Anthony SoraceI want a bot which posts about English Wikipedia articles marked for deletion due to notability. There are so many cases of the notability guidelines being abused, especially to target underrepresented groups, it seems like this would be a useful tool to combat that. Does such a thing exist?
Jorge StolfiThe deletion mechanism of Wikipedia must be the main cause of editor burnout. There is a clique of editors who get their kicks by bossing other editors and deleting their work, rather than creating or improving articles. Instead of discussing a proposed deletion on the article's talk page, they have their own corner of Wikpedia - the "Articles for Deletion" (AfD) page -- which is usually frequented only by them...
PeteI think deletion generally is a bad idea.
Accretion should be the way, and then improve tools for searching filtering, combing, augmenting, etc.
njsg@pete @JorgeStolfi @a
This can already be disconcerting if an article is deleted because only people who wanted to delete it participated in the vote. But then there is the next level, that sometimes abused by #ptwiki:
You don't even follow the rules about marking it for deletion and having a debate and vote, you just do speedy deletion against the rules and threaten anyone who tries to point out the flagrant rules violation because it's "wikilawyering".
njsg@njsg @pete @JorgeStolfi @a @wikimediafoundation I'll add to that another one, apparently it's fair game in ptwiki to consider it wrongdoing (or somehow a harmful enough action) if one starts a discussion in the village pump or files an entry for an incident in the noticeboard.
That's... discouraging people from seeking a consensus or the opinion of the community and discouraging people from even thinking about requesting administrative analysis of possible incidents?
I guess the next step would be to file a request for administrative action overview (given this seems to be another excessive/abusive action in itself), but what guarantees do I have that they will not just block me or worse as retribution for doing so...
There seems to be some new procedure for reporting stuff to Wikimedia, but their "non-urgent" workflow relies on local action, which is being the problem here.
@pete @JorgeStolfi @a There should at least be the option to restore on request to a page under one's user page, or keep it somewhere outside of the main namespace, because otherwise it's hard to improve based on the previous work keeping the attribution/authorship information.
And meanwhile I have to figure out what to do regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/Fsn_%28file_manager%29
Which is definitely notable, the only matter is probably really just that no outsider participated in the deletion vote?
#wikipedia #enwiki
@pete @JorgeStolfi @a Requesting such restore seems to be an option in #enwiki, let's hope the admins in charge of that aren't like those of #ptwiki...
I spoke too soon. It seems "Requests for Undeletion" isn't meant for this, even if "Deletion review" also tries to rule itself out of the process. Information visible after using the button to make the request for undeletion suggests the procedure is to first contact the deleting administrator? Okay, will try that.
Although from what I read so far in the corresponding article, I think the instructions shown when adding a Request for Undeletion are incorrect/incomplete.
So what's going on here? The templates used to generate these responses are outdated? I could go read the rules and project pages more in-depth, but experience with #ptwiki tells me I shouldn't rule out the text being incorrect or the rules not being followed...:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#fsn_%28file_manager%29