Wikipedia talk:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/General talk

message: :Obvious hoaxes and pranks listed on :Category:Articles which may be hoaxes at least for 3 days without any improvement or dispute.
It would only codify existing practice of speedy deleting hoaxes as a vandalism. (Propable reasoning - adding pranks to wikipedia is inherently bad faith behaviour.) 
--Wikimol 20:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obvious hoaxes and pranks 

message: Most of this is a codification of existing administrative judgement, however it will be good to have these existing "as law", so to speak, though these measures will not really impact much on the Monster That Is VFD... Dysprosia 06:08, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  General comment 

message: While the goal of adding what is a CSD is admirable, I find that the bigger issue at hand is the one of Votes for Deletion.  A proposal regarding VfD was struck down recently, b ut that doesn't change the fact that it is a monster that is ineffective due to its massive size.  While no one can agree on HOW to solve it, the fact that there is a problem there is almost universally accepted; this will slightly remedy the problem, but I still feel that this only adds as law a few interpretations that have already become standard practice anyway.  I think that the attention of the 'pedia at large needs to be focused more on VfD than on CSD.  Just my 2 cents, though. Mo0[talk] 07:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is a bigger issue at hand 

message: According to Wikipedia:Sock puppet, it is typical to not count votes for accounts with less than 100 edits, or a questionable contribution listing.  Please list here any accounts which may fight these guidelines.  This will be easier than marking them under each voting sub-section.
:This is a misrepresentation of Wikipedia:Sock puppet, it does not say that "it is typical to not count votes for accounts with less than 100 edits". What it does say is this:
::"If it appears that sock puppets are being used as part of an edit war or to distort the outcome of a vote or survey, one possible rule of thumb is the 100-edit guideline. This suggests that any account with more than 100 edits is presumed not to be a sock puppet, but accounts with fewer edits are considered doubtful, especially if there are unusually many of them participating.
:This means that If there is evidence to suspect a sock puppet campaign, then such a possible guideline could be used. I see no evidence for such a sock puppet campaign here.
:Paul August  ☎ 16:05, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
* User:Max rspct (contribs,  talk)  - slightly over 100 edits, but about 40 are to his own user page, and he's got less than 20 article edits. -- Netoholic @ 00:47, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
** User:Max rspct is relatively new to wikipedia and low edit numbers should be understandable. who are you suggesting User:Max rspct is a sock puppet of? Xtra 01:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing of possible sock puppet voters 

message: "To keep this page from becoming confusing and difficult to read, please direct all discussion to the proposal's talk page."
We might want to move this to somewhere more prominent.  The contents and jump to vote messages easily let me skip past it. =o --Sketchee 03:51, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
: I've tried twice to make the message more prominent, but both attempts have been reverted by User:blankfaze without explanation. -- Netoholic @ 04:23, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
::Oh, so YOU were the chap doing that?  Sorry.  The big gray box with double-border looked really bad and unnecessarily large.  BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk message 

message: The vote is big, I don't think anyone will disagree with that. Would it be possible to remove proposals that have already failed? What would be necessary to do so, the agreement of their submitters, or just common sense? Proposals three, four, five, seven, eight, and nine all furthest from consensus, all having more disagree than agree votes, and are very unlikely to swing the other way in the next ten days. Proposals 7 and 9 are currently (and have been since the start) the worst off, at 8:74 and 2:75, respectively.
Withdrawing before the end of the vote is certainly not unprecedented. It would streamline the process significantly. The withdrawn proposals can get an early start on reformulating for the next attempt at this, in six months or whenever. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 04:11, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
*I wouldn't oppose the withdrawal of any proposal with less than 40%.  However, anyone who would take it upon themselves to remove them would have to be willing to assume any possible ensuing flack. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early withdrawl of failing proposals