On 2/11/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Stephen Bain wrote:
On a tangential note, I proposed last month that all the "waiting periods" in the image criteria be removed, since they were only added in the first place because image undeletion didn't exist at the time. The only good argument I heard against the proposal was that bots like OrphanBot need some waiting period in which to do their business. I don't see why images can't simply be put into a pool for bots like OrphanBot to work on, then put into another pool to be deleted immediately - with no further delays - once the bots are done.
Waiting periods gives more opportunity for human review. I usually turn this issue around and ask why we _shouldn't_ have a waiting period. The length of a queue doesn't alter the throughput; the same amount of deletion can be done with a queue or without one, and with the same amount of work.
Work is not increased in all cases; for example when a non-admin tags an image as being eligible for deletion, an admin must later review the image and delete it or not. This would still be necessary whether or not there was a fixed waiting period. But work is increased where an admin must tag an image, then wait a week to come back and delete it. We empower admins to decide whether things meet the criteria
The waiting periods were indeed introduced for images to allow for human review. But none were introduced for articles, templates, portals etc. The reason was that those pages could be reviewed after they were deleted, whereas images couldn't. But since June, images can also be undeleted. There is no other factor that makes images special. Either waiting periods should be introduced for all types speedy deletion, or they should be removed for images.