Jump to content

Wikipedia:Managed Deletion/Voting

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Managed Deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Anome (talk | contribs) at 08:17, 27 September 2004 (→'''Section I: Early Deletion: No.''': No. This proposal is too complex, and sysop-only voting is un-Wiki. However, the idea of allowing a middle tier between delete-on-sight and full VfD is a goo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page serves as the ballot box for the proposed Early Deletion proposal. There are two possibilities at this point. Section I is the proposal. Section II is the proposal with the alternative mechanism.

I ask kindly and politely that we not argue with one another in the voting space. If you have comments or advocacy regarding votes, please use the talk page. If you have comments or advocacy about the proposal itself, please use the talk page to the proposal.

Voting opens on Friday, September 24, 2004 and concludes on October 8, 2004. Voting may be extended, if needed.

Quorum: This policy will be deemed to have failed if it does not gain 20 "pro" votes, regardless of proportion of pro to con votes.

Section I: The Early Deletion Proposal Yes.

  1. Geogre 00:42, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. --Grunt 🇪🇺 00:56, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)
  3. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 01:39, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Joyous 01:45, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  5. • Benc • 01:54, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. —No-One Jones (m) 04:00, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. Quandaryus 04:43, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. Maurreen 06:19, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. As noted above, see my thoughts in the talk page. Improv 18:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  10. Iain 22:04, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  11. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 23:12, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Jiang 07:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) but prefer expanding CSD guidelines instead
  13. —Stormie 12:51, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC) However, if (as appears likely) this proposal gets shot down, I support the idea of "quick-deleting" articles which get x delete votes and no keep votes on VFD.
  14. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  15. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 18:20, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) I never bother with VfD pages just because it takes at least 4 minutes to list one.
  16. Andris 20:52, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
  17. I never list anything on VfD - I usually speedily delete most borderline cases. That's not a good thing, and this policy may change this. ugen64 22:23, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  18. Jmabel 02:49, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  19. Seems like a decent proposal to me. As a non-sysop I don't mind "giving the sysops more power". Sysops are the only ones who can delete articles no matter how you look at it. I do think expanding speedy deletion criteria would likely be just as good, however, we already have the ball rolling on this. Who knows how long it would take to get another proposal underway and effected. Democracy is so damn slow. -R. fiend 07:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Section I: Early Deletion: No.

  1. Netoholic @ 01:10, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC) -- Any process which makes the decision-making process only available to sysops goes clearly against the maxim that "Sysops are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility." A sysop is only there to perform the technical function of deletion, as directed by consensus among all editors.
  2. Sysop-only voting is bad. I'd prefer to widen the speedy deletion process. Snowspinner 02:00, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  3. I'd rather not give admins special authority, however I wouldn't mind seeing a couple more reasons for speedy deletion (blatant adverts, for example). As a counter-proposal, how about making quick-delete an option for VfD? A page that got a certain number of votes (let's say... 10) for quick-delete and none to keep could be deleted within a few hours. A mixture of deletes and quick-deletes would get it deleted in two or three days instead of the usual five. -- Zwilson 04:03, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. 04:05, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)
  5. This is more nonsense policy; rubbish is effectively zapped by admins atm; stuff which requires consideration goes to vfd. This will only add more complexity to an already bloated gut of policy. Sjc 04:09, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Gentgeen 04:40, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. I'm convinced by the arguements above; I'd suggest solving some of the problem this is supposed to address by expanding the Speedy Delete to include the Clear Advertising, Obvious Vanity, Propagation of Hoaxes, and Clear and Unambigious Political Speech catigories, with the proviso to check in such cases for vandalism. -Luc "Somethingorother" French 06:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Sysop-only voting is inappropriate. RickK 06:13, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  9. I originally supported this, but I think it would be far better to simply expand the speedy deletion policy along the lines of Lubaf's suggestion. Ambi 13:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  10. If anything expand speedy delete. Rmhermen 17:54, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Oppose for "sysop only" reasons, and because this will certianly cause added confusion and instruction creep. —siroχo
  12. Undemocratic. Speedy delete expansion preferable. Jwrosenzweig 21:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  13. Yes: rather than yet another category of deletions with its own high-volume page, expand the scope of speedy deletion. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:34, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  14. Guanaco 05:54, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) The reason sysops are allowed to delete candidates for speedy deletion without discussion is that the candidates are complete junk, and the consensus is that there are no circumstances in which something that meets those criteria should be kept (with the exception of articles deleted because they were created by banned users). Anything else should be discussed by the Wikipedia community at large, either on an individual basis or by expanding the candidates for speedy deletion. This proposal contradicts long-standing Wikipedia tradition and would give a deletion cabal too much control.
  15. On further reflection I think adding vanity pages to CSD will solve the problem more simply than this proposal. Vanity, to me, seems to be the most difficult problem now with new pages. - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 06:37, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
  16. Absolutely not. This policy would effectively give admins superiority over normal users. They would decide what stays and what goes. This is rather tinfoil-hatish, but consider that an administrator dislikes an article. He or she could list it, get a few other admins to vote delete on it, and bada-bing, bada-boom, it's gone. Admins are community enforcers, not soverign arbitrators of content (except for that which falls obviously outside of Wikipedia's scope and policies). --Slowking Man 08:10, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
  17. Oppose administrator only in early deletion. I have nothing against allowed articles to be deleted and removed from the standard VfD process early however, if 48 hours have passed with only 'Delete' votes. Darksun 10:40, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. More complex than it needs to be, and administrator-only voting is probably not a good idea. Let me try to come up with an alternative. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:45, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  19. I don't agree with deleting substubs. Also, what guarantees that the process isn't used for other articles? Three administrators is so small amount of people. What if the rest of the administrators would like to keep the article? Wikipedia mirrors shouldn't gather up the articles that have VfD tag. Alternatively they should keep the tag on the page. -Hapsiainen 16:48, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
  20. Admins should not have special authoratah! --[[User:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason| ]] [[User:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason/|Ævar]] [[User talk:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason/|Arnfjör<eth>]] talk:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason|action=edit&section=new}} Bjarmason [[User:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason/| ]] 17:52, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)
  21. [[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 21:04, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC) SO much for the collaborative community concept.
  22. Sysops should not have special privileges. Nadavspi 21:08, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  23. Yes Virginia, there IS a Cabal. Moriori 21:28, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
  24. Oppose. Unnecessarily complicated and confusing, gives sysops too much power. Something better could be thought of I'm sure.--TexasDex 00:21, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  25. Too much policy. Instead, allow a quick-delete if voting on VfD is going unanimously past some threshold. --Delirium 00:56, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  26. Oppose. Contrary to wikipedia principles. ElBenevolente 06:53, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  27. Oppose. Better idea: If a VfD gets unanimous delete with at least n votes in the first m hours, it's deleted before the deadline, and is moved to a requests for undeletion page to be discussed further. -- Gerritholl 12:19, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  28. I'm against this. Too undemocratic. It's great to delete an article within a few days and that should do it. How often do you expect us to login to Wikipedia ? --GillianAnderson 12:40, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  29. I would reverse the logic, although I agree that admins should be granted more rights, it should be only to allow them to filter trigger-happy deletionists (on a 3 admins consensus), which would leave them with only two options "VfD" and "keep". --Pgreenfinch 16:26, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  30. A problem exists but this isn't the solution. Like so many others, though, I would be in favor of a "once something gets X votes and Y% decide to delete over Z days, it's deleted" on VfD, though. That still doesn't fix the issue with VfD being too big, though. CryptoDerk 21:32, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  31. Maybe VfD needs reform, but I'm wary of giving sysops more deletion power, even if I am one. –Andre (talk) 22:16, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  32. Lots of good ideas above and on the Talk pages. I think three votes is too few, but with a larger number there should be no need to restrict to sysops. I trust the recent discussions will lead to a much better proposal. Robin Patterson 22:30, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  33. No. --L$T27 23:38, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  34. No. This proposal is too complex, and sysop-only voting is un-Wiki. However, the idea of allowing a middle tier between delete-on-sight and full VfD is a good idea, which we should explore further. Perhaps a 24 hour discussion period, or 75% majority with ten votes from bona-fide users? -- The Anome

Section II: Early Deletion with the certified Jury Pool alternative mechanism


Comments

For comments, including answers, pertaining to individual votes, please see the Talk page. Geogre 17:14, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Managed_Deletion/Voting&oldid=6184992"