Wikipedia talk:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal VIII (Procedure)

Tag and bag proposal
I would like this as a new proposal. It may not be an "expand WP:CSD" item, but it is related.


 * Add the following text to the lead section of WP:CSD : Interpretation of these guidelines is very often subjective, and sometimes controversial, especially when an article's deletion could be later contested.   In order to avoid most problems, every deletion of a page by an admin under these cases must be the result of a request made by another user ("tag and bag").  The most common way this can be achieved is for one editor to include the   ''template (or equivalent) on the page. Whatever the method, the request must be documented, before deletion, on either the main page or the associated discussion page.  The only exceptions are: 1) clear vandalism or test pages / jibberish, 2) an admin's own user space subpages, or 3) where the admin is the only listed editor (typos, etc.).

This change gives us a safeguard against rash decisions, and is really something that is done already. I welcome feedback on the wording, but previous discussion indicates enough people like this concept that it can be brought to a vote. -- Netoholic @ 07:35, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)


 * I would advocate the "tag and bag" proposal with no exceptions to the requirement of tagging for deletion. This would have the benefit of reducing the number of situations where a user edits a page to tag it for speedy, and before saving, an admin deletes it, causing the save to re-create the page. --Carnildo 08:43, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, clear vandalism/jibberish is one area that everyone agrees should not be bogged down. The last two exceptions (admin's own subpages or is the only editor) are to cover common practice which I doubt anyone would contest.  I don't think we'd rarely run into the situation you mentioned... and even if that happened, it is easy to see re-created material by viewing the Deletion log. -- Netoholic @ 17:30, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)


 * Well I don't like the idea, but that's just me. I can't stop you from taking a vote on it if you so choose.  BLANKFAZE  | (что??) 08:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I've added this as Proposal 0 (since it affect the lead section/procedure, not the cases. -- Netoholic @ 19:15, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
 * This doesn't really fit here. I think it would be best if you formed a seperate page for this idea. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 23:58, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I honestly think that if this proposal passes, some of the expansions to the speedy delete cases will be far more tolerable, and less "scary". It is too easy for one admin to make a mistake, or to misinterpret the guidelines.  Also, the "tag and bag" scheme gives the any editor some critical time in which to fix it, if it's salvagable. -- Netoholic @ 06:28, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)


 * I'll be strongly disagreeing with this one. Especially in bases I through IV by requiring a 'tag and bag' approach we keep the offending content online longer (ie requiring two people to visit). For example, if one is watching Special:Newpages and sees something under 50 bytes or so and goes to check it and sees it needs deleting it is more sense to trust the admin rather than leave it up longer. With the other usecases there may be a stronger case for B&T though. --Vamp:Willow 20:06, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, the cases you mentioned aren't seriously damaging to Wikipedia, that they could stay for an extra hour or so. Also, after people on RC patrol can mark pages for deletion ("tag"), the author may see that, realize that the article is below our standards, and improve it enough to negate the deletion need.  -- Netoholic @ 20:14, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Netoholic's addition
All due respect, I think this page needs to remain stable until the vote. The time for contributing such large additions was a week or two ago. Your proposal is a big thing in its own right, and just complicates things here. I really think it would be best for everyone if you just held a vote on it separately, on its own page, where it can be the feature issue. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??<b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 23:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * There is no need. If there is a dispute over the format, we must postpone the vote, per Survey guidelines.  Do not edit war to get your point across.  No objections to the addition of the  were raised until it was added. -- Netoholic @ 23:47, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)


 * Do not postpone votes unilaterally to get your point across. <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 23:52, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Unwillingness to postpone so that we can discuss this is evidence of incivility. What is the rush to vote?  Why are only you allowed to author this proposal? -- Netoholic @ 23:58, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)


 * Incivility? Hogwash.  The rush to vote is that the date has been set for weeks.  It's rude of you to unilaterally decide that the vote should be postponed.  It's also rude of you to insert last-minute amendments without much discussion or hardly consensus.  The time for that was a week or two ago.  Of course I am not the only one allowed to author this proposal.  Plenty of other people have formed it with me.  Review the entirety of the talk page.  <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 05:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You may wish to consider this a second time, Netoholic. Of the proposals here, yours seems to have the most general support. In adding to this particular proposal vote, it seems it is likely to have a reduced likelihood of passage than if it were posted as a separate proposal. - Amgine 00:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How about discussing a compromise here? Perhaps a short and specified postponement to discuss this. Not an indefinite one as suggested by Netoholic, but an extension to try and find some agreement. Or there must be other ways we can try and resolve this - let's have some suggestions (via edit conflict - Amgine's point is a good start to this) -- sannse (talk) 00:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I am all for compromise, or at least civil discussion. I have suggested to Netoholic several times that he make use of this talk page.  I want to make it clear that my objection is not to the content of his proposal.  My objection is to the addition of a last-minute amendment that has been discussed very little and in my opinion significantly further complicates a vote that was intended to be as simplified as possible. <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 05:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * blankfaze, please do not talk like this is my first post on this talk page. I have been here since Dec 19 regarding that proposal.  I waited a long time for any final corrections to the wording, and then posted it.  There is no controversy there, except where you and Neutrality have chosen to remove it.  Your reasons "keeping the vote simple" or "it's too late" are covers for the very real reasons you want it removed, specifically that you do not want to see it pass.  -- Netoholic @ 06:06, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
 * Netoholic, do you even read what I post? I want to make it clear that my objection is not to the content of his proposal.  I haven't made a decision either way on your proposal, and any negative feelings towards it were certainly not the "real" reason for my actions, and I resent the suggestion. <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 06:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with this restriction. We're creating another level of speedy deletion, i.e. immediate speedy deletion and tag and bag. The truth is, there is virtually nothing that gets speedily deleted, or would be under the new rules, that would ever become a useful article. DJ Clayworth 05:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Going forward
Any objections if this procedure is added to the CSD page, if it's worded only as a loose recommendation? I still the concept is a good one, especially as a recommendation for "corner" cases. -- Netoholic @ 03:23, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)