Jump to content

Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal VIII (Procedure)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ShaneKing (talk | contribs) at 01:41, 4 January 2005 (disagree). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Proposal VIII (Procedure)

(Vote) (Discuss)

The following should be added to the lead (or other appropriate section) of Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion:

Interpretation of these guidelines is very often subjective, and sometimes controversial, especially when an article's deletion could be later contested. In order to avoid most problems, every deletion of a page under these cases must be the result of a request made by a user other than the deleting admin ("tag and bag"). The most common way this can be achieved is for one editor to add the {{delete}} template to the page. Whatever the method, the request must be documented before deletion on either the article itself or its talk page. The only exceptions are:
  1. undisputed vandalism or test pages/gibberish
  2. an admin's own user space subpages
  3. the admin is the sole editor

Votes

Agree

  1. A simple solution to avoid problems, it is done very often today already. Probably will make expansion of CSD's more acceptable because of the safeguard. -- Netoholic @ 00:06, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  2. Smoddy | Talk 00:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ld | talk 00:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Xtra 00:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. ugen64 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. TwoOneTwo 00:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Carnildo 02:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Sc147 03:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. gadfium 05:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. Not everyone wants "safeguards". Wonder why?Dr Zen 05:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. Can't hurt. It doesn't infringe upon getting rid of "fggfthgrhthj" with ease, and it ensures better decisions in the event of a dubious speedy candidate. --Slowking Man 07:46, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Jeff Knaggs
  13. Skysmith 09:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  14. Sensible safeguard; will help check over-zealous admins. Dan100 19:37, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  15. hfool/Wazzup? 23:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC). If I were an admin, I'd follow this rule even if it wasn't passed here!
  16. BSveen 00:41, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Gentgeen 11:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  18. Tompagenet 13:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  19. – Quadell (talk) (help) 14:41, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  20. Keith D. Tyler [flame] 21:00, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) More eyes are always good.

Disagree

  1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 00:07, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ground 00:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. max rspct 00.29 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 00:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  7. Chris 73 Talk 01:04, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  8. MarkSweep 01:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Vamp:Willow 01:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. The first exception bothers me as people declare things as obvious "vandalism" too commonly and others don't feel that level of herecy dispute. It's become the Wikipedia equivalent of Godwin's law.--Sketchee 01:44, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  11. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 02:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  12. Rje 02:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  13. Peter O. (Talk) 02:52, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Ral315 03:21, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Ливай | ☺ 03:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  16. Adam Bishop 04:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  17. DJ Clayworth 05:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  18. Ben Brockert 05:56, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Korath (Talk) 06:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  20. iMeowbot~Mw 08:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  21. If we can't trust an individual admin's judgement on criteria as clear as these, they shouldn't be an admin. RadicalSubversiv E 09:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  22. David Johnson [T|C] 13:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  23. Dori | Talk 14:34, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  24. Tuf-Kat 14:41, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  26. Jrdioko (Talk) 17:51, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  27. Phils 18:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  28. RickK 21:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC). Too contentious, infringes on the Good Will espectations of Admins.
  29. Thue | talk 21:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  30. gK ¿? 03:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  31. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 03:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  32. Frazzydee|✍ 04:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC): Agree with User:Radicalsubversiv
  33. Ambi 05:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  34. —Charles P. (Mirv) 07:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  35. jni 10:09, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  36. Ryan! | Talk 10:55, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  37. Xezbeth 11:36, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  38. This would make things more complicated, not less. Gamaliel 13:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  39. G Rutter 17:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  40. Proteus (Talk) 17:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  41. I can't see this helping matters - it would slow down the process of getting rid of rubbish and if admins are unable to follow the simple guidelines laid out on WP:CSD then they shouldn't be admins. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 20:18, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  42. Shane King 01:41, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) Me thinks that the speedy in speedy deletion has passed this proposal by.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposal_to_expand_WP:CSD/Proposal_VIII_(Procedure)&oldid=9099726"