UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling

Shortcut:
A/D/S

This page will be used for users to request that pages falling into certain categories be deleted as appropriate by a sysop without having to go through all the red tape of Speedy Deletions and Deletions. A list of pages in the Scheduled Deletions list is located here.

Deletion Scheduling

Deletion Scheduling requests should be requested in the same general format as normal Deletions. Votes will occur in the same general manner, and like normal deletion requests will be voted on for two (2) weeks, as judged by the initial datestamp. Votes in this case shall be as follows:

• Yea - For approval of the deletion scheduling request
• Nay - For disapproval of the deletion scheduling request

Remember that votes must be signed and datestamped (use ~~~~)

After the two weeks are up, if the page has reached at least a 50% majority in favour it is added to the Scheduled list. If the request fails to get the required number of votes, it doesn't get added. In either case, the closed request can then get shifted to the Archive.

Scheduling requests under consideration

0x0 Images

As you can see by this example: Image:2cola.jpg, 0x0 images are unusable images that come across once every while. It is a result of offering a corrupt file to the wiki. The images are unusable and already deleted without thought on A/SD. Because users get redirected to their image once they've uploaded it, the author of the image is already made aware of it's state and hence all 0x0 images I've seen get discarded upon upload. I'd like to submit these images for scheduled deletions. --ϑϑℜ 15:08, 28 July 2009 (BST)

Note: Rooster fixed the above image as part of his comment below. See the broken one in revision history. --ϑϑℜ 03:06, 29 July 2009 (BST)

Don't you think it would be a better idea to not just delete them, but to try to fix them if they are recent uploads that have gone wrong? There is often content there (such as in this case), it's just that it needs converting over to the proper format. Help the newbz -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:58 29 July 2009 (BST)

Don't stereotype this as a noob mistake because it isn't. If you want to fix it before the user does, you can upload it over the broken one and then delete the 0x0 revision as per this scheduled deletion? --ϑϑℜ 11:11, 29 July 2009 (BST)

1. Yea - I wanted to make a clause that ensured sysops also notify the author that their image got deleted, but decided it was unnecessary since, as above, all authors see their work after the upload anyway. --ϑϑℜ 15:08, 28 July 2009 (BST)
2. Yea Procedural C.Y.O.A. All for it... Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 16:15, 28 July 2009 (BST)
3. Yea - Sounds good. --User:Axe27/Sig 16:51, 28 July 2009 (BST)
4. No - to deleting the page outright, you can usually save these images from the revision history. I fixed the above example and it's now a prefectably usable image. Yes to making the 0x0 revision a scheduled though, after the image is saved (or if it cannot be). --  RoosterDragon  17:38, 28 July 2009 (BST)
5. Yea - What is the point of having extra storage space on this site getting filled up with nothing? Paradoxical sure but there is no point to having useless images that take up space. Aka Paradox 19:00, 28 July 2009 (BST)
6. Yea - As above. If there useless then what's the point? --MTRemick ^{T | C | Fey | NBC} 19:06, 28 July 2009 (BST)
7. Yes after - As Rooster, no to deleting it outright if it can be fixed.--SirArgo ^Talk 19:24, 28 July 2009 (BST)
8. No There's still content there that can often be fixed -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:58 29 July 2009 (BST)

   In my experiences, all users who upload one of these images end up uploading a dupe anyway, before we even find it, let alone delete it. --ϑϑℜ 10:31, 29 July 2009 (BST)

   I've seen group images "updated" with these type of mistakes, and still included on a page. They'll need reverting, not deleting -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:40 29 July 2009 (BST)

9. Delete with the proviso that the image be at least a week old, thats plenty of time for them to either fix or ask for help. --Honestmistake 10:41, 29 July 2009 (BST)
10. No - Because you guys have not clue what you're doing, just fix it by going to the hard file link in the image area and reuploading like non-cunts would do. --Karek^maps?! 01:02, 30 July 2009 (BST)

Removal of the porn scheduled deletion

Title says it all. We remove the porn scheduled deletion. Each time it's been used, it's spawned a misconduct case so it's clear it isn't working from the "communities" point of view. The most gaping area with the current one is the lack of definition - although I thought about replacing it with "Photographic depictions of human genitalia and female nipples will be deleted on sight" although that just leaves gray area (although it's been reduced,) and we'll get bogged down in definitions again. If someone uploads an offensive image, then they get taken to A/VB. If the case is ruled vandalism then the user receives a warning and the image is deleted (this is already covered under the fact that all vandalism is deleted.) To warn users about the consequences of uploading potentially offensive imagery, "uploading inappropriate (eg. sexually explicit) images may be deemed to be vandalism and deleted as such without notice" will be added to MediaWiki:Uploadtext (the text that is displayed when uploading a file.)

To summarize, the porn scheduled deletion is removed on A/G. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:54, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Please skim through the discussion regarding this before voting. Linkthewindow  Talk  14:17, 19 July 2009 (BST)

1. For - the current system means that the decision will be made by the one sysop that set the strictest of standards, without the need for any form of consensus -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:09 19 July 2009 (BST)
2. Yes - It will be interesting to see whether people receive backlash for taking people who have uploaded what they perceive to be offensive images, but others don't to A/VB. Having said that this is definitely the lesser of a number of evils. --Cyberbob 14:10, 19 July 2009 (BST)
3. Yes please - i don't think that'll be interesting at all bob, but finally we have some freedom of image around this dump.--xoxo 14:12, 19 July 2009 (BST)

   Was just a bit of humourous understatement :\ --Cyberbob 14:15, 19 July 2009 (BST)

4. Yes --ϑϑℜ 14:12, 19 July 2009 (BST)

   Edit: Boxy was right. --ϑϑℜ 14:26, 19 July 2009 (BST)

5. Yep - As boxy. --Midianian 15:01, 19 July 2009 (BST)
6. for we don't want or need actual porn here but some of the stuff that gets called porn is clearly very far from being such. --Honestmistake 15:22, 19 July 2009 (BST)
7. Aye - As the box. -- Cheese 15:51, 19 July 2009 (BST)
8. Against For- This was never really a big problem until someone went batshit insane and put a bunch of perfectly fine images up for deletion as "pornographic". Meanwhile, sysops need the power to delete obviously offensive images on the spot and immediately. Can you say "goatse", kids? --WanYao 16:15, 19 July 2009 (BST)

   It was a problem before that, Nubis and SA have both been taken to A/M over it. These misconduct cases were both linked to in Link's introduction to this vote. --Cyberbob 16:22, 19 July 2009 (BST)

   I read those. And it's a rare problem. And a "problem" common sense and not being a puritan shithead will solve 90% of cases. Talking it over will deal with the other 10%. --WanYao 16:28, 19 July 2009 (BST)

   Rare? Those two misconduct cases represent the only two times the current scheduled rule has been used. --Cyberbob 16:31, 19 July 2009 (BST)

   Stop edit conflicting me. Anywaaaay... So this is a new crit or what? Please linky me to the date it was implimented, because I seem to recall it being here forever. And tell me, how were the goatse images deleted in the past? And is there another method for immediately deleting obviously offensive images? I'm talking goatse here... Or obvious porno, i.e. depictions of intercourse, masturbation, etc. etc.? If there is, I support removing the porn crit.... if not, something needs to stay. --WanYao 16:35, 19 July 2009 (BST)

   22 July 2008. Wording ripped off from barhah.com's rules. Interesting.... But something has to be in place to remove gravely explicit and offensive images... Propose a change/replacement... then we'll talk. --WanYao 16:39, 19 July 2009 (BST)

   He probably won't bother until you and your following manage to get majority on this vote. --ϑϑℜ 16:49, 19 July 2009 (BST)

   My following?! Now that was droll! --WanYao 16:50, 19 July 2009 (BST)

   Indeed. --ϑϑℜ 17:48, 19 July 2009 (BST)

   DDR...please don't. --Cyberbob 16:58, 19 July 2009 (BST)

   The biggest problem with immediately deleting a completely obvious porno shot these days - whether we have a policy allowing it or not - is that there is a much higher chance of drama being generated over it because "how do I know it was what you say it was?" than there used to be. All someone needs to do is give the shit they're uploading an innocuous-sounding name and all bets are off, particularly since the sysop that deleted the image is often the only one that saw it. Can you imagine trying to sell an A/VB case on a user who uploaded "sunshine.JPG" for uploading explicit porn? Ideally we should just be able to rely on common sense for deleting obvious porn on sight and A/D for the more ambiguous things but look where doing either of these things got us even with a policy in place. --Cyberbob 16:51, 19 July 2009 (BST)

   Goatse images have been deleted on sight and the user permanently banned in the past. It was pretty obvious what they were doing, frankly. I think the image was called duck, in case anyone was wondering. :/ --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:30, 19 July 2009 (BST)

   Right... and now all someone has to do is upload something highly explicit... give it a nice name... and then it gets displayed and voted on for 2 whole weeks! Can't you see why something has to replace the current crit before it's just scrapped? You didn't answer my question: what recourse does a sysop have, after this schedule is removed, to delete offensive images without being misconducted??? I'm actually looking out for the sysops here... you just don't see that, probably --WanYao 19:28, 19 July 2009 (BST)

   No, clearly inappropriate images can be deleted as soon as they are reported on A/VB, and confirmed by someone credible so that they can act as a witness that the image is as described. Usually goatse (or similar) will be found by some other user and reported to A/VB in short order by an ordinary user. The first sysop along can delete immediately because images deemed to be vandalism are automatically deleted as bad faith edits -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:57 19 July 2009 (BST)

   Quoting myself: "If someone uploads an offensive image, then they get taken to A/VB. If the case is ruled vandalism then the user receives a warning and the image is deleted (this is already covered under the fact that all vandalism is deleted.)" Linkthewindow  Talk  01:58, 20 July 2009 (BST)

   boxy answered my question. But, Link, and I don't mean to be a jerk... but you basically confirmed my worst case scenario in your "reply"... and didn't tell me how the image doesn't stay up while going through a/vb. anyway, vote changed. --WanYao 06:13, 20 July 2009 (BST)

9. Yes - Alleviating dramaz. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 16:47, 19 July 2009 (BST)
10. For I know this has been an issue for some time,.... like when gage was still here as a moderator, he did some of that ASCII art, of a naked woman. This went back and forth.... it's nice to see this revision. -Poodle of doom 18:00, 19 July 2009 (BST)

    you mean this ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 19:58, 20 July 2009 (BST)

    Yeah, that would be the one. -Poodle of doom 23:11, 20 July 2009 (BST)

11. Yar --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:30, 19 July 2009 (BST)
12. Yea But the criteria for porn should be reworded so that non-explicit sex acts must be deemed porn by some kind of majority--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 18:31, 19 July 2009 (BST)
13. For --SirArgo ^Talk 18:36, 19 July 2009 (BST)
14. Yes - Well, it obviously needs to be replaced because it isn't working. --User:Axe27/Sig 19:36, 19 July 2009 (BST)
15. Yes - nuff said --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 23:21, 19 July 2009 (BST)
16. Yea indeed --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:13, 20 July 2009 (BST)
17. YAY --Orange Talk 18:38, 20 July 2009 (BST)
18. You're all being dumb - It's all stupid really. It never should have needed adding to scheduled but it was done because some of you threw fits, now it's being removed because some of you threw fits. The short and log of it is this stuff is vandalism, if you're posting it it's deleted as vandalism and you're escalated and filing a case about it is harassmentvandalism, all of you know better. --Karek^maps?! 09:33, 21 July 2009 (BST)
19. For -- As long as images that are OBVIOUSLY offensive are taken care of, which I trust they are. Chekken 05:54, 27 July 2009 (BST)

Adbot related pages

Any page created by an adbot, or created to reference a particular adbot, or any comments about a banned adbot, are to be deleted. This includes the deletion request of such pages/comments itself (after a period of three days after the deletion request was proccessed) --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 18:19, 15 July 2009 (BST)

For those voting against this, a word on how search engines work: web crawlers read the content of your page and associate whatever keyword they find to the link. If an adbot creates a user page with the name of a product he is selling, this page will count as a mention for that product's keyword, hence strengthening its value on the search engine. This is a lesser problem with simple comments but actual pages with the products name can be harmful to this community (like, simply saying spam product is less harmful than linking to a page named whatever spam product). This criterion might appear heavy-handed on removing all comments, but it serves two purposes: a) guarantes that the relevance of any search for these keyword wont be improved by this wiki and b) guarantes that the relevance of any search about urbandead wont be mixed with one of a spammer site. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 23:27, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Not quite. In short, once any external links are gone, mentioning the product will not benefit the spammer or harm UD. --Midianian 00:06, 20 July 2009 (BST)

1. Yes - remove all of their spam, and all reference to them, so that even bots that advertise their wares in their user name get nothing... NOTHING! They are scum of the earth, give them no quarter -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:33 16 July 2009 (BST)
2. Yes Not even an eighth. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:36, 16 July 2009 (BST)
3. Against - because there are perfectly legitimate reasons for speaking about a banned adbot (such as if we want to contact the creators.) I would be fine with this if it only banned those that mentioned the product they are selling in their username (such as the last few,) but deleting all comments about any adbot is overkill. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:23, 16 July 2009 (BST)

   Not a bad idea, just links or comments quoting the names of the ones advertising with their username -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:08 16 July 2009 (BST)

4. No - Too draconian, and almost impossible to completely enforce. --Cyberbob 12:24, 16 July 2009 (BST)
5. Against - as link (plus this). --ϑϑℜ 12:32, 16 July 2009 (BST)
6. weak against remove the "comments about banned adbots" and this would be a Yes --Honestmistake 12:46, 16 July 2009 (BST)
7. Yes - When did we start creating user pages for these guys? =/ -- Cheese 21:44, 16 July 2009 (BST)
8. No - Adbots aren't some eldritch abominations from beyond time and space. The mere mention of their name is not going to bring down their wrath upon our heads (or make people want to buy their products, or improve their search rankings). Not even ones that have a product in their name. This is pointless censorship. --Midianian 15:37, 19 July 2009 (BST)
9. No - As Cyberbob. --User:Axe27/Sig 19:37, 19 July 2009 (BST)
10. No - As link. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:46, 19 July 2009 (BST)
11. AgarnstWanYao 06:14, 20 July 2009 (BST)
12. Nay - As Link --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 18:31, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Adbot-created pages

Since Hagnat apparently thinks we need to codify the scheduled deletion of adbot pages, and I don't see any particular reason why we shouldn't... I propose that any and all pages created by adbots be officially KOS. --Cyberbob 17:32, 15 July 2009 (BST)

adbot created pages are already supposed to be KOS. I meant that pages, links and comments referring to adbots should be KOS. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 17:43, 15 July 2009 (BST)

You make the bloody vote then. Leave this one alone though. --Cyberbob 17:50, 15 July 2009 (BST)

1. Yes --Cyberbob 17:32, 15 July 2009 (BST)
2. Yes - Baleet them from existence entirely. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:34, 15 July 2009 (BST)
3. Yes --  RoosterDragon  17:38, 15 July 2009 (BST)
4. Yes - Not any more work to delete the stuff again if the same adbot comes back. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 17:51, 15 July 2009 (BST)
5. Yip--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:35, 15 July 2009 (BST)
6. Yea - Everyone was happy with this already being the case but w/e. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:19, 16 July 2009 (BST)

   You try fending Hagnat off for the sixth time at like 3 in the morning. Easier just to say 'whatever dude' and make a harmless vote than argue about it. --Cyberbob 02:22, 16 July 2009 (BST)

   Yeah it was aimed at Hag. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:33, 16 July 2009 (BST)

   im still kind of groggy okay >_< --Cyberbob 03:02, 16 July 2009 (BST)

7. Yes - de facto this way already, but no problem in setting it in stone. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:59, 16 July 2009 (BST)
8. No - pointless repetition. Adbot pages are deemed to be vandalism, which is removed automatically -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:30 16 July 2009 (BST)
9. Yea - Nothing wrong with having it written down somewhere. --User:Axe27/Sig 06:51, 18 July 2009 (BST)
10. No - As boxy. --Midianian 15:02, 19 July 2009 (BST)
11. No - As boxy. --WanYao 16:17, 19 July 2009 (BST)
12. Yea - For sake of making it official --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 18:33, 20 July 2009 (BST)