keep of this article has been strongly resisted.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
I've found that listing an article on AfD, and the ensuing strong keep vote, is a pretty effective way of damping down deletion wars that sometimes result from undeletion. It's not ideal but it's probably all that can be done while people are ready to speedy delete stuff on purely procedural grounds.
Having said that, lately we're getting articles that are being undeleted by DRV and then listed on AfD when no real reason exists for wanting to delete them, and also cases where DRV is being used to endorse bad speedy deletions.
[[Brian Walters]]. Prominent Melbourne barrister and civil libertarian. Article stated as much, and it's easily checked. There were numerous votes on DRV to keep it deleted until I did a quick google, undeleted and expanded it. The person who originally speedied it could have done the google and saved himself the bother of deleting.
[[The Form of Preaching]] Nominated by someone who thought the article was OR (presumably didn't google either). A few sheep-votes sealed it deletion. The guy whose student created it came to DRV and pointed out that the piece was very important in medieval rhetoric. For some reason, although undeleted, it got listed on AfD *yet again*.
[[Mary Welsh Hemingway]], prominent international journalist who, after covering World War II, married Ernest Hemingway. Was undeleted and, for no real reason, relisted. Speedy keep of this article has been strongly resisted.
In all fairness Googling, then adding the information is a lot of work. That has been my experience at Wiktionary where I have been pushing people to cite sources. We've had the situation where an anon would add a new word of dubious parentage, then one of our more regular contributors would take up the cause, fix up the formatting, and argue to keep the word. The general rule has been that on our Requests for Deletion (RfD) something would stay for at least a week if there is anything to discuss. Even after deletion everything (including "speedys") stay for at least a week before being removed from the list. There is plenty of opportunity to have serious debate continued. It also helps that we do not equate stubs with some kind of criminal act; there are words where there is very little to say. Deleted ones can be easily reconstructed if the situation calls for it.
Complaints about deleting unsourced material resulted in a separate page called Requests for Verification (RfV) where supporters have a full month to find sources. After that, it *may* be deleted. I personally work on maintaining the RfD page, trying to find common ground, and making decisions in the tough cases. Some complaints are inevitable, but it never reaches the level of persistent rancour that flare up on the mailing list over AfD. I do not personally monitor RfV, and limit myself to occasional comments on specific items or particular nominations that I don't bother to track. The resulting division of labour has helped in a growing project.
I suppose too that I indirectly take advantage of this mailing llist for Wiktionary's administrative benefit. The kind of arguing that I see here makes me very conscious of what to avoid in Wiktionary. I suppose that that makes me grateful to those here whose ideas differ significantly from mine. :-)
Ec
So, Jimbo, what do you say about experimentally turning off AfD?
We clearly don't know what the consequences would be, since the predictions are all over the map.
On 12/13/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In all fairness Googling, then adding the information is a lot of work.
It's a couple of minutes. And at the end of it you have a useful article instead of a hole in the ground.
Complaints about deleting unsourced material resulted in a separate page called Requests for Verification (RfV) where supporters have a full month to find sources.
This sounds like exactly what I'm suggesting for Wikipedia.
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In all fairness Googling, then adding the information is a lot of work.
It's a couple of minutes. And at the end of it you have a useful article instead of a hole in the ground.
Nocking out people on RC patrol for couple of minutes soon results in the loss of RC patrol as they are all of researching stuff.
-- geni
G'day geni,
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In all fairness Googling, then adding the information is a lot of work.
It's a couple of minutes. And at the end of it you have a useful article instead of a hole in the ground.
Nocking out people on RC patrol for couple of minutes soon results in the loss of RC patrol as they are all of researching stuff.
We don't have to verify stuff while on RC patrol. If something looks ... odd, do you know what I do? Tag it {{cleanup-verify}} and let someone who isn't RC patrolling sort it out.
We should not be AfDing something if we don't have time to do research. Let someone else sort it out if you must.
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day geni,
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In all fairness Googling, then adding the information is a lot of work.
It's a couple of minutes. And at the end of it you have a useful article instead of a hole in the ground.
Nocking out people on RC patrol for couple of minutes soon results in the loss of RC patrol as they are all of researching stuff.
We don't have to verify stuff while on RC patrol. If something looks ... odd, do you know what I do? Tag it {{cleanup-verify}} and let someone who isn't RC patrolling sort it out.
We should not be AfDing something if we don't have time to do research. Let someone else sort it out if you must.
That's reasonable enough. It's rare for me to do RC patrol, but I might learn something from doing it occasionally. On Wiktionary I tend to spend more time closing requests for deletion, some of which carry on for a long time. The oldest outstanding ones have been around for four months, and they tend to be the most difficult.
Ec
On 12/13/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In all fairness Googling, then adding the information is a lot of work.
It's a couple of minutes. And at the end of it you have a useful article instead of a hole in the ground.
Nocking out people on RC patrol for couple of minutes soon results in the loss of RC patrol as they are all of researching stuff.
Goodness, editors of an encyclopedia performing research! We can't have that! Anybody would think we wanted to be as good as Britannica or something!
G'day Toni,
On 12/13/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In all fairness Googling, then adding the information is a lot of work.
It's a couple of minutes. And at the end of it you have a useful article instead of a hole in the ground.
Nocking out people on RC patrol for couple of minutes soon results in the loss of RC patrol as they are all of researching stuff.
Goodness, editors of an encyclopedia performing research! We can't have that! Anybody would think we wanted to be as good as Britannica or something!
You know exactly what geni meant. This sort of cheap shot helps nobody.
On 12/13/05, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Toni,
On 12/13/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In all fairness Googling, then adding the information is a lot of work.
It's a couple of minutes. And at the end of it you have a useful article instead of a hole in the ground.
Nocking out people on RC patrol for couple of minutes soon results in the loss of RC patrol as they are all of researching stuff.
Goodness, editors of an encyclopedia performing research! We can't have that! Anybody would think we wanted to be as good as Britannica or something!
You know exactly what geni meant. This sort of cheap shot helps nobody.
I'm sorry that you see it as a cheap shot; it's rather the reverse. I regard the argument that research prior to deletion would detract from recent changes patrolling as utterly indefensible. I find it difficult to believe that anyone would seriously attempt to defend it.
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/05, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Toni,
On 12/13/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In all fairness Googling, then adding the information is a lot of work.
It's a couple of minutes. And at the end of it you have a useful article instead of a hole in the ground.
Nocking out people on RC patrol for couple of minutes soon results in the loss of RC patrol as they are all of researching stuff.
Goodness, editors of an encyclopedia performing research! We can't have that! Anybody would think we wanted to be as good as Britannica or something!
You know exactly what geni meant. This sort of cheap shot helps nobody.
I'm sorry that you see it as a cheap shot; it's rather the reverse. I regard the argument that research prior to deletion would detract from recent changes patrolling as utterly indefensible. I find it difficult to believe that anyone would seriously attempt to defend it.
Why? We've seen the cost of a failed RC patrol. If you want to put an article on wikipedia doing a minium of research yourself is not too much to ask.
-- geni
G'day geni,
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry that you see it as a cheap shot; it's rather the reverse. I regard the argument that research prior to deletion would detract from recent changes patrolling as utterly indefensible. I find it difficult to believe that anyone would seriously attempt to defend it.
Why? We've seen the cost of a failed RC patrol. If you want to put an article on wikipedia doing a minium of research yourself is not too much to ask.
Remember that we are talking about coming across articles that don't cite their sources. If you came across such an article on RC patrol, you would *not* immediately reach for AfD, and you should not be listing stuff on AfD without doing research (if nothing else, because then you couldn't write a good nom, and I've been hot on the issue of AfD nominations for a while now).
{{cleanup-verify}}, save, move on to the next article that crops up.
On 12/13/05, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day geni,
Why? We've seen the cost of a failed RC patrol. If you want to put an article on wikipedia doing a minium of research yourself is not too much to ask.
Remember that we are talking about coming across articles that don't cite their sources. If you came across such an article on RC patrol, you would *not* immediately reach for AfD, and you should not be listing stuff on AfD without doing research (if nothing else, because then you couldn't write a good nom, and I've been hot on the issue of AfD nominations for a while now).
I'm not even talking about listing without research--that's sloppy but cannot result in an out-of-process deletion. I'm talking about RC patrollers deleting articles that contain, for instance, statements that imply notability, such as the recent deletion of an article that described its subject as a "prominent barrister and civil libertarian."
Now while it's conceivable that this could have been a peacock phrase designed to puff up a nonentity, the question was easily settled by a quick google on the person in question, which the deleting administrator doesn't seem to have done. The guy in question turns out to be exactly what the stub said he was: a prominent barrister and civil libertarian.
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/05, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day geni,
Why? We've seen the cost of a failed RC patrol. If you want to put an article on wikipedia doing a minium of research yourself is not too much to ask.
Remember that we are talking about coming across articles that don't cite their sources. If you came across such an article on RC patrol, you would *not* immediately reach for AfD, and you should not be listing stuff on AfD without doing research (if nothing else, because then you couldn't write a good nom, and I've been hot on the issue of AfD nominations for a while now).
I'm not even talking about listing without research--that's sloppy but cannot result in an out-of-process deletion. I'm talking about RC patrollers deleting articles that contain, for instance, statements that imply notability, such as the recent deletion of an article that described its subject as a "prominent barrister and civil libertarian."
Instead of arguing about this, because I can see both sides of the argument, I'll present a somewhat simple feature that would remove much of the problem.
Let's add a feature to the software to automatically notify a user (easiest implementation would be to add a message on the talk page) when an article she started has been deleted. Then if the deletion was mistaken, it's trivial for the user to either rewrite it or get it undeleted (or it damn well should be, an inappropriate speedy is still a candidate for speedy undeletion, right?).
In fact, preferably we could add it whenever an article gets tagged for AFD, or with cleanup-verify, etc.
Anthony
On 12/13/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/05, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Toni,
On 12/13/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote: >In all fairness Googling, then adding the information is a lot of work.
It's a couple of minutes. And at the end of it you have a useful article instead of a hole in the ground.
Nocking out people on RC patrol for couple of minutes soon results in the loss of RC patrol as they are all of researching stuff.
Goodness, editors of an encyclopedia performing research! We can't have that! Anybody would think we wanted to be as good as Britannica or something!
You know exactly what geni meant. This sort of cheap shot helps nobody.
I'm sorry that you see it as a cheap shot; it's rather the reverse. I regard the argument that research prior to deletion would detract from recent changes patrolling as utterly indefensible. I find it difficult to believe that anyone would seriously attempt to defend it.
Why? We've seen the cost of a failed RC patrol. If you want to put an article on wikipedia doing a minium of research yourself is not too much to ask.
I have to agree with geni here. The problem is that the research time required by the two parties is so utterly asymetrical. Even if you're writing an article from the top of your head, it's obviously something you know a lot about, and you'd have a much easier time finding a reference than some random edit patroller. If nothing else it's common courtesy to save the rest of us time researching your article.
C'mon, it's not like I'm asking for every single fact to be referenced. Adding a single reference to every single article is just not a big deal.
And yes, I myself have started articles without listing references. I did it because I'm lazy and there wasn't a rule against it. We've gotta stop lazy people like me.
Anthony
On 12/13/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Even if you're writing an article from the top of your head, it's obviously something you know a lot about, and you'd have a much easier time finding a reference than some random edit patroller. If nothing else it's common courtesy to save the rest of us time researching your article.
Absolutely. Starting an unreferenced article is discourteous
However, that is not an argument for deletion of unreferenced articles.
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Even if you're writing an article from the top of your head, it's obviously something you know a lot about, and you'd have a much easier time finding a reference than some random edit patroller. If nothing else it's common courtesy to save the rest of us time researching your article.
Absolutely. Starting an unreferenced article is discourteous
However, that is not an argument for deletion of unreferenced articles.
I think it is a good part of the argument. It's the part that says you don't have a *right* to have your articles kept if they are unreferenced.
The other half of the argument is which would be better for Wikipedia. Would deletion of unreferenced articles cause enough people to start referencing things that it'd make up for those articles which were deleted? Would the time saved in not having to argue with trolls make up for the time spent asking an admin to undelete something? We can argue over these points forever, or we could try it and see. I think there's a good chance that the positives would outweigh the negatives. No solution is perfect, of course.
Anthony
On 12/13/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely. Starting an unreferenced article is discourteous
However, that is not an argument for deletion of unreferenced articles.
I think it is a good part of the argument. It's the part that says you don't have a *right* to have your articles kept if they are unreferenced.
That's an odd way of putting it. No editor has rights beyond copyright and the GFDL. The question is whether it's appropriate to delete articles solely because the deleting administrator cannot be bothered to expand them and, for reasons that escape me, cannot leave expansion to someone else.
The other half of the argument is which would be better for Wikipedia.
I think we can take it as read that it isn't better for Wikipedia to delete articles without good reason. A wiki is always a work in progress, and most articles on Wikipedia are unreferenced. This doesn't make them useless and certainly doesn't mean that administrators should delete them without ever making any attempt to expand them and without ever discussing their deletion on AfD.
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
The other half of the argument is which would be better for Wikipedia.
I think we can take it as read that it isn't better for Wikipedia to delete articles without good reason.
I agree.
On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 08:19 -0500, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
C'mon, it's not like I'm asking for every single fact to be referenced. Adding a single reference to every single article is just not a big deal.
And yes, I myself have started articles without listing references. I did it because I'm lazy and there wasn't a rule against it. We've gotta stop lazy people like me.
Its a worthwhile aim. I know there are articles I have created that still dont have references, guess I should fix them. Not sure that moving them into user space is the best solution - no one else will ever find them. I wrote a quick stub the other day (was redlinked from several places, clearly notable, but couldnt find any references. Within an hour someone else had found references, written a much longer article. This wouldnt have happened in my user space.
Justinc
On 12/13/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 08:19 -0500, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
C'mon, it's not like I'm asking for every single fact to be referenced. Adding a single reference to every single article is just not a big deal.
And yes, I myself have started articles without listing references. I did it because I'm lazy and there wasn't a rule against it. We've gotta stop lazy people like me.
Its a worthwhile aim. I know there are articles I have created that still dont have references, guess I should fix them. Not sure that moving them into user space is the best solution - no one else will ever find them. I wrote a quick stub the other day (was redlinked from several places, clearly notable, but couldnt find any references. Within an hour someone else had found references, written a much longer article. This wouldnt have happened in my user space.
Justinc
Well, the latest version of the proposal didn't move to user space until 24 hours later, so this would still have gotten fixed. I'm sure there are other examples though, especially in the current system. I just think they'd be minor enough that they'd be far outweighed by the increased efficiency in dealing with crap.
Right now we waste a lot of time dealing with crap. Running an article created by some "anonymous redshirt" through a 5 day voting process when the creator of that article did absolutely nothing to help us out is feeding the trolls.
If people want to spend the time going through crap and turning it into gold, let them see the articles *after* they've been deleted. It should be an optional process though. Personally I'd have fun doing it. Others wouldn't.
I think it'd be the Great Wikipedia Compromise. Give the inclusionists who apply for the job the power to see deleted articles. Be more lenient about keeping well written and well referenced articles on obscure topics. And be less tolerant about keeping around crap. Both sides would win. Everyone would laugh and be merry. Alright, that last sentence was overboard.
Anthony
On 12/13/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I think it'd be the Great Wikipedia Compromise. Give the inclusionists who apply for the job the power to see deleted articles. Be more lenient about keeping well written and well referenced articles on obscure topics. And be less tolerant about keeping around crap. Both sides would win. Everyone would laugh and be merry. Alright, that last sentence was overboard.
I'd be merry. Especially if we just gave more people the power to see deleted articles.
On 12/13/05, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I'd be merry. Especially if we just gave more people the power to see deleted articles.
There'd have to be two classes of deletion; some articles must not be served except for administrative purposes, because of legal liability problems.
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/05, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I'd be merry. Especially if we just gave more people the power to see deleted articles.
There'd have to be two classes of deletion; some articles must not be served except for administrative purposes, because of legal liability problems.
Certainly not if the power to see deleted articles was only given to those who agreed to use it only for administrative purposes.
Anthony
Justin Cormack wrote:
On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 08:19 -0500, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
C'mon, it's not like I'm asking for every single fact to be referenced. Adding a single reference to every single article is just not a big deal.
And yes, I myself have started articles without listing references. I did it because I'm lazy and there wasn't a rule against it. We've gotta stop lazy people like me.
Its a worthwhile aim. I know there are articles I have created that still dont have references, guess I should fix them. Not sure that moving them into user space is the best solution - no one else will ever find them. I wrote a quick stub the other day (was redlinked from several places, clearly notable, but couldnt find any references. Within an hour someone else had found references, written a much longer article. This wouldnt have happened in my user space.
Congratulations! It looks like the system was working correctly for you.
Ec
geni wrote:
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In all fairness Googling, then adding the information is a lot of work.
It's a couple of minutes. And at the end of it you have a useful article instead of a hole in the ground.
Nocking out people on RC patrol for couple of minutes soon results in the loss of RC patrol as they are all of researching stuff.
For once I have to agree with you.. You may find it hard to believe that I was the one who on Wiktionary was taking the most vocal stand for riddding us of some of the nonsense vocabulary that was being proposed. :-)
Ec
On 12/15/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
geni wrote:
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In all fairness Googling, then adding the information is a lot of work.
It's a couple of minutes. And at the end of it you have a useful article instead of a hole in the ground.
Nocking out people on RC patrol for couple of minutes soon results in the loss of RC patrol as they are all of researching stuff.
For once I have to agree with you.. You may find it hard to believe that I was the one who on Wiktionary was taking the most vocal stand for riddding us of some of the nonsense vocabulary that was being proposed. :-)
Ec
That's why it needs to be a multi-step process. RC patrol makes a basic check, and others do the further research. Task management would probably be the perfect solution for organizing this process, but a simple interface to quickly add something to the talk page directly from the diff page would be easy to program and just about as useful.
Let's add a one line text field at the top or bottom of the diff page: you fill out a quick summary, and it automatically gets added to the talk page, complete with a link to the diff.
A revert button for non-obvious vandalism would be nice too. This could be used by non-admins as well as admins, and you'd have to describe the reason for your revert which would appear on the talk page (with the diff) as well as the comments field of the history.
In fact, it'd be great if you could just check a box for any edit which said "copy this edit summary to the talk page". The whole three step-process (edit, get diff, comment on talk page) of being bold and making a change which you're not 100% sure of is too difficult. Bonus points if you can figure out how to thread multiple changes to the same text under a single talk page section :).
But for starters, let's add that one line text field on the diff page. It'd be a really simple software change.
Anthony
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 12/13/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In all fairness Googling, then adding the information is a lot of work.
It's a couple of minutes. And at the end of it you have a useful article instead of a hole in the ground.
Not really, but then I've been too focused on vocabulary where the "evidence" is from blogs or other POV pushing sites. Or you find people spamming the internet to get their new pet word adopted.
Complaints about deleting unsourced material resulted in a separate page called Requests for Verification (RfV) where supporters have a full month to find sources.
This sounds like exactly what I'm suggesting for Wikipedia.
Of course the article is not deleted while waiting for that month to pass.
Ec
On 12/15/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 12/13/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Complaints about deleting unsourced material resulted in a separate page called Requests for Verification (RfV) where supporters have a full month to find sources.
This sounds like exactly what I'm suggesting for Wikipedia.
Of course the article is not deleted while waiting for that month to pass.
I should think not!
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
It's this notion of a "somewhat final decision" that's the problem. Two editors, at least one of whom must be a sysop for technical reasns, should be all that's needed for undeletion.
Ec
Why should 2 people be able to overthrow a bunch of others in case where there's nothing wrong with their judgement? You'd need a bloody good reasons for an undeletion. If you have evidence they were misinformed, undelete. If you know they didn't provide a valid rationale, undelete. If they provided a now outdated rationale, undelete. But undeletions as well as deletions should be proofed and checked by the community before they happen.
"Overthrow" seems like a drastic term in these circumstances. Why should a desire to undelete something be seen as an attack on their judgement? Things have gone too far when the deleters take a simple request to undelete as a serious criticism of their personal judgement. It's as though they are insisting that they are never wrong.
Most of the deleted articles are unlikely to even have one person who wants to undelete, ever. If even one person who knows anything about the subject was not available at the time of the deletion he should be able to have a meaningful influence on the decision. Even in your terms that alone should satisfy the "misinformed" criterion. Undeletions should be about content, not process or rationale.
Your last comment is illogical. How can a community proof and check a deleted article unless it is first undeleted? Yes, one person can ask an admin for a copy of a deleted article, but that one person is not a community.
What makes you say only two people are needed?
Because I don't think that one would be enough, particularly if that one is not an admin. Having a second person agree gives a little room for a reality check.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Why should 2 people be able to overthrow a bunch of others in case where there's nothing wrong with their judgement? You'd need a bloody good reasons for an undeletion. If you have evidence they were misinformed, undelete. If you know they didn't provide a valid rationale, undelete. If they provided a now outdated rationale, undelete. But undeletions as well as deletions should be proofed and checked by the community before they happen.
"Overthrow" seems like a drastic term in these circumstances. Why should a desire to undelete something be seen as an attack on their judgement? Things have gone too far when the deleters take a simple request to undelete as a serious criticism of their personal judgement. It's as though they are insisting that they are never wrong.
It's the Assumption of Bad Faith. MGM, can you see that it looks like a gross Assumption of Bad Faith?
What makes you say only two people are needed?
Because I don't think that one would be enough, particularly if that one is not an admin. Having a second person agree gives a little room for a reality check.
I hereby declare that I will make deleted content (apart from copyvios etc) available for reading. Of course, using it to recreate the deleted content is speedyable, and using it to keep it hanging around in your userspace may get you penalised as Anthony was for doing so. But that's what you do with it afterwards.
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Gerard stated for the record:
I hereby declare that I will make deleted content (apart from copyvios etc) available for reading. Of course, using it to recreate the deleted content is speedyable, and using it to keep it hanging around in your userspace may get you penalised as Anthony was for doing so. But that's what you do with it afterwards.
- d.
Watch out, David. The AfD crew is vicious -- defy them in public like this, and I won't be surprised to see that you've been put up for deletion, Arbiter or not.
And by the bye, I've extended the same offer for quite some time now.
- -- Sean Barrett | Most people who need to be shot need to sean@epoptic.org | be shot soon and a lot. Very few people | need to be shot later or just a little.
On 12/12/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Gerard stated for the record:
I hereby declare that I will make deleted content (apart from copyvios etc) available for reading. Of course, using it to recreate the deleted content is speedyable, and using it to keep it hanging around in your userspace may get you penalised as Anthony was for doing so. But that's what you do with it afterwards.
Watch out, David. The AfD crew is vicious -- defy them in public like this, and I won't be surprised to see that you've been put up for deletion, Arbiter or not.
And by the bye, I've extended the same offer for quite some time now.
Me too. I'll get around to putting it on my userpage one of these days.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 12/12/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
David Gerard stated for the record:
I hereby declare that I will make deleted content (apart from copyvios etc) available for reading. Of course, using it to recreate the deleted content is speedyable, and using it to keep it hanging around in your userspace may get you penalised as Anthony was for doing so. But that's what you do with it afterwards.
Watch out, David. The AfD crew is vicious -- defy them in public like this, and I won't be surprised to see that you've been put up for deletion, Arbiter or not. And by the bye, I've extended the same offer for quite some time now.
Me too. I'll get around to putting it on my userpage one of these days.
I've just added the following to my page. Other admins should feel free to do so also.
==Undeletion==
If you need access to a Wikipedia article that has been deleted, ask me. If it's not a copyright violation, libel or similar, I will make the text available to you. This is because [[WP:DRV|deletion review]] is infected with a crippling case of [[m:Instruction creep|process]] [[ISO 9000|fetishisation]] over [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia|product]] that ignores the actual [[Wikipedia:deletion policy|]] and is in need of being made [[WP:IAR|ignorable]].
Note that using the text to recreate the deleted content is speedyable, and using it to keep it hanging around in your userspace has gotten editors penalised before. But that's your problem.
[and if Anthony sends me a request a day I will at least raise an eyebrow]
- d.
On 12/12/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 12/12/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
David Gerard stated for the record:
I hereby declare that I will make deleted content (apart from copyvios etc) available for reading. Of course, using it to recreate the deleted content is speedyable, and using it to keep it hanging around in your userspace may get you penalised as Anthony was for doing so. But that's what you do with it afterwards.
Watch out, David. The AfD crew is vicious -- defy them in public like this, and I won't be surprised to see that you've been put up for deletion, Arbiter or not. And by the bye, I've extended the same offer for quite some time now.
Me too. I'll get around to putting it on my userpage one of these days.
I've just added the following to my page. Other admins should feel free to do so also.
==Undeletion==
If you need access to a Wikipedia article that has been deleted, ask me. If it's not a copyright violation, libel or similar, I will make the text available to you. This is because [[WP:DRV|deletion review]] is infected with a crippling case of [[m:Instruction creep|process]] [[ISO 9000|fetishisation]] over [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia|product]] that ignores the actual [[Wikipedia:deletion policy|]] and is in need of being made [[WP:IAR|ignorable]].
Note that using the text to recreate the deleted content is speedyable, and using it to keep it hanging around in your userspace has gotten editors penalised before. But that's your problem.
[and if Anthony sends me a request a day I will at least raise an eyebrow]
- d.
Make sure you give them the list of authors or link to where they can be found.
-- geni
On 12/12/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 12/12/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
David Gerard stated for the record:
I hereby declare that I will make deleted content (apart from copyvios etc) available for reading. Of course, using it to recreate the deleted content is speedyable, and using it to keep it hanging around in your userspace may get you penalised as Anthony was for doing so. But that's what you do with it afterwards.
Watch out, David. The AfD crew is vicious -- defy them in public like this, and I won't be surprised to see that you've been put up for deletion, Arbiter or not. And by the bye, I've extended the same offer for quite some time now.
Me too. I'll get around to putting it on my userpage one of these days.
I've just added the following to my page. Other admins should feel free to do so also.
==Undeletion==
If you need access to a Wikipedia article that has been deleted, ask me. If it's not a copyright violation, libel or similar, I will make the text available to you. This is because [[WP:DRV|deletion review]] is infected with a crippling case of [[m:Instruction creep|process]] [[ISO 9000|fetishisation]] over [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia|product]] that ignores the actual [[Wikipedia:deletion policy|]] and is in need of being made [[WP:IAR|ignorable]].
Note that using the text to recreate the deleted content is speedyable, and using it to keep it hanging around in your userspace has gotten editors penalised before. But that's your problem.
[and if Anthony sends me a request a day I will at least raise an eyebrow]
- d.
One a day? But there are hundreds of deletions every day that I'd like to see. :)
Why can't some admin just write a bot to get them all, and email them to me. I promise I won't tell anyone who you are (use an anonymous remailer if you don't trust me, they still have those right?).
Anthony
On 12/13/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/12/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 12/12/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
David Gerard stated for the record:
I hereby declare that I will make deleted content (apart from copyvios etc) available for reading. Of course, using it to recreate the deleted content is speedyable, and using it to keep it hanging around in your userspace may get you penalised as Anthony was for doing so. But that's what you do with it afterwards.
Watch out, David. The AfD crew is vicious -- defy them in public like this, and I won't be surprised to see that you've been put up for deletion, Arbiter or not. And by the bye, I've extended the same offer for quite some time now.
Me too. I'll get around to putting it on my userpage one of these days.
I've just added the following to my page. Other admins should feel free to do so also.
==Undeletion==
If you need access to a Wikipedia article that has been deleted, ask me. If it's not a copyright violation, libel or similar, I will make the text available to you. This is because [[WP:DRV|deletion review]] is infected with a crippling case of [[m:Instruction creep|process]] [[ISO 9000|fetishisation]] over [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia|product]] that ignores the actual [[Wikipedia:deletion policy|]] and is in need of being made [[WP:IAR|ignorable]].
Note that using the text to recreate the deleted content is speedyable, and using it to keep it hanging around in your userspace has gotten editors penalised before. But that's your problem.
[and if Anthony sends me a request a day I will at least raise an eyebrow]
- d.
One a day? But there are hundreds of deletions every day that I'd like to see. :)
Why can't some admin just write a bot to get them all, and email them to me. I promise I won't tell anyone who you are (use an anonymous remailer if you don't trust me, they still have those right?).
Anthony
Hmm a lot were pulled after people used them for spam.
-- geni
On 12/12/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
==Undeletion==
If you need access to a Wikipedia article that has been deleted, ask me.
[etc]
Wonderful. Now has pride of place on my user page.
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
==Undeletion==
If you need access to a Wikipedia article that has been deleted, ask me.
[etc]
Wonderful. Now has pride of place on my user page.
As I've noticed that I wasn't the only administrator to do so, I've created a template with an appropriate category, which any administrator can use.
{{User recovery}}
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
==Undeletion==
If you need access to a Wikipedia article that has been deleted, ask me.
[etc]
This service seems to follow all the rules. Be sure, though, that if the article gets recreated in a new and improved form, that the history of this thing should be undeleted to attributed any info to their original contributors.
BTW, I don't think there's much instruction creep in DRV. It says to provide evidence it was deleted in error, or evidence that was overlooked in the original debate. I think that's no more than logical.
What I do hate though, is people supporting the original decision on bare numbers, or ignoring new evidence with a quick "non-notable"-tag.
Mgm