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 getting it. 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 therefore we will respect the community's decision and that vote will stand for a full year. Doing it this way clears up all ambiguity about "relatively short times" etc. 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, that makes vandal banning grey. And often the requests are just far enough apart that a vandal ban becomes highly controversial, again, grey. 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)

Bannana Tactics was a close vote,... why should one have to wait a year on it? Why not 3 months? That's equally as fair isn't it? And I doubt that there is really any real drama as to the ambiguity of short time spans, which is what I'm ultimatly getting at. And if this is brought up by different people, then it technically isn't vandalism. that's clear as day. And again, I revert to my previous point: Perhaps it should be merged with something? And I understand what you said about vandal escalations,... it's just that I think it's unneeded for the aforementioned reasons. -_∞ Poodle of Doom _∞ 05:32, 25 July 2010 (BST)

The policy and its rationale is very straightforward. You can disagree with its necessity, that's perfectly legitimate. You've already done that. You can even disagree with the 1 year moratorium and ask for 3 months instead. But I picked a full year to make the policy actually mean something. At this point this "discussion" seems to be getting quite pointless and I'm wondering if you're just trying to stir up drama at this point... I'm tired, now, g'night. --WanYao 05:41, 25 July 2010 (BST)

Could I ask how a period of one year is any more meaningful than a period of three months? -_∞ Poodle of Doom _∞ 06:01, 25 July 2010 (BST)

They both stop one person from spamming the same page every two weeks, but that's not the point. If a page is deemed keep-worthy, then there should be no question about whether or not it should be kept. The page, as it stood at the time of the first deletion attempt, is good enough. The only reason we should bother even considering deleting it is after the community has had time to edit it. And since requiring a page to be edited first is asking for exploitation (change one letter and call it a revamp), time is the only way to fairly measure how much a page has changed from the version that has been agreed to be keep-worthy. And on any wiki, a page doesn't change very fast (16.48 edits per page so far). In three months, there's usually little to no change to a page. To try to delete it would be like asking someone their name every day, to make sure it doesn't change without you knowing it. A year is (barely) enough time for a page to actually change a bit, so a deletion attempt might actually have different results. --VVV ^RPGMBCWS 07:38, 25 July 2010 (BST)

Quick Question

WanYao said:

hell yeah. and if you need to get you policy jollies for the week, why not make a policy against putting the same pages up for deletion over and over again? that'd actually be useful --WanYao 04:25, 25 July 2010 (BST) .

Why is it that you seem to make fun of it one minute, and write the policy the next? -_∞ Poodle of Doom _∞ 05:27, 25 July 2010 (BST)

Are you dense? Or just trying to feel important? Yes, I cracked a joke. Then I decided to actually write the policy. Because I meant what I said when I agreed with honestmistake.

Anyway, you wanna drop the pointless ad hominems, stop trying to create drama and discuss the policy? Are you capable of that??? Or are you trying to create problems? --WanYao 05:31, 25 July 2010 (BST)

I wouldn't say I'm the dense one here. To be honest, I just don't understand why you think that this written policy is so much better than the precedent that seems to work on the same thing. Do you honestly and truly believe this is necessary? -_∞ Poodle of Doom _∞ 05:38, 25 July 2010 (BST)

Get off the internet. Take a walk, the excercise will do you good. Do you think I'd propose a policy which I didn't think was a good idea? I think you are just trying to cause trouble now. --WanYao 05:42, 25 July 2010 (BST)

Honestly, I do not understand why you would rather take the time to write a policy, take it to a discussion, revise it, make sure there's no additional responses after that point, take it to a vote to make sure that all the same people approve of the same thing you just worked out in a discussion; and in the mean time, be in limbo about what you should be doing about the repeated addition of the same page to the deletion pages,... when you can just count on the system (that isn't really broken) to work as it always has with the same precedent you've always had. It seems to be such a labor intense thing for so little, especially when it would appear that the policy has remained unspoken, and unneeded. And all this is coming from someone who's made a joke of the policy he's just proposed. But I digress,... Call me a doubting Thomas if you will,... but I'd be willing to give you the benifit of the doubt in this matter,... I have one simple request. Could you pick three events where this would of made any real, and noticeable difference, and point out exactly how? -_∞ Poodle of Doom _∞ 06:00, 25 July 2010 (BST)

Meh

1. This is redundant. Genuine spamming has always been dealt with via A/VB (eg), all this will do is add another (unneeded) layer of bureaucracy. To be blunt, if someone's spamming any of the admin pages, the correct course of action is to take them to A/VB.
2. A year is far too long. Many active members on the wiki now have been here for under a year, and older wiki users can't be expected to keep tabs on pages that have been up for deletion.
3. This is unneeded. I haven't seen an example of spamming A/D that warrants vandal banning in my time. I can't comment on Slaves of the Mistress, but the current case was two months after the first case (hardly "spamming") and my initial goal was to clear up uncertainty regarding the page's status (as it was not certain if it should be kept or deleted, given that it was not certain if Wan had voted keep or abstained from voting.)

That said, I could see some use for this if it was over much shorter periods of time. Now, it's simply unneeded red tape. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:37, 25 July 2010 (BST)

Another Gem by Poodle sorry pod

1. Pages change on UDWiki and even though it's the same page that was kept within the 1 year limit, it might be deletion worthy the second time. At the moment the policy makes no effort to take this into account.
2. It's already vandalism if deletion requests are misused.
3. I know you're a garbage speller but could you at least make the effort to spell the policy page name correctly next time.

--

 

 

 

 

07:47, 25 July 2010 (BST)

Wow! Wanyao wrote this? Damn, I assumed it was Poodle who made this up, wtf is wrong with me? Apologies Poodle.

Having said that, I haven't actually read anything above this header, just throwing my opinions here. --

 

 

 

 

07:51, 25 July 2010 (BST)

I was staring at confusion at your header, too. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:52, 25 July 2010 (BST)