Wikipedia talk:Over-hasty Speedy Deleters/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Wiped from history.

I do not understand why deleted articles leave not a single page of history, in case the deleter regrets. The fact no accessible history exist means that if one admin hates Wikipedia, he can very well delete as many articles as he wants before anyone notices anything. It doesn't hurt to leave a SINGLE page of history, as Wikipedia is in no shortage of bytes, otherwise we wouldn't be leaving large pointless histories of back and fourth minor edits, or leave whole lists of pointless histories such as Special:Contributions/SineBot. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Admins have the ability to see deleted pages and non-admins get a message if they try to create a page that has previously been deleted..---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Not all Wikipedia users are admins. Many speedy deleted pages not reverted had to be manually rewritten. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

There are reasons to delete articles and if they need to be deleted, leaving a history viewable to the public is, per the foundation, unacceptable. If somebody deletes an article that you want to modify/recreate, you can ask an admin generally, (unless it is a copy vio or personal attack) most admins will recreate the page (or userfy it) upon request.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"if one admin hates Wikipedia, he can very well delete as many articles as he wants before anyone notices anything." Worth noting there is a deletion log, so an admin wouldn't get very far into a deletion spree before someone noticed and got involved to either stop with discussion or grab a 'crat to desysop him or her. It isn't necessary to leave a visible page, although, if you go to a deleted page link, it offers for you a deletion log to view. So, technically, that may be the page you're wanted to remain. Lara 18:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Crats can't desysop on EN Wiki, that has to be done by Stewarts. But the other points are valid.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The necessity of speedy deleters

I think it's a stretch to say that without speedy deletion Wikipedia would become worthless in a matter of days. Can someone suggest a less alarmist way to defend the speedy deletion process? Feezo (Talk) 20:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

How many attack pages and copyvios have you come across doing NPP? It only takes a few to create havoc. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. There is no reasonable doubt that speedy deletion is necessary to handle certain pages that should not exist on this project for any more than the time it takes to hunt them down. Having those processed through regular deletion processes would allow them to potentially irreversibly harm the project. Just imagine headlines like "John Doe is a pedophile - says Wikipedia!!! Wikipedia today refused to delete a slandering article about John Doe..." appearing on major newspapers and you can guess what harm it would do to the project. Regards SoWhy 07:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As I've said before, you can't slander someone in writing. That's called libel. ;) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Feezo: such hyperbole is detrimental to the credibility of the essay. The whole paragraph needs a complete rewrite. As it stands, it completely ignores the issue of vandalism in existing articles, which is very relevant to the oversimplified hypothetical scenarios; and it compartmentalises editors, when the reality is that many are involved both in content creation and in speedy deletion. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask how much NPP you have done? I've come across literally hundreds of attack pages, and if no one was watching we would become flooded with vandalism. The bots and edit filters also keep a tremendous amount of garbage out, but on NPP we can't rely on those; I see at least 2 or 3 pages a day that are outright libel. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You can ask, and I feel no obligation provide any answer, but I will anyway. Obviously you have done a great deal more NPP than I: this does not invalidate my opinion. I have dabbled in many areas of Wikipedia including NPP, but I have never felt the inclination to spend much of my time on the most tedious and thankless tasks. I genuinely admire the dedication of those editors who do so, and I appreciate the importance of speedy deletion. However, as I mentioned above, I do feel that the current wording oversimplifies the matter to the extent that it's unhelpful. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Citations needed for questionable claims

I am also dismayed by what appear to be questionable claims about the impact of improper speedy-delete actions. As a first step, I will tag those claims, but also quickly add the alternatives to consider. Then, hopefully, we can either remove dubious claims, or put footnotes (or appendix sections) to explain why Wikipedia would become "worthless within a matter of days" (highly, extremely, utterly unlikely). No wonder people read this essay and think, "Is this essay intended as lame, perverse, tedious WP humor?" Please, try to get this essay into a balanced point-of-view, within a few days. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The chilling effect of speedy deleters

You know, I was a casual editor here at Wikipedia, making minor changes over the past few years (under my regular username account). I've been thinking about getting more involved and so I've spent the entire day educating myself and reading up on Wikipedia Guidelines & Policies as well as Style Manuals.

But after reading more and more about contested articles and the disastrous consequences of zealous deleters, I will never create a new article on Wikipedia. I don't care if someone corrects or edits my work. Seriously, I have no problems with collaboration. But I'm not going to spend hours writing an article only to have it deleted a few minutes later because another editor doesn't think the subject is significant.

Not sure it matters but I have three university degrees and I think I could make some solid contributions. But I'll keep to editing existing articles and stay away from generating new articles. This whole system of "speedy deletion" where there is no opportunity to justify one's work to people who probably don't care about the topic is enough to drive away the most dedicated editor. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CSD Quicklinks

Of all the pages linked in that template, they are all in userspace, either marked historical, or the page doesn't have the template at all. Let me quote User:Majorly above in the requested move:

I disagree with much of the essay, yet it sits here in project space as some sort of "official" essay. In your userspace, it was perfectly fine. People were still able to link to it there, and edit it. Moving it to project space, regardless of intention, makes it look more official than it should. There are many essays that are widely agreed upon - example WP:BEANS, WP:SNOW, WP:SPIDER, WP:DENY, etc. That's why they are in the project space. This is someone's personal story. I would go as far to say it is inappropriate to be in the project space, because of how personal this essay is. So what if many people use it and cite it? They are still able to link to where it should be, userspace.

Sure its changed from when the requested move was first requested but the template sure doesn't need to be there. I just came across it. This isn't some small set of wikipedians pet page/project: wikipedia is for everyone and there doesn't need to be some cabal of chilling effect with the template on there.198.161.203.93 (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you miss the more prominent template on this page? It reads:

This page is an essay, containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on the deletion policy. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

That's what an essay is, and this page fits the description to a tee. The template you have a problem with isn't there as a badge to lend this essay any sort of legitimacy or officialness - it's just a collection of some helpful research (the surveys) and a few pages that support/complement the essay's arguments. Think of it as an concise extension of the essay's text - it could all be referenced in the text, but it would be pretty wordy. No essay, including this one, is an official statement of any kind, as both the essay template and title of this page make abundantly clear. Essays are pages that express opinions supported by arguments, and may be backed more or less community consensus. The opinions on this page are held by a significant (though not at all dominant) segment of the community and are frequently the subject of debate. The resulting prominence of the opinions is the reason this essay belongs in project space. A2soup (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say the essay doesn't belong in project space. I will rephrase my first sentence: All the pages linked in that template are either in userspace, either marked historical, or the page doesn't have the template at all. Look at the User:Majorly quote again.198.161.203.93 (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You removed the CSD Quicklinks template again - I restored it as I don't understand the arguments against the template you have presented here. There is nothing wrong with linking userspace pages in an essay - there is no firewall between userspace and project space. The historical link (rejected CSDs) is not deprecated, just no longer being actively updated. And I don't know what you mean by "doesn't have the template" - what template are pages linked in the CSD Quicklinks template required to have? A2soup (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

A2soup is correct, as has been pointed out to you before. There is no rule anywhere that says Wikipedia-space essays can't link to User-space content. And so far, you cannot present any policy- or guideline-based argument for your edits. What one editor said in one discussion cannot replace policy-based reasoning, especially since Majorly's reasoning is incorrect. There is no "badge" of approval when your essay is in Wikipedia-space. The choice between Wikipedia- and user-space is solely on whether the essay is a collaboration by multiple editors - then it should be in Wikipedia-space - or a work by a single editor - then it should be in userspace. This essay is a collaboration of multiple users, including myself at one point, so it is in the correct namespace. The surveys linked to were done by Balloonman alone and contain his personal opinion, so they are good where they are. But again, there is no rule that prevents linking between the two namespaces (in fact, it happens quite often). Regards SoWhy 19:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Why was the name changed?

I asked Ikip (talk · contribs) why this article was renamed after the community discussed it and could not come to consensus. This question was removed from his talk page, so I am bringing it here. Why was the page renamed after the community failed to come to consensus? Wikipedia is not censored. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I moved it back... I was "semi-retired" when he moved it... but he moved it on his own without consensus to do so... and to a boring friggin title. The title name was deliberatly provokative to get people to read it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but I think this title might deter people from citing the essay since it might verge on being a personal attack. Maybe it should be Wikipedia:Why I hate misuse of speedy deletion. By the way, I also wrote Wikipedia:Save speedy deletion for the obvious cases. Smooth alligator (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)