Speedy deletions

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
109 messages Options
1234 ... 6
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Speedy deletions

SCZenz
A reminder to everyone about speedy deletions...

It has come to my attention lately that the speedy deletion criteria are
being applied rather loosely in some cases.  Especially unfortunate are
articles that are nominated for being "non-notable"; there is no such speedy
criterion, there is only the criterion that articles about people/groups may
be deleted if they have "no assertion of notability" whatsoever.  This is
not just process wonkery--it is fundamendal to WP:CSD that the reason for
deletion be totally uncontroversial, as the process is almost entirely
without review.

I have encountered many speedy-tagged articles that, upon a careful look,
were either good articles or worthy of further consideration (e.g. through
PROD).  It is incumbent on administrators who do speedy deletions to take
such careful looks at every article; there are enough of us to take the time
to do it right.  It would also be helpful if those tagging pages would take
some care in what they tag, although I do understand that new pages patrol
(for example) is a thankless and rushed job which is very important.

In cases I've seen where I think mistakes were made, I have tried to start
discussions with the individual editors involved.  My intention in sending
this email is not to single them out, but just to bring this issue to
everyone's attention.  In many cases where an article is clearly unsuitable,
but doesn't clearly fit the speedy criteria, using the WP:PROD process is a
good substitute for speedy deletion, and I urge everyone to use it more
often.

Thanks,
SCZenz
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speedy deletions

Tony Sidaway-3
On 5/21/06, SCZenz <[hidden email]> wrote:
> It is fundamendal to WP:CSD that the reason for
> deletion be totally uncontroversial, as the process is almost entirely
> without review.

Not really.  For some reason fair use deletion are pretty
controversial and I doubt very much whether we'd delete many of them
if we relied on straw polls.  So we have a speedy for them because,
basically, there are a lot of people on Wikipedia who are willing to
pack a straw poll but not willing to do the thinking necessary to make
a reasonable decision.


>
> I have encountered many speedy-tagged articles that, upon a careful look,
> were either good articles or worthy of further consideration (e.g. through
> PROD).  It is incumbent on administrators who do speedy deletions to take
> such careful looks at every article; there are enough of us to take the time
> to do it right.  It would also be helpful if those tagging pages would take
> some care in what they tag, although I do understand that new pages patrol
> (for example) is a thankless and rushed job which is very important.

Absolutely.  What we *mustn't* do is delete good articles.  Crappy
articles we can live without and we should be happily deleting them.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speedy deletions

Keith Old
In reply to this post by SCZenz
On 5/21/06, SCZenz <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> A reminder to everyone about speedy deletions...
>
> It has come to my attention lately that the speedy deletion criteria are
> being applied rather loosely in some cases.  Especially unfortunate are
> articles that are nominated for being "non-notable"; there is no such
> speedy
> criterion, there is only the criterion that articles about people/groups
> may
> be deleted if they have "no assertion of notability" whatsoever.  This is
> not just process wonkery--it is fundamendal to WP:CSD that the reason for
> deletion be totally uncontroversial, as the process is almost entirely
> without review.
>
> I have encountered many speedy-tagged articles that, upon a careful look,
> were either good articles or worthy of further consideration (e.g. through
> PROD).  It is incumbent on administrators who do speedy deletions to take
> such careful looks at every article; there are enough of us to take the
> time
> to do it right.  It would also be helpful if those tagging pages would
> take
> some care in what they tag, although I do understand that new pages patrol
> (for example) is a thankless and rushed job which is very important.
>
> In cases I've seen where I think mistakes were made, I have tried to start
> discussions with the individual editors involved.  My intention in sending
> this email is not to single them out, but just to bring this issue to
> everyone's attention.  In many cases where an article is clearly
> unsuitable,
> but doesn't clearly fit the speedy criteria, using the WP:PROD process is
> a
> good substitute for speedy deletion, and I urge everyone to use it more
> often.
>
> Thanks,
> SCZenz
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

That is what I try and do when I do speedy deletions. I try to follow the
general principle of if in doubt, don't delete. Generally, there is no
reason why they can't be kept around for a few days with the exception of
copyvios.

If necessary, I will even rewrite the article as a stub myself if the
subject of the article warrants it and I have enough information.

Regards


Keith Old

Keith Old
User:Capitalistroadster
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speedy deletions

Katefan0
... and don't forget our old friend the redirect.

k

On 5/20/06, Keith Old <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 5/21/06, SCZenz <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > A reminder to everyone about speedy deletions...
> >
> > It has come to my attention lately that the speedy deletion criteria are
> > being applied rather loosely in some cases.  Especially unfortunate are
> > articles that are nominated for being "non-notable"; there is no such
> > speedy
> > criterion, there is only the criterion that articles about people/groups
> > may
> > be deleted if they have "no assertion of notability" whatsoever.  This
> is
> > not just process wonkery--it is fundamendal to WP:CSD that the reason
> for
> > deletion be totally uncontroversial, as the process is almost entirely
> > without review.
> >
> > I have encountered many speedy-tagged articles that, upon a careful
> look,
> > were either good articles or worthy of further consideration (e.g.
> through
> > PROD).  It is incumbent on administrators who do speedy deletions to
> take
> > such careful looks at every article; there are enough of us to take the
> > time
> > to do it right.  It would also be helpful if those tagging pages would
> > take
> > some care in what they tag, although I do understand that new pages
> patrol
> > (for example) is a thankless and rushed job which is very important.
> >
> > In cases I've seen where I think mistakes were made, I have tried to
> start
> > discussions with the individual editors involved.  My intention in
> sending
> > this email is not to single them out, but just to bring this issue to
> > everyone's attention.  In many cases where an article is clearly
> > unsuitable,
> > but doesn't clearly fit the speedy criteria, using the WP:PROD process
> is
> > a
> > good substitute for speedy deletion, and I urge everyone to use it more
> > often.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > SCZenz
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> That is what I try and do when I do speedy deletions. I try to follow the
> general principle of if in doubt, don't delete. Generally, there is no
> reason why they can't be kept around for a few days with the exception of
> copyvios.
>
> If necessary, I will even rewrite the article as a stub myself if the
> subject of the article warrants it and I have enough information.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Keith Old
>
> Keith Old
> User:Capitalistroadster
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speedy deletions

Katefan0
In reply to this post by Keith Old
... and don't forget our old friend the redirect.

k

On 5/20/06, Keith Old <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 5/21/06, SCZenz <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > A reminder to everyone about speedy deletions...
> >
> > It has come to my attention lately that the speedy deletion criteria are
> > being applied rather loosely in some cases.  Especially unfortunate are
> > articles that are nominated for being "non-notable"; there is no such
> > speedy
> > criterion, there is only the criterion that articles about people/groups
> > may
> > be deleted if they have "no assertion of notability" whatsoever.  This
> is
> > not just process wonkery--it is fundamendal to WP:CSD that the reason
> for
> > deletion be totally uncontroversial, as the process is almost entirely
> > without review.
> >
> > I have encountered many speedy-tagged articles that, upon a careful
> look,
> > were either good articles or worthy of further consideration (e.g.
> through
> > PROD).  It is incumbent on administrators who do speedy deletions to
> take
> > such careful looks at every article; there are enough of us to take the
> > time
> > to do it right.  It would also be helpful if those tagging pages would
> > take
> > some care in what they tag, although I do understand that new pages
> patrol
> > (for example) is a thankless and rushed job which is very important.
> >
> > In cases I've seen where I think mistakes were made, I have tried to
> start
> > discussions with the individual editors involved.  My intention in
> sending
> > this email is not to single them out, but just to bring this issue to
> > everyone's attention.  In many cases where an article is clearly
> > unsuitable,
> > but doesn't clearly fit the speedy criteria, using the WP:PROD process
> is
> > a
> > good substitute for speedy deletion, and I urge everyone to use it more
> > often.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > SCZenz
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> That is what I try and do when I do speedy deletions. I try to follow the
> general principle of if in doubt, don't delete. Generally, there is no
> reason why they can't be kept around for a few days with the exception of
> copyvios.
>
> If necessary, I will even rewrite the article as a stub myself if the
> subject of the article warrants it and I have enough information.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Keith Old
>
> Keith Old
> User:Capitalistroadster
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speedy deletions

Erik Moeller-3
In reply to this post by Tony Sidaway-3
On 5/21/06, Tony Sidaway <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Not really.  For some reason fair use deletion are pretty
> controversial and I doubt very much whether we'd delete many of them
> if we relied on straw polls.  So we have a speedy for them because,
> basically, there are a lot of people on Wikipedia who are willing to
> pack a straw poll but not willing to do the thinking necessary to make
> a reasonable decision.

Not to mention that there's simply a huge number of image uploads per
day. "Speedy" deletion is exactly that, speedy, and in the case of
images it allows us to make qualified judgment calls within a
reasonable timeframe. I would even argue that in the case of images,
we could be a bit less conservative about deleting than we are now.
For instance, on Commons, images are often flagged to be deleted "7
days from now unless a source is provided". Most of those should be
speedy deleted with a brief note to the uploader.

Perhaps we need a middle ground between "speedy" admin actions and
full community review, such as a quorum by n admins.

Erik
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speedy deletions

Philip Welch
In reply to this post by SCZenz
On May 20, 2006, at 7:37 PM, SCZenz wrote:

> A reminder to everyone about speedy deletions...
>
> It has come to my attention lately that the speedy deletion  
> criteria are
> being applied rather loosely in some cases.

If they weren't, we'd be deluged with crap.

As Jimbo says, "We are a massively powerful text generation engine.  
People have to drop
the idea that every little tidbit is precious.  Crap is crap.  Yank it."

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speedy deletions

SCZenz
We are losing worthwhile articles because people don't take 30 seconds to
read them and evaluate the claims they make.  Isn't that bad?


On 5/20/06, Philip Welch <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On May 20, 2006, at 7:37 PM, SCZenz wrote:
>
> > A reminder to everyone about speedy deletions...
> >
> > It has come to my attention lately that the speedy deletion
> > criteria are
> > being applied rather loosely in some cases.
>
> If they weren't, we'd be deluged with crap.
>
> As Jimbo says, "We are a massively powerful text generation engine.
> People have to drop
> the idea that every little tidbit is precious.  Crap is crap.  Yank it."
>
> --
> Philip L. Welch
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speedy deletions

Mark Gallagher-5
In reply to this post by SCZenz

G'day SCZenz,

> It has come to my attention lately that the speedy deletion criteria are
> being applied rather loosely in some cases.  Especially unfortunate are
> articles that are nominated for being "non-notable"; there is no such speedy
> criterion, there is only the criterion that articles about people/groups may
> be deleted if they have "no assertion of notability" whatsoever.  This is
> not just process wonkery--it is fundamendal to WP:CSD that the reason for
> deletion be totally uncontroversial, as the process is almost entirely
> without review.

I agree entirely.

> I have encountered many speedy-tagged articles that, upon a careful look,
> were either good articles or worthy of further consideration (e.g. through
> PROD).  It is incumbent on administrators who do speedy deletions to take
> such careful looks at every article; there are enough of us to take the time
> to do it right.  It would also be helpful if those tagging pages would take
> some care in what they tag, although I do understand that new pages patrol
> (for example) is a thankless and rushed job which is very important.

It's not people mis-tagging articles that bothers me: I can easily
remove the tags.  What bothers me is when:

a) an admin unthinkingly deletes it, "it's tagged; who am I to
    disagree?".  Sometimes I've seen a salvageable article while going
    through the CSD category and been busy rewriting it when another
    admin thoughtlessly deletes it; that *really* irritates me.

b) I remove the tag, and cop (at best) a polite query or (at worst)
    unfettered abuse as a result.  "It's tagged; who are YOU to remove
    it?"  It seems to be a grave insult to the CVUers and their ilk that
    an admin would dare to disregard their recommendations.  I suspect
    the only way to make them happy would be to either give them delete
    buttons themselves, or write a bot that automatically deletes any
    article that finds its way into the CSD category.

I did newpage patrol (well, I clicked on every orange bar that appeared
in CDVF and tagged as appropriate) myself before adminship was thrust
upon me like so much <ran out of steam; feel free to insert your own
simile/>.  I understand the pressures our patrollers are under.  I don't
begrudge them an improperly tagged article or two.

But those of us who come along and delete articles after they've been
tagged need to have our brains engaged before we hit that button.  And
if, instead of deleting an article, we simply remove the tag, the tagger
needs to Learn From The Experience instead of proving himself to lack
the maturity required for possession of such a button.


<snip/>

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/344 - Release Date: 19/05/2006

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speedy deletions

Mark Gallagher-5
In reply to this post by Katefan0

G'day Katefan0,

> ... and don't forget our old friend the redirect.

That's another thing I love: seeing {{db|Misspelling of [[Joe Bloggs]]}}
on an article about [[Joe Boggs]].  Why not just merge them and redirect
the mispelling?


--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/344 - Release Date: 19/05/2006

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speedy deletions

PeterAnsell
In reply to this post by Tony Sidaway-3
On 5/21/06, Tony Sidaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Not really.  For some reason fair use deletion are pretty
> controversial and I doubt very much whether we'd delete many of them
> if we relied on straw polls.  So we have a speedy for them because,
> basically, there are a lot of people on Wikipedia who are willing to
> pack a straw poll but not willing to do the thinking necessary to make
> a reasonable decision.

I may be naive, but I think it is going over the top to generalise
straw polls as unreasonable just because they come up with different
decisions to what you expect.

> Absolutely.  What we *mustn't* do is delete good articles.  Crappy
> articles we can live without and we should be happily deleting them.

Is that crappy in how they look, or in their encyclopedic value.

Peter
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speedy deletions

Erik Moeller-3
On 5/21/06, Peter Ansell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I may be naive, but I think it is going over the top to generalise
> straw polls as unreasonable just because they come up with different
> decisions to what you expect.

They're not generally unreasonable, but you cannot vote away law and
precedent. Copyright is very complex, and it is unfair to expect the
average contributor to make an informed decision about whether or not
the use of a particular image meets fair use criteria.

I have no problem with someone like Anthony, who has many informed
opinions about copyright law, weighing into a debate or poll. But when
someone wants to upload lots of high resolution scans of comic books
and justifies this with "'''Keep.''' I did the scans myself. They are
useful to the article.", such votes can and should be ignored. This is
equally true for users who are deliberately ignoring policy because
they don't like it.

Blindly giving a lot of power to everyone is equally dangerous to
giving it to only a few. I oppose giving admins arbitrary power to
interpret community opinion, but they need to have _some_ flexibility
to do so. It's a delicate balance.

Perhaps in the long run, we'll have a "Fair Use" course in Wikiversity
and can make participation in that course an ''a priori'' requirement
for voting in a fair use related poll.

Erik
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speedy deletions

Steve Bennett-8
In reply to this post by Mark Gallagher-5
On 5/21/06, Mark Gallagher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> a) an admin unthinkingly deletes it, "it's tagged; who am I to
>     disagree?".  Sometimes I've seen a salvageable article while going
>     through the CSD category and been busy rewriting it when another
>     admin thoughtlessly deletes it; that *really* irritates me.


You know about {{hangon}} ?

b) I remove the tag, and cop (at best) a polite query or (at worst)
>     unfettered abuse as a result.  "It's tagged; who are YOU to remove
>     it?"  It seems to be a grave insult to the CVUers and their ilk that
>     an admin would dare to disregard their recommendations.  I suspect
>     the only way to make them happy would be to either give them delete
>     buttons themselves, or write a bot that automatically deletes any
>     article that finds its way into the CSD category.


AfD it for them? Third opinion and all that...

Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speedy deletions

Mark Gallagher-5

G'day Steve,

> On 5/21/06, Mark Gallagher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>a) an admin unthinkingly deletes it, "it's tagged; who am I to
>>    disagree?".  Sometimes I've seen a salvageable article while going
>>    through the CSD category and been busy rewriting it when another
>>    admin thoughtlessly deletes it; that *really* irritates me.
>
> You know about {{hangon}} ?

Why?  Article X is clearly not a speedy delete, and while I'm making it
into a good stub (as opposed to a merely decent one) I remove the
{{delete}} tag.  No admin should be speedying in the meantime, because
*the article is not a speedy candidate*.

> b) I remove the tag, and cop (at best) a polite query or (at worst)
>
>>    unfettered abuse as a result.  "It's tagged; who are YOU to remove
>>    it?"  It seems to be a grave insult to the CVUers and their ilk that
>>    an admin would dare to disregard their recommendations.  I suspect
>>    the only way to make them happy would be to either give them delete
>>    buttons themselves, or write a bot that automatically deletes any
>>    article that finds its way into the CSD category.
>
> AfD it for them? Third opinion and all that...

To Hell with that.  I don't AfD articles unless I want them deleted; if
they want them on AfD, they can do the leg work themselves.


--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/344 - Release Date: 19/05/2006

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speedy deletions

Steve Bennett-8
On 5/21/06, Mark Gallagher <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> >>a) an admin unthinkingly deletes it, "it's tagged; who am I to
> >>    disagree?".  Sometimes I've seen a salvageable article while going
> >>    through the CSD category and been busy rewriting it when another
> >>    admin thoughtlessly deletes it; that *really* irritates me.
> >
> > You know about {{hangon}} ?
>
> Why?  Article X is clearly not a speedy delete, and while I'm making it
> into a good stub (as opposed to a merely decent one) I remove the
> {{delete}} tag.  No admin should be speedying in the meantime, because
> *the article is not a speedy candidate*.


Ok, but at this point, you're saying that two separate people think the
article is speedyable - the person who put the tag, and another admin who
deleted it even without the tag. And from a pragmatic point of view, you had
to edit and save the article to rm the {{delete}} tag, and you had to
edit/save to add the new text - you wouldn't be losing a lot using
{{hangon}}. But it's your call.


>
> >>    unfettered abuse as a result.  "It's tagged; who are YOU to remove
> >>    it?"  It seems to be a grave insult to the CVUers and their ilk that



To Hell with that.  I don't AfD articles unless I want them deleted; if
> they want them on AfD, they can do the leg work themselves.


I can see how "to hell with that" might be taken as a "grave insult", yes.

Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speedy deletions

Mark Gallagher-5

Steve Bennett wrote:

> On 5/21/06, Mark Gallagher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>>>a) an admin unthinkingly deletes it, "it's tagged; who am I to
>>>>   disagree?".  Sometimes I've seen a salvageable article while going
>>>>   through the CSD category and been busy rewriting it when another
>>>>   admin thoughtlessly deletes it; that *really* irritates me.
>>>
>>>You know about {{hangon}} ?
>>
>>Why?  Article X is clearly not a speedy delete, and while I'm making it
>>into a good stub (as opposed to a merely decent one) I remove the
>>{{delete}} tag.  No admin should be speedying in the meantime, because
>>*the article is not a speedy candidate*.
>
> Ok, but at this point, you're saying that two separate people think the
> article is speedyable - the person who put the tag, and another admin who
> deleted it even without the tag. And from a pragmatic point of view, you had
> to edit and save the article to rm the {{delete}} tag, and you had to
> edit/save to add the new text - you wouldn't be losing a lot using
> {{hangon}}. But it's your call.

Umm ... I'm talking about admins who don't think about it, but just say
"it's tagged speedy, not my place to not delete it."

>>>>   unfettered abuse as a result.  "It's tagged; who are YOU to remove
>>>>   it?"  It seems to be a grave insult to the CVUers and their ilk that
>
> To Hell with that.  I don't AfD articles unless I want them deleted; if
>>they want them on AfD, they can do the leg work themselves.
>
> I can see how "to hell with that" might be taken as a "grave insult", yes.

When you're quite finished tying others' words in knots, let's review ...

a) User A is RC patrolling.  He sees a stub about a school, and tags it
   {{db|Just advertising for an external link}}
b) Mark comes across the article while checking the CSD category.  He
    says "that's not a speedy, and what's more, I think I could improve
    it a little ..."

Now, we have three alternative resolutions:

c0) The article is improved by Mark.  User A appears on Mark's talkpage
     and says "whoops, sorry, that was never a speedy, I'll be more
     careful".  And Alyson Hannigan appears, too, and says "what a good
     decision, oh, you're so sexy."  This is the Preferred Resolution.

c1) Admin C comes along and speedies it.  This is *not* the Preferred
     Resolution, but in at least one case it has led to a discussion on
     IRC, and I believe the admin involved now has obtained a bit of a
     Clue as to when to speedy and when not.  This is probably a Good
     Thing.

c2) User A appears on Mark's talkpage saying "if you don't think an
     article should be speedied, it is NOT APPROPRIATE for you to remove
     the tag.  Only admins can do that, you idiot!  What do you think
     you're playing at?"

At what point did Mark insult anyone?


Now, given that every time I clean up CAT:CSD, I run across roughly half
a dozen improperly-tagged articles (and, no, I don't put them to AfD),
yet I only get a complaint once every two or three attempts (and abusive
complaints are rarer), I guess we can say "c2" is not the norm,
fortunately.  *Un*fortunately, neither is c0.  Wither art thou, Ms
Hannigan? :-(


--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/344 - Release Date: 19/05/2006

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Creation of user photographs

Peter Mackay
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-8
I was doing some research on ArbCom admonitions against personal attacks,
and I came across a photograph on a user page where the subject of the
photograph states that he is the creator.

I refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT4101.JPG] which was
clearly not taken by the subject, nor by using a tripod or other support
such as a wall.

In contrast, another photograph of the same user released under an identical
license (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT2085.JPG) is clearly taken
by the subject by holding the camera at arm's length.

While I applaud the photographer for his long record of contributions to WP,
I must wonder about the ethics of claiming the work of another as his own,
even if he is the subject of a photograph taken on his own camera.

I suspect that a great many photographs of editors on WP would fall into the
same category.

In fact I raise the point because the photograph on my user page was removed
under the same circumstances and if something is good for the goose, it
should be equally as good for the gander(s).

Pete, keen photographer


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Creation of user photographs

Steve Bennett-8
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I was doing some research on ArbCom admonitions against personal attacks,
> and I came across a photograph on a user page where the subject of the
> photograph states that he is the creator.
>

Is "creator" well defined anywhere? If you have the idea to take a photo of
yourself against a particular background, choose the spot, set the camera
settings, frame it, then hand it to a passerby saying "can you press this
button when I say GO", and later download the photo, photoshop it, crop it,
upload it etc - are you really saying that that passer by is the "creator"
of the photo?

No idea if that's the case here, but I don't think the button pusher should
necessarily get all the credit, or even *any* credit if they've been told
exactly what to do.

Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Creation of user photographs

Mark Gallagher-5
In reply to this post by Peter Mackay

G'day Pete,

> I was doing some research on ArbCom admonitions against personal attacks,
> and I came across a photograph on a user page where the subject of the
> photograph states that he is the creator.
>
> I refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT4101.JPG] which was
> clearly not taken by the subject, nor by using a tripod or other support
> such as a wall.

Okay, you have a point, but given your history I find it hard to believe
you found these particular images during harmless "research".  I suspect
your points would be better received if you didn't use Dr Carr to help
illustrate them.

<snip rest/>

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/344 - Release Date: 19/05/2006

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Creation of user photographs

Anthony DiPierro
In reply to this post by Peter Mackay
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT4101.JPG] which was
> clearly not taken by the subject, nor by using a tripod or other support
> such as a wall.
>
Maybe he paid $1 to some homeless guy walking the street, and so it's
a work for hire.

Anyway, you'd be better off asking him first, maybe he'll fix it.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
1234 ... 6