Help talk:Article deletion

From Fan History Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
This discussion is listed as an Active Talk Page.
Please remove this template when the conversation has run its course.



This page was protected to keep users from adding their ADR notices here instead of on talk pages of the actual articles they would like deleted. So, gentlefolk, if you would like an article deleted, please put your {{ADR}} notices on the talk page of the article you'd like us to delete, and save that page. Many thanks! --Tikatu 00:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin policy change discussion

This conversation is being held publicly so that members of the Fan History community can better understand the thought process behind the possible policy change and in the interests of transparency. If members of the community wish to comment on this, please comment on my talk page and your comments will be integrated in if they take place before the discussion ends.

A recurring issue on Fan History is the problem of people blanking articles. This generally leads to a two week ban in compliance Fan History's rules regarding vandalism. In some cases, people are permanently banned because they have repeatedly vandalized an article or taken active steps to get around a ban. This also results because the length of a ban is up to the discretion of the administrator in question. (Though while there is some latitude, I believe that over all, administrators are consistent in how they handle situations.) What ends up as a problematic situation is that AFTER a person blanks an article or vandalizes an article about themselves, they end up banned and find out our rules regarding article deletion. They are then unable to request an ADR because they are banned. Generally, our advice has been "Get some one to sock the ADR posting for you while complying with everything else and we will delete the article when all conditions have been met." The admins, generally User:Tikatu and User:Sidewinder then delete the article.

This has become some what unsatisfactory as it still seems to reward rule breaking and some people are unable or unwilling to get a sock. Or they just wait out the two weeks and blank again. A more recent case has arisen with multiple vandalism attempts by an individual to an article about themselves which resulted in them getting permabanned so they can't post an ADR. People don't seem to be getting the point. I would like to propose that, if you have been banned for whatever reason, then you cannot post an ADR. If you try to get around it by sock puppeting, it will be deleted. You follow the rules regarding posting ADRs and how to get an article deleted. Failure to follow them thus has more meaningful consequences. It doesn't matter the length of the ban. Two weeks or forever. If you can't follow the ADR protocols, then your article won't be deleted period. (This would allow some flexibility that we have allowed in the past but those exceptions would not be publicly discussed.) The excuse of "I didn't know!" would not be an acceptable reason for an exception. This can be backed up with an article box on the text page stating that the article has been vandalized by the person the article is about and their ADR privileges have been forfeited so that we have a record of that. Opinions? --Laura 20:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of an article box to explain what has happened--with of course a pointer towards the rules for further clarification. I generally do the two-week ban if someone simply blanks. When someone purposefully sets out to insert nonsense, offensive language and/or imagery, and not just vandalize the article about themselves but other pages, I permaban because it tends to show someone who doesn't just "not get" the rules but has malicious intent. And if that person then comes to me asking to delete their's hard to go along with either just doing it or trusting them enough to lift the ban for them to put up the ADR.
So basically, I don't think vandalism should be rewarded in any fashion. People who follow the rules get their pages deleted very quickly and simply. Blanking is bad, but not as bad as purposefully messing up pages--and I think it's right to leave it up to the mods to decide the length of a ban and/or, in some situations, whether a request for deletion when the rules haven't been followed should be allowed at all.--Sidewinder 21:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
So basically, permabanned results in forfeiture of rights to request an ADR with an explanation on the talk page in warning box as to what happened? Or if malicious intended vandalism/non-blanking vandalism happens, a similar loss of rights? Where if they blank from ignorance and the intent isn't perceived as malicious, then we are willing to work with them through a ban to get an article deleted? If that is the case, that might work. It is the permabanned issue and the maliciousness that is the problem and the rest is just an annoyance. --Laura 21:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the policy change. The only thing I would suggest is that a link to the "Help:Article deletion" be a permanent fixture of the homepage. That way the "I didn't know!" can be replied to with, "It's on the homepage!" --Tikatu 21:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I think this is reasonable. Would you want it in the anon header or on the sidebar? --Laura 23:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The left sidebar was my first thought. Under "Toolbox" because it seems like a toolbox kind of thing, though under "Navigation" might give it more visibility. --Tikatu 00:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
ETA: One other thing I can see as a possible exception would be in the case where someone other than the subject of the article vandalized it. This has happened before, and should be taken in consideration on a case-by-case basis when an ADR is requested.
Good point on the ETA. I think there always has to be some flexibility in the deletion policies because of all the various things that can happen. Because, yeah, there's a big difference between someone saying (and proving) "Hey, that wasn't me that messed up the article on me, but I'd like to have it deleted" vs. "OMG LOL yes I totally made a joke of the article on me for LULZ, but now I want the whole thing deleted."--Sidewinder 21:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
If we were going to a notice of "This article is not eligible for deletion," I think it shouldn't be posted until we have the e-mail part of the ADR. Because yes, you're both right, it could be some one else vandalizing the article. We don't know who is vandalizing until we have the ADR. It is why we require the two parts: E-mail (or FF.Net or LJ or etc.) verification AND the posting of the ADR. And the rules can just be modified to say that if you're permabanned OR banned for malicious intent regardless of time, the article about you is not eligible for deletion. And while modifying the rules, change the procedure for how we handle things to include a step where we look at the history of the article to ascertain if it looks like the person was banned for the aforementioned reasons. --Laura 23:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Timeline and Fanworks removal

This is not so much an issue of article deletion but of section blanking. User:Betsyb and User:Tikatu have two different approaches for how to handle it when people remove lists of fanworks and their personal timelines. I can understand why people would want to remove them because they move on, change fandoms, are embarrassed by their old stories. At the same time, by removing their timelines, they are effectively removing their personal involvement in fandom. When they don't comment to explain, this feels like it goes against the policy of the wiki, which is to preserve the history of the fandom. Another reason why this bothers me is when it comes to establishing timelines for plagiarism cases? It is important to have those dates and those lists of fanworks. It makes it easy to investigate those claims. Yes, the information is in the history but for those not familiar with wikis, they might not know to look there. And it won't show up in search.

I think we need to clarify the policy when it comes to section blanking. How are we going to handle it? Are we going to ban? My inclination is absolutely not and so far no one has been banned for that. The real question policy wise is: Do we put it back? Do we caution the person against removing with out talking about why they are removing? Thoughts? --Laura 01:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like a hard and fast policy on how to handled these edits. I know I'm really flexible with some of the edits because I think it gives a subject some feeling of control over what is out there about them, and a feeling of ownership that will bring them back to make more edits later. Sometimes, I find it's not a matter of removing fanworks, but reorganizing them, which can take some time to complete. And if they have removed those fanworks on their or livejournal accounts, then we have dead links--something that bugs the housekeeper in me. Most users wouldn't think to put {{Dead link}} after those. The first thing they think is: "I don't have these stories online anymore; I'll get rid of them here."
There have been cases where the timelines/fanworks lists have been totally blanked, leaving just the headers behind, and you get the idea that the editor is doing this to get around our banning policies. It's easier to see what's going on in batchpatrol, where you get a sense of the whole picture. Unfortunately, this only works for registered users, and sometimes not even then (as in the case of Kathryn Cramer--batchpatrol does NOT like her. I can only batchpatrol her if I do someone else first.).
Using talk pages to explain what is going on is a great idea, but I'm finding more and more people in fandom have so little knowledge of wiki that when you say, "Talk page" they reply with, "What's that?" I especially see this in the deletion requests. Perhaps we could develop a box that could be added to the page (like the significant contributor box), warning that the edits have been replaced and asking that the editor please explain themselves on the talk page. Then, if they don't explain, we have the option to take other steps.
My two cents. YMMV. --Tikatu 02:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


Is there anyway that we might integrate __NOINDEX__ in to our policy? It basically means that search engines shouldn't include that page in their search results. I'm just not certain how we could integrate and under what circumstances. I've been told that another fandom wiki uses that option.

RE: Notable fanzine covers

I've noticed that Susan Lovett has won several awards for her art. Does this make the cover art notable and if so, how do we handle that? Do we honor deletion requests regardless of notability? Looking for a bit of discussion on this before I finish deleting the rest of the artwork. Crossposted. --Tikatu 15:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to defer to Sidewinder in this case. Whatever she says should go. --Laura 16:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
Support FH