"David Mestel" wrote
Well, our deletion policies also cover AfD. I think that the first thing we should do is extend CSD A7 to explicitly cover corporations.
I was implying that there has always been the implied discretion for admins to shoot on sight certain types of pages. If you want this in wonkish, those tagging for speedies should stay within the guidelines, but other things can be deleted by sure-footed admins.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
I don't think that "implied discretion" is a good idea long-term - it's better to codify it in policy so that everything is consistent and in the open. Apart from anything else, it's kind of inadvertantly biting the newbies when stuff happens for reasons which aren't explained.
On 01/10/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"David Mestel" wrote
Well, our deletion policies also cover AfD. I think that the first thing we should do is extend CSD A7 to explicitly cover corporations.
I was implying that there has always been the implied discretion for admins to shoot on sight certain types of pages. If you want this in wonkish, those tagging for speedies should stay within the guidelines, but other things can be deleted by sure-footed admins.
Charles
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Mestel wrote:
I don't think that "implied discretion" is a good idea long-term - it's better to codify it in policy so that everything is consistent and in the open. Apart from anything else, it's kind of inadvertantly biting the newbies when stuff happens for reasons which aren't explained.
This is an eloquent expression of ongoing problems with process creep. Not everything needs to be codified in a strict policy involving a 5 day voting procedure.
One thing to remember is that deletions can be undone. Deleting an article is really no big deal.
As far as not biting the newbies, well, of course I agree. A kind and loving template which says "Thanks so much for your submission to Wikipedia, but it was deleted. Before submitting again, please read <this>, <that>, and <the other> policy, and if you have questions, please raise them at <an appropriate page>."
--Jimbo
On 10/1/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
This is an eloquent expression of ongoing problems with process creep. Not everything needs to be codified in a strict policy involving a 5 day voting procedure.
This would be why we have prod.
One thing to remember is that deletions can be undone. Deleting an article is really no big deal.
If you are not an admin it is.
As far as not biting the newbies, well, of course I agree. A kind and loving template which says "Thanks so much for your submission to Wikipedia, but it was deleted. Before submitting again, please read <this>, <that>, and <the other> policy, and if you have questions, please raise them at <an appropriate page>."
Cold and impersonal.
If admins are going to operate outside the system it hardly seems acceptable to comunicate to those they effect as if they were part of such a sytem. No statements about personalised deletions should be personalised in term.
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 00:50:11 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
If admins are going to operate outside the system it hardly seems acceptable to comunicate to those they effect as if they were part of such a sytem. No statements about personalised deletions should be personalised in term.
That's begging the question. In what way is deleting uncited, unverifiable, unimportant, often vanity content "working outside the process"?
Guy (JzG)
On 10/4/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
That's begging the question. In what way is deleting uncited, unverifiable, unimportant, often vanity content "working outside the process"?
Guy (JzG)
Who are you to judge what is unimportant? We have verious processes for deletion for exactly that reason.
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 18:32:09 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
That's begging the question. In what way is deleting uncited, unverifiable, unimportant, often vanity content "working outside the process"?
Who are you to judge what is unimportant? We have verious processes for deletion for exactly that reason.
The process allows for me to use my discretion.
Guy (JzG)
On Oct 1, 2006, at 1:22 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
As far as not biting the newbies, well, of course I agree. A kind and loving template which says "Thanks so much for your submission to Wikipedia, but it was deleted. Before submitting again, please read <this>, <that>, and <the other> policy, and if you have questions, please raise them at <an appropriate page>."
This would work great if <this>, <that>, and <the other> weren't cruft-ridden hacks of process, and if the regulars at <an appropriate page> weren't excessively prone to misreading the aforementioned <this>, <that>, and <the other> as didactic laws that must be obeyed at all cost.
As long as that is the case, we're in the unfortunate position where it's entirely likely the god-given common sense a user comes to the project with is going to do them more good than our policy pages. Or, rather, we're in the unfortunate case of trying to have policy pages replace that common sense. As long as that's the case, they're not really even worth citing.
-Phil
On 10/2/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
As long as that is the case, we're in the unfortunate position where it's entirely likely the god-given common sense a user comes to the project with is going to do them more good than our policy pages.
The evidence suggests otherwise. Or why does stuff keep turning up at [[CAT:CSD]]?
Or, rather, we're in the unfortunate case of trying to have policy pages replace that common sense.
Since common sense has a slight tendency to produce seriously flawed results I'm failing to see a problem with that.
On 10/1/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
One thing to remember is that deletions can be undone. Deleting an article is really no big deal.
Okay. Given that line, I cannot resist the following. (so sue me, some straight lines really need to be punched on)
Please (pretty please, with cherry on top) go on the record saying that undeletion is no big deal. I dare you, I double dare you.
Glossing on... (you may want to disregard the following, the point is all above, what follows is just driving it into the ground; pounding a dead horse, choose your metaphor for explicating things plain as pikestaffs)
Just because one *can* do something (or in this case _undo_) it does not mean that doing that is easy/costless/(or likely to happen in any significant majority of cases).
Undeleting articles does happen, but it does not make deleting articles a trivial act. "Big deal" really needs to be deprecated around wikipedia, as a term in general. Because it gives out the appearances that wikipedia is still a Ben&Jerry operation, when clearly it is not. (And yes, I could go on and on on this subject, but I think the point is made.)
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
I think people may perhaps be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that we shouldn't let people do anything that's outside process - that would be ridiculous; all I'm suggesting is that things that become common practice, they should be described on policy pages, so that everyone knows what's going on.
On 02/10/06, David Mestel david.mestel@gmail.com wrote:
I think people may perhaps be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that we shouldn't let people do anything that's outside process - that would be ridiculous; all I'm suggesting is that things that become common practice, they should be described on policy pages, so that everyone knows what's going on.
Guideline pages with "common practice as of [present month]", perhaps?
- d.
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 13:22:20 -0400, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
As far as not biting the newbies, well, of course I agree. A kind and loving template which says "Thanks so much for your submission to Wikipedia, but it was deleted. Before submitting again, please read <this>, <that>, and <the other> policy, and if you have questions, please raise them at <an appropriate page>."
OK, I'll nibble at this particular bait. How should I improve this template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Nn-userfy which I use when userfying autobiographies tagged for speedy deletion?
Guy (JzG)
On 03/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
OK, I'll nibble at this particular bait. How should I improve this template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Nn-userfy which I use when userfying autobiographies tagged for speedy deletion?
A link to your talk page, preferably an "add a section" link?
- d.
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:07:56 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
OK, I'll nibble at this particular bait. How should I improve this template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Nn-userfy which I use when userfying autobiographies tagged for speedy deletion?
A link to your talk page, preferably an "add a section" link?
Good thought.
Guy (JzG)
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 11:01:49 +0100, "David Mestel" david.mestel@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think that "implied discretion" is a good idea long-term - it's better to codify it in policy so that everything is consistent and in the open. Apart from anything else, it's kind of inadvertantly biting the newbies when stuff happens for reasons which aren't explained.
Unfortunately you cannot either legislate or codify Clue.
Actually for my money policy *is* close to perfect: if a subject is not just unverified but, for all practical purposes, *unverifiable* from reliable sources, it has to go. If this is unambiguous, further debate is unnecessary. If it's possible that sources could be found, or it's not your specialist area, then a debate makes sense. Everything else is just discussion of what are the symptoms of such an article might be.
Needless to say I am an evil rouge admin and a heartless deletionist. Some users have spent long and tedious hours debating precisely which part of policy covers the deletion of an article consisting of one sentence which is already included in another article and with a title which does not meet the manual of style.
Guy (JzG)