Wikipedia:Pure wiki deletion system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained primarily for historical interest. Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "A historical page is any proposal for which consensus is unclear, where discussion has died out for whatever reason. Historical pages also include any process no longer in use, or any non-recent log of any process. Historical pages can be revived by advertising them. "
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

On this page, users are attempting to develop a specific, serious, detailed proposal for a more transparent, less bureaucratic, and more consensus-driven Wikipedia deletion system. Only edit this page if you are modifying or adding to the proposal, or improving its wording; otherwise:

Contents

[edit] Background

The instigators of this proposal perceive several serious problems with the current system for deleting Wikipedia articles (see meta:Strengths and weaknesses of the current deletion system). They believe that problems arise because the centralized, bureaucratic system currently in use does not mesh well with the highly decentralized and devolved mechanisms of Wikipedia. Stated simply, they consider that we should have more faith in the wiki system.

The rapid growth and high quality of Wikipedia are testament to the efficiency and effectiveness of the decentralized, reversible, transparent "wiki" process. All article-related decisions in Wikipedia are made using this process, with one exception - deletion. It is unclear why this is the case.

[edit] Aim

To enable deletion decisions to be made using the same decentralized, reversible, transparent "wiki" process that is used successfully for every other article-related decision on Wikipedia.

[edit] General strategy

The central pillar of the proposal is one small change in the software:

Links to blank articles will appear the same as links to non-existent articles.

Blank pages will appear to all intents and purposes as if they didn't exist, except there will be a link to their history on the page.

Anybody will be able to delete any page, simply by clearing all the text from it. Similarly, anybody will be able to revive any page by entering new text into it or by reverting to an earlier version from before it was deleted.

A page that has just been deleted will be specially marked on the "recent changes" page and on users' watch-lists; links to it will stand out as an "edit link" (i.e. a redlink).

The current deletion feature will remain, for two purposes:

  • Deleting pages when it is necessary to remove old versions of the page, such as copyright infringements.
  • Discussing deletions that the PWDS (Pure Wiki Deletion System) could not resolve. If a PWDS dispute arises, either party in the dispute should list the article on AfD for discussion. This acts as a "circuit breaker" for deletion-related edit wars.

There would be a 'Special:Log/blanked' page logging deletion/blankings (as there is now for moves, deletions, account creation, etc.) which users could track to spot vandalism; this would be necessary both to avoid negating the utility of existing things like Special:Shortpages, and to allow users to track for vandalism by deletion of less-frequented pages.

[edit] Details

[edit] Key changes

  • Blanked pages will not disappear from users' watch-lists or contribution histories. When a user blanks a page, this will stand out on "recent changes" and users' watch-lists as an edit link.
  • Under the current deletion scheme, only administrators can examine the history of deleted articles and restore old versions. Under the new system, just like with blanked pages right now, anybody will be able to examine the full history of blanked articles, restore old versions, or write completely new articles.
  • When a user follows a link to a blanked page, the page will behave the same way that deleted pages do now, except there will be an additional message, reading:
"A former version of this article was deleted by [USER NAME/IP] on [DATE]. The reason given for deletion was [EDIT SUMMARY]. You may view the article's history, edit the last version, or type a new article into the white space below."

[edit] Code changes needed

  • The blanking or unblanking of a page would be logged, and listed on watchlists and recent changes like the other logs(the move log, the protection log, etc.)
  • Blanked pages will not show up in searches using Special:Search, random pages using Special:Randompage, or the list of all pages using Special:Allpages.
  • The URL prefix to the page will be listed in robots.txt, and the page will emit "noarchive" and "noindex" and "nofollow" tags, to prevent caching in search engines.
    • This is to prevent the engines from even indexing a blank page, which might otherwise have quite a high rank due to links.
    • Currently, redlinks are not indexed by search engines because all links to them point to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ type addreses, rather than http://en.wikipedia/wiki/ and all /w/ addresses are nofollow'ed.

These code changes have been proposed at MediaZilla:3843.

[edit] Policy, guideline changes needed

  • A list of Criteria for Full Deletion, stating what sorts of content must be sent to AfD, so old revisions can be hidden from non-admins.
  • Clarifying the dispute resolution process in regards to deletion (i.e. how to deal with deletion wars). Suggestions:
    • Blankings should always be subject to the 3RR. However, both parties are encouraged to list the page on AfD for discussion before this becomes relevant.
    • A certain standard for edit summaries should be declared, and blankings with edit summaries not meeting that standard should be revertable as simple vandalism.

[edit] Common objections and responses

[edit] Increase in Vandalism / Edit wars

blanking is already possible. lame editors cause edit wars, not policy
  1. Articles under dispute may become battlegrounds for edit wars. The frequency and scale of such edit wars might pose a significant problem.
    • After first revert, move to talk page and/or list the article on AfD for discussion.
    • Contested articles should never be deleted in this way in the first place, but discussed or AfD'd.
    • This is already the case because anyone can edit articles, anyway.
  2. We would need protect used more often.
    • Recreated pages would be similar in number to current AfD process. (no-increase)
    • Not any more likely to require protection from high-speed edit war than current process.
  3. Anyone would be able to delete (an article!)
    • This is already the case. Reckless deletion is still vandalism, be it a vowel or an article.

[edit] Harder to notice / check if legit / more work for us

  1. This relies on someone watching the page to notice that it's been deleted.
    • Already the case for preventing vandalism.
    • The proposal also includes a new Special: page showing blankings and unblankings.
    • Most anti-vandal tools already have features for easily detecting page blankings.
  2. It would be hard to tell legitimate blanking from vandalism.
    • No more so than legitimate edits from vandalism, most would be obvious.
    • In many cases, it would be easy to tell legitimate deletions from vandalism simply by reading the article title, as is true today.
    • Encourage well written and linked edit summaries.
  3. Don't we lose a central discussions point for all deletions.
    • AfD, or similar, ain't going away. There will always be contested deletions.
    • We don't have a centralized discussion points for other kinds of edits. We don't see a need for centralized discussion of deletion any more than other edits.
    • A bot could be written transclude discussions on talk pages.
  4. This makes it more difficult to see what a deletion is about.
    • Blanked pages would include something like: "You may view the article's history, edit the last version, or"; the "edit the last version" link would provide a direct link to the deleted text.
    • Perhaps the edit summary of the blanking edit should be included on blank pages.
  5. This makes it more difficult to track deletions and proposed deletions.
    • A new Special:Log/blanking proposed to list all blanked pages chronologically.
    • Deletions would appear clearly as red-links in Recent Changes
    • A spuriously deleted article would be much easier to check for and revert, and would be much less offensive or dangerous than the sort of article content vandalism we see today.
    • Due to AfD's size issues, this would actually make deletion information more readily available by allowing users to see all the proposed deletions in a simple, searchable list.

[edit] Sockpuppets / Inclusionists break the system

  1. Inclusionists can send every attempted PWDS to AfD. What's the benefit?
    • The same inclusionists could contest all speedy deletions. This doesn't happen.
    • At absolute worst, there will be the same number of articles in AfD as we have right now.
  2. Pages with sockpuppets support cannot be deleted.
    • Why? If contested, pages supported by sockpuppets would go to AfD, as they do currently.

[edit] Material is never actually deleted

  1. The PWDS does not remove slanderous pages from the history. Someone could even link to them and make them look like part of Wikipedia.
    • It is also true that much horrible, possibly illegal content is currently left in the history, as with nearly all cases of vandalism to existing pages.
    • This is wrong. PWDS does not replace AfD, it provides an aditional avenue. A successful AfD would work exactly as it does now; the page would be removed from the history, and the discussion could only be brought up again following at successful Deletion Review, as is true now. People would stil be free to nominate things to AfD, just as now.

[edit] Additional complaints

  1. This proposal assumes that the devs will implement it.
    • The proposal does not assume anyone will implement it. It simply lays out what a possible alternative would look like. Supporters of the proposal may choose to implement it, but no assumption of work by the devs is made.
  2. This still sounds like total mayhem.
    • You may want to look at Category:XD, which shows the articles that have been recently deleted using Experimental Deletion, variations on this idea. Those deletions have been remarkably conflict-free.
    • Proposed deletion is a similar but time-delayed "anyone can delete" system that has been working smoothly for some time now.
  3. This will just cause confusion.
    • Confusion could come from two sources; the newness of the procedures, and the actual procedures themselves. The newness would wear off; if this is a worthwile idea, it should not be rejected simply because it is new. If the claim is that the procedures themselves would cause confusion, it is necessary to specify how. Many possible specific claims of confusion are discussed above. If you have another one, please add it to the list.
  4. "because the wiki process is supposed to aid fast building, not fast destruction."
    • The wiki process is supposed to support fast editing. The time saved by reducing the load on the deletion process would free many editing hours daily for building. Furthermore, any inappropriate destruction is and would be dealt with as vandalism, and has little to do with this proposal. We don't have a voting process every time we remove one paragraph from the current version of a page; why should this be different just because a page only has one paragraph on it?

[edit] How to help

  • Help refine this proposal.
  • Check the talk page for further discussion.
  • Create and test development models of Experimental Deletion on real pages.
  • Add your name to the supporters list below.
  • Vote for our feature request at MediaZilla:3843.

[edit] Supporters

Please add your name(and date) here if you agree with the proposal. This will let all of us know how much support there is for this, and give us a group of people to call on for help in working out the proposal.

  • JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It's worth a try at the very least. -- grm_wnr Esc 22:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • We're all hypocrites if we can only trust users to create and modify yet not delete. This proposal allows improper deletion, like everything else, to be quickly reverted; no permanent harm can be done. -- Rmrfstar 03:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. I think there should be an edit minimum (say 100, or perhaps 50) to use the pure deletion system (and disalowing users to delete large amounts of text without having sufficient contributions). This would discourage vandals from simply deleting pages, and reduce the space required on the servers. I don't know if this would be possible tech-wise, but I'd definately be in favor of it if it wasn't quite as succeptable to vandals. I like #4 of cons, and think that should be implimented. Perhaps there should still be a VfD page for cases like vandalism, or other difficult issues. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 02:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC) Moved to oppose 04:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I strongly support this proposal. There doesn't need to be an edit minimum, as blanking a page can already be done by any user. I also support the idea of a page for discussion of controversial deletions (what Mysekurity referred to as "#4 of cons"). RSpeer 18:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Current deletion and undeletion systems feature too much ceremony. Pure wiki is simpler, so I like it. Friday (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I strongly support it. In the worst case, the hostility and resentment caused by deletion would be dispersed through the wiki, as battles over unreasonable deletions would happen on individual pages rather than in AfD. An argument is that it would cause editwarring (deletewarring), but let's face it, how many times is even the most ardent deletionist going to revert an undeletion of an article that is borderline. I accept that there's a problem with article creators who write about their band, or their mum, but the wiki has much more stamina than they do. We worry far too much about what's in Wikipedia right now, today and tomorrow, rather than what it will contain next week or next year. Grace Note 05:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    However, I don't support it if it only supplements AfD. AfD should just become a list like RfC. Grace Note 06:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Dovi 07:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC) This is a vast improvement over the present system.
  • I strongly support this - it is a return to our roots, to a dispersed, scalable, and reversible system that relies of concensus. It puts deletion in the realm of normal article process, and applies all the same tools to both. Trollderella 23:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Support, There are far too many deletionist administrators. Users need a way of fighting back. Wikipedia should not be censored by wikignomes who think 2000 sub 10 character edits entitles them to reign over the wiki.--Pypex 20:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Extremely strong support. I've been away from Wikipedia for awhile, but I'm the one who put the PWDS on the Deletion reform page. Sirmob 05:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - The current system wastes far too much of editor's time in debating the deltion of jokey but non-incoherant articles that were hastily thrown up by vandals. If we can make this the default system for deleting articles, and then use AfD only when a debate emerges, it would streamline things a lot. The current system assumes that there is going to be a debate, when often there isn't. --Clay Collier 08:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - A nice liberation and decentraliztion of current policy (good). Although I think AfD, or similar, will remain a busy point of discussion of (and voting on) disputed deletes. (Inclu|Dele)tionists will still track down deletion debates, and the "AfD Mafia" will likely just adapt. Nonetheless, it does appear an improvement. ∴ here…♠ 02:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - will cut down on a lot of wasted time spent in AfD in stead of editing. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 18:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - losing history is bad, voting is bad, wasting time is bad - let's trust ourselves and the Wiki Way Tedernst 08:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support - The current system is bizarrely contrary to the overall WikiWorlds philosophy. It dendows certain individuals with an inflated sense of tehir own imprtance and excludes the vast bulk of Wiki editirs form being able to give guiding input in terms of what non-contributors are able to see when they turn to Wikipedia for help. Down with editors!! User:Boldymumbles 02:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Too simple to fail. Would still support hard deleting of current speedy deletes. josh 04:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly support —Jwanders 19:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support Besides all of the good reasons above, one additional point: The way it is now, all traces of deleted articles disappear from the creator's contribution logs. Even when they're hoax/joke/gibberish articles. Repeat vandals of this sort can be nearly impossible to spot (or at least quantify their severity), especially if they create bad articles over a large period of time or between genuine edits, create the same article with a different name so it doesn't have a deletion history, when what they did wasn't severe enough to warrant a warning on their talk page etc. Indium 07:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • strong Support i love WP decentraliztion ! --Striver 17:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Most articles on AfD are deleted by a unanimous vote. These unopposed listings just clog up the system. Guanaco 19:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional support if PWDS is an additional adjunct to AfD for non-controversial deletions, rather than replacing it entirely. (Only controversial deletions to be sent to AfD; AfD delete results to lead to hard-deletion/blanking as appropriate.) Rd232 talk 22:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support You have to keep the talk page available too, because it contains the debate/vote that led to the deletion. Also, deletion should only be possible for logged in users, as this will make managing the vandalism much easier (and people who don't spend time enough on wikipedia to bother logging in have no business going and deleting articles). Jules LT 20:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The talk page will of course remain available; as far as PWDS is concerned, they're entirely separate pages. rspeer 02:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It's worth a shot. If it doesn't work or resulsts in choas we can go back. In my opinion if we lose one good article every so often then it's worth it. Someone else will eventually come around and read that article, but they are less likely to go through and delete some bad content. Broken S 21:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support A good first step. Centralizing the process won't scale forever, and this is a good first step toward decentralizing it. Some objections from below (e.g., bad stuff in edit history) are valid, but really pertain to a different problem.--Inonit 19:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I'd suggest that all major edits be automatically marked as such. Ideally, one should compute the average edit hamming distance & standard deviation, and automaticallly tag anything above or below one half standard deviation with a green - for minor or red + for major. You could change "This is a minor edit" to "This is NOT a minor edit", thus allowing people to declare their small edits to not being minor. JeffBurdges 10:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  1. Strong support It's the wave of the future! --Ryan Delaney talk 04:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support A more consistent system, prevents a small number of users from monopolising the deletion process. Makes it in general harder for articles to be wrongly deleted.--Fangz 04:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - More power needs to be hands in the users. For the proletariat!! --Cyde 08:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The system we have in place is unnecessary and complex. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 18:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - My first thought was that this would increase vandalism, but I have a hard time understanding why, since people can/do blank pages already. Any problems would most likely be offset by the amount of time saved by the current deletion process. It's at least worth a try. It's also worth noting that, PWDS is not planned on being mandatory, so anyone uncomfortable with it could do an AfD. --Vastango 06:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --Constantine Evans 06:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't think it's a replacement for AfDs (which I think we need for at least copyvios and attack pages) but I think it would allow the problematic hard deletion process to be reduced to a more mangaeable workload. --- Charles Stewart 16:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support - This should take a load off the current system, while allowing administrators to concentrate on articles that truly warrant complete erasure. I particularily support the public accessibility of a deleted page's history, which to me, seems essential to the wiki process. It's time to go all the way. -Fadookie 09:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You are aware that hard deleted thing's histories would still be hidden; that's necesssary to deal with attacks in edit summaries, user names, etc. In any case, thanks for supporting the proposal! JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Random users can already "delete" pages by blanking them. Since we cannot and will not remove that functionality, why shouldn't it behave a tiny bit more like an actual deletion? 216.145.49.15 17:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. In the current AFD system we see uncontested posts like "I wish this could be speedied" or "Can't we bend the rules to speedy this one" many times a day. It is hard to define CSD to include every case of obvious deletions without being too broad; we simply need to use common sense. People often vote "speedy delete" with someone else following-up with "show me the CSD criterion that supports speedy delete" when a speedy deletion is justified by common sense but not by CSD. Deletion right limits would be okay, for example only registered users or only users with N edits can delete. I would also propose that deletion could be via a "delete" button that maintains the distinction between blanking and deleting. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-19 10:00Z
  • Psycho-brutal support (which is very strong). If a student throws three paragraphs about themselves into Kamiakin High School, I can delete it. Why can't I delete it if the "vandal" (who may just be uninformed about Wikipedia) starts his own page about it? Matt Yeager 23:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly support - As above. It makes no sense that I can delete all the text off a page easily, yet i have to go through a pointless bureaucratic process to have the pasge deleted. -Chairman S. 08:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It would really make things simpler by allowing quick deletion of those pages which are clearly not wikipedia material, but which don't fit a specific criteria for speedy deletion. It makes a lot more sense to do things this way than to continue adding more and more criteria that allow for speedy deletion under the current system. Fightindaman 21:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The present system sometimes wears me out, and my friends say it has caused me to age prematurely. Chris the speller 02:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Support. This seems like the wiki-way. Jamse 18:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I understand the objections being raised, but they seem to discount the need for discussion and consensus that is part of the editing of everything here at wikipedia. Blanking a page is a radical step. The blanking of a page can be discussed on talk pages before it happens. There can be templates that say things like "The value of having this page is disputed. It is proposed that this page be blanked, please discuss on the talk page". This gives the people watching this page a chance to chime in. The templates could create a category listing for people watching for blanked pages. So this proposal is very much like {{prod}}. -- Samuel Wantman 09:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Per Matt Yeager. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 19:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Support So many reasons it's hard to list them all, but the main one is that I have faith in the wiki system. --Apyule 07:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Under the current system, I am reluctant to delete an article if it even has the potential to eventually become a halfway decent article. The Pure wiki deletion system would allieviate my concerns. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 02:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support — There is no good reason why deletion should be the one action exempt from the free-editing wiki principle. Additionally, it's important to recognize that this proposal does NOT mean the removal of AfD. When deletion reverting becomes a problem, we can fall back on the methods we already use to deal with revert wars. The current deletion system is complicated, exclusive, and generally inhumane. ~ Booya Bazooka 06:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as per strong Cyde, Booya, Inonit and 216.145.49.15 above. Capi 15:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Editing includes deleting. In a true decentralized system, the many would not have to depend on a few to get things done. If an article is actually seen enough that it counts, people will see a vandal's 'deletion' and revert it. Many more reasons. Have faith in the wiki! Sir Fastolfe 03:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. A way to get rid of pages without hiding the history? Great. And hey, it actually uses Wiki-style processes. jgp TC 22:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support —Ashley Y 00:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: This idea is truly the "wiki way" so to speak. .V. [Talk|Email] 02:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition

  • Jmabel | Talk 00:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC) A reform may be in order, but I don't like this proposal. It will now be difficult to tell whether blanking is vandalism. I see no obvious way to permanently remove slander. And, because it is possible to link to past versions of articles, it will increase the possibility of people making totally inappropriate material appear to be part of Wikipedia by linking to it. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Currently, users can write slander on an existing page, and it goes into the history and doesn't get permanently removed. They can even link to their slanderous version of the page. What's the difference? rspeer 03:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The difference is that many pages are created with slander, insults, privacy intrusions etc. in mind and have never contained anything useful. Once they are deleted, their content is invisible. We should not invite malevolent users to misuse our software features. Kosebamse 13:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with Jmabel, although I also doubt the need or use for reform. --Improv 00:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • a)there current system functions better than most people think b) I really really don't want to have to protect more pages.Geni 04:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • In regards to b), please see Common objections, Part 1, #2. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. When I first read this, I thought it was a good idea, but then on reflection I realized something. Blanking a page will always be seen as vandalism by that page's supporters. Now admittedly somewhat more than half of all AFDs and most speedy deletes are uncontested, so there is a lot of trash that can be removed without even the creator bothering to complain. This process would thus solve the need for wasted time and energy on the equivalent of uncontested AFDs. Unfortunately, the size of AFD is not its main problem. Its main problem is that the contested AFDs are often an acrimonious and polarizing process. Unfortuantely, I believe this proposal would actually make those situations worse. By making deletion like just another edit, it discourages discussion and community involvement and encourages edit warring. Ultimately most of the contested cases would still have to be shunted to AFD or some similarly constructed arm of dispute resolution. So rather than eliminating the acrimonious and polarizing cases you just delay community involvement and in many cases give them a new prelude of edit warring. While this proposal would eliminate the need to discuss most uncontested deletions, I see this system only making the core problems of AFD worse and potentially provoking edit wars on dozens of articles each day. Dragons flight 05:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I oppoose this for a number of reasons. First, it makes more work for the developers, and we seem to be making up new policies that require them to code more stuff all too often around here. Second, it creates a cabal of users discussing the deletion. Under the current AfD system, there is a list of pages up for deletion. With this, how would we know? There could be a group of users on a talk page in agreement of deletion, but the article could be totally worthy for inclusion in wikipedia. Third, the way we take WP:BOLD I can see some serious problems arising with unilateral deletions. Fourth, it makes it harder to determine what is vandalism and what is legitimate deletion. Fifth, we already have enough edit wars, we don't need deletion wars. For those saying this is the "wiki-way", I guess you're in favor of granting everyone sysop rights? That isn't even truely wiki-like, we'd have to make it developer rights. See where I'm going? -Greg Asche (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    Greg, I'd like to respond to your objections, some of which don't seem based on the actual proposal. But I don't want to intrude on the project page with a lengthy response, so see the talk page.
  • Oppose. The difficulty with deletion is that it is purely binary, either an article is deleted or it isn't. The nature of the wiki system is that it is based on discussion and compromise, and the result of a debate over content is usually an article at a mid point between the two factions. Since there is generally no possibility for compromise with deletion, the result will be endless revert wars until one faction gives up. - SimonP 18:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The PWD method, I think, would emphasize compromise. In a war in which someone deletes (blanks) an article, the other might restore only a portion of the original. Also, this system would increase communication and collaboration between editors by putting the "deletion" in their hands directly, instead of an admin's. The current system is absolute; one must pick sides and not lose. I do think though, that we should have measures in place for those who would just want to give up on an article. -- Rmrfstar 15:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, although it may need to be reformed, this is not the way forward. It would destroy defination between vandalism and deleation, and I feel it could be very harmful to WP. Also per Dragons flight --Ian 13 18:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, (formerly support). I love the idea, and I'd love to see a great implimentation for it, but I feel wikipedia has enough vandalism problems that it doesn't need delete wars, redlinks popping up all over the place, deleted text restored, and all sort of bad stuff to happen. I would personally love to see this work, but I don't think it will. As Ian said above, the deletion system needs reform, but this just isn't it. I'd be open to other proposals, however.-Mysekurity 04:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I notice there's a lack of rebuttals to support votes, but I think there should be more admins (trusted users) to handle the tasks, rather than emphasize our problems we have currently with the wiki. -Mysekurity (talk • cont. • logs) 04:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, IMO this relies too heavily on users' watchlists. the currnt system is flawed, but keeping a centralised page is an advantage of it. Plus there are many things I simply don't want users to see in page histories. Vulgarities, slander, privacy intusions, whatnot. Jmabels arguments are also good. Kosebamse 13:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per SimonP. Reform is in order, yes- but this will just cause more chaos.--Sean|Black 02:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The proposal has been revised since SimonP mentioned the possibility of endless revert wars. Instead of reverting until one faction gives up, one faction should list the page on AfD as soon as it's apparent that there is a dispute. rspeer 02:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
      • That's good, but the revert wars are only a small part of my problems with the propasal: What Dragon's flight says above is very insiteful.--Sean|Black 06:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - At first sight this looks like a good idea. But those blanked articles are usually newly created articles, (perhaps) only appearing on the watchlist of the original creator. In other words, nobody but the creator would notice (if he/she wants to be bothered) and, consequently, anyone can vandalize unhindered. JoJan 17:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Wait, that doesn't make sense at all. Even in the current deletion system, someone besides the creator has to notice the article in order to delete it. It's not like the article's creator is going to list it for deletion or blank it. rspeer 17:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Plus, the page would be listed on a [[Special: blanked pages]], which people who are now on AfD would all be checking regularly. Jules.LT 16:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, because the wiki process is supposed to aid fast building, not fast destruction. --Taejo | [[User talk:Taejo|Talk]] 13:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • It supports fast editing. You will note that we don't have a voting process in place for deleting paragraphs or sections from pages. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The time saved in reduction of deletion process would free many editing hours daily for building. Furthermore, any inappropriate destruction should be dealt with as vandalism, and has little to do with this proposal. ∴ here…♠ 18:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as per JMabel and Dragon's flight. Too much potential for abuse - easier vandalism (many vandals sign up for a short time before they are blocked). Skysmith 14:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think this is a good argument. Vandalism by this method - as opposed to article content edits, will be much easier to spot and revert. For one it would appear clearly as a red-link in Recent Changes, and for another, it would be easy to tell which are legitimate deletions and which are not simply by reading the article title. A spuriously deleted article would be much easier to check for and revert, and would be much less offensive or dangerous than the sort of article content vandalism we see today.--Fangz 11:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for many of the above reasons. This will simply cause confusion and obscure vandals. Postdlf 04:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as above. —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 00:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, there's a reason why not everyone has the delete button. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 03:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a far different thing than the delete button, which is destructive and (mostly) irreversible. Could you elaborate on why a power that every user already has (blanking a page) shouldn't be turned into a meaningful action? rspeer 06:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just too much potential for confusion. Turnstep 04:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


  • Something needs to be done about AfD, but I don't think this is it. Oppose for many good reasons given above by others. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • When you say "reasons above", it's hard to tell what reasons you care about, information that is essential in either revising this proposal or in discussing other possibilities for deletion reform. Even if they're just copies of things people have said above, what are your reasons? rspeer 03:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment - If you insist. "It will now be difficult to tell whether blanking is vandalism." per Jmable; "By making deletion like just another edit, it discourages discussion and community involvement and encourages edit warring" and "I see this system only making the core problems of AFD worse and potentially provoking edit wars on dozens of articles each day." per Dragons flight; "I can see some serious problems arising with unilateral deletions. ..., it makes it harder to determine what is vandalism and what is legitimate deletion" per Greg Asche; "the result will be endless revert wars until one faction gives up" per SimonP; "because the wiki process is supposed to aid fast building, not fast destruction." per Taejo; "This will simply cause confusion and obscure vandals" per Postdif; and, "Just too much potential for confusion" per Turnstep. -- Dalbury(Talk) 04:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks, that does help, actually. It gives us a better idea of how much support the various objections have. I assume you've read the Common_objections_and_responses section above; it makes some attempt to address some of your objections. Specifically, Part 2, #2 for Jmable, Part 1, #1 and no answer yet, respectively, for Dragons flight, Part 2, #2 again for Greg Asche, Part 1, #1 again for SimonP, the inline replies to Taejo for Taejo, Part 2, #2 and Part 1, #3 for Postdif and Turnstep (seem to be the same objection). If the rebuttals linked above are not convicing, please tell us how or why; we will keep our minds open, really. Thanks again for expanding your objections. ;-) JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose because this blurs the line between vandalism and deleting (only admins can delete, making it less likely that it is vandalism) and because the pre-blanking versions still exist in history. There are many cases where it is highly desirable to remove certain versions from the article history (including attacks, personal information, and copyvios). --Deathphoenix 13:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Striking out comments after it was pointed out that hard deletion still exists. My opposition still stands. --Deathphoenix 17:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    But even now blanking a section without reason is frowned on at the very least. Do you not see that a page blanker could and would be challenged? If no one challenged them, then I think you have to conclude that Wikipedia just lost a page that no one loved. The point that you are not grasping, I think, is that page blanking can already happen, and does. This would simply make use of the ability to blank pages to good effect.Grace Note 06:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sounds like a recipe for total mayhem, and a defense for more sophisticated vandals when they blank pages. I'm not enamored of AfD, but this is not the solution. | Klaw ¡digame! 16:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Could you expand on your claim that it would provide a defense for blanking vandalism? Pages can be put up for bad-faith AfDs already(and are), people can be sanctioned for doing this repeatedly(and are), people can blank pages with no edit summary already(and do), such blankings are quickly reverted(and would still be as quickly reverted - just as a AfD with no reason would be). If a vandal blanked a page and gave a (invalid) reason, it would be reverted - as such reversion is the proper procedure for contesting PWDs - and if the vandal repeated it, it would be reverted as an invalid PWD - once it's been contested - it would have to be taken to AfD. I don't see how any of this provides a "defense" for any kind of vandalism, but I may be missing something. Please expand. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as it will simply be completely abused to avoid consensus. Stifle 14:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It would possibly be abused and could lead to a increase in edit warring. Not only that, it might lead to a rise in 3RR violations, which would cause more trouble and work for the administrators of Wikipedia. -- Masterjamie 15:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Worried that page blanking will go un-noticed for significant periods of time. I don't think the cocenrns were addressed properly. There is no way this should be available to IPs. Not a deletion system, because history is still there... Junk articles will still be visible through history. Not to mention mayhem on mirror sites. Interesting idea, but too big a risk. Danski14 16:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Count

Currently: 51 Support, 22 Oppose. However, WP is not a democracy. —Ashley Y 00:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/u/r/Wikipedia%7EPure_wiki_deletion_system_df47.html"