UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Restrict multiple deletion attemps of same page

Discussion

I completly disagree with this policy. If I'm not mistaken,... it's precedent that repeated sysop bids (spamming of the sysop bid page, ie, many bids in a relatively short time) is vandalism. I think it would be fair to apply that precedent to other Admin pages. It should be enough to operate on there. -_∞ Poodle of Doom _∞ 04:48, 25 July 2010 (BST)

You edit conflicted me before I even introduced this, sheesh.

Sysop bids are not deletions requests. They completely different animals and to appy a rule made for sysop bids to deletions requests would imo be playing rather fast as loose with the rules. This is very a straightforward policy and I believe a necessary one. --WanYao 04:53, 25 July 2010 (BST)

I apologize for the conflict... I have a habit of not getting involved fast enough, and by the time I do get involved, the conversation is far beyound where my opinion would matter anyway. That said... I think you're wrong. Massive spamming of user talk pages is vandalism. Multiple promotion bids in a short time has been ruled vandalism in the past. The way I see it... there is a huge precedent on this sort of thing. If I keep creating an edit war,... spamming the deletion page with the same page for deletion, what's the difference between that and someones talk page? Or, if adding the same content to another administration page, over a relativly short time is vandalism, why not here? I think the only question is what constitues a short amount of time. -_∞ Poodle of Doom _∞ 05:04, 25 July 2010 (BST)

The policy is, I thought, quite clear and straightforward. The focus of the policy is to deal with incidents where the same page gets brought to deletions repeatedly. Anyone who's participated in the Deletion page has seen this happen time and time again. sometimes the same page comes back every few months! All this does is cause drama and waste everyone's time having to vote Keep again.

The vandalism clause which you're focusing on is peripheral. It's intended to add some "teeth" to the policy but isn't necessary. I personally think it should stay, but if the community disagrees, fair enough. --WanYao 05:09, 25 July 2010 (BST)

And I need to add... the policy is not about ban hammers. If that's all you're focusing on -- and so far you seem to be -- you're missing the point. The policy is intended to streamline an important admin page and to reduce unnecessary drama. And the "short time" which you confusingly refer to is clearly defined by the policy: it's 1 year between votes. Clear and unambiguous. --WanYao 05:12, 25 July 2010 (BST)

As I've stated above, the question is "What constitues to short of a time span?" One year is a hell of a long time. Truth be known,... some votes are to close to be fully decided one way or the other, and I think those pages have a right to be put up multiple times. As for the rest of the pages,... Are they being put up by different users each time? If so, perhaps the pages should be merged someplace instead of being deleted. If it is the same user,... well,... it should be vandalism for spamming. -_∞ Poodle of Doom _∞ 05:14, 25 July 2010 (BST)

le sigh... You're putting me in the position of coming across like an ass because you don't seem to be gettingit. Yes, one year is a hell of long time -- and that's exactly the point! This policy is intended to stop people from putting the same page up for deletion over and over and over again. The policy assumes that if the community has voted Keep on a page, the community has voted Keep. And that vote will stand for a full year. Doing it this way clears up all ambiguity about "relatively short times" and, again, that's exactly the point. Sure, you could apply the spamming the admin page convention to this... but there are some hitches. For one, often the deletion requests are brought by different people. And often they are just far enough apart that a vandal ban becomes highly controversial. This policy is intended to make this whole process crystal clear and simple and drama-free. And... please go back and re-read what I just wrote about the vandal escalation clause and you obsessing on it, thanks. --WanYao 05:24, 25 July 2010 (BST)