UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Speedy Deletion Criterion 14

Thoughts? -- Cheese 17:46, 6 May 2010 (BST)

This sounds like a very useful criterion. If a user has the authority to put his subpages up for speedy deletion without having to go through the two weeks, a group represented by the group leader or an otherwise clearly authorized member should be able to do the same. This is a great proposal. G F J 19:49, 6 May 2010 (BST)

It's certainly interesting. I feel there's a bit of uncertainty, however, especially with the reasonable suspicion clause. Since there's no way to virtually gauge if the sysop has reasonable suspicion, and some group leaders aren't on the wiki, I can see some potential probelms being caused, but nothing horrendously world-breaking.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:04, 6 May 2010 (BST)

There is probably a better way to word it but it would basically cover any disgruntled or newbie members trying to delete stuff without permission. Doesn't usually happen but it's more of a "just in case" kind of thing. -- Cheese 20:06, 6 May 2010 (BST)

Yeah, and there definitely has to be a clause, I guess I just don't like reasonable suspicion because of its usage in England. I think just group leader would be suitable, and if not, it can go through deletions. :/ I dunno.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:10, 6 May 2010 (BST)

Nothing world-breaking? Tell Minsathropy that on A/M. --

 

 

 

 

01:43, 7 May 2010 (BST)

Fucking... people... 18:46, 13 May 2010 (BST)

The fact that there has to be a clause at all, suggests it isn't a simple decision and should go through the normal deletion process. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:12, 6 May 2010 (BST)

Regarding the clause, why not just say that the group leader needs to provide a list of authorized editors somewhere in their space? Or else maybe we just say that anyone listed as an officer is permitted. Anyone on the list can then request speedy deletion with the full authority of the group. The way I see it, only a handful of the larger groups (DEM, DHPD, etc.) will be doing stuff like this anyway, so it's not at all a major inconvenience to require that they provide us with a list of people who are allowed to act on their behalf, whether that be officers or specific people. Otherwise though, I like the idea. Owners of pages should have control of their space. —Aichon— 20:49, 6 May 2010 (BST)

To add a little to what Aichon was saying,... I don't know how big of a deal it is really. To me, it seems like this would apply only to larger groups... DEM, MOB, RRF, that sort of thing. When you get smaller groups like EVIL for example,... it becomes extremly clear who the authorized user is, and who the real owner of the page is. In situations for smaller groups, I think it would be ineffective to have as a rule, but for larger groups,... god only knows who can request what. It's to vague,... but a great idea. -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 23:49, 6 May 2010 (BST)

description said:

A "suitable" representative would be the group leader or someone who is acting on the authority of the group leader. If the attending sysop feels the user requesting deletion does not have this authority they can either turn down the request or ask the group's leader to give their approval.

The presence of off-wiki politics coming into play with page deletions, especially after your A/M stint with Misanthropy, is laughable, Cheese. Either way, I think this will be useful but the representative bit needs working. Essentially, this is for Crit 7's, in every sense of the way we've treated them for years, but you're giving them a new crit and allowing other "group representatives" via (most likely) off-wiki sources to delete pages where they may have no on-wiki confirmation that they have permission to. And judging by the fact that if a group leader goes on the wiki to confirm on his talk page that he wants this deleted (to a subordinate) then it will a) get deleted anyway as a crit 7 by proxy, or b) they have the capability to go to A/SD and request it themselves.

Keep it with "group leader" imo.. the 'representative' bit is too abuseable unless you can word it a bit better. --

 

 

 

 

01:43, 7 May 2010 (BST)

Update

Right, I've scratched the representative bit so it's just group leaders now. Thoughts before I chuck this up for voting? -- Cheese 16:10, 8 May 2010 (BST)

Yes, one last issue. In the case of things like the recent UBCS leadership battle, who would have group rights in that instance, as both were making claims to ownership of the UBCS. I recall something similar happened with the DHPD earlier this year. Is it fair to assume that in cases like that, deletion would be postponed until a decision was made? And also that any deletion would be reversed until it became clear who had the authority?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:58, 10 May 2010 (BST)

A group leader could request deletion of a group subpage, but if they're not the person who created the content, or page, how would that work out? I'm curious,... because of the whole intelecutal property thing,.... -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 00:17, 11 May 2010 (BST)

Who cares about intellectual property, if they put their own "intellectual property" onto a page and someone deletes it, who cares? It isn't being stolen or modified. So to answer your question, if the group leader requests it, it gets deleted regardless of who asked for it. That is the entire point of the policy, mind. --

 

 

 

 

00:45, 11 May 2010 (BST)

Yeah... I'm not sure you caught my point. If someone modifies my user main space, without my permission, there'd be drama, blah blah blah,... vandalism. I'm considered the owner of the page. Likewise, a group is considered the owner of the groups namespace. Likewise, I'd consider the leader of the group to be the owner of said group, thus owner of said page. Technically, no one should be editing that page, and subpages, but the owner of the group. Likewise though, being part of said group, one could claim that they had a right to create said subpage, and claim intelectual property rights over it, as part of that group. I just see there being a lot of "I was told to do this,...", "No you weren't,...", "I'm the leader of this,...", "But I'm the leader of that,...",... I'm saying that there could be a lot of resulting drama from this policy... -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 02:22, 11 May 2010 (BST)

No, a group page is, at least to my understanding, the property of all members of the group, unless the group has a specific policy on it. For instance, The page for the Dulston Alliance was made by User:Mobius187. However, myself, User:Officer Murphy and User:Red Hawk One are all members, and have all editted the news section before. At least to my understanding.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:32, 11 May 2010 (BST)

Yeah, if there was any disagreement over it the same rules would apply as any other page being speedily deleted and the objector can vote keep on it and it'll get moved to deletions and effectively stalled for the two weeks as normal. If it's already been deleted it'll be restored until we can sort out the argument over it. -- Cheese 13:45, 11 May 2010 (BST)

And then we're right back to where we started... A/A about group structure/leadership/page editing rights. -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 01:15, 12 May 2010 (BST)

What's your point? In the majority of cases, the groups should be able to resolve internal matters such as editing rights / leadership conflicts themselves, making it clear for the wiki who its leaders are. For these groups, granting the group leader the ability to speedily delete group-owned pages is very useful. Cases where the situation is unclear and the page goes to A/D instead of being speedily deleted (or after having been undeleted if concerns are raised at a time the request has already been served) would of course exist, but I most highly doubt that these would be very frequent. Just because there can be exceptions and situations where a page put up under this criterion is being sent to A/D is absolutely no reason to oppose the criterion in general - once again, for the majority of groups it should work quite seamlessly and would be absolutely useful. In short, groups that are well organized, resolve conflicts internally and present a clear state to the wiki would benefit from the criterion, those that fail to resolve conflicts themselves and have an unclear leadership would be exempt from using the criterion due to the "rival leader" voting keep / raising concerns, causing the page to go to A/D as it had in the past. G F J 12:07, 13 May 2010 (BST)

From Voting

1. For - I hate this policy and I don't trust it. But what I hate even more is the fact that I see wiki users submitting their own group subpages to A/D because it doens't fit an A/SD criterea, only to have the community keep it for reasons which totally ignore the group in the first place. For example, here. What is effectively a crit 7 is being overridden by voters because they like the content of the page and want others to read it. If that were a crit 7, it would be deleted on the spot. We've always favoured author wishes over anything else, even policy, but this guy doesn't get off and I think that's garbage. Anything that will fix that and harm nothing else is something I'm willing to support. --
    
    
    
    
   01:34, 14 May 2010 (BST)

   Surely they could just blank the pages and then submit them? That would fufil an existing criteria? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:35, 14 May 2010 (BST)

   Yeah! So why should they have to do that if that's within their right but this isn't? You gave the same suggestion here, where you tell Izzy to blank his own pages to render them as scheduled, just to nullify Cyberbob's keep vote. He shouldn't have to do that, and thankfully, it was deleted anyway coutesy of Cheese but the point remains that if you have to go through 3 different alleyways of policies to have something deleted legally because the first, and most logical alleyway doesn't allow it, then the first alleyway should work. I don't like this policy much but until either a) something better comes along or b) sysops once again use crit 7 to accommodate these types of requests (which imo is the preferred option), then this policy is what I'll support. --

    

    

    

    

   12:48, 14 May 2010 (BST)

   Seems to me that I had a similar argument elsewhere. -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 13:20, 14 May 2010 (BST)

   I hardly think so. We aren't arguing about any of the tenuous problems you had with the policy. My problem is that Ross seems to agree with the principle of having groups own the deletion rights to their pages but insists they go through unnecessary red tape to achieve it. Knowing that both Ross and myself are both heads of very small wikis I'm surprised he is fine with that principle. --

    

    

    

    

   13:46, 14 May 2010 (BST)

   Putting my little wiki head on, its less of a problem there. Group pages get created / moved etc pretty quickly. Here we're sometimes dealing with crap from years ago. Personally I feel that it should be down to sysops. If a sysop has a good understanding of a groups history (like say GFJ's involvement with the DEM, then its fine.) If its a group no ones ever heard of ownership can prove tricky, and the two weeks seem a prudent time to ask. We aren't swimming in red tape. All the orphan groups are listed or gone, all 10000 images are categorised. How much more work does it really take to put these on deletions? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:43, 14 May 2010 (BST)

   It isn't about having these on deletions, it's about having them on deletions and having them kept even though they shouldn't be. --

    

    

    

    

   15:50, 14 May 2010 (BST)

   Oh, OK. Well in that case, I'd pull the classic, sysops can do anything card. We've had deletions removed, deleted early etc for years. You just want to formalise the process yes? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:52, 14 May 2010 (BST)

   It doesn't specifically need to be formalised, I just feel sorry for the guy that I linked in the case above, in my opinion that shouldn't happen, and hopefully it won't. This has the potential to help, even if it has holes. Since I'm not an op I won't be overly courteous/angry if this passes or fails but until there are ways that group leaders can control their wiki content's deletions I wouldn't mind this being in. --

    

    

    

    

   16:18, 14 May 2010 (BST)

   Oh DDR... My God, would I have a Job for you when this passes,.... and I oh so hope it doesn't! -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 23:20, 14 May 2010 (BST)

   Aaaaand once again you have proven that you jump into frays thinking you have any clue about what you're talking about when you haven't the slightest idea. Thanks for adding nothing of value yet again. --

    

    

    

    

   01:23, 15 May 2010 (BST)

   No the value was a formal request when this thing passes... -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 02:03, 15 May 2010 (BST)

   Do you still behave like you are a target user of this policy? Because you aren't, so I'd stop trying to relate this in any way to do with you and your group. --

    

    

    

    

   10:10, 15 May 2010 (BST)

   Nope,... don't feel like I'm a target. I feel like I'm trying to talk to a bunch of dumb fucks who have absolutly no intent on listening to what I have to say, or to allow me to take part in what is happening here on the wiki. That said,... if this policy passes,... you all can go screw yourselves, and get on deleting. Shouldn't be a problem though, since people like you have nothing better to do in real life than sit here, waiting for shit to happen. -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 13:18, 15 May 2010 (BST)

   Cool story, bro. --Thadeous Oakley 14:15, 15 May 2010 (BST)

   Also, don't drag reallife into a discussion, unless you know someone in person, you have no grounds whatsoever judging people lives outside this wiki.

   Also, if you actually would contribute something argumentative, you may get an actual discussion. Though DDR's rebuttal is needlessly harsh, but he's quite impatient like that, so I wouldn't take it so personally. --Thadeous Oakley 14:15, 15 May 2010 (BST)

   Wow. You really are a whole lot stupider than I thought you were. Thanks for clarifying that for me. --

    

    

    

    

   17:36, 15 May 2010 (BST)

   And now I read it, albeit drunk, Thad has a very admirable point: Make your "point" that you claim you're making, rather than just tap-dance about the fucking page "saying what you have to fucking say" even though you've made no effort to. Learn something about human nature bro: we respond best when you actually argue what you want to argue. Good luck in the future. --

    

    

    

    

   17:45, 15 May 2010 (BST)