Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal VIII (Procedure)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Proposal VIII (Procedure)

(Vote) (Discuss)

The following should be added to the lead (or other appropriate section) of Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion:

Interpretation of these guidelines is very often subjective, and sometimes controversial, especially when an article's deletion could be later contested. In order to avoid most problems, every deletion of a page under these cases must be the result of a request made by a user other than the deleting admin ("tag and bag"). The most common way this can be achieved is for one editor to add the {{delete}} template to the page. Whatever the method, the request must be documented before deletion on either the article itself or its talk page. The only exceptions are:
  1. undisputed vandalism or test pages/gibberish
  2. an admin's own user space subpages
  3. the admin is the sole editor

[edit] Votes

[edit] Agree

  1. A simple solution to avoid problems, it is done very often today already. Probably will make expansion of CSD's more acceptable because of the safeguard. -- Netoholic @ 00:06, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  2. Smoddy | Talk 00:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ld | talk 00:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Xtra 00:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. ugen64 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. TwoOneTwo 00:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Carnildo 02:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Sc147 03:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. gadfium 05:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. Not everyone wants "safeguards". Wonder why?Dr Zen 05:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. Can't hurt. It doesn't infringe upon getting rid of "fggfthgrhthj" with ease, and it ensures better decisions in the event of a dubious speedy candidate. --Slowking Man 07:46, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Jeff Knaggs
  13. Skysmith 09:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  14. Sensible safeguard; will help check over-zealous admins. Dan100 19:37, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  15. hfool/Wazzup? 23:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC). If I were an admin, I'd follow this rule even if it wasn't passed here!
  16. BSveen 00:41, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Gentgeen 11:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  18. Tompagenet 13:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  19. – Quadell (talk) (help) 14:41, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  20. Keith D. Tyler [flame] 21:00, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) More eyes are always good.
  21. Rossami (talk) 23:50, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  22. This makes a lot of sense, and the criticisms listed below do not convince me otherwise. →Iñgōlemo← (talk) 06:42, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
  23. Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:17, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  24. Undisputed is the key word here. Arbitration can be used if there's a problem. Cmprince 00:04, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  25. SocratesJedi 07:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  26. Mikkalai 03:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  27. bernlin2000 ∞ 16:08, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC): Not that I don't trust admins but there job is to delete articles, not propose article deletion (however, I'm fine with one admin proposing and the another deleting). This procedure would makes CSD even more clear and clean-cut, to avoid a messy and quick deletion without contributor's knowledge.
  28. For the sake of mitigating bitter disputes. (Hope it is still allowed for an admin to delete a page temporarily, e.g. for swapping two pages or for merging edit histories). -- Paddu 21:26, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  29. Visviva 10:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) Reasonable. Although I'd prefer to omit "undisputed vandalism." If the admin hasn't discussed the article with any other editors, then the definition of it as vandalism will obviously be "undisputed." But on balance, I think this is a good addition to our deletion policy.
  30. Martg76 16:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  31. Smerdis of Tlön 19:19, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  32. Best to have appropriate safeguards on the speedy deletion process.Capitalistroadster 01:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  33. Enochlau 23:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  34. AlexR 14:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) Nothing wrong at all with 4-eyes-principle

[edit] Disagree

  1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 00:07, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ground 00:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. max rspct 00.29 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 00:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  7. Chris 73 Talk 01:04, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  8. MarkSweep 01:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Vamp:Willow 01:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. The first exception bothers me as people declare things as obvious "vandalism" too commonly and others don't feel that level of herecy dispute. It's become the Wikipedia equivalent of Godwin's law.--Sketchee 01:44, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  11. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 02:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  12. Rje 02:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  13. Peter O. (Talk) 02:52, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Ral315 03:21, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Ливай | ☺ 03:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  16. Adam Bishop 04:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  17. DJ Clayworth 05:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  18. Ben Brockert 05:56, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Korath (Talk) 06:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  20. iMeowbot~Mw 08:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  21. If we can't trust an individual admin's judgement on criteria as clear as these, they shouldn't be an admin. RadicalSubversiv E 09:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  22. David Johnson [T|C] 13:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  23. Dori | Talk 14:34, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  24. Tuf-Kat 14:41, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  26. Jrdioko (Talk) 17:51, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  27. Phils 18:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  28. RickK 21:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC). Too contentious, infringes on the Good Will espectations of Admins.
  29. Thue | talk 21:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  30. gK ¿? 03:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  31. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 03:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  32. Frazzydee|✍ 04:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC): Agree with User:Radicalsubversiv
  33. Ambi 05:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  34. —Charles P. (Mirv) 07:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  35. jni 10:09, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  36. Ryan! | Talk 10:55, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  37. Xezbeth 11:36, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  38. This would make things more complicated, not less. Gamaliel 13:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  39. G Rutter 17:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  40. Proteus (Talk) 17:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  41. I can't see this helping matters - it would slow down the process of getting rid of rubbish and if admins are unable to follow the simple guidelines laid out on WP:CSD then they shouldn't be admins. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 20:18, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  42. Shane King 01:41, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) Me thinks that the speedy in speedy deletion has passed this proposal by.
  43. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 18:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  44. Dbiv 21:23, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  45. Deathphoenix 00:00, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) I believe this is already covered well enough in the current WP:CSD.
  46. Too boggy. Wyss 04:35, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  47. Mackensen (talk) 05:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  48. What Radicalsubversiv (voter #21) and Francs2000 (voter #41) said. SWAdair | Talk 07:59, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  49. Why? [maestro] 12:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  50. The guidelines should be clear enough that controversy is rare - as it is at present. Warofdreams 13:01, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  51. Sometimes "undisputed vandalism" could be bad wording--Plato 23:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  52. Johnleemk | Talk 10:01, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  53. Viriditas | Talk 10:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  54. Josh 11:53, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  55. I agree wholeheartedly with Warofdreams's point. GeorgeStepanek\talk 01:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  56. ike9898 02:24, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC) This will not help the overwhelming volume og CSDs
  57. Stormie 07:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  58. Jiang 08:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  59. Thryduulf 10:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  60. Norg 15:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  61. ✏ Sverdrup 23:38, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  62. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 08:44, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) Agree with RadicalSubersive.
  63. DAVODD 21:37, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) Please avoid m:instruction creep.
  64. It's a clever idea with some merit to it, but I don't think it's worth the cost. - RedWordSmith 22:05, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  65. This is the whole point of speedy deletions. Against. Andrew pmk 00:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  66. Indeed, this defeats the point of CSDs. -- Grunt   ҈  01:18, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
  67. I'm happy to bag people's tags, but if an admin can't be trusted to see for himself when something is pure WP:CSD trash, then he shouldn't be an admin. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  68. I completely agree EXCEPT for the word "undisputed". Therefore, no—Trevor Caira 07:19, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  69. Indrian 07:19, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  70. Trilobite (Talk) 13:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  71. Ashibaka tlk 20:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  72. CryptoDerk 22:23, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  73. Starblind 20:57, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC) As noted above, if they can't make these decisions on their own, they shouldn't be admins. Let's trust our admins, folks.
  74. kaal 01:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  75. bbx 02:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  76. Rmhermen 16:42, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  77. — Asbestos | Talk 18:14, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  78. [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent†∈]] 07:16, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1. agree with RadicalSubversive 2. This could lead to less clearly defined CSD policies passing
  79. BesigedB (talk) 17:04, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) If something is genuinely borderline then the admin can already pass it on.
  80. --LeeHunter 23:35, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Badly worded and confusing.
  81. Pedant 03:41, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
  82. Eric119 As with above comments, isn't the point of CSD things that can be deleted on sight? 05:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  83. Edeans 07:59, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  84. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  85. RedWolf 20:59, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  86. Rich Farmbrough 23:18, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/o/Wikipedia%7EProposal_to_expand_WP%7ECSD_Proposal_VIII_%28Procedure%29_509b.html"