Template talk:Delete
Add topicRevert warring over the template was resolved by a custodian protecting it into a version that did not reflect the change that a user was trying to make, and it appears that the protected version is acceptable to all involved, for now. The collapsed discussion was about that and about the editing process. --Abd (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Extended content
From a request for discussion on Babel:
Deletion on WMF wikis is traditionally subject to community consensus; the default, if there is no consensus to delete, is for the page to be kept. However, speedy deletion is a way to quickly delete files that, uncontroversially, should not be kept, without requiring discussion. Administrators have no special right to make deletion decisions; but routinely make such decisions when consensus is clear, or is reasonably expected to be clear.
If any user considers the deletion inappropriate, there is no consensus for deletion, hence, traditionally, any user may remove the speedy deletion template, and if anyone still thinks the file should be deleted, then they may start a discussion. Following en.wikipedia practice, and except for very clearly inappropriate or illegal pages, administrators do not speedy delete in the presence of any opposition; rather, the page goes to Articles for deletion or similar discussion pages.
The current text implies this, with:
- If there is any doubt about consensus for deletion, this page should be listed as request for Custodian Action instead.
However, the first part of the text has apparently been read to imply something different:
- Objections to deletions should be posted on the talk page. Requests for speedy deletions that do not provide a reason or lack a signature can be removed by any user.
First of all, deletion (proposed or objected to) could be first discussed on the attached talk page.
However, if a reason for deletion is obvious, it is not necessary to state more than what is in the reason field of the template, and creating a talk page just to belabor the obvious is not needed.
Further, traditionally, it's common to remove a speedy deletion template with no reason at all. That removal demonstrates "no consensus for deletion." Thus replacing the template would not be following the instructions in the template. If a user still desires that the page be deleted, a deletion discussion is started in the place appropriate for it, which would be one of the WV:RCA pages.
The whole point of speedy deletion is to avoid unnecessary discussion. So requiring discussion in the template itself defeats the purpose of speedy deletion. Hence the material about discussion on the attached talk page should be removed.
Now, do we want to allow any user to remove a speedy deletion template? Sometimes restrictions are placed on that with "proposed deletion" templates. We may wish to set up a proposed deletion template and procedure here. This sets up a page for deletion after a substantial delay to allow improvement or dispute. A common restriction on proposed deletion is that the template may not be removed by the page creator.
In addition, we may wish to establish that IP editors may not remove speedy deletion templates, and the reason would be that discussion with IP editors is difficult. So I would allow that "any registered user in good standing" may remove a speedy deletion template. The file then goes, if the proposer of deletion still desires it, for discussion.
I will edit the template accordingly, and will self-revert so that consensus may be sought on this, or at least lack of objection, before implementing the change. --Abd (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
- The user "objected" to the change, but not here, but by reverting back to his own radical change. I have restored the page, then, to the standing version, which was not completely correct, "this page" should be the talk page. This is effectively a policy change, and should find consensus before being implemented. --Abd (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Administrators, who are elected by their respective local community through their longstanding good faith interactions with the community as well as a demonstrable pattern of good judgement, and in addition are privy to technical information regular users normally are unable to view, are in a better position to determine what type of content can be speedily deleted on their local wiki than regular users are able to. Furthermore, appeals to English Wikiversity policies and "wiki tradition" don't work here; the only "wiki tradition" that's been commonly upheld is local wiki independence as to policies and guidelines. So application of English Wikipedia and English Wikiversity rules, as may be observed above as an attempt to do so, is incorrect. Beta Wikiversity has not prevented me from doing so, and insofar as David's warning stands in effect, will continue to allow me to do so. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
- This is a direct challenge to one of the most basic wiki traditions: community authority. "Wiki tradition," refers to all the WMF wikis, and especially en.wikipedia. TCNSV is claiming that he has the right to revert war endlessly on what is effectively a policy page, unless he is stopped by a custodian, and he is correct. He may assert dominance in this way, and if no custodian is willing to stop him, he will prevail, unless someone else is equally stubborn, or, better, more than one other person gets involved.
- The tradition is clear: users may not dominate a wiki by revert warring. Those who attempt this are warned, and if they continue, they are blocked or banned.
- TCNSV refers to "David's warning" as if it "allows him" to do this. This shows the warning and his acceptance. That warning is meaningless unless David acts. David's warning is actually improper. On en.wikiversity, there was a similar revert warring, and the ultimate agreement from TCNSV there, to be unblocked after being indef blocked for his disruption, was that he would not interact with me, but would go to custodians if there was a problem.[1] David seems to be forbidding appeal, and his warning would then chill any attempt to discourage disruption.
- On the substance here, custodians are entrusted with the deletion tool, but are not expected to dominate the wiki with these, but to serve the community. Service of consensus is the trust, not some special wisdom on content. TCNSV's revised version still states: If there is any doubt about consensus for deletion, this page should be listed at the Request Custodian Action noticeboard instead. If a user removes the tag, there is, then, no consensus for deletion, simply what amounts to one vote for deletion and one vote against. So any administrator, seeing this as clear evidence of "doubt about consensus," and from what is stated in the tag, would not delete, but would either remove the tag (as actually happened on a page just before TCNSV made the change here) or take the page to the RCA page. Routine practice is that custodians do not list pages for deletion discussion unless they personally favor deletion. The one who nominated speedy deletion may do it, or any other user.
- In en.wikipedia, it has become most common that only administrators close deletion discussions. It was not always this way, and it isn't policy, last I looked. The reason would be that only administrators may actually delete. However, closes with "keep" may be made by any user -- at their own risk! I've seen it done by long-time users, widely trusted. Basically, if the closer is standing for consensus, where a "delete" close has become unlikely, there is either consensus for keep or no consensus, the close will stand, or reverting it will be a waste of time.
- In addition, TCNSV's change creates a special burden on custodians to do "thorough review of the content in question." That is quite the opposite of the general expectation of custodians. The job of custodians is to sense and anticipate community consensus. They are not expected to thoroughly investigate every detail of a situation, but to review comment and evidence presented, and to decide on what is or is likely to be consensus. Users typically do the investigation, in a deletion discussion, presenting evidence and arguments. TCNSV wants to bypass that, knowing that custodians frequently do not do careful review, being overworked and definitely underpaid. --Abd (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Can you show me an example of an overworked custodian on Beta Wikiversity? Note Special:ListUsers/sysop. Can you also demonstrate to me why Beta Wikiversity ought to apply English Wikiversity policies to its functioning? I see you're still continually making references to "in en.wikipedia..." and other Wikimedia sites' policies, many of which do not apply here. I also see the stale report on the RCA and Babel pages, suggesting that many of the users here simply don't care. Anyway, do what you will, continue with the argument and see where it goes. I predict, this will go nowhere, but it's your choice how you spend your volunteer time, and I respect that. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Takes very little time. I get email notification of changes to this page. The "argument" given here is basically, "Nobody is paying attention so I can do what I want." You were warned and blocked on en.wikiversity. It may take longer here, that's all. You forget: the record does not forget. It's all visible. --Abd (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Can you show me an example of an overworked custodian on Beta Wikiversity? Note Special:ListUsers/sysop. Can you also demonstrate to me why Beta Wikiversity ought to apply English Wikiversity policies to its functioning? I see you're still continually making references to "in en.wikipedia..." and other Wikimedia sites' policies, many of which do not apply here. I also see the stale report on the RCA and Babel pages, suggesting that many of the users here simply don't care. Anyway, do what you will, continue with the argument and see where it goes. I predict, this will go nowhere, but it's your choice how you spend your volunteer time, and I respect that. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
I have a request for review of the situation open on the RCA/En page. I have also raised the issue on Babel. Meanwhile, there is a custodian who has threatened to block us both, and that is an outcome desired by the revert warring user (as shown by comments here and elsewhere). From his contributions, he appears to be here entirely to create dispute with me, and he doesn't care about collateral damage. If I might be blocked, I might as well at least leave the widely-used template in its pre-edit war state. Hence I am shifting my behavior here. I will now revert it back on sight, with no further discussion, and I am in this way seeking the intervention of a custodian or any other user, as soon as possible. This user has shown that he will respond to independent intervention. I don't like this, it can irritate users, and I've rarely needed to do this; it only happens when there is no custodian attention for an extended time. --Abd (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
- In my opinion, I find this all pretty silly, revert warring just to maintain the status quo. "any regular user other than [me]"... I think you're making this out to be more personal than it needs to be. Let's put this in perspective, there's hardly going to be any change to the current state of affairs on Beta Wikiversity regardless if it the language of the templates under use change or not. Also, I'm not seeing a need for any Beta Wikiversity user to "act to defend [their] wiki and [their] community rights", and its quite apparent by their inaction, they do not perceive the minor squabbles of a couple users to be a threat against the wiki's existence. In particular one English-speaking admin, Sotiale, made comments on the Wikiversity:Request custodian action/En page, presumably looking over the requests made and did not consider them necessary nor productive. As well, Sotiale has made a few more deletions today, so we can presume him active and having had time to consider the requests. Anyway, let's get back to civil discussion, shall we? And not make it too personal? As I've said before, the way to ask community consensus on Beta Wikiversity's policies is at Wikiversity:Babel, so if you want something to prohibit users from introducing large changes to templates, propose there. The community is always open to comments, if one knows where to make them. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Incoherent. Above, I linked to Babel, where there is a request that TCNSV obviously saw, because he referred to it. What is totally silly is to revert war to make a change. Suggesting a change, fine. Trying to force it, not fine.
- One can presume nothing from Sotiale's inaction, certainly not approval or disapproval Until someone intervenes, it is one:one here, no consensus. No consensus = no change.
- Beta has not developed formal policies, in spite of that being part of its mission. The template is the closest thing here to speedy deletion policy. Beta has a language problem, which may be making central discussions, necessary for setting and maintaining site policy, difficult. --Abd (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
- please tell me that you guys are not fighting still. --Goldenburg111 (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
- I wish. When he was blocked on en.wikiversity, he intensified the conflict here. He's still at it, Goldenburg. Still revert warring to enforce his own ideas, and once he has an idea, he keeps reverting to maintain it. He does a lot of damage, drives away newbies, often getting them blocked or locked, you know that. Look at his contributions here, what he's been doing.
- You may, of course, consider the issues instead of the persons. Should it require an administrator to maintain the status quo, i.e, that a page is kept? Or can ordinary users disagree with a deletion and express that by removing a deletion template, showing that there is no immediate consensus for deletion, thus requiring a deletion discussion, in the place designated for that, as required by the standing version of the deletion template.
- Speedy deletion is designed for efficiency when deletion is essentially unopposed. You know how we use it on en.wikiversity. It's simple and easy.
- What his change proposes, and he's explicit about it above, is that custodians have superior rights and powers to make decisions about content. He knows that custodians don't have the time to investigate, that's why he wants this change. Properly, these questions are left to the community, for discussion, unless deletion is basically unopposed. --Abd (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
While a user is [was] edit warring to change the template to make it show and mean what it never showed and meant, I have also proposed a change to clarify the template language, so that the misunderstanding he may be relying on -- which is not how speedy deletion works anywhere -- isn't possible. The proposed language is this version.
When a steward tags a page with a deletion template, this is what they intend. They expect that any local user may remove the template, and then a deletion discussion will be started by anyone still thinking the page should be deleted.
Please comment on this here. --Abd (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply