User talk:S Marshall/Essay2

Interesting set of opinions, though the results of deletion reviews shows that the community does not always think exactly this way. Specifically the notability guideline does indeed get enforced. Chillum 14:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not exactly, it is rather concluded sometimes that when the article has no chance at all, there is no point in going to the work of putting it back , even though the original deletion was unjustified. I hope that practice there will soon change, because reversing is the only good way to keep us admins to following the rules.DGG (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"could" vs "should"

For the conditions in which single-person deletion is OK, I suggest the wording be they "could" be deleted single handed, not they "should." For copyright, in particular, I usually like to have someone else check my work. I've a few times judged too hastily. For defamation, even, there is sometimes disagreement on what constitutes defamation. Obviously, when real harm is being done, we will all of us simply delete as rapidly as possible. I changed the wording accordingly. DGG (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stats Plz

I'm quite prepared to believe that the ratio of CSDs to AFDs is altering, but it would be nice to have some figures to support that assertion. Whilst we're about it we could do with figures for deletions by CSD code rather than just CSD v AFD. Also a more pertinent issue is whether the deletions were OK or not. User:I'm Spartacus!/CSD Survey and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Overturned speedy deletions were some interesting work on this, I don't have a problem with more articles being correctly deleted by a certain code - but if we have a code that is frequently misused then we should target our reforms there. Finally two sets of eyes are not the only way to change this sort of system. If the problem is that some admins are interpreting the rules differently to others then the solution might be to find better ways to give feedback to those admins. I've deleted over 2,200 pages since I got the bit earlier this year and I've had very little criticism as a result of that, certainly far less than I've had from the distinctly smaller number of speedies that I've declined. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, two pairs of eyes is not the only solution. It's merely one on which I've personally decided to make a bit of a stand. I hope others will also think out of the box to come up with reasonable checks and balances.
I think speedy deletions still need to be speedy, so the process has to be streamlined, but not totally unsupervised.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at WT:CSD#Following from the discussion on separation between deleter and tagger. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unchecked?

My sense is that by "unchecked" you mean that there are admins that are acting outside process and no one is reeling them in. I'm still waiting for Dycedbot, which will make this a whole lot easier. But "CSD is expanding unchecked" is both wrong and not helpful. I've worked with a lot of different sub-communities of Wikipedians, and I can't think of a group of people that's less likely to "expand unchecked" than the people working (as taggers and admins) in CSD. - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the wording change. - Dank (push to talk) 21:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Thanks, I've changed that wording.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checks and balances

You say, CSD does need checks and balances in some form. And it has them. Speedy deletion is only available to admins, i.e. users whose past actions were reviewed during their RFA and found to be trustworthy. Individual errors/abuses are subject to deletion review, and if an admin habitually abuses their power, they can have their admin status revoked. This seems sufficient to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it far from sufficient, personally. The idea that admins are inherently less fallible because of the RFA process is, I think, an extremely optimistic one; admins are human too, and humans make mistakes. This measure won't prevent all the mistakes either. It merely aims to reduce their frequency.

Further, Wikipedia practice should certainly not be based on the idea that admins are infallible, as a little while at WP:DRV quickly teaches.

Having said all that, this is an essay. Accordingly, it represents the opinions of those who cite it. It's not intended as a guideline or a policy. All I hope is that it'll have an impact on custom and practice.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One reason this 'problem' doesn't get addressed so well is that a lot of new pages are created by new users - this makes sense, as the chances are an experienced user has already created all the pages they would know enough to create. These new users don't know anything about wikipedia policies - and (as I was) are willing to believe that it's the Truth when an admin (or anyone else) comes along and says a page should be (for example) speedy deleted as per A7 because it is non-notable. Of course, digging into the policies show explicitly that notability is NOT required to avoid an A7 - merely an assertion (even if a bad one) of importance. I've even pointed this out to admins and had them refuse to acknowledge it. Sometimes you have to fight back pretty hard in order to get wikipedia's actual policy to be followed. (just my thoughts. I appreciate the essay; it's good to see things like that on here) Luminifer (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I like to think of myself as a "not-new" user. But I've got literally hundreds of pages on my waiting list to create. I mean, we're missing several hundred biographies of members of the European parliament, and I'm lucky enough to have been educated in the days when they taught you to speak foreign languages in British schools; and besides, Wikipedia's still missing thousands of encyclopaedic articles. In the recent "no drama" week I wrote three articles on second world war battles; Wikipedia covers the European and Pacific theatres of WW2 fairly well, but our coverage of the Burmese theatre is abysmal.
And I'm hardly unusual in that respect. Wikipedia is full of people who've written literally hundreds of articles.
The new pages patrolling fraternity should not be a problem for me, but I nevertheless find myself tiptoeing round them.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"often"

... is a major help, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 23:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]