Wikiversity talk:Requests for Deletion

From Wikiversity

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Procedures

There needs to be two different procedures:

1. Deleting someone elses pages.
2. Deleting a page that you created by mistake.

Currently, all the instructions, templae, and procedures are for the first case. People in the sacond case are intimidated. ~~~~ Robert Elliott 03:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] done!

I set this up. If you do not like it, roll back. Robert Elliott 12:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please delete my page

Pages at this page should also be delt with.--Balloonguy 22:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay - I've dealt with most of the requests. Please leave comments on that page. Cormaggio talk 14:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense and bots

I'm not too familiar yet with deletion policies, but I think there's more to it than just "vandalism". Vandalism suggests malice and damage, but what about people and bots that are just being silly? Some bots run around the web just submitting any forms they can dig up and leaving behind messages like "nice site". I think it's difficult to predict what bot-programmers will think up next, but it's a waste of time voting on the obviously absurd. On the other hand, it's quite a feat of judgment to tell the difference between attempted absurdity and absurd attempts. McCormack 20:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's deal with those cases consistent with how very public wikis use soft security? I think it's a good rule of thumb. --HappyCamper 16:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inactivity

Seems like no admins are monitoring this page. If someone notices this, please get on these? The Jade Knight 22:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to try my hand at processing these requests...keep an eye on me, and jump in to help out too if you can. :-) --HappyCamper 15:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
So, this is the pattern I am using - blanking each section once discussion has been completed, and then adding a note to the talk page if the page is kept. --HappyCamper 23:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

I tried to work out how/where resolved requests are archived? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikiversity:Deletion requests/Archive. I think some discussions have been removed from the page without being correctly archived. --JWSchmidt 01:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks JWS. That helps. It looks now to me as though there are actually two archive pages:
Maybe the latter should be moved to the former? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
From this edit in 2006 until this April 15 2008 edit there was a link on the Requests for Deletion page to Wikiversity:Deletion requests/Archives. On 15 April 2008, Wikiversity:Deletion requests/Archives was moved to Wikiversity:Deletion requests/Archive/1. Wikiversity:Deletion requests/Archive was made on 15 April 2008 as a container for Wikiversity:Deletion requests/Archive/1 and Wikiversity:Deletion requests/Archives was deleted. Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Archives was made on 10 August 2007, but has never been used. Hopefully all of the past discussions have been correctly archived...I have not had time to check. --JWSchmidt 14:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
It looks like my attempt to organize things has been a bit confusing. In any case, we really need to archive some material and figure out where the rest of the material went. --mikeu talk 23:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I moved Wikiversity:Deletion requests/Archive to Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Archives and also moved the Archives/1 subpage. I left Archives/2 empty for any material that we find later, and will start using Archive/3 for current material. --mikeu talk 23:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to clean up the archives, and also move old discussions. Please check and see if I missed anything. --mikeu talk 19:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ethics

first Ethics was moved, as the beginning of a 'cleanup' effort. Then it was nominated for deletion. Then it was 'merged' - apparently without discussion - then the merge was reverted and the Ethics nomination was removed although so far as I could see only one or two people had voiced an opinion and certainly no community decision or anything like consensus had been reached. I understand Consensus is not a policy here; but is this how you normally do things? Fiat by edit-war??? Why not have a full discussion, with the Ethics project en toto, then individual pages if that does not pass. KillerChihuahua 21:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I note the deletion tag, complete with the "Please voice your opinion" is still on the Wikipedia Ethics page. KillerChihuahua 21:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by 'merged' and than reverted? --darkYin yang.svglama 22:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] page deletion and censorship

There was some recent discussion of censorship during consideration of a page deletion proposal ([1],[2]). Page deletion can function as an important part of censoring wiki content. I feel that page deletion is for pages made by vandals and pages that are actively doing damage to the mission of Wikiversity. Every time I see a page deletion proposal for which I am unable to understand how the page is doing damage to the mission of Wikiversity I start to try to understand why the page has been proposed for deletion. In this case, the deletion proposal raised the prospect making either just my learning blog, or potentially, if a precedent were set, all learning blogs, subject to censorship at Wikiversity. I am using the term "censor" to refer to the power to control freedom of expression. The use of learning blogs for exploration of learning goals and educational experiences is an experiment at Wikiversity, an experiment concerning a specific way to use wiki technology as a tool to support online learning. Allowing the blog format on Wikiversity user pages allows for more freedom of expression than is possible in other Wikiversity namespaces. Since Wikiversity has already seen censorship and a warning issued that some censorship is not a matter for discussion or open to questioning by the community, I feel that learning blogs have become an important resource for examining the educational implications of censorship at Wikiversity. My comment was a call for discussion and clarification of why my blog was proposed for deletion and the implications of that deletion proposal, particularly implications for Wikiversity censorship. I'd still like to see a community exploration and discussion of censorship at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 17:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the best approach would to have a (simple, clear) policy on userspace blogs, as well as other uses of the userspace (assignments, surveys, etc.). Sound good? --SB_Johnny talk 19:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I just realized we have this page: Help:Blog. I made a link to it from Wikiversity:User page. I'm not sure if it will be possible to have a simple policy. [deleted bad faith assumption of censorship]. Is policy development still relevant to Wikiversity? --JWSchmidt 17:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Darklama: do you care to defend your latest act of censorship? In my comments that you censored (above) I provided a description of events at Wikiversity that is relevant to this discussion and my description was entirely civil. I stand by my description and I am willing to defend its validity by discussion of the evidence of past censorship of Wikiversity content. Can you explain what is uncivil about discussing the history of censorship at Wikiversity? --JWSchmidt 20:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Defense? That sounds like wikilawyering to me. I don't think there is anything inherently uncivil about discussing censorship in and of itself. I think you did more than that though. If you don't like a proposal or decision, I think name calling [and] throwing accusations around [removed comment] isn't going to help people see your side of things; I think people are in fact more likely to respond in kind, which is probably why people have called you a troll or accused you of trolling. If you have got a problem with how things are going, why don't you propose policy changes or propose new policies instead? I think if you equate deletion with censorship that is your problem. In the mean time people will continue to make Requests for Censorship and discuss whether contents should be censored, whether you like it or not.
I think people are less likely to think your being uncivil, if you stuck to using "I" sentences that explain your position. You were doing fine above when you did stuck to "I" sentences. I think things quickly went off course thereafter. I think my change kept what was civil and removed what wasn't. I don't think bringing up censorship was particularly relevant in your response to SB_Johny, but could of been kept if what you wrote had remained civil like the rest of what was kept. --darkYin yang.svglama 23:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
So, Darklama, you want "I sentences"? Here is one: I reject all attempts to put Wikiversity in the front ranks of wikis that are ruled by a gang of deletionists and censors who cannot be bothered to write down as policy what the rules are for their practices of deletion and censorship. "why don't you propose policy changes or propose new policies instead?" <-- Mainly because the last two times I have tried to do so I was blocked from editing, desysoped and censored. There is also the fact that some "leaders" at Wikiversity have adopted the infantile strategy of opposing any policy that I help develop. As far as I can tell based on the events of the past six months, the Ruling Party's plan for how to run Wikiversity is to impose all the repressive rules that exist at Wikibooks while giving members of the Ruling Junta the right to violate policy and apply unwritten rules and mandates as they please. Have fun with that, but don't expect me to happily let that vision of the future be imposed on this community. For two years Wikiversity functioned according to its mission, but now a gang of self-appointed censors is participating in disruption of the Wikiversity mission by means of deletionism and the promotion of double speak. I will always resist any effort to turn Wikiversity into a police state where censorship cannot be discussed and where discussion of the history of Wikiversity is called "wikilawyering" and "uncivil". One of the major tasks for participants at Wikiversity is to discover how to promote online learning. An unwelcome invasion of deletionists and censors from Wikibooks and Wikipedia has forced upon the Wikiversity community the need to study and learn about how self-appointed censors function in wiki communities. Part of the fruits of that learning is applying what is learned to the task of developing Wikiversity policy. I'm engaged in that process. I think when you insist on reducing discussion of Wikiversity history and policy to [censored] then you are helping people see my side of things. Let me make a prediction. At Wikipedia it has become a proud mantra that Wikipedia does not allow free speech. My prediction is that you will become famous at Wikiversity for proclaiming that Wikiversity is not a place for free speech. "name calling" <-- please make a list of all the names that are not allowed at Wikiversity. I wonder if "troll" will make your list, or is that name officially approved of by the Ruling Party? Do you want me to refer to the Ruling Party at Wikiversity as something like, "The glorious beacons of reason and scholarship?" Please start Wikiversity:Doublespeak so that you can provide me with a guide to the officially sanctioned way to talk about the history of Wikiversity and the Ruling Party. "why people have called you a troll" <-- it is very simple....people who talk about topics that others do not want talked about are called "troll" or "witch" or "commie". If you are in the Ruling Party you can be grossly uncivil and call people "troll", or worse. A mere peon like me is called uncivil for daring to discuss past actions of the Ruling Party. Doublespeak and double standards are an interesting foundation for developing a community of learners. "throwing accusations around" <-- I stand by my descriptions of past events at Wikiversity. If you do not agree with my views then why not participate in an adult discussion of the evidence so we can find out if your view or mine is closer to reality? Are you so unsure of your position that all you are willing to do is stuff a rag in my mouth? There is nothing uncivil about discussing the past actions of admins no matter how ugly those actions are or how much they want to whitewash history. At Wikiversity, custodians have an obligation to explain their actions, not to prevent discussion of their past actions from taking place. I realize that your custodian mentor is a master of preventing of discussions, for example by banning me from #wikiversity-en without discussion, warning or reason given, but are you really comfortable with following him down that road? There was a time when I thought you were going to bring technical expertise to Wikiversity...it never occurred to me that you would take up the task of censoring Wikiversity. Had I known, I would have asked some questions about your qualifications for the job. Maybe we should make "censor" an official new type of Wikiversity functionary and have community discussions of candidates for the position. --JWSchmidt 15:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Darkcode (and mikeu): I don't think this editing people's comments approach is going very well. If there's a problem, please just warn the user on their talk page, and block if the warnings aren't heeded.
I agree. --mikeu talk 18:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
JWSchmidt: this should probably be on WV:CR, since your complaints seem to be about more than just what's been going on at WV:RFD. --SB_Johnny talk 17:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Making assumptions about other people's motives are unhelpful in an adult conversation. JWS you still need to work on not making assumptions about what motivates other people, and what their motives are. From what you have said above you have already made a bunch of assumptions:

  1. people are motivated by policies on Wikipedia and Wikibooks
  2. people are motivated to impose such rules on Wikiversity
  3. whatever rules you think are being used on Wikiversity actually exist on Wikipedia and Wikibooks
  4. people are motivated to oppose any policies that you suggested
  5. people are strongly motivated to delete anything they don't like
  6. people are strongly motivated to censor anything they don't like
  7. people who are motivated to delete or censor anything must come from Wikipedia or Wikibooks
  8. people are motivated to turn Wikiversity into a police state
  9. people are motivated to prevent discussions about censorship and the history of Wikiversity
  10. people are motivated to disrupt the mission of Wikiversity
  11. people share enough of the same motivations and reasoning to be part of some common gang, party or whatever
  12. people that talk about subjects that other people don't want to talk about are called trolls
  13. that I was asking for an explanation, rather than trying to explain myself why you might of been called a troll
  14. that you were called a troll because people don't want you to talk about a subject
  15. that people don't want you to talk about a subject
  16. that talking about past actions is uncivil
  17. that what has been said was not an adult conversation
  18. that I am personally censoring you simply because I disagree with your views
  19. that I have made censoring Wikiversity my personal task

All of this does a very poor job of telling me or other people what you want and does a poor job of encouraging a constructive adult conversation. Rather this is the sort of things that leads people to make assumptions of there own about your motivations. Like that you have a personal vendetta and that you no longer have Wikiversity's best interests in mind.

I never thought things would turn out this way either. I never would of guessed if I had been asked last year, that you would go so far in your ways as to make a construction adult conversation with you basically impossible. Despite that I still feel obligated to try to help you learn and help you learn how you can have a constructive adult conversation with me and other people, even if it feels like a waste of time at times and feels like all you want to do is fight me, and even if it seems like you consider me the enemy. I guess I'm just stubborn like that. So you can attack me, fight me, assume bad things about me, criticize me, etc. all you want. However I doubt I will ever be able to notice, understand or comprehend what it is your after or your criticisms until you do completely away with your current approach in trying to talk to people. I doubt very few other people will ever be able too either. Before you jump to any more conclusions, I doubt it has anything to do with ignoring you personally intentionally either. I know for myself almost anything you have written in the past 6 months or so has been rather like trying to find a needle in a haystack or like trying to find multiple needles in multiple haystacks. If you don't care that I cannot understand or comprehend your writing, or that other people may not be able to do either, that's fine too. I just hope that when you can reply to this, you will think things over and not continue in this way. --darkYin yang.svglama 17:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"you can attack me" <-- It is unfortunate that you adopted the habit of calling discussion of your own behavior an "attack". That is a way of gaming the system that does not help Wikiversity move ahead. Please list everything you think is an "attack" and I will be happy to discuss it with you. Since concerns have been raised that no "off topic" content be added to this page, I suggest you come to my talk page and discuss what is upsetting you. I'm willing to discuss all concerns about my editing. Alternatively, you could remove the bad ban you imposed on my participation in #wikiversity-en and we could talk in there. --JWSchmidt 14:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
You are now assuming that I am trying to "game the system" because you have assumed that I see and understand what you wrote in the same way that you see and understand it, which is not true. You are also assuming that I am upset when I am not upset. I don't see any discussion about my behaviors. I see assumptions, assumptions that seem to always lack a frame of reference or substance. The biggest assumption you seem to make is that people know what your talking about or referring to. What references you do use seem to always be pulled out of context. Without a frame of reference or any idea why you consider a specific reference important, what you write looks like an underhanded way to attack people you have a grudge against, rather than an adult conversation. If you want to move this to your talk page, please move this entire section there. --darkYin yang.svglama 15:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
"If you want to move this to your talk page...." <-- I prefer to carry out discussions where they start, however, I have learned that doing anything to upset the Ruling Party can result in a block or a ban, so I suggested that it might be safest to move this discussion. I suspect that you get a special exemption from the Ruling Party under their rules for double standards, so I'll risk staying here if you do. "You are now assuming that I am trying to 'game the system'" <-- I made no such assumption. I do not know if you are trying to game the system. Making false claims about what is civil and what constitutes a personal attack are common practices in the wiki world. Usually such false claims are used by abusive admins when they want to get rid of a new wiki participant who does not know how to put up a defense against admin abuse. Some admins really enjoy using that strategy to game the system and they start making false claims where experienced wiki editors will notice. Eventually, enough people in the community will notice what is going on and the community will get rid of the abusive admin. Sometimes that process takes years, but the truth wins out in the end. "it feels like a waste of time at times and feels like all you want to do is fight me, and even if it seems like you consider me the enemy" <-- Pardon me, but if those are the kinds of things that are on your mind then I find myself forced to conclude that I have done something to upset you. "what you write looks like an underhanded way to attack people you have a grudge against" <-- I'd like to discuss this. Please list the "number one example" of something I wrote that "looks like an underhanded way to attack people". --JWSchmidt 19:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Aside from the examples that can be found on User:JWSchmidt/Review, your recent comparison of certain wikipedians to arsonists could easily be interpreted as an underhanded attack. --SB_Johnny talk 21:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I was exploring an analogy that you suggested, but in other forums I've used direct and precise language to describe the same events I was referring to in that analogy. I dispute the often repeated claim that discussing historical events at Wikiversity is a way of attacking people. I think it is reasonable to make an analogy between arson and someone coming to Wikiversity with the assigned mission of getting a Wikiversity participant banned...outrageous behavior that truly resulted in a firestorm. The fact that someone could come to Wikiversity with the goal of getting a Wikiversity participant banned and be rewarded with custodianship indicates that we need all available tools, including analogies, to explore such historical events. I also think it is reasonable to make an analogy between arson and an admin from Wikipedia rushing in to censor Wikiversity in an attempt to hide the facts of a bad block at Wikipedia...particularly since that censorship culminated in a fiery meltdown during which multiple Wikiversity pages were falsely called attack pages. I find it a strange double standard that Wikipedians can get away with such things but my attempts to defend Wikiversity from abusive Wikipedians is called "underhanded attacks". --JWSchmidt 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity_talk:Requests_for_Deletion"