Revision as of 16:21, 12 November 2006 editXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →Candidate pages: closing (lack of specific referent)← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:28, 12 November 2006 edit undoXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (del. endorsed)Next edit → | ||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
*'''Relist''' Post the article deletion, the wild beasts have recieved offers from XL records (Record label of ], ] and ])and Domino records (Record label of ] and ]) I feel that proves the band are notible. A page could represent the bands ability for future notibility and would be edited in that way upon undeletion. ] 00:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | *'''Relist''' Post the article deletion, the wild beasts have recieved offers from XL records (Record label of ], ] and ])and Domino records (Record label of ] and ]) I feel that proves the band are notible. A page could represent the bands ability for future notibility and would be edited in that way upon undeletion. ] 00:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
**Having received an offer isn't enough. Having the "ability for future notability" isn't enough. The key question is not whether they might one day become notable, but whether they already have. And it seems like they haven't. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 00:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | **Having received an offer isn't enough. Having the "ability for future notability" isn't enough. The key question is not whether they might one day become notable, but whether they already have. And it seems like they haven't. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 00:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
====]==== | |||
*{{lt|Wr}} | |||
*{{lt|Wr2}} | |||
*{{lt|Wr3}} | |||
*{{lt|Wr4}} | |||
These 4 templates were kept twice at TfD (]), (]), with a consensus of '''keep''' each time. ] has had many users say that they would prefer the templates deleted; some have said that they think the TfD was closed on vote-count rather than on weight of arguments.The templates were T1 speedied and subsequently undeleted. I'm asking for the templates to be '''relisted''' for a third time, as it seems as though current opinion may not have been reflected in the results of the TfDs. --] 12:16, 7 November 2006 (]]]) | |||
The entire series of related templates: | |||
* {{Lts|wr0}} | |||
* {{Lts|wr}} | |||
* {{Lts|wr1}} | |||
* {{Lts|wr2}} | |||
* {{Lts|wr3}} | |||
* {{Lts|wr4}} | |||
* {{Lts|wr4rfc}} | |||
:: ]]] 05:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
*'''Endorse deletion''' or '''Relist''' - Both TfD discussions were heavily weighted towards supporters of these templates... as they use them and thus were informed of the TfD while those who oppose these templates were not. These templates seem to directly contradict Misplaced Pages's policies against edit warring and harassment, and in my experience are frequently abused for both... or even lead users who think they are 'following process' to commit both. The deletion under 'CSD T1' strikes me as novel, but accurate... as these templates clearly are both divisive and inflammatory. If the 'T1' was improper or TOO 'novel' then these should be relisted at TfD with notification to all involved. If not (as I think) then the undeletion of these without a DRV should be overturned and the templates re-deleted. --] 12:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
*'''Endorse speedy (and re-delete)'''. Also applaud's Bainer actions on this, I have seen too many edit wars over simply removing warings (which, in itself, does not harm the encyclopedia) ending up with absurd situation of blocking someone for "removing a warning about removing a warning over a mis-interpreted edit." I have also seen good faith users being given warnings about a potential problem, the user resolving it swiftly on the article page but ''weeks later'', when the user cleans out his page for tidyness (i.e. not selectively), another good faith user reverts him, and gives him a follow up warning. Having a good faith user get harrassed by another good faith user is not good practice, and this is exactly these templates encourage in my experience. Personally I think that the deletion was an excellent example of IAR - if the rules dictate a situation that increases the likelyhood of unwarrented harrassment, then they ''should'', and '''must''' be ignored. Regards, ] 12:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
*'''Endorse''' and '''delete''' not per process, but per ]. As long as these templates exist, they give the appearance of being policy. As I have said on many pages, they are not necessary for vandals, as Special:Contributions/SomeVandal will show that previous warnings were removed. For non-vandals they shouldn't be used anyway, as their use almost always escalates the situation where a polite handwritten note might help more. ] ] 13:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
*'''Delete but...''' all warnings should from now on have an edit summary giving the name of the warning template used in uppercase. For example, if warning a user for blatant vandalism, the edit summary could be "TEST3 - stop inserting swear words into all the articles about cheese". Having to check each version of the history would slow down RC-patrols too much. Comments? ] 13:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
**Do not check the talk page history, but the vandal's contributions. If the vandal has edited his own talk page, you'll see whether warnings have been removed. That shouldn't slow you down, because you should check the contributions anyway to check for other pages he may have vandalized. ] ] 13:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Good point. Although they sometimes use IP adresses to blank their talk pages, this isn't very common, so checking contribs should do the trick. ] 13:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
*'''Relist'''. The previous TfD's resulted in "keep", not in "no consensus". We have just been through ]. This is not an open-and-shut case. The discussion is ongoing, and should not be ignored. Yes, we have WP:IAR. But are the templates really that urgent, that they can't go through another TfD? And yes, there may be cases where the wrong blocks are issued and the wrong warnings are given. But admins are no bots. If admins decide to block someone, they should be held accountable for it, not templates. To paraphrase the ]: "Templates don't block users, admins block users." ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 13:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
**People are often not blocked but come to ] and complain about harassment. The harassment is done with these templates, usually by non-admins. ] ] 13:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
***Perhaps, perhaps not. But is the situation so urgent that TfD ''had'' to be bypassed and all the recent decisions ''had'' to be ignored? ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 13:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
****Yes…HTH HAND —] | ] 14:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
****Saying that 'all recent decisions were ignored' is inaccurate. This issue comes up on AN & AN/I a couple of times per week... and every time the consensus decision ''there'' has been that users should not be re-inserting warnings once they are removed. The decision on TfD was different but not at all representative of the community as a whole. As Kusma said, the problem is not with admin blocks, but with the {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} Misplaced Pages users who can, and far too often do, use these templates to harass people they are in disagreement with. There is no way that admins can keep track of the talk page actions of every user to prevent such abuses. --] 11:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
*'''Endorse deletion'''. TFD is not decided by vote count, and the problem with these templates is that they are based upon an idea that lacks consensual support, that removing talk page warnings is disruptive, incivil or a blockable offense. ] 14:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
**Let's turn that around: there may not be a consensus for the idea that removing talk page warnings is disruptive, incivil or a blockable offense, but is there a consensus against it? I'm not trying to defend these templates, although it may seem that way. But why is it not possible to follow the processes we have? ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 14:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
***There is consensus for the idea that plastering warning messages of an overbearing and misleading nature on people's talk-pages '''is''' a blockable offense. HTH HAND —] | ] 14:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
***(edconf) Interesting question... something is only a blockable offense if a policy or guideline says so, and a policy or guideline is created by consensus. Per ], it's irrelevant if there's consensus ''against'' a suggested p/g; what matters is whether there's consensus ''for'' it. If not, the suggestion is rejected (and that includes if there's no consensus either way). So it is simply false to state that removing talk page comments will get you blocked for disruption. ] 14:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
* '''Relist''' - A consensus is forming on ] that removing warnings is indeed wrong. Also see ] for a way to respect the growing consensus that only recent warnings should not be removed, while the user may remove older warnings freely. These templates help in the former case. --] 14:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
** That poll has not been modified since September, so "is forming" is less than accurate. HTH HAND —] | ] 14:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
** And in the centralised discussion listed, there were many examples brought up of the templates being mis-used, but none that I saw of them being used positively. Keeping something that is predominatly mis-used (even by good faith users) and which ''creates conflict '' is a recipe for disaster. Regards, ] 15:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
***If someone removes a valid warning, but does not vandalise further, then the ''warning worked'', warning them for the removal is simply inflaming a resolved situation. (If they vandalise again after the removal, then warn them for the vandalism, sure, but punishing someone because they ''might'' get away lighter with something bad they ''might'' do in the future is counter to everything AGF is about. Regards, ] 15:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
*'''Delete with a big stick.''' "Divisive and inflammatory" works for me. HTH HAND —] | ] 14:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
*'''Endorse deletion for now''' the existence of these implies a policy that doesn't exist. If a policy is agreed then they can be recreated. There is a problem that it takes a super majority to pass a policy, but only a minority (30%) to keep alive templates that imply and enable that policy. Templates that relate to a non-policy should either be speedy deleted without TfD, or marked 'do not use'.--]<sup>g</sup> 16:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
*'''Endorse deletion''' divisive and inflammatory in the absence of a policy about warning removal. ] 16:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
*'''Endorse deletion'''. Not according to CSD, IMHO, but following WP:IAR, per Kusma. And per MartinRe above: warnings are meant as an attempt to communicate, not as a record of past behaviour. If a warning is deleted and subsequently there is no further violation, there is no problem; the message was received. If a warning is deleted, and there is a repeat offense, it's the repeat offense that should lead to a block, not the warning removal. ] 16:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
*'''Relist'''. A deletion review is not the place to bring up new arguments that were not discussed in the original TfD. Just as the TfD may have been weighted towards supporters of the template, this Deletion Review is weighted towards administrators, due to its recent appearance on ] (and administrators appear to be generally against these templates, mainly seeing the occasions when the templates are misused). Both sides should have the opportunity to debate it in a fair basis. ] 17:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
*'''Relist''' - a speedy was not appropriate in this situation. -- ] 17:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
*'''Endorse deletion'''. ] exists for these kinds of situations. ''L'affaire du warning templates'' strikes me more than anything else as a prime example of slavish devotion to process causing damage to the project. --] 19:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
*'''Relist''' I am the one who undeleted these templates, I was with the idea that the TfD was inconclusive and they should not have been deleted on a speedy. I undeleted so that others can discuss the template while being able to see the template. I do not oppose re-deletion. Just make sure that the community agrees (as best it can) before doing a deletion. Frankly if you prefer I delete the tags and then discuss it I am willing to do that. Though I am going to note that the deletion reason was ], and not ] as mentioned above. —— ] (]) 19:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
*'''Endorse deletion''' per Doc<sup>g</sup>. --] 19:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
*'''Endorse deletion'''. The whole removing warnings debacle has been disproportionately distructive compared to any good it might accomplish. Better to bury these things in a hole and move on. ] 21:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
*'''Comment''' It looks like this DRv is swinging towards 'endorse deletion', possibly due to the large admin attention generated on ]; likewise, the TfDs were 'keep', possibly due to the large vandalfighter attention generated by the TfD notice on the templates. Is it worth putting a visible deletion-review notice at the top of the template to try to balance out the advertising (both situations seem like unintentional vote-stacking to me)? --] 09:01, 8 November 2006 (]]]) | |||
**Added to all. I trust the closer not to be swayed by the weight of numbers either side. ] 09:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
***That warning's noincluded so vandalfighters still won't see it. (On the other hand, I can't think of a good way of including it without cluttering user-talk pages up with junk at the moment.) --] 11:54, 8 November 2006 (]]]) | |||
**''(edit conflict)'' Note that just after this DRV was created I posted notification on AN, the template talk page, and the removing warnings centralized discussion talk page... which I thought would represent 'equal notification' to all involved parties. Possibly users who oppose this practice are more likely to read one or more of those pages than users who support it. Including notice on the template itself should notify '''everyone''' who uses the templates (and thus presumably supports them) while this DRV is running. --] 11:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
*'''Endorse deletion''', as per Doc, or tag as deprecated. No apparent keep consensus on TfD can trump the fact that these templates were misrepresenting policy. ] ] 12:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
** '''Comment''' Both TfDs actually had a fairly strong consensuses for keep. 10/3 in one discussion, 16/3 in the other. ] 17:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
*'''Endorse deletion'''. Its fairly clear these tags do not represent current practice and only cause confusion and 8 posts a month on ANI by someone complaining that someone else removed a warning. Perpetuating this idea with templates is silly. They never should have been undeleted. ] | ] 14:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
*'''Endorse deletion''', reasonably valid CSD T1, and per IAR. ] // ] 21:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
*'''Strongest possible endorse deletion''' These are not correct ''at all''. We should not be giving the impression to users that remove stuff from thier talk page that they will get blocked for it. Even using the ] in it is incorrect as '''nothing''' in the blocking policy says that we should be blocking for this reason. The only reason it may be appropriate for warning users of this is because they are a blatent vandal removing comments and replacing it personal attacks or some other similar situation. But in no way is removing comments uncivil if done in good-faith or anything these templates discribe. If someone removes a warning post, it's always going to be in the history of the talk page that you tried to warn them, there is no reason to revert a talk page ''for'' this reason. ''semper fi'' — ] 22:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
* '''Endorse deletion'''. CSD T1, IAR, foundation issues, ], WP:NOT a battleground, CIVIL, vote-packing and puppetry at TfD, you name it. I've already been cited once as the ''creator'' of these divisive and inflammatory templates that, in some cases, cite non-existent policy -- when all I did was edit to try to make them ''less'' inflammatory and more honest. I wash my hands. ]]] 05:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
*'''Endorse deletion''' per Doc glasgow. The TFDs got it wrong in the opinion of people who have to enforce the policy this tries to describe, and hence should not have been closed on numbers alone. -- '']']'' 02:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:28, 12 November 2006
< November 6 | November 8 > |
---|
- Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)
7 November 2006
Lost Planet of the Gods (Part 2)
Stub page deleted prematurely by proposal prior to additional content being added. BlueSquadronRaven 21:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- You may want to read the second paragraph at the top of the Misplaced Pages:Deletion review page (above): If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub "undeleted". Fan-1967 23:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Wild beasts
This page was deleted but no further comment was made after I tried to argue the case Ryanpostlethwaite 00:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- The article was first deleted after Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wild beasts. When it was recreated, it was deleted per our criteria for speedy deletion. Criterion G4, recreation of deleted content, applied. The band is not (yet?) notable; it does not meet the notability guidelines set by WP:MUSIC. Endorse deletion without prejudice. Aecis 16:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Relist Post the article deletion, the wild beasts have recieved offers from XL records (Record label of the white stripes, basement jaxx and dizee rascal)and Domino records (Record label of The Artic Monkeys and Franz Ferdinand) I feel that proves the band are notible. A page could represent the bands ability for future notibility and would be edited in that way upon undeletion. Ryanpostlethwaite 00:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Having received an offer isn't enough. Having the "ability for future notability" isn't enough. The key question is not whether they might one day become notable, but whether they already have. And it seems like they haven't. Aecis 00:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)