Wikipedia:Managed Deletion/Voting

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Section I: Early Deletion: No.[edit]

  1. Netoholic @ 01:10, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC) -- Any process which makes the decision-making process only available to sysops goes clearly against the maxim that "Sysops are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility." A sysop is only there to perform the technical function of deletion, as directed by consensus among all editors.
  2. Sysop-only voting is bad. I'd prefer to widen the speedy deletion process. Snowspinner 02:00, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  3. I'd rather not give admins special authority, however I wouldn't mind seeing a couple more reasons for speedy deletion (blatant adverts, for example). As a counter-proposal, how about making quick-delete an option for VfD? A page that got a certain number of votes (let's say... 10) for quick-delete and none to keep could be deleted within a few hours. A mixture of deletes and quick-deletes would get it deleted in two or three days instead of the usual five. -- Zwilson 04:03, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. 04:05, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)
  5. This is more nonsense policy; rubbish is effectively zapped by admins atm; stuff which requires consideration goes to vfd. This will only add more complexity to an already bloated gut of policy. Sjc 04:09, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Gentgeen 04:40, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. I'm convinced by the arguements above; I'd suggest solving some of the problem this is supposed to address by expanding the Speedy Delete to include the Clear Advertising, Obvious Vanity, Propagation of Hoaxes, and Clear and Unambigious Political Speech catigories, with the proviso to check in such cases for vandalism. -Luc "Somethingorother" French 06:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Sysop-only voting is inappropriate. RickK 06:13, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  9. I originally supported this, but I think it would be far better to simply expand the speedy deletion policy along the lines of Lubaf's suggestion. Ambi 13:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  10. If anything expand speedy delete. Rmhermen 17:54, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Oppose for "sysop only" reasons, and because this will certianly cause added confusion and instruction creep. —siroχo
  12. Undemocratic. Speedy delete expansion preferable. Jwrosenzweig 21:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  13. Yes: rather than yet another category of deletions with its own high-volume page, expand the scope of speedy deletion. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:34, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  14. Guanaco 05:54, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) The reason sysops are allowed to delete candidates for speedy deletion without discussion is that the candidates are complete junk, and the consensus is that there are no circumstances in which something that meets those criteria should be kept (with the exception of articles deleted because they were created by banned users). Anything else should be discussed by the Wikipedia community at large, either on an individual basis or by expanding the candidates for speedy deletion. This proposal contradicts long-standing Wikipedia tradition and would give a deletion cabal too much control.
  15. On further reflection I think adding vanity pages to CSD will solve the problem more simply than this proposal. Vanity, to me, seems to be the most difficult problem now with new pages. - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 06:37, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
  16. Absolutely not. This policy would effectively give admins superiority over normal users. They would decide what stays and what goes. This is rather tinfoil-hatish, but consider that an administrator dislikes an article. He or she could list it, get a few other admins to vote delete on it, and bada-bing, bada-boom, it's gone. Admins are community enforcers, not soverign arbitrators of content (except for that which falls obviously outside of Wikipedia's scope and policies). --Slowking Man 08:10, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
  17. Oppose administrator only in early deletion. I have nothing against allowed articles to be deleted and removed from the standard VfD process early however, if 48 hours have passed with only 'Delete' votes. Darksun 10:40, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. More complex than it needs to be, and administrator-only voting is probably not a good idea. Let me try to come up with an alternative. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:45, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  19. I don't agree with deleting substubs. Also, what guarantees that the process isn't used for other articles? Three administrators is so small amount of people. What if the rest of the administrators would like to keep the article? Wikipedia mirrors shouldn't gather up the articles that have VfD tag. Alternatively they should keep the tag on the page. -Hapsiainen 16:48, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
  20. Admins should not have special authoratah! --[[User:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason| ]] [[User:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason/|Ævar]] [[User talk:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason/|Arnfjör<eth>]] talk:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason|action=edit&section=new}} Bjarmason [[User:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason/| ]] 17:52, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)
  21. [[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 21:04, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC) SO much for the collaborative community concept.
  22. Sysops should not have special privileges. Nadavspi 21:08, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. Unnecessarily complicated and confusing, gives sysops too much power. Something better could be thought of I'm sure.--TexasDex 00:21, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  24. Too much policy. Instead, allow a quick-delete if voting on VfD is going unanimously past some threshold. --Delirium 00:56, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. Contrary to wikipedia principles. ElBenevolente 06:53, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  26. Oppose. Better idea: If a VfD gets unanimous delete with at least n votes in the first m hours, it's deleted before the deadline, and is moved to a requests for undeletion page to be discussed further. -- Gerritholl 12:19, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  27. I'm against this. Too undemocratic. It's great to delete an article within a few days and that should do it. How often do you expect us to login to Wikipedia ? --GillianAnderson 12:40, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  28. I would reverse the logic, although I agree that admins should be granted more rights, it should be only to allow them to filter trigger-happy deletionists (on a 3 admins consensus), which would leave them with only two options "VfD" and "keep". --Pgreenfinch 16:26, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  29. A problem exists but this isn't the solution. Like so many others, though, I would be in favor of a "once something gets X votes and Y% decide to delete over Z days, it's deleted" on VfD, though. That still doesn't fix the issue with VfD being too big, though. CryptoDerk 21:32, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  30. Maybe VfD needs reform, but I'm wary of giving sysops more deletion power, even if I am one. –Andre (talk) 22:16, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  31. Lots of good ideas above and on the Talk pages. I think three votes is too few, but with a larger number there should be no need to restrict to sysops. I trust the recent discussions will lead to a much better proposal. Robin Patterson 22:30, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  32. No. --L$T27 23:38, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  33. No. This proposal is too complex, and sysop-only voting is un-Wiki. However, the idea of allowing a middle tier between delete-on-sight and full VfD is a good idea, which we should explore further. Perhaps a 24 hour discussion period, or 75% majority with ten votes from bona-fide users? -- The Anome
  34. I would prefer something like what the Anome suggests: allow quick-deletion of obvious cases, but within the standard VfD page. A simple comment of "any objections to quick-deletion?" would be sufficient as far as I'm concerned, as long as no-one subsequently objects. Isomorphic 15:26, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  35. It sounds like what we need is another tier but not one that is admin-exclusive. Cavebear42 22:15, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  36. Expand the speedy deletion criteria, as discussed above. Postdlf 22:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  37. "early" as a vote in VfD works for me. --Jpgordon 04:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  38. Admin-only voting is probably not a good approach (Note: I am a Admin). I would much rather use The Anome's approach to delete on VfD before the deadline if there seems to be consensus -- Chris 73 Talk 06:16, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
  39. We need a way to speedy delete entries on VFD that are obviously speedies and receive no "keep" votes, that is practical, lessens the burden on the enormous VFD page, but doesn't complicate the process. -- Solitude 13:44, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
  40. a) Worried by admin-only element as undemocratic. b) Substubs on valid topics should be kept. Broaden the remit of speedy deletions and fast-track unopposed VfD items instead. Filiocht 15:08, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  41. I'd rather expand speedy - I never use VFD now for the reasons given jimfbleak 15:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  42. The first two problems could be solved very simply. Just replace the page with a template like the one for copyright disputes and then lock the page. The discussion could continue just like in VfD. The remaining points can be solved by making the deletion process for managed deletion 1-2 days shorter than VfD. Stuff listed here would be more likely to be deleted anyways, so the process shouldn't take as long. This proposal concentrates power too much for what it claims we will gain. The two points that I've made would still solve the problems, but leave the voting open to everyone. --Aqua 23:53, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
  43. No. Too complicated. I'd prefer expanded speedy deletion, possibly with a comment period for the less obvious/less blatent cases. Triona 00:31, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  44. NO. Simply expand the speedy deletion category to include obvious hoaxes, etc. VfD is fine as is. --zenohockey 03:08, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  45. No, there is far too much deletion already. I would support a proposal to make it more difficult to deletion material. The Recycling Troll 03:55, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  46. Goldilocks would have loved Early Deletion (this delete policy is too slow! this delete policy is too fast! this delete policy is just right!). But why do we care what Goldilocks thinks? I'm with the bears -- let's run this thing down and kill it. It's not necessary, especially if we loosen up speedy delete policy somewhat. technopilgrim 22:17, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  47. Expand Speedy.--MaxMad 11:18, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  48. Contradicts Wikipedia spirit. Expanding Speedy deletion looks more appropriate to me. -- mz 13:28, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  49. Another objection to sysop-only, and support for an option to delete early from VfD and/or expand speedy criteria. Mindspillage 16:51, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  50. Sysops deserve less power, not more. [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 00:01, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  51. I acknowledge there is a problem to be resolved, but I'm not convinced speeding up certain VfDs and making them sysop-only is the way to go... - Mark 01:43, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  52. I go for the speedy delete option. AmyNelson 15:59, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  53. Triskaideka With considerable reluctance, I've finally decided to vote against this policy. I trust sysops with the extra responsibility, but ultimately I think this proposal would add more bureaucracy and complexity, which we should strive to avoid. I would rather see the Speedy Deletion criteria expanded, and it looks like there's significant support for that.
  54. Enchanter We don't need these deletion options. If bad content added to Wikipedia, anyone should be able to remove it immediately, and not have to sit around voting on it days. The root of the problem of bad information finding its way onto mirrors is not that we are not deleting articles quickly enough, but that the requirement to leave content in an article while it is listed on VFD prevents bad information from being removed immediately. Permitting all users to remove all the text from bad articles (i.e. preserving the history) would be a better solution to the deletion problem.
  55. VfD is too long, but sysop only voting is not the way to go. -- Scott Burley 21:29, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
    I'd support this if it weren't for the sysop-only requirement. --Goobergunch 23:18, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  56. Obviously something needs to be done, but I don't see why it needs involve yet another separate process. Some of the simpler suggestions above seem worth giving a try. RadicalSubversiv E 01:43, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  57. Sempron 04:10, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  58. Mikkalai 08:18, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC). See a sketch of an alternative proposal:Wikipedia_talk:Managed_Deletion#Alternative_proposal:_Quarantine
  59. Barnaby 11:56, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC). No but I like this new proposal. And i've done some more work on this alternative proposal. Could do with more people contributing to this new idea.
  60. anthony (see warning) 12:18, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  61. No! A reasonable idea would be adding new pages for "Advertising for deletion", "Vanity for deletion", etc, where anyone can vote, but the listings are for 72 hours. If at least 75% of the votes agree with the deletion at the end of the 72 hours, it shall be deleted, otherwise, it shall be moved to the VfD. Bogdan | Talk 23:05, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  62. Against for the sysop thing. Expanding speedy deletion seems like the better idea...or speeding up VfD maybe. But I prefer the former. --Billfred 23:41, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  63. Sarge Baldy 01:25, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
  64. I don't support the idea that only sysops make certain editorial decision. I really like this idea, much much better than VfD. -- Taku 05:15, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
  65. No! Oppose increased powers for sysops and increased ease for deletion. Deletion should be made more difficult, and people encouraged to use blanking, editing or redirecting in all but extreme cases. Sysops should not be imbued with more authority. Mark Richards 22:49, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  66. No. Problem resolution and escalation are already far too complex. Let's count: VFD, speedy delete, RFC, RFM, RFAR, PR, Cleanup, Current surveys, PNA, and the pump for good measure. We already have ten avenues for dealing with various content and user problems. The last thing we need is yet another specialized problem resolution page. Rhobite 01:42, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
  67. Agree with Rhobite, and think "sysop only" is a bit scary. Moriori 02:06, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
  68. No. This adds bureaucracy, which is bad. I think instead of going through all of this, we should just propose expanding the speedy deletion guidelines to include more scenarios (dicdefs, large globs of unwikified copy-and-paste mess). blankfaze | (беседа!) 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  69. This seems like it might add greater possibility for abuse. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 09:01, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  70. No. LegCircus 18:32, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
  71. No.
  72. No. Quarantine proposal solves problem of search engines and solves time problem and solves sysop-only problem. Fg2 02:08, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  73. No. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 22:07, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  74. No. This sounds like a horrible idea, to be frank. Factitious 23:55, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  75. no. anti-sysop-only posiduck 23:55, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  76. No, because I'm against the sysop-only provision. Rickyrab 00:06, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  77. No more rules. The Recycling Troll 06:21, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  78. No. Popsracer 13:40, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  79. No. older≠wiser 17:11, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  80. No. DarkStar 08:12, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  81. No. Will make the policy surrounding deletion more complicated. Too many deletion categories might discourage contributions from people who don't fully understand the various deletion categories. Do not agree that it should be administrators only. I might be able to support something that proposed early deletion of VfD articles if they achieved a certain level of votes. MarkS 06:13, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  82. No. --Dittaeva 14:52, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  83. No. For various reasons mentioned by others and the availablity of better alternatives. - RedWordSmith 18:44, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  84. No. Sean Curtin 23:35, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  85. It just adds another level of bureaucracy Eclecticology 18:15, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Managed_Deletion/Voting&oldid=1138542291"