Difference between revisions of "LGPedia talk:Deletion Policy"

From LGPedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Lesser Deletion Policy)
(Lesser Deletion Policy)
Line 69: Line 69:
 
::#Well, we do have a [[LGPedia:Policy]] page, which has ''barely'' been edited, so maybe we could expand that. Regardless, we do need to keep a record of policies so that they can be cited.
 
::#Well, we do have a [[LGPedia:Policy]] page, which has ''barely'' been edited, so maybe we could expand that. Regardless, we do need to keep a record of policies so that they can be cited.
 
::Now, on the issue of whether to keep the disputed edit on the page during the discussion, I'd like to hear other peoples' opinions.  I think there are good arguments on both sides, so I'd like to hear what other people think.--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 18:44, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
 
::Now, on the issue of whether to keep the disputed edit on the page during the discussion, I'd like to hear other peoples' opinions.  I think there are good arguments on both sides, so I'd like to hear what other people think.--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 18:44, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
 +
 +
:The rollback link is not available to all users, only spam patrol and upwards. Hence why QtheC is likely not familiar with it.
 +
:Frankly, I don't understand what this discussion is about. The deletion (and addition) process for parts of pages is very simple:
 +
:#Delete (or add) the part
 +
:#If no one contests it, go to 6.
 +
:#If somebody reverts your edit, initiate a discussion on the talk page, outlining why you want the part deleted (or added)
 +
:#Discuss
 +
:#Finish discussion, either through abandonment, consent, administrative decree, or admin-supervised vote.
 +
:#Accept the outcome and continue your pedia work
 +
:Let's be honest, the whole "personal preference" angle is only in there because of recent trouble you two had. Either side is going to accuse the other side of their version just being a personal preference, not factually right. That doesn't really work as an objective criterion.
 +
:Fact is, the burden of proof always lies with the acting side. If you delete (or add) something, it is on you to prove that it's the right thing to do - not on the other side to prove that there is a reason to contest it.
 +
::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 20:04, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

Revision as of 01:04, 22 March 2008

It's become apparent that we could use a deletion policy here at the LGpedia. Let's respectfully discuss ideas here.--JayHenry 13:25, 1 December 2006 (CST)

Articles that have complaints brought against them, need to be either defended by its editors with citable facts or else yield to the edits of the complainant who must introduce citable facts of their own.
Any article that is an inflammatory expression of opinion should be deleted as well -- Twjaniak 13:44, 1 December 2006 (CST)

Good idea Jayhenry..--Iris2009

This could be added to the LGpedia page where several other questions are answered.--modelmotion 13:32, 1 December 2006 (CST)

I added a section to the LGpedia page that direct pple here for discussion. --modelmotion 14:44, 1 December 2006 (CST)

  • I feel strongly that articles should be relevant to lonelygirl15. There are a tremendous amount of articles that are completely unrelated to lonelygirl15 or are based entirely off speculation.
  • While I'm not suggesting we eliminate all speculation from the LGpedia, I don't think that every single speculative item deserves its own page. This makes the LGpedia cluttered, and for users who are here for information, it has become impossible to tell what information is relevant, and what information is not.
I would certainly object to this point. Speculation is a huge part of what LG15 is about and it is useful to collect prominent theories and related evidence in LGPedia so that people don't have to hunt through the forums to find information relating to their questions. Some of the most useful pages on this site are heavily speculative (e.g., canon). I think that speculation should not be deleted from LGPedia, provided it is clearly relevant. I do, however, think it is necessary to clearly denote what is speculative and to separate it from information that has been confirmed by the videos. --Treefunk 13:31, 2 December 2006 (CST)
  • I also feel strongly that one valid reason that the community can decide to delete a page is for purposes of reorganization. We have a huge amount of very, very bad articles, simply because there is not enough information to justify everything having its own article. I think the community should be able to decide that information should be reorganized.--JayHenry 15:24, 1 December 2006 (CST)

I think we must consider the context of LG in the matrix of our current social/religious/scientific society. The Creators clearly wanted us to think and they have accomplished that. In some cases Mesh himself maybe the only person who actually knows whether or not a train of thought is relevant and even then he may be reading LGpedia to find out where fans are taking the clues in their own research. All this needs to be considered before deleting a page and perhaps Mesh could act as a resource in the process.--modelmotion 15:43, 1 December 2006 (CST)

I think one thing we could use is a "controversial tag" like wikipedia uses. That might be a good starting point for content that is not blatantly offensive. Let the users discuss the controversy openly. As that develops it should become clear if the page deserves a deletion tag or not.--modelmotion 18:13, 1 December 2006 (CST)

I think that in some cases the deletion tage should be changed to on "Merged" instead of "Deleted". I think its intuitively obvious that when two pages are merged that one of them will be deleted. I think the name of the final merged page should be then stated as part of the tag. The term deletion should be reserved for pages where the content is irrelevant etc and the content is goint go be removed along with the page.--modelmotion 14:59, 2 December 2006 (CST)

The Process

I propose the following process, spam pages, vandalism pages, empty pages, and inflammatory pages can be deleted by admins without an extended process. For other pages, I propose that they be nominated for deletion, and then there's a one-week period for discussion and improvement (if possible), at the end of which we vote and act according to the vote.--JayHenry 11:57, 2 December 2006 (CST)

I second this motion -- Twjaniak 12:15, 2 December 2006 (CST)

"I propose the following process, spam pages, vandalism pages, empty pages, and inflammatory pages can be deleted by admins without an extended process." - I think that goes without saying, The only tricky one might be inflammatory but i think we have to trust the admins to use their discretion. However there should probably be an appeal process if someone feel that the deletion was not appropirate (which let hope never happens).--modelmotion 15:03, 2 December 2006 (CST)

"For other pages, I propose that they be nominated for deletion, and then there's a one-week period for discussion and improvement (if possible), at the end of which we vote and act according to the vote" I think it would be helpful if there was a wider ranges on choices for the time period. I appreciated the 30 days that Tw game me with the location pages and i think with something like that you need a bit more time. In other instances 7 days would probably suffice. I think a range of 7 -30 days would be better and leave it up to the admins to chose whats appropriate for any given circumstance. Again their would be the right of appeal of the person feels that the time span chosen is inappropriate.--modelmotion 15:07, 2 December 2006 (CST)

"at the end of which we vote and act according to the vote"- by we I am assuming that you are referring to the admins. That probably the only way it could work practically. However I feel that the appeal process should involve an arbitration board consisting of both users and admins. Perhaps something like 3 users and 2 admins would be the best way to ensure we have a system of checks and balances. Remember this is only for an appeal and in most regular circumstances that should not impede the admins.--modelmotion 15:11, 2 December 2006 (CST)

By the way "seconding a motion" is a committe term that has specific meanings. I am assuming that Tw was just using the term to mean that he agrees because as far as I know there is no committee and no rules of order so in that context I do not know what he means.--modelmotion 15:14, 2 December 2006 (CST)

I like the process as it was described, but I have my doubts about the appeals system. I think the admins need to have final say. Especially if there is a 7-30 day long period to discuss, we should really avoid drawing it out any longer after that. Let's not make it onerous to delete articles that need to go. OwenIsCool 15:34, 2 December 2006 (CST)

I seriously doubt that there would be a lot of use of the appeal process, however its existence does give the system and escape valve for anyone who feel really committed. The deletion could go ahead as schedule but if the user felt it was not fair they would still have a mechanism to vent their case. I think it also keeps checks and balances in place and that was one of the smartest things the framers of the US constitution created, so why not learn from the best:)--modelmotion 15:47, 2 December 2006 (CST)
Well, how about we say "no less than 7 days." As for appeals, we need someway to reinstate a page. I recently deleted a page on Vampyrism, but if Bree turned out to be a vampire we'd obviously want to reinstate it. Of course, the only reason I can imagine overturning a deletion decision is if new information in the series changes the relevance of a page.--JayHenry 10:55, 3 December 2006 (CST)

Lesser Deletion Policy

Discussion of policy for removing content additions from existing pages: The policy described on this page applies to deletion of entire pages, and describes a process for those cases. There are a range of lesser deletions that happen in the course of normal use of the LGPedia, from typo corrections, to information corrections or additions, to formatting, etc., that normally require no such process, and that seems reasonable much of the time. However, occasionally something added and considered good content by one user is deleted by another who has a different opinion. In such cases, a 'Lesser Deletion Policy' of some sort would be a good idea for the same reasons as the Page Deletion Policy (fostering respect, reducing conflicts, etc.). I'm not sure if such a policy would be amended on this page, or whether it would go on a new linked page. I would suggest that it include some of the following ideas:

  • 1. When deleting or reverting the contribution of another user, it is strongly encouraged to include a comment explaining the reason for the deletion.
  • 2. If the deletion appears to be a matter of personal preference rather than a clearly stated policy of the LGPedia, the deletion may be fairly contested and the material may be restored and if it is, should not be deleted again prior to first proposing it's lasting deletion on that page's talk page, and allowing some reasonable period of time for discussion and agreement. The goal is to reach a mutually agreeable solution or compromise, or at least understanding, and avoid back and forth editing or ill will that may result.
  • 3. Possible resolutions are an alternate (better) location for the content, a modified form for the content, or removal entirely of the content, once the reasons are understood and agreed to.
  • 4. If no easy resolution comes about through discussion on the talk page, then LGPedia staff may need to facilitate a compromise or make a final decision.
  • 5. If a reasonable time for discussion, and attempts with the help of staff to reach a compromise still fail to satisfy those involved, then a vote may be requested as in the process for page deletions. (Note: I'm not familiar with how a vote as mentioned above actually works, so this may or may not make sense here)
  • 6. If a more general issue or policy question arises from a particular instance, that discussion should be added where appropriate.
  • 7. A summary page of past content policy resolutions (possibly in FAQ or Q and A format) should be maintained, to enable consistency and possibly guide and simplify future editing decisions. This would be a good thing to point to in a future editing comment, i.e. 'Per the Content Guide...'
I agree with you in principal, QtheC, but how does one define "good content"? We can't run off of an objective standard here. I mean, honestly, it could be the opinion of one person that a statement that Katherine Pawlak is too old to play a 15-year-old is good content. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be reverted. Honestly, I think what a good policy would be would be to say, if something is conflicted, and is reverted, and then the original contributor has a problem with the reversion, they should start a discussion as to why they believe their content is deserving a place on the page, without adding it back in.
AFAIK, this is how things are currently run, even if it is not formally stated as such. (Also, you know as well as I do that there isn't a summary box available when you hit that "revert" button.) - Shiori 16:22, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
  • I'm by no means a wiki expert, and I don't see a "revert" button, but when I look at the history page, I see "undo" after each change, and when I hit this I get a comment box with a default Summary comment that looks like this: "Undo revision 113515 by [[Special:Contributions/QtheC|QtheC]] ([[User talk:QtheC|Talk]])." That comment can be edited before saving the undo, so perhaps that is the right way to back out the most recent change? Direct editing of course, always allows for a Summary comment.
  • As for "good content" that is always going to be somewhat subjective, and surely differences of opinion may arise. In the example you mention of Katherine Pawlak's age, an alternative wording might make that statement more acceptable changing it from an opinion to information about her actual vs. portrayed age. So the procedure I am suggesting is 1. delete or modify the content with a comment (if no one objects, that's that), 2. if the content is restored, a discussion is required before a second deletion (unless this restoration is overridden by staff) 3. discussion, resolution suggestions, help by staff if needed, possible vote if all else fails 4. final change is put in place
  • The difference here seems to be whether the content is restored during the discussion period. I favor (temporary) restoration because it encourages addition of content and pushes the discussion toward justifying removal, rather than justifying addition. To me that seems like a more respectful process, and will tend to encourage finding an alternate form or location for content rather than the discouraging experience of having ones contribution erased entirely. In order to maximize participation and enjoyment, the bias should be toward inclusiveness rather than exclusiveness. It is possible that some of the more strictly formatted pages (such as Video transcripts) would reasonably be kept clear of unusual additions (things that alter the formatting especially) until they were approved, but that more general use topic pages that tend to vary one to the next would be handled more as I have suggested.
Thanks for your insights, QtheC. I think I understand your position much better now, and I appreciate that you've started this discussion. Relating to your proposed guidelines:
  1. I agree here, but exceptions can of course be made for obvious vandalism, spam, etc (as you say). As far as how easy this is to do, I think Shiori is referring to the "rollback" button, which does not allow the user to enter an edit summary, but simply undoes the edit. However, there are other ways to revert (the "undo" button is one; the other way is to click on a previous version of the page, go to edit, then save it.) These other ways allow a summary to be entered, and really, it's not that much more work than the "rollback" button and could prevent a lot of potential problems.
  2. I'll come back to this one (see below).
  3. Sounds good to me.
  4. If by "staff", you mean admins, then that sounds good. However, I would hope things would rarely reach this point (I mean really, it's like when mommy has to break up the fight because the kids can't work it out).
  5. Yeah, I'm not sure this would apply. If even the admins can't make a decision, that's pretty pathetic.
  6. Again, sounds good.
  7. Well, we do have a LGPedia:Policy page, which has barely been edited, so maybe we could expand that. Regardless, we do need to keep a record of policies so that they can be cited.
Now, on the issue of whether to keep the disputed edit on the page during the discussion, I'd like to hear other peoples' opinions. I think there are good arguments on both sides, so I'd like to hear what other people think.--Jonpro 18:44, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
The rollback link is not available to all users, only spam patrol and upwards. Hence why QtheC is likely not familiar with it.
Frankly, I don't understand what this discussion is about. The deletion (and addition) process for parts of pages is very simple:
  1. Delete (or add) the part
  2. If no one contests it, go to 6.
  3. If somebody reverts your edit, initiate a discussion on the talk page, outlining why you want the part deleted (or added)
  4. Discuss
  5. Finish discussion, either through abandonment, consent, administrative decree, or admin-supervised vote.
  6. Accept the outcome and continue your pedia work
Let's be honest, the whole "personal preference" angle is only in there because of recent trouble you two had. Either side is going to accuse the other side of their version just being a personal preference, not factually right. That doesn't really work as an objective criterion.
Fact is, the burden of proof always lies with the acting side. If you delete (or add) something, it is on you to prove that it's the right thing to do - not on the other side to prove that there is a reason to contest it.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 20:04, 21 March 2008 (CDT)