Just an idea I have been bouncing around for deletion nominations.
If a user, any user either with an account or anonymous wants to nominate an article for deletion. Instead of posting directly to AFD, he instead enters the name of the article and the reason he thinks it needs to be deleted into a web form. The nomination then goes to a "deletion preview" team who can take one of several actions...
1. Speedy delete. Only for obvious no doubt speedy deletion candidates, nonsense pages and troll pages. Example "Jimbo Wales is a bonehead" or "list of glups that glip".
2. Speedy keep. Article is definitely not a candidate for deletion ie some bozo nominates "George W. Bush" or "Star Wars". Also could be used to keep articles with a strong keep consensus from being constantly renominated by a troll.
3. Bounce back. The nominator (if a registered user) will be asked to resubmit the nom. ie "please be more specific then "fancruft" or "unencyclopedic""
4.Pass to ADF. Only then does the nomination go to AFD and only then does the article get tagged.
5. Rewrite by previewer. The nomination as written is invalid but the previewer notices something else about the article that bugs him.
I think such a system would reduce the load on AFD but still allow us to deal with problem articles promptly.
On 2/14/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Just an idea I have been bouncing around for deletion nominations.
If a user, any user either with an account or anonymous wants to nominate an article for deletion. Instead of posting directly to AFD, he instead enters the name of the article and the reason he thinks it needs to be deleted into a web form. The nomination then goes to a "deletion preview" team who can take one of several actions...
This looks like a step in the right direction. Wikipedia (or really, MediaWiki) has very few "procedural" links in its interface. It takes a lot of knowledge to know that you should type "WP:AFD" in the search box, then follow further, fairly intricate and error-prone instructions. It would be a hell of a lot easier if there was just a "Suggest this article for deletion" button on every article, that would walk the user through a deletion wizard like you describe.
A whole menu of buttons at the top or bottom of each article would be useful: - Suggest this article for deletion - Report a problem with this article (discussed several months ago) - Edit this article (for consistency) - Recategorise this article (another new front end to categories, possibly with commonsenes?) - Suggest a new article (a front-end to WP:AFC) - Make a donation (why not :))
General theme: "What do you want to do" links in addition to the current "What do you want to know" links.
Steve
On 2/14/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It would be a hell of a lot easier if there was just a "Suggest this article for deletion" button on every article, that would walk the user through a deletion wizard like you describe.
I have a worrying feeling that would be spammed by nonsense requests too often to be useful...
The "deletion preview team" would be able to weed out those ones.
On 2/14/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I have a worrying feeling that would be spammed by nonsense requests too often to be useful...
That would be a problem; I'm not sure how big of one. Unblock-en-l gets plenty of spam, but posts by non-subscribed emails require approval before getting sent out, so even despite the 10:1 noise-to-signal ratio, the list still functions. From what I hear, the other WMF mailing lists are a bit similar in that regard.
Unless you were thinking more of "Please delete [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]] because it sux lol," (or slightly less obvious nonsense), which might still be a problem. CSD is hard to keep on top of. Prod seems to get around 100-200 pages daily, AfD is similar. Merging all that onto a mailing list would be very, very busy. Unless, of course, this mailing list is only for the people who *don't* know our deletion process, which would reduce the load on the list a bit. At that point, it might be worth exploring.
Or perhaps we could have a more obvious "report a problem with this article," link. I suppose that would have to go to OTRS, given the wide variety and occassional sensitive nature of the emails such a link would surely generate.
Just rambling, -Luna
On Feb 14, 2007, at 15:13, Luna wrote:
On 2/14/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I have a worrying feeling that would be spammed by nonsense requests too often to be useful...
[...snip...] Merging all that onto a mailing list would be very, very busy. [snip...]
I was under the impression that this would be neither a mailing list nor anything else we've got set up, but rather a new facet of the MediaWiki software which would be written so that it works like we want it to. Unlike the copious piles of workarounds and quick hacks we've got....
And for that, all we need is a bored developer who can make decent special pages or some such, and maybe a bugzilla request. Unless it was intended to be a mailing list, in which case I think it's a horrible idea and mailing lists for issues intended to be acted upon should all be shot.
--keitei
On 2/14/07, Keitei nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
And for that, all we need is a bored developer who can make decent special pages or some such, and maybe a bugzilla request. Unless it was intended to be a mailing list, in which case I think it's a horrible idea and mailing lists for issues intended to be acted upon should all be shot.
No I wasn't thinking of a mailing list. I was thinking of a web form with submissions going to a queue of some kind. The team would then process the queue on a first come first served basis and take whatever action is appropriate (speedy keep/delete, pass to ADF etc.)
The whole point would be to pass only those noms that need consensus to AFD.
On 2/14/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I have a worrying feeling that would be spammed by nonsense requests too often to be useful...
That's why I don't know if I like the idea of having a "delete" button on the article itself. The act of having to "go somewhere else and jump through some hoops" makes some people think about their noms under the present setup. I just want to eliminate the "hoops". Someone who wants to nominate an article for deletion would still have to "go somewhere else", the web form.
On 2/14/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I have a worrying feeling that would be spammed by nonsense requests too often to be useful...
Dude. AGF. Or at least "Give it a chance".
Steve
I have a worrying feeling that would be spammed by nonsense requests too often to be useful...
Dude. AGF. Or at least "Give it a chance".
AGF has nothing to do with it. AGF means giving people the benefit of the doubt, not giving proposals the benefit of the doubt - a proposal doesn't have faith, good or bad.
I never said we shouldn't give it a chance, I just expressed my concerns - there is no harm in being aware of what could go wrong before you try something.
On 2/16/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
AGF has nothing to do with it. AGF means giving people the benefit of the doubt, not giving proposals the benefit of the doubt - a proposal doesn't have faith, good or bad.
No, but if you're saying the proposal is bad because people suck, then AGF does come into it.
I never said we shouldn't give it a chance, I just expressed my concerns - there is no harm in being aware of what could go wrong before you try something.
Ok, cool.
Steve
No, but if you're saying the proposal is bad because people suck, then AGF does come into it.
Not people in general, just some people. AGF only applies when there is significant doubt. There is no real doubt that a "nominate this article for deletion" button would be abused. How much it would be abused and how easy that abuse would be to deal with is a little harder to determine, so it might be worth giving it a go to find out (this is a case where experimentation won't do any great harm).
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I have a worrying feeling that would be spammed by nonsense requests too often to be useful...
Dude. AGF. Or at least "Give it a chance".
AGF has nothing to do with it. AGF means giving people the benefit of the doubt, not giving proposals the benefit of the doubt - a proposal doesn't have faith, good or bad.
Proposals come from people.
Ec
On 2/13/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Just an idea I have been bouncing around for deletion nominations.
If a user, any user either with an account or anonymous wants to nominate an article for deletion. Instead of posting directly to AFD, he instead enters the name of the article and the reason he thinks it needs to be deleted into a web form. The nomination then goes to a "deletion preview" team who can take one of several actions...
- Speedy delete. Only for obvious no doubt speedy deletion
candidates, nonsense pages and troll pages. Example "Jimbo Wales is a bonehead" or "list of glups that glip".
- Speedy keep. Article is definitely not a candidate for deletion ie
some bozo nominates "George W. Bush" or "Star Wars". Also could be used to keep articles with a strong keep consensus from being constantly renominated by a troll.
- Bounce back. The nominator (if a registered user) will be asked to
resubmit the nom. ie "please be more specific then "fancruft" or "unencyclopedic""
4.Pass to ADF. Only then does the nomination go to AFD and only then does the article get tagged.
- Rewrite by previewer. The nomination as written is invalid but the
previewer notices something else about the article that bugs him.
I think such a system would reduce the load on AFD but still allow us to deal with problem articles promptly.
I really don't see how this reduces the load on AFD. As it stands now any admin can speedy delete an article on AFD, and a speedy keep is usually pretty obvious. What makes me uncomfortable about this proposal is that it removes these powers from the community at large and puts it in the hands of a special team.
It certainly makes deletion a lot more difficult. As I understand it, too much crap is more of a problem than too much unsupervised deletion. AFD is tends to get overwhelmed - making everything go through a few hands before getting to AFD will only make this problem worse.
On 2/14/07, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
I really don't see how this reduces the load on AFD. As it stands now any admin can speedy delete an article on AFD, and a speedy keep is usually pretty obvious. What makes me uncomfortable about this proposal is that it removes these powers from the community at large and puts it in the hands of a special team.
He said "deletion preview team". He didn't say "elite, hand-picked group of Jimbo's best friends". Just like AFC, it would be who ever volunteers and can be bothered doing it.
It certainly makes deletion a lot more difficult. As I understand it, too much crap is more of a problem than too much unsupervised deletion. AFD is tends to get overwhelmed - making everything go through a few hands before getting to AFD will only make this problem worse.
I also don't think he was proposing scrapping the existing direct AFD method, for those that know how to do it. He's just proposing an easier method in addition. I think.
And it should help the problem you describe by keeping some articles out of AFD that don't need to be there.
Steve
On 2/13/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
He said "deletion preview team". He didn't say "elite, hand-picked group of Jimbo's best friends". Just like AFC, it would be who ever volunteers and can be bothered doing it.
Except that under the model I "dreamed up" :) The volunteers would have to have admin privs in order to delete the no-brainers. Anything else could be done by any volunteer, admin or not.
I also don't think he was proposing scrapping the existing direct AFD method, for those that know how to do it. He's just proposing an easier method in addition. I think.
[snip]
And it should help the problem you describe by keeping some articles out of AFD that don't need to be there.
For this to work, the direct nomination method would have to be scrapped or else a troll/vandal could get a bullshit nom past the team. However, using such a system and keeping direct nominations would still have a benefit in allowing anons and those unfamiliar with deletion procedure to make a nom and even have it "proofread" for them :)
On 2/15/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
For this to work, the direct nomination method would have to be scrapped or else a troll/vandal could get a bullshit nom past the team. However, using such a system and keeping direct nominations
Huh? As soon as we implement the new system, the old system is suddenly worthless, insecure and must be dismantled? Because of the risk of "bullshit noms", which we've coped with until now?
I was with you until now. But I don't get your reasoning here.
Steve
On 2/15/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/15/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
For this to work, the direct nomination method would have to be scrapped or else a troll/vandal could get a bullshit nom past the team. However, using such a system and keeping direct nominations
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [would still have a benefit]
Huh? As soon as we implement the new system, the old system is suddenly worthless, insecure and must be dismantled? Because of the risk of "bullshit noms", which we've coped with until now?
I did offer two possible options here. Why didn't you comment on the second part of the paragraph?
On 2/15/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
I did offer two possible options here. Why didn't you comment on the second part of the paragraph?
Short attention span, sorry :) For the record, I agree with the second part of your paragraph:
However, using such a system and keeping direct nominations would still have a benefit in allowing anons and those unfamiliar with deletion procedure to make a nom and even have it "proofread" for them
Steve
On 2/14/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Just an idea I have been bouncing around for deletion nominations.
If a user, any user either with an account or anonymous wants to nominate an article for deletion. Instead of posting directly to AFD, he instead enters the name of the article and the reason he thinks it needs to be deleted into a web form. The nomination then goes to a "deletion preview" team who can take one of several actions...
- Speedy delete. Only for obvious no doubt speedy deletion
candidates, nonsense pages and troll pages. Example "Jimbo Wales is a bonehead" or "list of glups that glip".
- Speedy keep. Article is definitely not a candidate for deletion ie
some bozo nominates "George W. Bush" or "Star Wars". Also could be used to keep articles with a strong keep consensus from being constantly renominated by a troll.
- Bounce back. The nominator (if a registered user) will be asked to
resubmit the nom. ie "please be more specific then "fancruft" or "unencyclopedic""
4.Pass to ADF. Only then does the nomination go to AFD and only then does the article get tagged.
- Rewrite by previewer. The nomination as written is invalid but the
previewer notices something else about the article that bugs him.
I think such a system would reduce the load on AFD but still allow us to deal with problem articles promptly.
Just FYI, when the discussions about deletion where at their peak (right after Ed Poor deleted Votes for Deletion, boy was that an interesting night to be in #wikipedia), the page [[Wikipedia:Deletion reform]] was created. There's tons of different ideas there for how to handle deletion. Some of them makes for quite interesting reading.
--Oskar
I haven't read a lot of the responses but this looks waaay too bureaucratic and prevents public debate/discussion
--Chris is me
On 2/13/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Just an idea I have been bouncing around for deletion nominations.
If a user, any user either with an account or anonymous wants to nominate an article for deletion. Instead of posting directly to AFD, he instead enters the name of the article and the reason he thinks it needs to be deleted into a web form. The nomination then goes to a "deletion preview" team who can take one of several actions...
- Speedy delete. Only for obvious no doubt speedy deletion
candidates, nonsense pages and troll pages. Example "Jimbo Wales is a bonehead" or "list of glups that glip".
- Speedy keep. Article is definitely not a candidate for deletion ie
some bozo nominates "George W. Bush" or "Star Wars". Also could be used to keep articles with a strong keep consensus from being constantly renominated by a troll.
- Bounce back. The nominator (if a registered user) will be asked to
resubmit the nom. ie "please be more specific then "fancruft" or "unencyclopedic""
4.Pass to ADF. Only then does the nomination go to AFD and only then does the article get tagged.
- Rewrite by previewer. The nomination as written is invalid but the
previewer notices something else about the article that bugs him.
I think such a system would reduce the load on AFD but still allow us to deal with problem articles promptly.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l