UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Speedy Deletion Criterion 14: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 20:49, 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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 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. -{{User:Poodle_of_doom/signiture}} 23:49, 6 May 2010 (BST) | |||
Revision as of 22:49, 6 May 2010
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)
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. --RosslessnessWant 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 DoomM!
T 23:49, 6 May 2010 (BST)
