Forum:Author Deletion Requests

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Author Deletion Requests

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6532 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Earlier we had a very respectful request by an author, now withdrawn, to remove that author's material from the site. The issue has been resolved and who made that request is completely irrelavent to the issue at hand, which is: should we should honor such requests.

I very strongly believe that in certain situations we should. Todd appears to agree with this. Gwax, who runs VFD, does not appear to agree. Gwax certainly point out correctly that we are not compelled to remove the content. Nor may we stop anyone else who has a copy of it from posting it themselves as long as they continue to respect the lerms of the license the work was released under.

Still, I strongly believe that as a matter policy when a writer respectfully requests that his or her work be removed for a valid reason, then we should oblige them even if we would rather not. This is fundamentally a recognition of the fact that this site exists for the writers not the administrators and, as such, our writers deserve to know coming in that they will be treated well as a matter of policy. This includes the ability to withdraw material if something unexpected comes up.

As a writer myself, I feel very strongly about this. I would ask those of you who disagree with me and who have not written a great deal of articles to put yourself in the shoes of a writer before expressing your opinion. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Responses

I agree, with the provisio that the articles are the sole work of the individual. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

(Edit conflict with Mhaille) In general, for pages that have been edited only or almost only by the person requesting deletion, I think we should honor such requests, but I see no problem with having a time cushion before deletion so that people who really want the content to stay can talk to the requester about it. No response from them, go ahead and delete. --—rc (t) 00:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with Rc) I disagree... somewhat. I think it's a pretty selfish thing to do, considering this is a wiki. Wikis serve the sole purpose of letting people learn, or in this case laugh, to remove your own content is to deprive the public of humor. However, if it is voted on, and the public shares the same feeling as the author, then so be it.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 00:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to think that it would be a rare request..... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me) 00:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of any reason why I'd pull my articles... So I suppose I can't sympathize. --KATIE!! 01:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

While there is a potential for abuse, I tend to think that it is a good policy to have. It is true that Uncyclopedia is meant to be for writers and not for the whims of an administration, and this is a nice sort of goodwill gesture. The cynic in me thinks the only type of person who would do such a thing is one who turns all angsty and does it to piss someone off, but there may indeed be a case where someone legitimately needs it done. People may misuse it, but I don't like to have potential for misuse interfere with policy making. Therefore, I'd support the idea. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I was with Tomp, until reading Rangeley. I personally think that the articles become the property of the wiki community once you upload it. If don't want your stuff here, then don't put it here. But then what Rangley said has a really good feeling behind it. I'd like to feel (and do feel, incidentally), that this wiki takes the high road whenever possible, and so, if an author SHOULD be able to request their material come down, with a reason given, at which point the community will decide whether it is a valid reason. What I want to avoid is people that edit the wiki holding us hostage at some point where they point to some rule we write down that says that the author can pull their stuff any time they want, then accuse us of going against the rules. Yes, there are real asses out there. But still, I do think it's a good idea to have it an option that is seriously considered when the author requests that it be taken down.--<<>> 04:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with RC, that they can have it removed (instantly, and without debate, that is) if it is 100% (or close to 100%, spelling corrections, minor formatting, etc don't count too much) their own work. User:UtarEmpire had to make such a request at one point. I believe QVFD should be open to any solo page author and file uploader, requesting deletion. Beyond that, I belive VFD or discussion with the other authors should be involved on a per-page/file basis, without a blanket policy (other than the one stated). --Splaka 06:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. I've written a lot of stuff for Uncyclopedia — pretty-much-mine articles, articles I've written all of but others have added substantial good stuff to (e.g. X Window System) and collaborative additions (e.g. GNOME). I think throwing a tantrum and removing my articles from the wiki, when they've been up for a time and are out in the world and they've got that damn CC license so I've licensed them to be completely out of my control anyway is just a bit way too dickish. But I can see the writer's point of view. I'm just thoroughly unsure as to whether it's giving too much writer control in an environment where half the point is "I release my stuff into the world, for better or worse" and whether that's actually good for Uncyclopedia - David Gerard 09:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Isra and with Rc. And I think Tomps comment makes little or no sense: when you withdraw an article you don't deprive anyone from humor, they still have all the other articles that supply the same need for humor just as well (with the exception of a few masterpieces perhaps, that do it significally better). When it comes to wikis based on knowldege the situation changes. If you delete the article on philosophy I can't just simply go and read the article on maths instead. Any leisure activity can be replaced with another (may be not just any other, but you have an important level of flexibility), but each piece of knowldege is unique.--Rataube 22:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Once the material is up on the site, someone can read it and then use it for their own projects, essays, materials, contracts, laughter, jokes to tell friends. Allowing people to pull their material afterward UNLESS IT IS THREATENING THE LIFE OF THE POSTER (as in Wheeling Jesuit) degenerates into not being able to trust any content. Perhaps a bigger warning on contributions, but I cannot believe in a wiki where I contribute to an article, and the original poster can yank the article itself out later at whim. Essentially my stance is simply no pulling, with the exceptions being that the life of the poster is being threatened or something similar. It would too quickly set bad precedent if every annoyed author wants to pull material. --Chronarion 04:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that non-single-author pages may be pulled in this manner. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Chron has spoken, y'all. The issue is closed. I'd just like to point out real quick that it's silly to go through the effort of choosing a license for the material if you're not even going to stick with it. It's not because we're afraid of losing the material. Nobody cares if the material of any one author stays or goes. No one author is bigger than the wiki. It's simply a matter of sticking to the rules we've already set.--<<>> 08:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Instead of having some sort of universal policy on author deletion requests, I suggest that we consider polite and well explained requests on a case by case basis. I would hate to have a general policy one way or the other and risk losing valuable content or somehow harming contributers, and it seems that this sort of situation is rare enough that the volume of requests wouldn't be an issue. I also propose a few guidelines:

1. There should be some sort of real-life drama involved (wiki-drama involving real-life acquaintances would be a grey area).
2. Contributions of other users to the article or articles should be very minor (i.e. spelling, categories, and perhaps one or two lines of content in a larger article).
3. The article should not be an important part of a group of articles by other authors.
4. If any drama rears its head in the discussion, a person of authority will make a final decision.

Does this sound like a reasonable compromise? --Spin 06:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

What's my motivation?

I should like to point out that my actions in this particular context were psychologically motivated and not motivated by actual beliefs. Whilst I am almost always a very strong proponent of establishing firm policies, I was working in a heuristic manner. As far as I could tell the deletion requests were put up because the author felt that he had been harassed and wanted to run away. It was my intent, by undeleting and claiming it was for other reasons, to show that particular author some support and prevent him from running away. --Sir gwax (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Be that as it may, authors should understand that requests for deletion are not to be something to be trifled with. In this case, it seems that one person's carelessness caused a great many others to fall all over each other cleaning up the mess. As such, I believe the articles should have been deleted outright.--Winston 16:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Final Words

It appears to be that there is a pretty solid consensus developing around the idea that fully single author pages (no contributions by anyone else amounting to even a paragraph and no connection to a series of articles by others) should normally be removed upon a respectful and legitimate author request. The notable exception to this is Chron, but I would like to present my case one final time in hopes of swaying his mind.

To recap: We aren't talking about pulling it from the license - all legal rights granted to the community and its memebers are retained regardless of whether we continue to host the content. We also aren't talking about giving someone else control over whether your contributions will stay - any significant 3rd party contribution prevents speedy deletion. Further, we aren't talking about letting people hold us hostage with policy — an ultimatum is inherently disrespectful and disqualifies a request automatically without discussion.

The reasons for such a "policy" are several:

1. It is taking the high road. Authors owe us nothing when they come here. It is a sign of good faith that when they make a request that we can perform without trouble that we accomadate them.
2. It helps keep us honest. As has become glaringly obvious recently, it can be very difficult to prevent drama from occurring on the wiki. One person may have legitimate complaints with how they are treated, and while we cannot control how others treat them, we can control the circumstances of their exit so that the site is remembered with some fondness. If we cannot hold content hostage we are also more likely to keep ourselves in line.
3. As Rangeley pointed out online, such a measure is actually likely to reduce the number of such requests. As it is such a request fills VFD with drama and attention which is precisely the aim of trolls. Simply having the request be summarily granted removes any satisfaction in making such a request in order to troll. Even legitimate requests are likely to be reduced because if an author knows that she can always make such a request the urgency of making one as soon and as often as possible will be removed.
   1. It is notable here that a very large number of people who potentially vote on VFD have expressed support for the idea that author requests should be honored, because it makes it likely that honoring such requests becomes not an issue of "if" but "how many days of VFD".

If anyone thinks I have misstated what most posters seem to agree upon, feel free to correct me. If I have missed a reason, feel free to add it. This post, however, is less for general discussion than for Chron, who I am hoping my reconsider his position. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Very well. For single author pages, I'd still prefer to do it on a case by case basis. I think that a blanket policy encourages people NOT to solve their differences, but instead to storm out in a huff. For the time being though, i'd prefer not to have any automatically granted request. However... if people take exception to this, and there's a clear majority that wants to have a form of "automatic" author delete request, you may start a vote. --Chronarion 18:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

/me concurs and is generally opposed to any sort of automatic (non-case by case) thing. --Sir gwax (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't get everything I wanted, but I am satisfied since it looks like you understand what I am trying to say. With any luck it will be a long time before we even have to ponder revisiting the issue. Thanks for your time. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How about, if a user just wants one page deleted, like say an experiment they tried that failed, they can put it on QVFD with "QVFD request by author". But, if someone asks for a blanked deletion of all their requests, it gets referred to an arbitration cabal for case-by-case/page-by-page judgement? --Splaka 05:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)