Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Michael Snow (talk | contribs) at 01:13, 28 March 2004 (=Discussion of articles=). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Martin, I thank you for the undeletions. I trust that your decisions on these pages are good ones, and I won't challenge them.

However, I still consider the process you have been applying is not the proper one. Let me remind you that non sysop can not see deleted pages. Let's consider the person challenging a hasty deletion has seen the page and consider the page should be kept. He then comes here and add it to the list.

The process you have been applying here consisted essentially in reviewing "yourself" the page, and taking a "godlike" decision over the future of this page. I think this is deeply wrong.

Remember, the decision of deleting this page was a unilateral decision from a sysop. Then you add your unilateral decision - as a sysop - to keep it undeleted. That means, whatever my own request, my opinion as an editor is worth nothing. Why should sysop opinions have more weight than mine on a topic ? This is *very very* unwiki since in Misplaced Pages editors are supposed to have equal rights in edition. In deciding yourself unilaterally, you reject the opinion of the non-sysop, and you reject the very notion of consensus when there is a disagreement. When two people discuss an issue, a consensus can not be reached if one has preeminence over another in the end, should there still be disagreement. Even in a voting system (which I personally disapprove of - in particular when only a couple of people are involved), one "against", and one "for" is a 50% case, and need more input than just a unilateral decision from one of the two. Hence, the option you followed is neither consensual, nor democratic. If this is the way[REDACTED] works, I think m:Power structure should be edited.

A sysop is there to clean the place, to ensure the rules are respected, to be a pilar for coherance conservation. The sysop is not there to decide which content is right and which content is not right with little respect of the rules, right ? Otherwise, the Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion would be a protected page, and decision over deletions would be acceptable per sysops only.

You might say "right, just keep it on the list, and wait till another sysop takes the pain to undelete it for you". Given the pain of the undeletion process (so I understood, the french wiki does have a relatively small number of deleted articles, so this is not too bad), it is very unlikely, and very unefficient that two people do the same process one after another. Better do it only one time.

The other point in refuse of consensual decision is that with that process, only sysops will ever have the opportunity to give their opinion, and choose to restore or not, never other regular users, since they will never see the page content.

In short, I think the process applied on that page, should be precisely the reverse of the process apply on the Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion. Which is a place where everyone, sysop or non sysop have the right to give their opinion, and where opinions of people have the same weight, whether black, white, male, female, young, old, sysop or non sysop.

Right now, here, I can give my opinion, but a regular user opinion has *no* weight against a sysop opinion. This is humiliating and very wrong. I hope you will then understand it is not satisfying.

Idea : I have the feeling one reason why you feel like taking a "godlike" decision is that some undeletions would become permanents (for example, I suppose restoring an historical version of an existing article cannot be later un-processed - case of the three articles you restored yesterday). Why not in these cases where you feel it is likely the "community" decision (that you, and I, and everybody feeling concerned) will be to keep it undeleted, copy paste the content in a temp page associated with this one, so people can judge the content without potentially restoring something wrong ?

User:Anthere

You say: "A sysop is there to clean the place, to ensure the rules are respected, to be a pilar for coherance conservation." This isn't true at all. A sysop isn't there to "do" anything. If a sysop wants to carry on in exactly the same way they did before they were a sysop, they're quite entitled to do so. If a sysop wants to do nothing but make new articles on Albanian kings and have nothing to do with anything else, that's fine. Being a sysop doesn't carry with it any extra responsibilities as such. Therefore, why don't you become a sysop? If everyone is a sysop, and new users are made sysops once it becomes clear they're not simple vandals, these sorts of problems don't matter so much (I'm not saying they are solved, but they are lessened). You're saying how sysops should handle this page and complaining they're not doing it right - fine, but if you think something is being done incorrectly, the best way to deal with that, and the WikiWay, is for you yourself to do it the way you think it should be done, not demand that others do it that way. Therefore, become a sysop. --Camembert

You are quite right to say "if you want to do it, do it yourself". Except that if *I* want to do it myself, I will just have to tell Eloquence to make me sysop, restore the file, and forget all about it.

But if...dunno...Little Fat Buddha wants to have an article restored because he thinks it was interesting and deleted without community agreement, he won't have any chance to be heard for he will perhaps not be made sysop even if he ask. When something is wrong in the way a country is managed, a regular citizen will first want to have a way for his opinion to be heard and will hope to have impact though voting for a president or another, perhaps. I don't think the good answer if he ask for more transparency and equality, is to tell him, "become the president, then the country can be ruled the way you want". ant

Anthere, I do understand (really, I do), but I'm somewhat stymied by the system here - non-sysops can't see deleted pages - that's a fact of the universe (or rather a fact of the[REDACTED] software) that I can't fully work around. That's why I'm so in favour of a meta:deletion management redesign.

Si. But possibly I will be a grand mother by the time it is implemented :-)

Your idea is a good one, though. There's one minor hitch: I can't copy and paste the source to deleted pages, the way the system currently works. What I can do, though, is undelete the page and move it into a subpage of this page. Would that help?

Hum. I had not realised. Yes, indeed, it is not possible. Crumbs.

An alternative would be to undelete all pages upon request here, and then immediately list them on VfD for further discussion. Which of these options do you think would be better? I'm trying to do the Right Thing here - but it's not easy! Martin

Here is a Good Option, since it was precisely the process which they should have gone through. Also a good idea since it somehow makes forget the article did not go through the proper process (it is gentler on the deleter, right ? hence gentler on the community as it does not focus on the error, but rather on the content). Also a good idea since it make sense that questionable articles are all listed at the right place. It should be indicated here when they are undeleted and listed on vfd. The name of the sysop who did the deletion should not be indicated on vfd, just a statement that the article was listed here. Is that acceptable ?

Excellent :) Martin

Hello. I'd just like to say that I think this page was a brilliant idea! Which of you came up with it? I think undeleting things is good. :) I haven't contributed to the page yet, though, as I must admit it rather confuses me... How does it work, exactly? Can I, as a sysop, undelete things that I think shouldn't have been deleted? Or should I put them on the "votes for undeletion" page and then wait for another sysop to undelete them, so I can't be accused of doing anything unilaterally? Or does it not matter either way? -- Oliver P. 17:18 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

well, it came up from discussions on censorship. Yours is a good question. Until now, I put a lot of the stuff to undelete. And usually Martin did the job of undeletion. So...User:anthere

Ah, thanks for the link. I missed that discussion. Well, maybe I'll just put things on the page and make Martin do all the hard work. ;) No, well, I suppose if I undelete something and then put it on "votes for deletion" again with my argument against its having been deleted, then no-one can accuse me of being sneaky. Everyone will get annoyed at the cluttering up of the "votes for deletion" page, though. :) -- Oliver P. 13:11 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You could counter the clutter by finally making that wikipedia:deleted suspected copyright infringement that people have been muttering about for a little while. :)

I'd say... feel free to unilaterally undelete if you're feeling bold, but add the page to "votes for deletion". If you're feeling less bold, you might add it here first. Martin 13:24 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I have just made the following change:

Having this page does allow sysops to be a little more bold in deleting articles, but it should be noted that the undeletion process remains painful, so care should be taken.

Became

Having this page does not allow sysops to ignore the rules set out in Misplaced Pages:Policy on permanent deletion of pages. The undeletion process remains painful, so care should be taken.

I hope this is not controversial. GrahamN 15:07 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That looks better than the old version to me. :) I was a bit uneasy about that statement, and I was thinking of changing it myself. It seemed to be giving sysops permission to pay less attention to the rules, which I don't think would be a good thing. -- Oliver P. 13:11 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, Graham :) Martin 13:24 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I am equally happy with it. :-) ant

Martin, I don't think we are allowed to delete people. :) But then, on the other hand, I always kind of wanted to undelete Mozart and get him to write down symphonies #42 to 84 for me. :) Tannin

Old Wikipedians don't die - they're just moved to meta. :) Martin

I don't understand the bit that says, "Don't list an article here merely because it was deleted without proper process." Surely that's the best reason for listing it here? If an article has gone through the proper process, there will rarely be any reason to undelete it, as far as I can see. At least, if it has been listed on "Votes for deletion" for a week, since that's usually long enough to register any protests. On the other hand, I can't think of any reason why an article shouldn't be undeleted if it hasn't gone through the proper process. What's your reasoning here...? -- Oliver P. 15:36 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The "subduction zone" ordering of this page is giving me a headache. Adding to the edges and deleting from the middle seems such a strange way to do things. Can we please change over to ordinary chronological ordering, adding to the bottom, like every other page on the wiki except Misplaced Pages:Vandalism in progress? -- Tim Starling 08:29 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

sure. I've pondered it myself, but never got round to re-ordering stuff. Martin

just put everything in an archive...then the filling could start anew from the bottom. What about also adding that undeleting can been done boldly just as deleting can be boldly, without either of them implying sysop power abuse ? Anthère

I disagree with the idea of relisting entries on VFD after they are undeleted. It fractures the discussion and makes it difficult to work out what's going on. Since we now have ~90 sysops, we should expect sysop edit wars over deletion to become more common, and the current system handles them very poorly.

I propose that when an article is listed here, the discussion from VFD should be quoted in full. Of course it can be archived to the article talk page if need be. The discussion can then continue with reference to previous talk on the matter. Many iterations of deletion/undeletion can take place while the VFUD discussion is occurring, but the entry should only be removed from VFUD when discussion has ceased and a consensus is reached. -- Tim Starling 03:01 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not saying that deletion/undeletion wars are a good thing, just that they have happened, and will probably continue to happen, so we shouldn't close our eyes and ignore them. -- Tim Starling 03:12 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'd take the opposite approach. Sysop wars over deletion/undeletion should not happen, and if they do happen then both sysops should be immediately demoted, in my opinion. Martin 19:17, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Actually, this page doesn't necessarily seem to work as described it the paragraph I tagged. If a sysop sees your request but doesn't trust you, he or she isn't likely to honor your request for undeletion. There doesn't seem to be a policy for the "lack of trust" issue. -- Cyan 18:39, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

that is problematic indeed. Must say there, that a couple of undeletion I practiced for some people lead my mail box to explode under critics. This is tiresome and unproductive. Do you have an option for undeleting sysops not to be bugged by non-trusting sysops ? Anthère

Tell 'em that if they don't like the policy, they should come here and suggest a better one. Martin 19:17, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Just noting that the List of Heterosexuals have been listed here for close to two weeks. Two users has since voted for undeletion against none. Is something rotten in the state of Denmark? BL 17:21, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It's not clear that Lir still wants the page undeleted. I sent him a copy after he provided me with an email address, and he hasn't followed up on the matter. If you want it undeleted permanently, perhaps you should make a separate request. If you want it undeleted so that you can view it, as Lir did, I will happily send you a copy if you provide me with an email address to send it to. Cheers, Cyan 19:26, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Discussion of articles

There seems to be a lot of discussion on "Votes for undeletion" about the merits (or lack thereof) of the Sept. 11th articles. I think that we should establish that Vfu should not be used for discussion of the content of the articles being proposed for undeletion. That would be unfair, since most Wikipedians can no longer read it. (Yes, they can make requests to sysops to be privately e-mailed or whatever, but that takes more effort than a lot of people can be bothered with, so the process is not very open in practice even if it is in theory.) I think this page should be used only for discussing whether or not there is sufficient reason for the case to be reopened. For example, I think that casting doubt on the process by which the articles were deleted is reason enough to reopen the case. Discussion of the merits of the articles should then take place on Vfd after undeletion, rather than on Vfu, in my opinion. -- Oliver P. 03:06, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Anyone can ask for a copy of a deleted article on VfU, I've done this once and it arrived in my email box in minutes, so my impression on a very small sample space is that the system works well.

But perhaps there should be two pages for undeletion, one for pages deleted by proper listing in VfD, the other for pages summarily deleted or allegedly deleted without proper process. Reason: For articles deleted after discussion on VfD, the onus of proof should be on those who want the article undeleted, to reopen the discussion; On the other hand, for articles which have not enjoyed this period of discussion for whatever reason, the onus of proof should be on those who want it to remain deleted, as the discussion has not yet taken place and should. Andrewa 08:45, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Casting doubt on the process is enough to undelete? No, I disagree with this. People are proposing that articles be undeleted when there was a nearly unanimous vote to delete. Making articles ping-pong back and forth between VfD and VfU whenever a single person "casts doubt" is a bad idea. Daniel Quinlan 17:14, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm. It depends what you mean by "casting doubt on the process". If the process was followed, then someone objecting to the process is not a case for undeleting... that's a non-terminating loop as you say. But if there is doubt that the process was followed, I'd say undelete. The most common scenario for this is that something is instantly deleted that in hindsight needs discussion. This discussion should then take place on VfD, and the article needs to be undeleted for this to happen. The only time extended discussion should happen in VfU is when there's some reason for not undeleting, such as privacy concerns.

What we're after is a system that deletes trash and keeps useful stuff all with a minimum of overhead for both sysops and contributors generally. It needs to be robust, that is allow decisions to be reversed easily in need. Which is pretty much what we've got IMO. The main problem I see is overuse of VfD, when eg the article could have been instantly made a useful redirect or a useful stub. Misplaced Pages:Cleanup is addressing this, perhaps sometimes undeleted articles should be listed there rather than straight to VfD? Or does this already happen? I haven't seen a case but I'm not all that regular here. Andrewa 20:21, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If something is deleted "out of process", then that can be instantly undeleted. If something has gone through VfD and the decision made to delete it, it should not be undeleted without agreement being reached here first that it should be. Otherwise, you will just get one person who thinks nothing should ever be deleted casting doubt on everything that is deleted, regardless of what consensus was reached at VfD. I also think that if anything is undeleted for any reason, then that must be (re-)listed on VfD. Obviously the person who deleted it is voting that it be deleted, so their view should be taken into account. Angela. 20:39, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How long do these things need to be here? There are things that have been here for weeks. RickK 07:59, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've moved some of them to Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/undeleted and Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/deleted. I think 2 weeks is usually going to be long enough. Angela. 08:13, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Although in some cases it has been, may have been, or has arguably been justified, there is a tendency to delete articles having to do with post-World War II or contemporary surrealism. This tendency should be looked at more closely in future. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:09, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Kobe Bryant's accuser's name

We don't have a consensus on publishing the name yet, even on the Kobe Bryant page. It's highly controversial, and we have at least two versions of the deleted article available without the name. That should be sufficient to evaluate the undeletion issue. People looking for this issue (it's reported on Misplaced Pages:Goings-on, for example) only know to look for the issue, and may not recognize it if it's listed under the name. --Michael Snow 01:13, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)