On 2/11/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)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.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain(a)gmail.com