Wikipedia talk:Managed Deletion

message: Voting Open
Also note that I protected the project page (not this one) because voting is underway.  If there are problems with it, please let me know, or, if you're an admin, just unprotect it and let me know that you needed to.  It should be self-evident why the page is protected but, well, for those who wonder, it's so that people who vote "for" it don't end up being counted as having supported something that gets changed.
How can I vote if the page is protected? Filiocht 14:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Cast your vote on Wikipedia:Managed Deletion/Voting.  It's where the "Vote Here" section header/link leads. —Triskaideka 15:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

message: I think this is a significant step in the right direction. Many articles tagged speedy should be deleted, but don't meet the narrow criteria. Getting rid of junk before it gets mirrored is also very desirable. Georgre and I seem to have a bit of difference of opinion on substubs (see User:Niteowlneils/csdornot/--I think the second case is a keep, Georgre probably would think Delete), but I believe that is a separate, and far more contentious issue. Whether it is through this proposal, or a major expansion of speedy cases, I strongly support formalizing getting rid of junk content more quickly. Niteowlneils 18:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Day One

message: Ok, this policy is supposed to belong to the project, not me.  I will answer a couple of things just in terms of what I was thinking, and I'll take recommendations on how to clarify, if clarification is needed.
:1) The admins-only thing:  Two sides to this.  First, what Lee said.  I take the point.  The trick here is that any failure to reach unanimity defaults to VfD, so it only takes one person to say "hold it," and it will go to the usual scheme.  This is at present designed as admin-only voting because this is a subset of CSD and most emphatically not a replacement for VfD.  It will bleed off some of the pressure from VfD, yes, but only in the really obvious cases.  Second part:  I do need to be clear that anyone can nominate to this page.  Just as with CSD, anyone can nominate for Managed Delete, just as anyone can now apply a CSD tag.
:2) The criteria:  Yep.  We're going to disagree on this one.  I'd like to work that out in common as we go.  Right now, I'm more concentrated on the process and the idea.  The specifics will be something that we do disagree with.  I hope that we all nominate to Rossami's candidate pages for the time being so that we can get a sense of the sorts of things people think fit the criteria.  This way we will get a trial run at seeing how far apart we all are.  Niteowlneils disagrees about substubs, and others will disagree about others.  First, we should remember that these criteria are for consideration.  It would still be possible for Niteowlneils or anyone else to offer a single objection to any candidate, and then it would go to VfD.  However, I'd almost like to see some agreement that the approach is sound before we try for the much more difficult task of figuring out the ways in which CSD would expand.
:3) I hope it's clear from everything that I've written, especially the time line and the quorum, that I am not interested in anything radical.  This is not a backdoor power grab.  Rather, this is a pressure valve for two deletion schemes that are currently straining at the seams, and I have specifically invited, and continue to invite, people who I know disagree with me about what is and is not a speedy deletion candidate because I don't want bitterness or surprises.
Finally, remember:  I'm just the proposer, not the owner.  If you think there is any soundness in the approach, please make it better.  If you don't, then please hold off for the voting, assess it again, and vote against it.  I promise that I will do all that I can to make this process as respectful as possible. Geogre 00:18, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "What I was thinking of" day 1 

message: As an admin for a long time, let me just opine that we are moving into a progressively more bureaucratic era. Frankly, it is a full time job keeping up with policy changes, and the sets of rules and proposals for rule changes which sporadically break out. Let us have some common sense here. Out and out junk is immediately visible to most admins and can be deleted or be flagged for asap deletion with no problem. Most admins can spot a spurious request for a speedy deletion; most? no, I would say all. Vfd is cumbersome, and needs a better interface mechanism, but it does work; if mirror sites are an issue, we should maybe word our mandatory backlink and GDFL line to include a disclaimer that includes a caveat about the timeliness or otherwise of the information. That would also have the double benefit of pushing people who are interested in the subject to our pages. What we don't need is MORE policy and process. We need BETTER policy and process. Sjc 09:12, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Just my 2p's worth...

message: One more thought.  If this process goes through, I recommend moving most patent nonsense into this process rather than the current speedy delete process.  I don't mind the "alskdjf" definition of patent nonsense staying a speedy but there is still too much contention over the second definition.  They would be better handled here. Rossami 14:03, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely one of my primary objectives, Rossami. Geogre 18:48, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Patent nonsense

message: Rossami brings up one of the main reasons for a managed delete system.  "Patent nonsense" is the most often interpreted of the speedy deletion candidates.  We all know that "kjljkljdfad" is patent nonsense, and we all know that the articles with nothing but "sample.ogg" over and over are patent nonsense.  We all pretty much agree that an article on Devon Smith with content that says, "Sux at Madden Football i so rule" is patent nonsense.  However, there are many articles just beyond that hypothetical Devon Smith that are nonsense, but may not be "patent" nonsense.  Some folks, like Rossami, cut the line very tight.  Others, like myself, cut it pretty loose.  Managed Delete allows us to have a spot for the ones that are not quite obvious but which are so obvious as to not profit from a longer deliberative process.
Sjc's argument is the one that worries me most.  This proposal does not add more procedure or more paperwork.  In fact, it's a way of shielding us from overly legalistic definitions.  It allows for "common sense" that's actually held in common.  By asking 3 administrators to agree, we have, I hope, a better sense of what is commonly believed by trusted users.  However, by having any dissent at all, any uncertainty, revert to the established VfD, this might well keep the common sense from becoming a narrow oligarchy.  That was my hope, anyway. Geogre 03:54, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "What I was thinking" Day 2 

message: #If people object to the "first three admins to vote" format, what about five admins?  Or what about shortening the time period to 24 hours but taking votes from as many admins as care to contribute in that time frame?  I don't know that I like that last idea; just throwing it out there.
#I'd suggest that articles should only be allowed to go through this process once.  If an article deleted via this process gets recreated, I think it should go to VfD automatically.  Is there an easy way to tell when this happens?
#Rachel Buck, which just came up on VfD, is IMO a perfect case for this suggested policy.  Doesn't fit any of the criteria for a speedy delete, but it's obvious that it's going to get deleted.  Would it fall under one of the existing categories, e.g. "Clear advertising", or should we consider another category, such as "Vanity"? 
In general I like this proposal and I support the idea of doing something to address the listed problems.  If this fails, I think we should consider broadening the criteria for speedy deletion a bit.  —Triskaideka 22:32, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken re #1; I was just thinking that a couple more admins would offset other users' perceptions that a few biased admins showing up together could exercise undue authority.  Re #2, though, I did mean VfD, not speedy.  If Managed Deletion is implemented, it will be used to delete articles that authors could previously have argued for on VfD.  We already see on VfD that people sometimes vote to delete an article that actually deserves inclusion because they mistake it for one of the categories covered by MD—advertising strikes me as the most likely one—until someone comes along and points out that the subject has actual merit.  I don't know if automatically sending recreated articles to VfD is the best solution, but I would feel better if authors had some opportunity to argue for the merits of articles in these proposed MD categories, if they feel strongly enough.  If they don't have VfD as a remedy, then they'll take their case to VfU instead, and I don't think that's what we want. —Triskaideka 00:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assorted ideas 

message: Some excellent points are raised here.  
#For [User:Meelar|Meelar's comments: I have attempted to clarify what I think should be the case in an amendment to the proposal (see a tweak to the language in "Procedure" and a new "Caveat 3").  Since, at this point, this is a juried but non-deliberative system for administrators to act upon but for all users to nominate to, any objecting administrator should undelete the deleted page, list it on VfD, and leave a note in the listing indicating that that action has been taken.  Since the Managed Delete page is not designed to take the place of Speedy Delete or VfD, there is no need for "Votes for Undeletion" and no obviation of the requirement to list on VfD if there is an objection.
#For Triskaideka's comments: There is a lot there.  First, I don't really want to get into the issue of how many admins or non-admins at this point, but I take Bishonen's and others' comments to heart.  When this is ready for a proposal, I will write (or anyone else may) an alternative voting mechanism as an alternative in the voting so that people can vote for the scheme I'm proposing now vs. one wherein all Wikipedians (other than the article author) may vote.  I must say again, however, that I feel very strongly that this should not be an open field.  If it is, it merely replicates VfD, and this process is not meant to take anything but obvious stuff from VfD.  However, the process is designed for speed, and we should be thinking of it as more of an expansion/quality control for Speedy Delete than anything else.  Increasing the requisite number to five is not a particular problem, but I cannot see it being much higher than that.
:The trick to recreated content is that a VfD-deleted article will have a history on it.  A speedy deleted will, too.  However, I will amend the "Procedures" section to indicate that the deleting administrator leave a tag or word on the article's talk page indicating the process.  I absolutely agree that recreation should go directly to VfD, and not back to Managed Delete nor Speedy Delete.  If it has been recreated, and it's nonsense, the author may benefit from a hearing on VfD.  It is also quite possible that a VfD after Managed Delete is a sign of an improved article.  I will amend the "Procedures" section accordingly.
:Rachel Buck is an excellent example of why we need the Managed Delete page.  Some administrators would speedy delete that article, and many Wikipedians would apply the CSD tag to it.  By policy, neither should.
#For Bishonen's comments: I don't know whether increasing numbers is the solution or not.  I do think that a 48 hour minimum will help.  It's not as if a fourth person couldn't come along and declare a minority opinion; it's just that only three are needed.  I think this will stop the "first three to come along" problem.  Otherwise, I don't really know how it can be done.
Thanks to all for their comments and very constructive input.  I am rather more encouraged than I expected by the comments so far, and I may amend our timeline a bit and move this to genuine policy proposal (with announcement on Village Pump) early.  Geogre 03:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "What I was thinking" Day 3

message: :That sounds good; I was skeptical, knowing that I often disagree with you on deletion matters, but this is a solid proposal. One more question: would the votes be archived somewhere? Personally, I hope not; instruction creep is rampant. But what would procedure be? Meelar (talk) 04:24, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
::I don't see any reason to archive them.  The MD page itself will have an archive via its History.  Anything beyond that seems excessive. Geogre 12:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then I misunderstood your process.  I thought you meant that the "voting" would occur on the article's page itself.  (Hence the way I worded it when I reformated the process into a numbered list.)  By your reply above, I get the impression that you are talking about a separate discussion page, perhaps modeled after the current VfD format.  Please clarify?  Rossami
Rossami, I was thinking, in fact, of a page like the current CSD, not VfD.  I most emphatically do not want it to be a ground for argument, which is why votes should be only "keep," "delete" or "vfd."  That page would, of course, carry its history, so it would be a good way of checking back on previous listings, and I think it would be better than marking up the article.  After all, we have to notify each other somewhere that the following pages are candidates, so why not have a simple choice-of-three vote below each entry?  I'm not sure if this is different from what you were thinking, better, or worse.  Geogre 18:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Just different.  I'll tweak the process to try to reflect that better.  Rossami
----
I fully agree with the reasoning behind this proposal. VfD is too huge and something needs to be done about it; kudos to everyone (esp. Geogre) who has worked to develop this idea the past several days. I know I'm coming late to this discussion as a contributor, though I have been watching it develop these past few days.
That being said, I'm not sure that I'd support this proposal in its current form. As others have already said, adding a third method for deletion will add to the confusion of new Wikipedians We have dozens of pages in the Wikipedia namespace as is. Worse, it will generate more work for all involved (except those creating the candidate articles, of course ;-)). I concede that these two drawbacks are inevitable, yet we must do something about reducing VfD to something manageable. Just minimize the amount of instruction bloat, and I'll give it my full support.
Here are my suggestions for minimizing the amount of maintenance that will be associated with the addition of a third system:
*To minimize confusion to the average user, recommend MVfD (ugh... better acronym?) as the deletion template of choice. Many new users are already confused by the difference between WP:SD and WP:VFD. I recommend using MVfD as the catch-all, default place for deletions. Per the proposal, admins will have the option of moving to VfD or speedily deleting it at MVfD. Experienced users who know all the subtle differences between SD, MVfD, and VfD can skip the first step, listing the article on the appropriate deletion page. Admins can always summarily move inappropriate listings, like they already do from SD to VfD.
*Keep the MVfD lead friendly; aim it at the average Wikipedian. Keep all the rules and caveats that admins need to know on a separate page.
*I'm making this suggestion now and immediately withdrawing my support for it. It's a bad idea, but it's inevitably going to be suggested, so let's just get it out of the way now: Instead of admins, have periodic mass elections of a "deletion management congress" to take care of deciding deletions. (The congress size and term lengths to be determined.) Why is this a bad idea? (1) m:Instruction creep, (2) more politics. Admins have already gone through this political process at WP:RFA; why do it twice? And no, we're not extending admins' jurisdiction at all. Admins already have the power to delete; we're just defining their authority more clearly.
Sorry for the lengthy post; I'm afraid I had more than two cents burning a hole in my pocket. • Benc • 23:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Day 4

message: Simply because currently the VfD process is slow enough that some admins improperly ignore it and delete articles which are not speedy deletion candidates, and the community has not yet been willing to act against those admins. This proposal provides a "fire and forget" approach, making it almost impossible to justify deleting immediately where there is any chance of doubt or dissent. It also provides a fast way for an admin to ask for a second or third opinion from another admin before acting alone. Increased consideration by admins before deletion sounds like a good move to me.  Jamesday 02:58, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Why admins?

message: The page currently says that the vote will be open for four days. I think that is way too short: it may well be that some people just cannot vote, even if they wanted to, because they'd happen to be absent from Wikipedia for these few days. After all, many of us do have a life outside Wikipedia. I think the voting period should be about two weeks long. Lupo 18:14, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeframe 

message: I will answer Lupo and Maureen a bit later, but it occurs to me that one thing that's really, really going to need to be done is to really check out the criteria.  I nearly want to make a subpage for the criteria so that we can improve and clarify the language there.  I say this because the particular category of Vanity is going to be a tripwire. Geogre 20:40, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New Subproposal

message: :For Maurreen's comments: The idea of this proposal is really to widen slightly the Speedy Delete and to use that to lessen the load on VfD while, at the same time, heading off some of the most dangerous content from the VfD deliberative process.  Speeding up VfD itself isn't a bad idea, but I will say that I think VfD needs to be time consuming.  It is a place of deliberation, with a little reasoning with each other.  It's just that some things really ought not take that debate, and this proposal is an attempt at getting the stuff that doesn't need debate out of a deliberative process, but only when they are very, very clearly deletes. 
:For Lupo's comment: I suppose you're right.  I had wanted to have us hash out the proposal with a very, very long lead up and then get the votes done in a straightforward manner.  My point is/was that policy proposals seem to die during voting.  People get to the votes (usually because the proposal has been protected or guarded by Cerebus during the lead-in) and then fight with each other ruthlessly.  The fight goes on and on, with blood in the water, and then all the armies form their usual lines, and then the proposal fails in a funk of disgust, indifference, and animosity.  I wanted the community to work out its differences and then just vote.  Just say yes or no.  No beating each other up, no hate, no grudge matches.  That's why I wanted to make the voting period briefer than usual.  I will amend to 7 days, though.  I will also, of course, extend voting, if the vote is going slowly and people want it extended.  I didn't want the silence anyone with a short vote.
Thanks, all. Geogre 13:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What I was thinking, Day 5

message: :Bishonen has a valid proposal, and I will work it up, below, and hope to be fair.  Having a jury pool would be a potential solution.  It could simply rotate down a list every 2 weeks, without necessarily any sophisticated electronic intervention or voting.  There are some problems I can foresee with that, but it would have one important advantage in that it wouldn't leave the management scheme open to those I call "the motivated."  I.e. the people always on guard to make sure that no game stuff gets in and those on guard to make sure that no substubs get deleted won't volunteer themselves always or swoop in to override community standards.  It would also mean that three liberals who might let a Bush-bash in or three conservatives who might want a Kerry-bash go in won't quickly act out of motivation.  To me, the biggest drawback is that we sacrifice the opportunity of expertise at the same time.  A math subject coming up is going to baffle me, while someone like Ambi or Wile E. Heresiarch or Timwi might know it intimately and realize that it should be sent to clean up, or might know that it's nonsense.  By being even handedly blind, it might be as good as bad in that way and yet liberate us from the cabal.  Additionally, it might be possible to include on such a list trusted users who are not yet administrators (see below).
:Linkiveil is more concerned with keeps and thinks the proposal is vague.  Granted, it's vague at present.  I hope we can move into a specifying process now.  However, I would remind him that it takes three consequetive keep votes for a candidate to be kept, and then it moves directly to Clean Up.  Also, though, any dissent in either direction sends a page to VfD, so I think it's unlikely that trash will be kept as-is or that good sense will be speedy deleted, given the 48 hour time frame.
:Benc proposes elected jurors only to immediately suggest that such is a bad idea.  I generally agree with him.  However, I do think it's possible for a simple jury pool list to be drawn up.  It would include all administrators, arranged perhaps in alphabetical order (to avoid having the dangers of oldest/newest turn into "no longer here/hyperactive" or "random" not be random), and the list would be divided by 24 weeks.  That would mean that roughly 10 admins at a time were on "jury duty."  Every 2 weeks, the bracket would move down.  It's a possible solution, and I will try to reflect that in the subproposal that I make in a moment.  
:Anonymous Coward writes me and says that he disagrees with any admin-only scheme, since it is inherently cabalistic.  He would like users in general to nominate themselves or be nominated for the jury pool.  I cannot quite agree with that, since this is a matter of speedy deletion and is not meant to be deliberative.  However, I do think it would be possible for reliable users to be put on jury duty if they were nominated by an administrator and received a unanimous vote of 10 in favor.  After all, this is not the same thing as extending speedy delete power.  This is only as a function of the following sub-proposal and not an amendment to the general proposal.
Summary feelings about the possibilities:  In summary, I think it is possible to create a jury pool.  I, personally, feel that it will slow down the process, but I agree that it would be a step toward freeing the deletion process from the apprehensions of authors and users. Geogre 18:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: My Feelings on the Matter

message: No suggestions, just food for thought:
The rotation scheme and some other stuff seem a little complicated, but I don't have any better ideas. 
One thing to consider, though, is whether self-selection might bias the proces toward deletion. That is, would the admins more interested in pruning Wikipedia be more likely to take an active part in the process? Maurreen 04:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested changes to wording here

message: Making jury duty compulsory for all admins is alien to Wikipedia culture and also a practical impossibility. All the work that we do here, ordinary users and admins alike, is on a voluntary basis: people pitch in with what they can, when they can. Admins do have more  duties than other users, but they get to pick the admin tasks that they're comfortable with from among a wide range of them. Also I don't know of any other task that is set in stone in time like this: that says, no you can't go on holiday this week, you can't be busy at work, you can't freely decide to take a wikibreak to reduce stress, because this is the time of your 2-week jury duty. I did try to emphasize above that any rota system had to be voluntary, and this is my alternative suggestion for the sub-proposal:
A dynamic jury pool of Wikipedia administrators will be created by means of administrators listing themselves on an alphabetical list. They can remove themselves from this pool, and re-enlist in it, at any time of their choice. The weeks of the year will be divided into 26 segments and numbered (beginning with January 1). Each jury duty will begin with the start of a new 2 week segment and will conclude at the end of that 2 week segment. Each time a new segment starts, the next ten administrators listed at that moment will automatically begin jury duty for the next two weeks. --Bishonen 15:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Compulsory jury duty is not possible

message: Hello. I don't know where to put these so here they are. Thanks to Geogre for taking the time to put this together. I think it has a lot of potential. Anyway here are my comments.
#Name: "Managed Deletion" seems to suggest vfd and speed delete aren't managed, and doesn't suggest anything identifiable about the process. How about "Semi-speedy delete"?
#Under "Case for Change": I'd say a good motivation for semi-speedy is that with WP's increased traffic, there are more crappy articles than ever, & it's very time consuming to process all of them on vfd. 
#Recreation of semi-speedy deleted articles: I'd say these are speed delete candidates.
#Criteria: I'd say cut the list of criteria entirely. The criteria should be the same as whatever criteria are applied to vfd now. Listing some other criteria for semi-speedy is needless work in the proposal, and articles will inevitably leak through the gaps in the list. 
#Timeframe for deliberation & voting on the proposal: I'd say 7 days for deliberation and 7 for voting isn't enough; somebody's going to miss it. I'd say 21 days for each part is OK. There's no hurry.
Thanks again to Geogre for pulling it all together. I think it's a great idea. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:55, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments from Wile E. Heresiarch 

message: *I agree with Triskaideka about the re-creations.
*"Quick deletions" might be a better name than "managed deletions," because it doesn't imply that others are unmanaged.
*I think the set-ups for scheduling the admin pool are more complicated than they need to be. I think the original idea might be best (if I understand it right): 
::The deletions would require the support of any three admins in 48 hours, with no admin objecting to the deletion.
*I don't remember whether this was covered or not. I expect any page nominated would be tagged, so the person who put it up could know what's up? And, less needed, but worth thinking about, so they could possibly correct the problem ?
Maurreen 05:07, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellaneous comments

message: #Ok, I agree with the name change.  Granted, I liked the cool factor of having it called "MD" and candidates being "CMD"'s, and I want to keep the cool factor.  The better names that aren't as cool are "Juried Deletion" and "Early Deletion."  The latter is the best explanation of the process, without the highbrow terminology of the former.  Henceforth, this will be called Early Deletion.
#The matter of what to do with recreations is hard.  I have to admit to being a softy on this one.  I think that recreation could be a sign that the author is unaware of why it happened, so I'd say that a recreated Early Delete go to VfD.  In fact, I think this lets us be even more iron clad when it comes to our rules about speedy deleting of recreated VfD articles.  If something is recreated twice, I think it should be a banning offense, but that's another matter for another policy for another time and not contained here.
#So, the voting form will be as follows:  I will change the name of the proposal but leave it in this name space to preserve all of the discussions.
#The policy will be largely as it currently is otherwise, complete with the "recreated articles automatically go to VfD."  This has the additional advantage that an altered or improved version of a recreated article gets a deliberation.
#The preamble and "Case" of the proposal will be changed to include the overburdening of VfD as a reason.
#Voters will get a chance to accept the policy as is or with one change: the Procedures #2 above, which will be offered with Bishonen's language. Geogre 20:37, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Thoughts before the vote 

message: Last-minute tweak: can/should we add some words of guidance for the administrators in casting their ED votes?  Specifically, I think we should tell them two things:
#That they should be generous in sending an article on to VfD.  If they have a reasonable doubt that the article should be deleted, there's no harm in a few days of community deliberation—even if they themselves intend to vote for its deletion.
#That an article shouldn't be deleted by this process merely because it falls into one of the ED categories.  For example, an obvious vanity page on a notable subject could be cleaned up.  A substub shouldn't be deleted because it is a substub, but rather because it is a bad substub.  Administrators should consider the precedents and the spirit of this policy when voting.
This doesn't have to be a separate section; it could be a couple of sentences in the "Criteria" section.  —Triskaideka 21:16, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instructions to voting administrators 

message: I tacked a bit onto the MediaWiki "Revision of" message to forestall misuses of historical revisions of pages, like the one noted in point ii of the Managed Deletion argument.  It warns the user that the revision is out of date and suggests they view the current revision to avoid factual errors and vandalism. silsor 04:16, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
----
I'd rather see expanded speedy deletion, with a 24 or 48 hour period for any legitimate objections to be made. Common sense should apply when determining if an objection is legitimate.
- Triona 00:29, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New "revision of" MediaWiki message

message: I'm a little confused by the logic of those people who think this proposal gives sysops too much power, yet want these cases in question to be candidates for speedy deletion. If speedy deletion is expanded to include the cases in question then any single sysop can delete them on sight. With managed or early deletions (or whatever they're being called now) it takes a few sysops, making abuse by any sysop more difficult. Either way, sysops are the only ones who can delete articles, and I don't think that's going to change. -R. fiend 05:02, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Early deletion vs. Speedy deletion

message: Is there any chance that we could try this for a while and see if that works before making a final decision? at0 21:18, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Test Drive

message: AFAIA, the real problem is propagation of false info during VFD. 
I suggest the following: articles eligible for "managed deletion"  (silly, harmful, nonencyclopedic) are moved to subpages that are seen only by logged in users and are not mirrored and banned from web crawler bots. Voting is by usual crowd, and there is no time pressure.  If you think there is some merit in this approach, I (or you) may elaborate it further. Mikkalai 08:14, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative proposal: '''Quarantine''' 

message: I would like to direct people to look at Wikipedia:Deletion requests, which is an old proposal for deletion redesign made by Eloquence which came much closer to reaching consensus support. With a few tweaks, this could be the solution. anthony (see warning) 12:26, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion requests

message: Would anyone object if I placed a link to Wikipedia:Categorized Deletion at the top of this Wikipedia:Managed Deletion page once the vote ends tomorrow? —Lowellian (talk) 22:36, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
*Sorry I didn't see this before.  I have no objection to mentioning the alternative, but I'd rather not have it on the top of the page, where it essentially diverts consideration from this proposal, as if it has been made obsolete.  That's why I reorganized it to the bottom in an "Altneratives" section. Geogre 17:53, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorized deletion

message: I am concerned that the extension of this voting process may appear to be gerrymandering. It looks that way to me in any case. A vote is either concluded or it isn't.Sjc 15:33, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Gerrymandering?  What the heck?  No districts are being redrawn.  Let's look at the facts.  First, the pages have all said, from the very start, that the vote might be extended if it was requested.  Second, extensions of votes are common on proposals that don't get enough attention.  Third, this proposal had 50 people voting for it, which is more people on the "pro" side than most proposals get on both sides.  Fourth, a number of people have expressed genuine lack of awareness of the nuances of the proposal and have said that they are only realizing late what it really entailed.  Therefore, it seemed to me reasonable to allow the extension of voting, since that extension had always been said to be possible if requested and because I know that a lot of the people who are voting "no" are giving rationales that aren't justified.  Again, it won't cause any harm.  Would it be better to simply re-propose the policy in 2 weeks? Geogre 17:52, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, if you say so, Sjc.  I'm don't want to argue the word.  As for extending it forever, that won't happen.  This week will be it.  I do hope, since motives are being questioned, that all notice that I have not campaigned at all on this proposal.  When voting opened, I fell totally silent about it, except for one headnote on the voting talk page.  Beyond that, I haven't argued.  When the voting closed, I did have a bit of a comment.  Leaving that seems proper, to me, because we are in an extension, and not a vote.  There will be no further extension.  I can say, though, that someone, and not me, will propose something similar again.  This was by far the least radical change anyone has proposed.  People have got to think carefully about what expanding Speedy means and what early removal from VfD means.  Both of those are far scarier than what I had proposed. Geogre 14:40, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Gerrymandering?