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:
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)
Not everyone wants "safeguards". Wonder why?
Dr Zen 05:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
Shane King 01:41, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) Me thinks that the speedy in speedy deletion has passed this proposal by.
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)
This is the whole point of speedy deletions. Against.
Andrew pmk 00:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, this defeats the point of CSDs. --
Grunt🇪🇺 01:18, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
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)
I completely agree EXCEPT for the word "undisputed". Therefore, no—
Trevor Caira 07:19, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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.
[[User:Consequencefree|
Ardent†∈]] 07:16, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1. agree with RadicalSubversive 2. This could lead to less clearly defined CSD policies passing
BesigedB(
talk) 17:04, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) If something is genuinely borderline then the admin can already pass it on.
--
LeeHunter 23:35, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Badly worded and confusing.
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:
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)
Not everyone wants "safeguards". Wonder why?
Dr Zen 05:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
Shane King 01:41, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) Me thinks that the speedy in speedy deletion has passed this proposal by.
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)
This is the whole point of speedy deletions. Against.
Andrew pmk 00:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, this defeats the point of CSDs. --
Grunt🇪🇺 01:18, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
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)
I completely agree EXCEPT for the word "undisputed". Therefore, no—
Trevor Caira 07:19, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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.
[[User:Consequencefree|
Ardent†∈]] 07:16, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1. agree with RadicalSubversive 2. This could lead to less clearly defined CSD policies passing
BesigedB(
talk) 17:04, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) If something is genuinely borderline then the admin can already pass it on.
--
LeeHunter 23:35, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Badly worded and confusing.