Wikipedia talk:Zap

message: This is duplicated at WP:XD, and might be better discussed in that more unified forum. -Splash 21:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

message: Whilst I do not particularly support this proposal as a whole, a safer alternative than the sandbox (first impressions count, censorship or not) would be a dedicated protected-page. -Splash 23:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) I, for one, would consider redirecting an article that should be deleted to the sandbox (or some other obviously innapropriate place) to be a form of vandalism. So, it's not really long-established that you can redirect anything anywhere. On the other hand, redirecting to some special "marker" page would be less innapropriate (but still, why not just tagging it for deletion?). --cesarb 23:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safer alternative 

message: moved this page to Wikipedia:POINT. Sockpuppetry suspected (check his contribs). Reporting on WP:AN/I.
Folks, this is an ugly one... looks like it could be another Wikipedians-for-Decency-level situation. ~~ N (t/c) 00:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WonderBread 

message: Umm, could somebody explain to me, well, what the purpose of "zapping" is?  And give a better description of the process?  Right now, I'm confused as to what this is and why somebody would want to do it.  Best I can figure out, it looks like a variant on the "pure-wiki deletion" proposal.  Is that right?  The Literate Engineer 19:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's nothing more than a variant of Experimental deletion, even if the original creator says it isn't. --cesarb 19:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: So, what benefit does it offer over the present system?  I'm trying to figure out why somebody (me, really) would ever want to do this.  Isn't it just an embellishment of page-blanking?  The Literate Engineer 06:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  None.  WP:POINT.  Yes.  Hope that helps!  Nandesuka 03:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this? 

message: Let's look over this. At the VfD everyone voting keep who's not Xiong is saying keep, tag it with rejected, and keep it as an archive of a failed good faith proposal. Xiong says its not a proposal. However, the Wikipedia community has labeled it IS one. Wikipedia is about consensus, and being the original author, unfortunately, doesn't mean anything. May I quote a warning underneath this text box? If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. Xiong should take this into account and let us keep the  on the page. Redwolf24 (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejected Policy 

message: Leave the warning alone. You're making matters worse -- even from your own point of view:  
* Zapping is not a system for deleting a page. It is an action that any editor can take, rather than tagging for deletion, engaging the Community in a long-winded debate over the flavor of a particular bit of nasty garbage, or (if an admin) simply deleting on sight and worrying whether consensus will support you after the fact. The primary values of zapping are that it is not deletion, it is not a system, and is reversible by any other editor. 
* This is not the place to tell editors, "Don't zap!" At some point, you begin to create your very own policy anti-proposal. This is pretty much unwise, since then all previous debate on the page becomes invalid. You've changed the nature of the page, so it must be debated all over again. Bad idea.
* The page Zap itself is not the place to debate the page. This Talk page is. See above. Edit this page if you think you can improve it; don't try to destroy it under the guise of improving it. That is editing in bad faith. I've attempted to restore the page to a useful state by removing damage and retaining improvement. Please don't make work for other editors; either improve the Project, or leave it alone. Thank You!
— Xiong熊talk* 16:05, 2005 September 7 (UTC)
: You seem to be under the impression that editors are correcting the warning to the stronger, less ambiguous version out of a wish to debate.  You are under a misapprehension.  The debate has already occurred, and consensus has been reached.  The stronger warning is appropriate because a weaker one may mislead those who don't obsessively read talk pages into doing something extremely unwise, such as trying to zap an article as per the instructions in this thoroughly rejected policy proposal.  We are no longer debating the community consensus.  We are implementing it.  You are welcome to continue to pose questions and engage in discussion, of course, and to convince the community of the wisdom of your position.  But I worry on your behalf.  You seem to indicate, below, that you are inclined to interpret a lack of spirited debate as in indication that the community agrees with the consensus of whoever spoke last.  I want to make sure you understand that this is incorrect.  Consensus is not determined through stamina, but through discussion.  Part of discussion is listening to what those around you say.  Everyone around you has indicated that this is a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad policy proposal.  They are not under any obligation to repeat themselves ad infinitum simply because you don't like the result.  I suggest you gird yourself to accept this, so that you are not overly disappointed.  Kind regards, Nandesuka 18:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiddle about 

message: I notice that when I make a counter-challenge, it is often ignored. Some editors seem to miss the point that if you are unable or unwilling to contest a point, you yield it. I have so far answered every objection raised, and I yield nothing; my opponents have yielded much. Perhaps it is time for editors to rethink their positions and protect any claim they desire to maintain to intellectual honesty. 
I shall continue to answer objections, however put, to the best of my ability: 
* Creates extra work for RfD. The text "aksgajshgs" shouldn't be a page in ANY incarnation.
:: I disagree. The redirect can be left in place indefinitely. No harm is done, and much immediate good. I find it hard to believe there is even such a process as RfD -- anybody who so chooses to waste his time should be given a good supply of busywork. Any process that deletes redirects en masse should be eliminated, as it masks history, leading to lack of transparancy and all the other ills that come from "we know better than you"-ism. 
:: However, if you insist that the page be deleted, then surely it is no more effort to delete it as a redirect than as a page itself. The only difference is that "work" is shifted from one deletion category to another. 
* Redirecting across namespaces is discouraged unless its actually handy.
:: My impression is that cross-namespace redirects are always discouraged. In any case, the point is moot -- the page does not provide for or suggest cross-namespace redirects. I did write it with that weakness, but as soon as the objection was raised, I overcame it by creating namespace-specific dummy redirect targets. If there is an insufficiency of these, they may be created and added to the list. 
* CSD is much cleaner... (speedy deletion)
:: I don't even understand this position; it seems unrelated to the second half of the statement. Cleaner in what way? Less dirt and grime? Less sweat? More fair? The sheer volume of pages shoved through speedy means that any given page gets little or no attention before it is done to death. Having been speedied, it becomes inaccessible, invisible; soon, it is buried under a pile of corpses. I should hate to have good, though obscure, content thus frog-marched to the gas chamber. 
:: Speedy is evil.
* ...and unrevertible except by other admins.
:: That's not a Good Thing. It takes just two editors to speedy something: one to tag, one admin to chop off its head. I have no special faith in admins, as a class; many have ridden a ripple of support into office over vocal and well-reasoned objections. I don't see that any two editors have the right to decide for all of us. 
:: I can zap, and you can disagree. You can revert the zap, and that's the end of zapping for that -- clearly, as I state on the page, repeated zapping is in bad faith. Zapped and restored, the ball is in the air again, and something else must be done with it -- beyond the scope of this page. 
— Xiong熊talk* 16:43, 2005 September 7 (UTC)
*What's this talk about yielding?  I've never accepted that line of thinking, that if you don't respond to something, you must agree.  What about the thought process of "If you ignore him, he'll give up and go away?"  Not saying that's what's going on here, but...  Anyway, on topic, I disagree with your characterization of CSD and your statement that there's value to redirecting to what is effectively a blank page - a dummy target, especially since it preserves bad content in the form of the page history.  CSD doesn't "frog march good content to the gas chamber", it gets rid of valueless text that doesn't deserve to exist.  And if something doesn't belong in the current-page-form of an article, it doesn't belong anywhere.  We preserve the history, as I understand it, for a combination of technical and legal reasons, and it does help with things like vandalism reversion.  Nonetheless...  an alternative to publication or deletion is uncalled for.  "Zapping" has indeed long been possible.  Perhaps now is the time to ban it?  The Literate Engineer 19:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Answering objections directly 

message: Congratulations, guys; I'm starting to tire of this. I have other fish to fry -- juicier, tastier, and of more nutritious content. I still say this is one of the most astonishing displays I have seen -- either of stupidity or ignorance, I'm not sure which. 
I no longer have any interest in this page whatever; if I decide to zap something, I will; and I'll have to take responsibility for that when the time comes -- as always. 
Zapping -- given whatever name -- is simply redirection, well documented. Nothing in current policy forbids this outright, so it's absurd to say so -- it's just not true. Go ahead and create an anti-redirection policy proposal, if you like; until that is accepted, zap away. 
I do intend to abandon this page, therefore I shall not attempt to meet any further challenge to it. Please yourselves. — Xiong熊talk* 11:42, 2005 September 11 (UTC)
:If you ever do "zap" something, I will be more than happy to revert it and give you a 24-hour block for vandalism. --Carnildo 02:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit harsh? I would point out to whoever does it that its a failed proposal and it says on the page to NOT do it. I don't know about blocking. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Zapping may not explicitly be forbidden, but that doesn't mean it's permitted. Virtually anyone would consider it to be vandalism, and you know that. ~~ N (t/c) 17:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it is explicitly forbidden by a consensus of wikipedia. In fact I have not seen any admins who have supported this. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True, no admins have supported this, so it is presumed that it is explicitly forbidden in Wikipedia. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Around and around 

message: This is not a constructive Wikipolicy. It's just a very effective discussion armament. Very effective at first, but then everyone realizes they can use it and either revert it or start zapping on their own. Chaos ensues and no one is happier. I will never, ever support anything like this.
Peter Isotalo 11:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a chat weapon