UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Alter Speedydelete Treatment of Group Pages

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Exempting Group Pages

I think that Group Pages should be exempt from being speedy deleted unless they are being put up by the users who actually maintain the page. Speedydelete is just too quick, and those who don't often edit their pages are just the ones that wont know how to find the undeletions page.

They should be sent to be voted on in the deletions page, and the deletions template placed on them, at least then those who are active in-game, but not on the wiki, have a good chance of being stopped from being deleted by wiki users who know they're still playing -- boxy T L PA DA 06:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the perfect kind of things to take to M/PD--you can get other users to hash out the idea then bring it to a vote. Ain't bureaucracy grand? Personally, if you're talking about crit twelve, I think that the conditions are plenty narrow that if the group is still active anywhere at all they won't meet it. But then again, AH managed to get made historical even though they're still running around kicking Zack's ass, so who knows?--'STER-Talk-ModP! 16:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I hate to disagree with you, 'STER, but in the past week I've seen several active groups get their pages deleted under Crit 12; some were undeleted when members noticed and objected, some haven't been undeleted yet. One example was the Malton Marshals, who will never show up on the stats page because their members' profiles all read Malton Police Department. I'm surprised they didn't s/d MFU too, for the same reasons. There are a lot of people who play the game and maybe run a forum or whatever to coordinate their small group, but don't spend much time on the wiki for whatever reason.
You've got a good idea, Boxy. Start a policy discussion and let's gabble it out. -- Atticus Rex mfu pif Δ 18:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
This isn't a good idea. Group pages would never be deleted.--Gage 23:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The above is moved from the speedy delete talk page -- boxy T L PA DA 05:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. A while ago I saw on of our allies have their page deleted, their re-directs, and a perhaps a few associated pages, without them even having been alerted of what was going on. I've vote keep "as is". -Certified=Insane☭Québécois 22:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam

This would spam M/D like no other, and how do you define "significant content" anyway?--Gage 05:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Something that someone has put a lot of effort into, over an extended period -- boxy T L PA DA 05:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not spam, its (arguably) exactly what M/D was designed for. -- Atticus Rex mfu pif Δ 10:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I think its more that in its CURRENT form it would spam M/D, because of the vaugeness of the terms used. I suggest you list specific limitations on what you're trying to suggest this policy does. Perhaps specific time frames? --MorthBabid 05:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd say if they don't meet any of the other criteia for M/SD, then they should be voted on, but to be truthful, I'd just be happy if there was a "cooling off period" for group deletions really. Even if it was only a couple of days, to give more people a chance to say, "hey, I killed one of those guys not long back, let's give leave them for a bit" or "those guys were one of the first hordes to take on Caiger... got trounced, but they gave it a shot", or even "bugger off, we're still about!" :) A month is to short I think, should at least be 6 month without an edit -- boxy T L PA DA 07:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Then what you're really suggesting isn't really "Group Page Exemption", which I agree with Gage WOULD slow down and spam the process. It sounds more and more like what you want is a set and mass approved guideline for how long it takes for a page to be offically declared "dead", and what to do when that occurs to allow for potential Historical votes or simple deletion. Perhaps in terms of group pages the mods could put a template on the page warning that the page is an "x" period of time away from being speedy deleted as of "x" date, giving folks a chance to react?--MorthBabid 18:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that would work. Maybe a policy that states that group pages have to remain in the Speedy Delete Queue for a few days (up to a week I guess) before being deleted to give a chance to save them with a keep vote. It's an even better option than them having to go through M/D, because one vote should be able to save them from being discarded (unless there's another issue worthy of deletion rather than just inactivity). If I want to change this policy in this way, does it mean I have to abanndon this one and start again? It doesn't really fit my policy title (I'd rather use this one) -- boxy T L PA DA 00:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Just A Few Deleted Groups

These are just a few that got undeleted in the last couple of weeks. Fedaykin, Malton Marshals, IZONE, Disciples of Zeko... The 51 Drunkards, and I'll just quote what was said about it below (dunno if it's the way you're supposed to quote someone here, but here goes) -- boxy T L PA DA 05:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, conn not only deleted mine and several other groups that were listed for speedy deleetions, but he also deleted every images associated with these groups. While, yeah, it seams logical that we should delete this unused images, what if the page is undeleted ? Look at my group now, it had a cool picture that i took from the Modern Drunkard Magazine, and that i cant recover now :\ My group now looks all shitty with that groupbox whitout a picture... And that would have happened with any other group... The Mongolian Horde page was deleted a few weeks ago, later undeleted. Luckily the one who deleted the page didnt delelted the images also, or else the mongolians horde page would have lost a lot of it charm. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 04:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Well maybe if that is the case it is better to change/create a policy so you have to request an image to be deleted as opposed to it being automatic. Either that or change it so images on a group page are given a 2 week limit before deleted. Pillsy FT 23:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you realize how many images are uploaded to the wiki everyday?--Gage 05:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Probably just as many as there are groups/pages that get created? But your point is more of the quality/proper useage of those graphics, I would think. In that case, its more an issue of trying to pin down a specific timeframe/use amount rather than a large and vauge guideline for nerfing mod powers...right? --MorthBabid 06:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm good point Gage, never really thought of that. Well after reading Xoids comments I think that would be the best way forward. Pillsy FT 09:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Delete View

If a group is really an active group with significant numbers, activity on the Wiki page shouldn't be a problem. IF the creator of a group wants to avoid having it deleted he/she should put it under a sub-level of their user-namespace and that will stop it frome being deleted altogeather. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 22:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The wiki isn't just for groups with significant numbers and with active wiki users. It's for info on the game. Even if a group is small, and doesn't update their wiki page, I still would like to be able to find their group page to know what they're about, who they're allies with, whether they're PKer, GKers, locals or whatever. I've been watching groups being deleted for a while, but then I saw Dante's Guard deleted the other day, within 90 minutes of being nominated. It hadn't been edited since August, but I've run in to them in Pescodside quite a few times since then. I don't know how to contact them (because their wiki page with that info is gone without notice) to see if they're still about or not, so meh, it's just gone. I guess it doesn't matter to the members of the mega groups... I guess it doesn't matter much in the whole scheme of things... but if this wiki is supposed to provide info who you may come across in game, then it's deleting a lot of useful info without any warning on the say so of just two people (one nominator and one mod) who may never have know anything about what they're deleting. I take your point about moving seldom updated group pages to user namespace though, it's a good loophole that I may just use, but not likely to be used by infrequent wiki'ers, which is the point of this. -- boxy T L PA DA 03:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I know the Brahma Zambahz! were deleted without me even knowing. I am around the wiki ever so often, and yet the group doesn't need to update the page since they don't use it for planning. The current rulings assume that all groups are large (and many boast small but effective numbers) or they are using the wiki as their primary source of announcements or planning.--Agent White W!•SGP•CMS-Meta•CMS 00:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Should there even be a Crit 12?

I understand the rationale behind removing defunct group pages, especially now. But when 35 groups have their pages annihilated 15 minutes after they were nominated (as recently happened here), no one has time to register a Keep vote. I doubt that the members of any of those groups--assuming any happened to be on the wiki during those 15 minutes--had any idea that their pages were being nominated; even assuming the nominator placed {{speedydelete}} on each of those 35 pages, it wasn't on there long wnough to give anyone notuce unless they just happened to be there within that window of 15 minutes or less. I doubt, at an average of less than 30 seconds per deletion, that the moderators who served the requests had the time to really examine what they were about to delete and consider whether they should be deleting it; do you think, in less than 30 seconds apiece, that the moderator double-checked the edit logs and stats pages for each of those 35 pages, or is it possible that they just accepted the nominator's assertion that each page met Crit 12? Understand, I'm not knocking the moderators for staying on top of the queue at M/SD; quite the opposite, I like the fact that SD requests are promptly served (and occasionally wish that M/MR received the same level of attention). That's why I don't think group pages should be put up on M/SD, unless they meet one of the other SD criteria.
Don't believe group pages are being wrongly deleted? Take a glance through the Crit 12 nominations in the SD archives and look how many group page links are blue again. Every one of those means that either the moderator realized the page should not be deleted (because it's active or because it's potentially historical) or someone requested an undeletion because the page should not have been huffed in the first place. Every blue link is therefore an indictment of Crit 12.
On the subject of undeletion, M/U is a solution, but not a complete solution. First, as the quote from hagnat above shows, groups whose pages are deleted can lose their images too, and those aren't undeletable. Second, pages that are deleted vanish from watchlists, and undeleting a page doesn't restore it to a watchlist. I don't know about anyone else, but I use my watchlist to help make sure pages I care about don't get vandalised, as happened to my little human group's page yesterday. Take that a step further and suppose that someone posts a huge list of Crit 12s and includes in the midst a group that he knows damn well doesn't qualify for deletion, but he's counting on the mods taking action before they double-check; now the group members' watchlists won't warn them of such ultimate vandalism, because the page isn't even on their watchlists anymore. Third, this cycle of SDs and undeletes has the net effect of making more unnecessary work for the moderators. Finally, though, yeah, if my group's page gets huffed, I can request an undelete--but why the fuck should I have to? This wiki, IMO, has enough of a reputational problem without people logging in and finding that their work's been summarily deleted because they didn't make an edit on time.
If, as Gage sagely observed, getting rid of Crit 12 would result in too much going on on M/D to keep up with, why not keep group page deletions on a separate page, with criteria that may differ slightly from deletion criteria (e.g., a longer or shorter time for voting, a different ratio of keeps to kills, etc.)? Or--and this is just a brainflash--what about combining the group page deletion process with the historical group selection process? Inactive groups go up and are either voted historical or deleted by the will of the community.
Bottom line: due process requires adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. 15 minutes on M/SD between nomination and obliteration necessarily does not provide either. I therefore believe that Crit 12 should not exist. -- Atticus Rex mfu pif Δ 05:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Criterion 12 is fine. Mods need to be more careful in their deleting pages.--Gage 05:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps its more that we do need to clarify exactly HOW the mods AREN'T being careful, and then from there produce a very specific set of guidelines that doesn't make this a problem. I've been surprised at the number of pages that get nerfed without having the chance to even get a historical vote done on them. --MorthBabid 05:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Mods taking more care doesn't solve the problem. If your character doesn't interact with the group in question, maybe they're localized to a specific area in Malton that you don't frequent, you as a mod would have no idea that the group was active. You need more than two people involved in the delete decision, and you need to give these groups notice and an opportunity to be heard. -- Atticus Rex mfu pif Δ 06:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Going back through the archive, I see that Malton Science Group was nuked. We couldn't really avoid that one. I caught myself the Malton DEA, but the Malton Marshals got deleted by Thari. That one was pretty bad. The real problem is the images though. A policy however, is not needed to fix this. Just don't delete images for a few days to a week after one of these huge group purges occurs. It is as simple as that. They can go through M/U that way and get their page undeleted. --Gage 06:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Kevan? Are you watching? Update to MediaWiki 1.8.x+. If he did that, no more problems with images going bye-byes; with 1.8.x+, images can be undeleted just as pages are. –Xoid M•T•FU! 09:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Should there be a Crit. 12? No, just look at the other 11, and compare it to 12... -- boxy T L PA DA 07:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. No Content:
  2. Off-Topic:
  3. Unused Redirect:
  4. Empty Category:
  5. Missed Talk Page: of a page that doesn't exist.
  6. Deletion Workaround:
  7. Author Edit Only: requested by the original author.
  8. User Page: requested by the original author.
  9. Personal Page (Prefix Rule): page in the wrong place.
  10. Unused Template:
  11. Non-existent User Page: a user that doesn't exist
  12. Defunct group page:
They're all pages that are either empty, or are in the wrong place, or have already been deleted. If group pages are in the right place, filled with relevant content, then they're an asset to the game. All the other criteria are fairly easy to determine by any mod, but whether a group page is still relevant can not be determined by two people alone -- boxy T L PA DA 07:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If anyone cares, here's my take on the issue. Make it part of the policy if you so choose.

  1. Remove Crit 12 from speedy.
  2. When a group goes up for deletion on the regular deletion page, the first thing to be done is send some sort of message to the creator of the group page, asking if they're still active.
  3. Post the result of that message on the deletion queue. If there's no answer within, let's say, a week, say so. That should be enough by itself to assume inactivity.
  4. If no, vote as normal. If yes, remove from queue.

That's just what I thought of. I realize it would be hard to get ahold of all group creators, but if they really care enough to create a group, nine out of ten will watch their talk pages for messages. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 07:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I noted the Brahma Zambahz were gone, despite NEVER seeing a warning or a template on our page. Found out when I went to update it.--Agent White W!•SGP•CMS-Meta•CMS 22:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Then make mention of it on M/U if you want it back. –Xoid M•T•FU! 04:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Seen M/U recently? But not the point, it was an example of a problem.--Agent White W!•SGP•CMS-Meta•CMS 02:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

My take on this

  1. Boxy's point about it being difficult for newbies to figure out how to undelete stuff - there is a nice lil' box on the front page with the link to undeletions. If it's that hard for someone to read the front page, I'm sorry, but you're too stupid to deserve air, much less a page.
  2. Images - an understandable concern, and one I'm more than willing to compromise on. I would like to see MediaWiki 1.8.x installed regardless; that way even mistakes can be reversed with a minimum of fuss.
  3. Carefulness - I don't know what happened to M/SD, but it seems with my near-inactivity and Hammero's departure that the level of care taken with pages there is now next to non-existant. That is bad, seriously bad.
    When I deleted pages? Sure, it may've seemed like I nuked fifty of them one after the other, but I didn't. I loaded all of them in tabs, I checked the history and whatlinkshere. I checked the talk page, and its whatlinkshere. I checked the pages that show up on both whatlinksheres to verify if something is likely to be missed. I closed the tabs for pages that are likely to be missed and I was left with chaff. That stuff got nuked; the rest stayed. Were Hammero, Cyberbob and I the last batch of the moderators who could process fifty or so pages and actually do a good job at it? The current generation needs to pick up their act.
  4. Criterion 12 - no longer a necessity. Most of the chaff has been diligently destroyed (albeit, along with plenty that shouldn't have been). I'm willing to see it go; what's left can pass through M/D. If important stuff still ends up deleted there, then tough; a democracy is only as good as its voters.

–Xoid M•T•FU! 09:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Is a month's inactivity long enough

I think it needs more than a month of inactivity for a group page to become eligible for speedy delete under Crit 12, at least double it, maybe more -- boxy T L PA DA 00:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised your mentioning lengthening the period. Weren't you interested in scrapping criterion 12? I know that there certainly hasn't been that much complaint about scrapping it so far, and you're highly likely to get enough votes on your side; especially if some of the regulars (e.g., myself) vote in favour of it. –Xoid M•T•FU! 04:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, the discussion with MorthBabid up in the Spam section made me think that it may be better to just modify, rather than scrap Crit. 12... I'll quote my last entry there "Yeah, that would work. Maybe a policy that states that group pages have to remain in the Speedy Delete Queue for a few days (up to a week I guess) before being deleted to give a chance to save them with a keep vote. It's an even better option than them having to go through M/D, because one vote should be able to save them from being discarded (unless there's another issue worthy of deletion rather than just inactivity). If I want to change this policy in this way, does it mean I have to abanndon this one and start again? It doesn't really fit my policy title (I'd rather use this one)" -- boxy T L PA DA 06:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
No, you can keep this one. Want to rename it? Just say where you want it moved to, or make a request on M/MR if you'd prefer. –Xoid M•T•FU! 18:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, how about moving it to UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Update Speedydelete Treatment of Group Pages, I shoulda been a bit more vague in my description to start with, eh :). I'll put it in M/MR too -- boxy T L PA DA 05:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Ended up having to move it here instead, due to MediaWiki whining. Not a lot I can do about that, I'm afraid. –Xoid M•T•FU! 12:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Here will do just as well :) -- boxy T L PA DA 02:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Update or Die

To those saying "they don't care if they don't update every month", that's OK for groups that have updateable info on their pages (like PK lists), but many groups just use the wiki as a point of contact, with a brief outline of their group and a link to their forum where all the planning and communication is done. These pages don't need constant updating, but they are still a useful resource, and a fair use of the wiki -- boxy T L PA DA 02:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Change in Direction

OK, I've changed the proposal to the following, as a result of discussions above, I think it's a better way to work things. Here's the changes I made...

This change of policy would mean that all group pages, that have significant content on them are ineligble for deletion through Speedydelete (unless nominated by their creators) and must go through a vote on the deletions page don't meet any of the other criteia for speedydelete, must remain in the queue without being deleted for [xxxxx] (yet to be determined) days after the {{speedydelete}} template is added to them. If, at the end of that period, there are no keep votes, they may be speedydeleted, otherwise they are kept (and may be nominated for deletion if still deemed neccessary).

I propose that group pages remain in the queue for 5 days, but it's negotiable. I'll open voting tommorow, unless there are other issues to work through -- boxy T L PA DA 11:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer a full week, 7 days, but looks good, as far as policy correcting policy go.--The Envoy 18:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I considered longer, but we don't want them hanging around too long before action is taken. At least if this gets up, 2 minute deletions of rival group pages will be a thing of the past -- boxy T L PA DA 02:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
If you make it a week, might as well just make it a regular deletion. –Xoid M•T•FU! 04:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, why not? Criteria 12 seemed in spirit to expedite the routine maintenance of what are basically bogus groups. By bogus, I mean groups that had no effect on the game at all. Players/members may have stuck to the game for a week and moved on. Any group that has a proven history in its page, I think should not be subject to criteria 12. It seems though criteria 12 has turned into a reflex for maintenance zealots. In other words, my preference would be criteria 12 changed from "defunct" to "bogus". "Historical" status will only be needed for nomination in case of cites coming under vandalism in need of protection.--The Envoy 02:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's what M/PD is for, and I tend to agree with you, it should be for groups that didn't ever get off the ground (maybe stayed active for a week or two). There i nothing stopping you from creating a policy discussion and seeing if there is support for a further change. Doesn't mean that this policy wont be a step in the right direction though -- boxy T L PA DA 05:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd support it if it was three days and the group had to be two months inactive. --Amanu Jaku 05:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I favor this policy as a step in the right direction. Unfortunately I don't currently have the time on hand to create policies. Just hope people who do come across these discussions.--The Envoy 18:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Proven history is a subjective term. Elaborate. –Xoid M•T•FU! 07:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure. "Proven history" of course is a term that can be debated, but for this wiki, I think a group with proven history would be a group whose page is plugged into the game. Very much like the "history" and "whatlinkshere" assessment you say you made when you were doing criteria 12 assessments, but the present Crit 12 invested mods don't seem to do. I'd say any group that wasn't a "flash in the pan" attempt to establish game badass or high weirdo status but fizzled, should get the benefit of the doubt.--The Envoy 18:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting Closed

Well, it's been two weeks under voting, and I count 33/47 or 70% for, but the last 3 votes were after the cut off, making it 31/44 or 70.5%. Still, no difference to the outcome, the policy passed -- boxy T L PA DA 02:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Making the result work

I suggest the best way to keep the M/SD page working smoothly despite this change (yes, I can see how some of the against arguments have some merit) is to have people nominate for M/SD as per normal, with the mods deleting any pages that fall under the other criteria immediately (of course), and moving any Crit 12 nominations to a queue below the recent nominations, but above the processed requests, once they have confirmed that the {{speedydelete}} template has been added to the page up for deletion. That way the Speedy Deletion Queue remains uncluttered by those groups still to wait their five days. Any comments? -- boxy T L PA DA 02:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Alter_Speedydelete_Treatment_of_Group_Pages&oldid=1849785"