Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Zap

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus/Keep Furthermore, I know admins should not close VfD's they voted on. Or MD or whatever the hell. But note I'm closing opposite my original vote. This page is five days old, so I should close. Also. most of the keep votes say keep the rejected tag. So we shall. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Zap
Patent unhelpful nonsense which will never become a policy. &mdash; Dan | Talk 00:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep provided that the rejected tag stays and we keep the boldtext saying to NEVER ZAP ANYTHING... EVER! Delete . See its talk page and FreplySpang's comments. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Freply's comments. Toothpaste 00:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Like Toby, but even less useful. Stlemur 00:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Freply's and my comments on the talk page. Evil Monkey&#8756;Hello 00:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, for reasons given on Wikipedia talk:Zap FreplySpang (talk) 00:22, September 3, 2005 (UTC) Keep and mark as unsupported by consensus. I agree, it is an useful historical document. FreplySpang (talk) 21:24, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Calling this page "patent nonsense" is a provocative statement bordering on personal attack. You're warned. It will never become policy because it is not a policy proposal. It is not even faintly related to Toby -- that statement is mere FUD. The page in question is a formal statement of an existing method of dealing with poor content -- and that policy is long established. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 00:22, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
 * It doesn't bear the faintest resemblance to a personal attack since it has nothing to do with a person. What, if I may enquire, do you mean by "you're warned"? What are you suggesting might happen if I continue calling things nonsense? &mdash; Dan | Talk 00:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not "patent nonsense", whatever else it may or may not be. That's obvious. You may not like it, but then, I dislike a lot of things that are coherent. Attaching such a label to something which I am primarily responsible for writing is a personal insult. If you don't understand this, I don't know how to help you. You are confusing a warning with a threat. I warn you that I take personal offense at your remark, Sir. I threaten nothing; and I do not pretend to fortell your future. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 01:56, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. &mdash; Dan | Talk 02:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment as far as I know, there's no policy saying to redirect useless pages anywhere. I don't see why you keep saying there was. Nonsense pages are CSD'd, and killed. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge as another experiment on WP:XD; it deserves to be looked at together with the other experiments there (IMHO it's better than at least one of them). --cesarb 00:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I already suggested that, but the author said no on the talk page. -Splash 00:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, seeing as it has come here. It's not a viable proposal for a mounting list of reasons. -Splash 00:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I was going to change to keep as an object-lesson. But if the author won't allow the rejected tag to stick, then it'll have to be deleted. Semantics over proposal or not are wide of the mark. A newbie comes along and thinks this is ok if they are sure its ok is going to get a bit of a shock. -Splash 20:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This has little in common with XD or any deletion reform proposal. It's not a proposal at all. No policy is to change in the least. How hard can I draw that line? No exceptions. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 00:43, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, if it is not a proposal for reform of the deletion system (which in the abstract is a welcome thing), then I do not see what this is. It is perhaps a suggestion, though it reads very much as a recommendation to follow the Zap process. I think that is not a good suggestion, and a bad recommendation. If we are still allowed to delete the redirects i.e. take them to RfD then nothing is changed, since it will be necessary to examine the article history to decide on the deletion/keeption. It would become VfD by another name, but with a directionless redirect in the middle. -Splash 00:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that, about the respect? I have a positive dislike of having smoke blown up my ass. I'd rather be called a rat bastard openly. If you genuinely want to understand, I'm willing to explain -- but I don't know how much more plainly I can put it. I'll try. The deletion system is currently broke. I'd love to improve it. What I've done so far is this: I printed out every word I could find written on the subject. It came to a stack half an inch high. Now, I'm going through it, reading it all. You want to talk about a thankless job? I hope to come out of the cesspool with an intelligent, unbiased report for the Community. I expect a kick in the shins for my trouble. The bigger we get, the more attention we attract. The more attention, the more new editors; the more new editors, the more new crap. The more new crap nominated for deletion, the greater pressure on the system -- whatever it may be. The more pressure on the system, the more pressure on admins (and all editors) to hurry through the process, vote hastily, close quickly, and delete delete delete delete. The more deletions, the more likely it is that Something will be deleted wrongly -- and the less likely that anybody will take the time and trouble to try to undelete anything, or that anybody who does make the effort will be heard and heeded -- no matter the value of the deleted content. All of these reform proposals do very little to address the root issue, half of which is timid editors afraid to delete pure, obvious, blatant crap on sight. (The other half being the ability of any dumbass with a broadband connection and a basic understanding of proxies to dump more crap on us in an hour than any community should have to contend with in a month.) The worst thing about the current deletion system, though, is that so much crap gets left out to dry and stink as we root through it, holding our noses. Sooner or later, the spiders come by and pick it up. Now, it doesn't matter if we delete it -- it's cached. Zapping is a bold act; it has nothing to do with fixing the deletion system. Indeed, it deletes nothing -- which is at least half the point. It is an individual intervention by a single user who takes crap right out of the path of the deletion system -- and out of sight of spiders, passers-by, and indignant Moms. This action has always been available to any editor -- even an anon IP. No need to whine for admin attention. The job is done. In true wiki fashion, however, Somebody Else can always come by and make it better -- by changing the redirect, if possible, or deleting it entirely. The page in question should certainly not be read as an incentive to idiot users to zap good content -- or even possibly good content. Right now, that sort of stuff must pass through our deletion process -- warts and all. Zap merely lists redirection targets and cautions users to document what they do in this way; attaches a catchy name to the action; and points out some of the issues involved -- advantages and otherwise. If you feel that the page does not go far enough to warn idiots against zapping the user pages of longtime contributors (or similar vandalism), then Be Bold. Edit this page. Take responsibility for your opinions, and promote them. I just now added a huge orange WARNING box to the top of Zap, in answer to your kind of concerns. If you don't think its wording is strong enough, fixit. Turn the box red, if you like -- &#123;{divbox|bloodred}} if you insist. Add your cautions to the list. Join this Project and contribute to it by making things better. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 01:56, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I happen to think that WP:BEANS is a rather fine piece of work, and highly applicable to Zap. -Splash 01:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you; but in what way? &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 01:56, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
 * NO VOTE : I've put the md tag on the associated page User:Zapped User page. I'm sure everyone can agree that if we delete Zap, we can delete the user page too. Vacuum c 03:37, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but archive and inactivate. This appears to be a good-faith policy that did not gain consensus. Vacuum c 03:51, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've also held a TfD on Template:Zap. Vacuum c 15:51, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've also held an IfD on WP:IFD of Image:Zap.png. Vacuum c 16:11, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Page encourages actions that are indistinguishable from vandalism. --Carnildo 07:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support your statement, Sir. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 22:28, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
 * Delete per Carnildo. Page seems to have been created to support an unusual vote on MFD as if such votes were normal. They are not, and we don't need further convolutions of our system. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:32, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Speak plainly, please. Did I do wrong? Say so? Do you support user page SPAM or not? &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 22:28, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Xiong and Vacuum. - ulayiti (talk)   (my RfA)  13:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a rejected policy which would have encouraged a form of blanking. Clearly marked as not policy, clearly marked as "do at own risk". Useful as reference when a similar plan is suggested again, and it will be. If there is ever evidence that this page has been vandalized to look like policy, revert and Protect it. Septentrionalis 20:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. The problem isn't whether or not its a policy, that never was the problem. The problem is that its existence allows people to do it. If the page didn't exist, there would be no reason to do such a thing. People doing it still creates useless work for RfD, regardless if the page is a policy or not! Also, note that Xiong once voted 'Zap' at a VfD and then said he would be bold and zap the page itself, while it was still on vfd. ...er, afd. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as record of rejected proposal. -Sean Curtin 23:23, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm pretty sure it's policy to keep rejected proposals, and if not it should be. There's no harm in having this around, and it may make a useful object lesson someday. N (t/c) 00:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the page, but reject the proposal soundly. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - no deletion of good-faith proposals please. Seems to be soundly rejected though, so mark it as such. Alternatively, put it on WP:XD like the rest of the non-policy and highly experimental deletion proposals. -- grm_wnr Esc  02:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out, the author does not see this as a form of deletion and is opposed to making it an XD, though I don't see very much difference between it and the other XD proposals. N (t/c) 02:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neither do I, and right now I feel tempted to write up Ownership of policy proposals... -- grm_wnr Esc  02:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good point. It should definitely be on XD. N (t/c) 03:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all sure XD would benefit from a suggestion that is soundly rejected already. -Splash 03:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably. It'd be nice to run it by the XD crowd though - I'll post on their talk page. N (t/c) 03:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Carnildo says it best. Bratsche talk 03:34, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * There's already a big tag on the page saying not to use it and to see CSD instead. N (t/c) 03:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think. I don't really understand this. Why are we trying to get rid of a failed policy proposal? Shouldn't we keep it as a record, or in case someone wants to try to revive the idea at some point in the future, they can just reopen this instead of starting fresh? I don't consider VfD to be a sensible option here. Just because a policy proposal fails doesn't mean you erase all trace of it. Everyking 05:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Originally he said not a policy, therefore we were trying to kill it. Then it was tagged with rejected and so now everyone's voting keep. Which is fine by me because I put in bold print, 'Do not Zap something. EVER.' R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Failed policy proposals should be kept as part of the record. Incidentally, I think it is premature to call this a "failed" proposal.  The first draft was created at 17:21, 2 September 2005.  It was nominated for deletion within mere hours.  Looking at the edit history, the proposal is clearly still in flux.  A proposal can't be "rejected" until it's reasonably finalized and proposed.  The deletion process should not be used to register your objections to a proposal.  Rossami (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * A clearly bad idea, but not a bad faith proposal. Move - archive somewhere (without a redirect); do not delete. - Mike Rosoft 12:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ambi 14:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and archive, no reason to delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:57, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
 * Delete Highly dangerous. Prone to misuse. CalJW 21:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Huh? It says outright "don't do this". N (t/c) 21:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * He might be thinking of WP:BEANS. --cesarb 21:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep and archive. Andre ( talk ) 01:04, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the page as a record of the proposal. -- DS1953 03:33, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Strange, but apparently good faith.  In my book, good faith = keep when it comes to the Wikipedia space.  Dragons flight 06:13, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This is certainly worthwhile. Deleting it while still under consideration would be premature. --Matt Yeager 04:26, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm lenient on proposals, but this doesn't read like one. This reads more like a WikiEssay, so it has no place in here. Also, it advocates vandalism as Carnildo correctly pointed out. Tito xd 06:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep failed policy in good faith. Ashibaka (tock) 00:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Ashibaka. Perhaps the historical tag should be placed on it. Falphin 01:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep a record of this overwhelmingly rejected policy proposal so that when a subtle variant of it is proposed in, oh, about 30 days, we have notes to refer to. Nandesuka 03:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep with caveats. As the big red box (currently) says - "This is a Good-Faith proposal of a bad idea." the wub  "?/!"  12:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.