User talk:Doc glasgow/seconding

Interesting idea. Note that the MediaWiki software already has functionality along these lines (which is presently disabled in Wikipedia, obviously). However, I'd like to see some statistics on how many articles we get each day and how many of those end up speedied or PROD'ed in short order. >Radiant< 21:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I have is anecdotes - but try looking at New Pages from 12-24 hours ago. If you are lucky, it will have been weeded, but I've done it and found all sorts of crap that has evaded patrollers. --Doc 21:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Touch-once filtering queue"

I like the concept, but I suggest the time frame is unnecessary. This amounts to a mandatory filtering process for all new articles. As such, a "touch-once filtering queue" would be most efficient. Just process the new articles on a first-come-first-served basis. The reviewer has one of three choices: second, delete, or pass. Assuming this would be done by admins, the number of times they would pass on making a decision would be minimal, making most of the decisions touch-once. The queue structure ensures no provisional article ages beyond the backlog period, regardless of how long it is, eliminating the need for an arbitrary time frame. Rfrisbie^talk 16:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. But one problem. Suppose an article that's clearly junk, but does not meet the WP:CSD. No admin might be willing to second it. What happens? If it is proded it is removed from the queue, but then the creator (or a sock) could remove the prod - and it escapes the system. If it is AfD'd, then we might have a whole lot of no-brainers hogging afd. I think it would be good to have an end point - at point at which we know that all good stuff will have screened out - where things can just be deleted. Further, if we've got such a point, it will deter people from rushing to other deletion processes unneccessarilly. --Doc 17:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert here, but this "clearly junk, doesn't meet WP:CSD" example sounds more like a CSD scope issue than a provisional aging issue. What I was trying to aviod was a "backlog - arbitrary-delete-time conflict." What about a "floating delete time"? Allow automatic deletions of "orphaned provisional articles" X days older than the "working review time lag." So, if it typically takes one day(?) to review everything, delete all outliers older than three(?) days. If that's too complicated, just pick an arbitrary time with weasel wording and I won't complain. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 18:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the CSD scope isn't the solution. To use the CSD to get rid of more junk is too blunt a tool. It will lead to more deletions because an individual admin can't see the value in an item. This proposal allows an article to be viewed by multiple persons prior to deletion (as with prod) if even one thinks it is worthy - it will survive. :::The time lag isn't really the issue. We could begin with may delete after (say) 14 days. If, in time, we find everything unseconded after a shorter period is always junk, we can shorten the time - perhaps eventually to a few days. But only if and when we are sure that good things are always seconded. As for auto-deletion, it is a possibility. But should be discussed once the thing was running, and we were finding that all expired articles were indeed junk. I'd resist auto-deletion until we could be sure that nothing except undebatable crap was being bot-shot --Doc 23:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a queue, there shouldn't be an option for any editor to delete it; it could be a legitimate article they just don't like, and others may readily second it. If it is only admins, deleting articles that qualify for CSD, that is a different story. This is an excellent proposal though. —Centrx→talk • 22:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only sugesting deletions per CSD until the opportunity for seconding is over. This proposal would not allow admins to delete anything they can't already. Indeed, it might be that admins would be less tempted to speedy borderline items, as if they just leave them they may die anyway.--Doc 23:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support this notion. For the record. DS 21:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]