This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 12:11, 30 January 2013 (→require notification: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 12:11, 30 January 2013 by Sandstein (talk | contribs) (→require notification: cmt)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
 Archives |
|---|
2008 |
Deletion without discussion?
Does policy allow an administrator to delete a user's talk page before any community discussion at one of the deletion discussions? 2600:1011:B007:4177:1363:403E:FE89:4747 (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- It depends on the situation. There are instances in which the admin would be permitted to delete, and instances in which they would not. Have you tried asking the admin in question privately to see what the reason for deletion was? — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- The approved reasons for which a page made be deleted without discussion are located at WP:CSD. If it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, the the admin probably should not have deleted it. Monty845 19:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reference. What is there to deter an admistrator from violating policy?70.199.198.6 (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- My questions are about policy, not about any particular administrator or instance of deletion.70.199.198.6 (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- First, after contacting the deleting admin, if there is a good faith dispute over whether the article was eligible for deletion, the deleting admin should probably just undelete the article, and list it for discussion at the appropriate deletion venue to diffuse the issue. Failing that the next step would be raising the issue at WP:AN/I or WP:DRV, where the community would review the situation and decide if there is consensus to overturn the deletion. If after being overturned multiple times, the admin continues to ignore deletion policy despite being corrected by the community, it may eventually escalate to a WP:RFC/U on the admin's conduct and then go to an Arbitration case, where WP:ARBCOM has the authority to desysop recalcitrant admins. Note that Arbcom rarely desysops, only doing so in the most extreme cases. Monty845 21:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Without a specific example to look at, all anyone can say is to look at the CSD criteria. However, in practice other pages may be deleted without discussion, and nobody will bat an eye, depending on the individual situation. This is particularly the case with user pages, where there are many issues that can arise. This is why it's important to ask the admin personally, so they can indicate their reasoning. Administrators have always had a great deal of discretion in deciding what to delete; the CSD criteria capture some, but not all, of that discretion. Remember that our policies are only descriptive, not prescriptive, and so there will always be things that are not covered by the policies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- It isn't typical to delete a user talk page, but it's not like there's some grand taboo against it, either. Arguably one of Misplaced Pages's most important policies is Ignore All Rules, so unless the talk page deletion was done in outrageously poor faith or it contained information vital to the encyclopedia (unlikely on a user talk page) then it's probably no big deal. Without knowing more about the situation, if there is one, there's not much else to say. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- The IP user page was part of a IP range blocked for trolling, per community consensus at WP:ANI. The talk page itself was deleted by me at User talk:150.135.161.45, as it was simply an attack page ranting about being blocked on Commons. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds like a valid deletion to me. Talk space isn't rant space and that's extra true for IPs, as the next person to use that IP isn't necessarily going to agree with the rant. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- What's to deter an administrator from improperly deleting a page and then thwarting AN/I and DRV review by blocking the user and simply claiming that the deleted content was "ranting" or an "attack"? 206.207.225.20 (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Short answer is that such users can use the Unblock Ticket Request System. All admins have access to reviewing the content of a deleted page, which is why I linked the talk page above, for their easy review of the actual contents.
- However, in this specific case, you were blocked by community consensus in an ANI discussion. Continued evading of the block by using different IPs is called sock puppetry, and can also be blocked. The way I see it, you have two options: either assume the entire Misplaced Pages community is in some great conspiracy against you; or accept that your behavior is not compatible to working collaboratively on Misplaced Pages. If you choose to accept the latter, after your block expires you can then work on modifying your behavior to be less disruptive, or you could choose to move to other websites that may be more compatible with your editing style. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Besides, there is absolutely no motive for an admin to delete a talk page with no objectionable material and then craft an elaborate conspiracy to try to cover it up. Admins aren't paid or otherwise rewarded for deleting pages, so there really isn't anything to gain. And an IP talk page would rarely be visited anyway. The moral of the story seems to be that if you stumble across the meaning of life or the cure for cancer or something the world simply must know, an IP talk page on Misplaced Pages is an exceptionally poor place to try to get the word out. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- I reviewed the question above, "What's to deter an administrator from improperly deleting...." Who used the term "conspiracy"? Why turn this into a discussion about "conspiracies"? If "there is absolutely no motive for an admin to delete a talk page with no objectionable material", then why has the Misplaced Pages Foundation adopted policies prohibiting administrators from deleting without community-discussion? 64.134.231.29 (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- The Wikimedia Foundation has adopted no such policies. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- The deletion policy states: "Pages can be deleted without any discussion if they meet one of the criteria for speedy deletion". (That "if" clearly means "only if".) The "criteria for speedy deletion" policy states: "The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion". If "there is absolutely no motive for an admin to delete a talk page with no objectionable material", then why has the Wikimedia Foundation adopted policies generally prohibiting administrators from deleting without community-discussion? 150.135.48.200 (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- You obviously acknowledge that the talk page was not appropriate, given your edit at WP:NPA to forum shop for other opinions.
- Given that fact, and your continued WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:IDHT behavior here, it's simply re-inforcing the appropriateness of the community sanctioned block from WP:ANI which you continue to evade with additional IP addresses. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note also the catchall WP:IAR. While its rarely going to be supported to IAR delete something, it can happen. Monty845 18:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- The deletion policy states: "Pages can be deleted without any discussion if they meet one of the criteria for speedy deletion". (That "if" clearly means "only if".) The "criteria for speedy deletion" policy states: "The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion". If "there is absolutely no motive for an admin to delete a talk page with no objectionable material", then why has the Wikimedia Foundation adopted policies generally prohibiting administrators from deleting without community-discussion? 150.135.48.200 (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- The Wikimedia Foundation has adopted no such policies. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- I reviewed the question above, "What's to deter an administrator from improperly deleting...." Who used the term "conspiracy"? Why turn this into a discussion about "conspiracies"? If "there is absolutely no motive for an admin to delete a talk page with no objectionable material", then why has the Misplaced Pages Foundation adopted policies prohibiting administrators from deleting without community-discussion? 64.134.231.29 (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- What's to deter an administrator from improperly deleting a page and then thwarting AN/I and DRV review by blocking the user and simply claiming that the deleted content was "ranting" or an "attack"? 206.207.225.20 (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds like a valid deletion to me. Talk space isn't rant space and that's extra true for IPs, as the next person to use that IP isn't necessarily going to agree with the rant. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
TAP Bot: AfD Bot Task
I previously posted this on WT:AFD, but without much response. I'm wondering if this would be acceptable, but, I've had an idea for an AfD bot. It's quite a simple task: relisting AfDs which have not been commented on. The bot will ignore previous relists and DELSORTs, and only relist after seven days. Some AfDs are left there, sometimes longer than 7 days without being commented on. I can see a benefit in having a bot to do this, so no AfD is lost in the dark. Some example AfDs can be seen at this page. Thanks, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Reliable sources
At present the reason for deletion,
- Articles for which thorough attempts to find ] to ] them have failed
links to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, which doesn't mention third-party sources. I propose linking it to the core policy page:
- Articles for which thorough attempts to find ] to verify them have failed
RockMagnetist (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that I understand what you are proposing. The second link in the current wording is already to our verifiability policy, which is the target of the WP:SOURCES redirect, so the proposed wording would link twice to the same place. I would add that the "third-party"-ness of sources is more a concern of notability guidelines, which are covered by the preceding criterion, than of verifiability policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- The reliable sources link is more visible, and it's the one that I followed when I encountered this entry. Yes, generally third party sources would be covered in notability guidelines, but not always: By criterion 1 of Misplaced Pages:Notability (academics), an academic who is a subject of an article can be considered notable if he/she has highly cited publications. However, there are generally not reliable sources for citations (for example, Google Scholar links are not allowed). Then, the keep/delete question boils down to: Is there anything interesting that can be said about that person that is verifiable? Besides, third party sources are an explicit part of the verifiability policy, so it is directly relevant to this criterion for deletion. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Template:No content on page listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:No content on page. Since you had some involvement with the Template:No content on page redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 70.24.247.127 (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
On no no please do not delet best english wiki article Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi while further improve it Sir ...Thanks
Oh dear please add Prof Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi's Photo(image) with the best english wiki article Prof Dr Syed Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi,the greatest scholor and senior most educationalist,poet,writer and teacher also. Oh ..Opps...PLease do not delete Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi best article from eng wiki .PLease further improve this best article.Prof Dr Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi is a world wide most famous literary personality with respect to arts and culture.Don't delete his page while you can further improve this awesome english wiki article , which has seen by millions people by wikipedia.Misplaced Pages managers like mostly Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi and Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi is a running english wiki article. O.K Thanks --118.103.230.43 (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is more of the deletion policy and we do not address specific articles or decisions here. Your best bet is to make your case at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi which I think you already did. User:Zscout370 04:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
require notification
The deletion policy should be changed to require (as in must be done) the nominator to notify the original creator. (listed on village pump) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- That wasn't already a requirement? I suppose not. Hunh. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 04:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree. We should strive to ensure we communicate the importance of notification to people involved in CSD/PROD/AFD, however, there are times where notification is unnecessary and I for one would prefer for it to remain an option (in Twinkle of course, since manual tagging implies the tagger has to go through the extra notification step). Examples of this would include multiple articles being lumped into a single AFD (which Twinkle cannot handle anyway), PROD endorsements and situations where the editor who created the article is not necessarily the most appropriate notification target because there are more involved editors with significant contributions, and situations where a disruptive editor has created multiple problem articles that are being speedied. If anything I would support an automated solution implemented through MediaWiki (certain tags added to an article would trigger automatic notifications or something), but I'm guessing that would get complicated. As it stands now, not handling notification responsibly is already frowned upon - I don't think it's something that needs to be etched into the policy. §FreeRangeFrog 04:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose the specific proposal, but approve of the general idea. In a lot of cases "original creator" doesn't mean much — it's some guy who put in a two-line stub back in 2005 and hasn't edited in years. Or there's the disruptive-editor scenario mentioned above. But certainly, no one should try to "sneak" an AfD by a major contributor who's still active and in good standing — that point could maybe be emphasized strongly. --Trovatore (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose For similar reasons as mentioned above, while it is always a good idea to notify contributors to an article when it is posted for deletion. It is IMPOSSIBLE to ALWAYS notify the the original creator, at best you can leave a note on the talk page of the account. Additionally unless you notify everyone involved in the article you cross the line of WP:OWN, the original contributor has no more vestment in the article then any other contributor. Having proposed many articles for deletion, and notified many contributors, I can tell you that most don't care. Many of the contributions are minor procedural edits (one of many). Any one who is vested in an subject can add the article to a watch list, and be made instantly aware when the article is proposed for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments thus far. Frankly, I don't care what is "frowned upon" or what one should "strive for" or what "would be nice." This is a policy-page, and I care about policy and blockable offenses. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Are you talking about every form of deletion here? Because, frankly, I would not like to have to notify the creator of an attack page in case of speedy deletion (although even that is done very frequently). Lectonar (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose this specific proposal. When putting an article up to AfD, you should try and notify all interested parties, but your definition of "interested" may not match mine, so it can't be enforced. If an article's creator hasn't edited in the past year, I don't bother notifying them about an AfD. But I do notify anyone who's made a substantial change (whether adding or removing, doesn't matter) to it. Notifying on project pages is a good practice as well, if you can determine that the project is still active. In short - don't rely on Twinkle to do your work for you! Come to think of it, if you can't make a reasonable assumption an editor checks their messages at least once a week, an AfD notice is sort of pointless anyway as it won't get acted on - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/MacWise being a recent example where the article's creator didn't !vote on the AfD but commented on the AFC help desk this week, two months after the AfD closed. Ritchie333 12:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Nah, that's incompatible with WP:OWN. The creator has no more "rights" to a page than any other editor. Sandstein 12:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)