User:S Marshall/Essay2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

UninvitedCompany said here:

CSD use is expanding rapidly, mainly because it's so much easier than WP:AFD and so much quicker than WP:PROD. This is a good thing, but CSD does need checks and balances in some form. The question is, what form should the checks and balances take? There is precedent.

WP:PROD says:

This essay says "As a general rule" for a good reason. There will be times when disruptive or promotional edits can be uncontroversially removed irrespective of essays or indeed guidelines. Never follow a rule off a cliff.

Users citing this essay believe that as a general rule, there should be some separation between the tagger and the deleter. In other words, for most deletions, there should normally be at least two pairs of eyes on the article.

However, an exception should certainly be made for content that is, or could be, harmful to Wikipedia or to a living person. So in terms of the CSD criteria, users citing this essay hold that those coloured red in the following chart could often be deletable with only a single pair of eyes, those in yellow sometimes, and the others only under exceptional circumstances.

CSD Criterion Potential harm to Wikipedia One-pair-of-eyes speedy
G1 No No
G2 No No
G3 Perhaps In cases of direct harm
G4 Perhaps In cases of direct harm
G5 Perhaps In cases of direct harm
G6 No No
G7 No Yes (only applies to admins deleting their own contributions)
G8 No No
G9 N/A N/A (not a matter for us)
G10 Yes Yes
G11 No No
G12 Yes Yes
A1 No No
A2 No No
A3 No No
A5 No No
A7 No No
A9 No No
R2 No No
R3 No No
F1 No No
F2 No No
F3 Perhaps In cases of direct harm
F4 Perhaps In cases of direct harm
F5 No No
F6 No No
F7 Yes Yes
F8 No No
F9 Yes Yes
F10 No No
F11 No No
C1 No No
C2 No No
U1 No Yes (only applies to admins deleting content from their own userspace)
U2 No No
U3 Perhaps In cases of direct harm
P1 Varies Varies
P2 No No