![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The exact text of the addendum would be as such: 8. Reverting the removal of speedy deletion, articles for deletion or miscellaneous for deletion tags. The reversion of the removal of speedy deletion tags
I'm proposing this because it's already treated as such, might as well be within the policy.
Tutelary (
talk)
17:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
must only be done is only exempt against the article's initial creator.
I have instituted the changes in this edit. Cheers. Tutelary ( talk) 17:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
For one the, the text as written would have exempted an editor from restoring a CSD tag after a reviewing admin removed it, or closed an Afd as keep.I actually thought about adding this via the text, but decided against it as the policy would be edited or contested at a later time. Now would be a good time to do such and I thank you for the feedback. I believe that adding this phrasing: This exemption also does not apply if the nomination has been withdrawn or closed. This would close said loophole of someone mistakenly edit warring against the person who withdrew the nomination or against an admin who had closed it and assessed said consensus. All I'm trying to remedy with this policy is that people who are here to promote things often remove the speedy deletion tags, and even though they very well could be blocked for edit warring, that takes time to write a report, report them, and wait for action. Crap like it shouldn't be allowed to stay on the encylopedia. Also, what about blatant attack pages as well or blatant hoaxes? I've been in a situation like this where they reverted more than 3 times and honestly, since there's no exemption, I had to report it to WP:ANI to resolve it. Also, I've neglected to see someone be punished for reverting the removal of a CSD tag and that's why it's already a de-facto exemption. Tutelary ( talk) 03:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
`
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The exact text of the addendum would be as such: 8. Reverting the removal of speedy deletion, articles for deletion or miscellaneous for deletion tags. The reversion of the removal of speedy deletion tags
I'm proposing this because it's already treated as such, might as well be within the policy.
Tutelary (
talk)
17:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
must only be done is only exempt against the article's initial creator.
I have instituted the changes in this edit. Cheers. Tutelary ( talk) 17:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
For one the, the text as written would have exempted an editor from restoring a CSD tag after a reviewing admin removed it, or closed an Afd as keep.I actually thought about adding this via the text, but decided against it as the policy would be edited or contested at a later time. Now would be a good time to do such and I thank you for the feedback. I believe that adding this phrasing: This exemption also does not apply if the nomination has been withdrawn or closed. This would close said loophole of someone mistakenly edit warring against the person who withdrew the nomination or against an admin who had closed it and assessed said consensus. All I'm trying to remedy with this policy is that people who are here to promote things often remove the speedy deletion tags, and even though they very well could be blocked for edit warring, that takes time to write a report, report them, and wait for action. Crap like it shouldn't be allowed to stay on the encylopedia. Also, what about blatant attack pages as well or blatant hoaxes? I've been in a situation like this where they reverted more than 3 times and honestly, since there's no exemption, I had to report it to WP:ANI to resolve it. Also, I've neglected to see someone be punished for reverting the removal of a CSD tag and that's why it's already a de-facto exemption. Tutelary ( talk) 03:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
`