Wikipedia talk:Zap

This is duplicated at WP:XD, and might be better discussed in that more unified forum. -Splash 21:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Any objections to moving this to XD6? R adiant _>|< 22:27, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Only that cross-namespace redirects are generally Considered Bad (although that's received wisdom; I can't point at why), and we ought not to be proposing their adoption. But no harming in moving it and thnking about it. -Splash 22:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not policy

No, no, no, this is not a policy proposal! I'll not disturb the tag, if the tagging editor feels a need for it -- but in no way does this page purport to establish any kind of policy. We don't need more policy. We need to use what we have.

Policy says, "This is how we do things around here." Zapping is an individual action -- and has always been available within current policy. I've just made the action a bit more explicit, added a catchy name, icon, and a few tools to make the job go more smoothly.

I've given some suggestions to the individual who contemplates zapping a page. These also are not new policy of any kind, but merely an explanation of how current policy applies to this kind of action.

This is not a policy proposal. It is a formal statement of an existing method for management of questionable content. That's all. — Xiong 熊 talk * 22:56, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

Not XD, either

Woo! I just had a look at XD. What a complicated mess! Zapping has nothing to do with this, either. — Xiong 熊 talk * 22:59, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

Problem

One problem I can see with this method is that if the title of a newly created article contains copyvio's, or personal attacks, or disparages the subject, then it can't be kept, even as a redirect page; copyvio's especially, as these have to be deleted. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 23:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then delete it. Zapping does not hinder this materially. You should try to understand that you can let something stew on XfD for a week and delete it -- but there is nothing you can do to delete the cached versions in so very many places outside of this Project. By that point, it's too late. — Xiong 熊 talk * 02:35, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

Sandbox being vandalised

How does one know when they redirect a page to the sandbox that it hasn't been vandalised? Frequently the sandbox has content that may offend and I don't think it is a appropriate to send someone to a page and have them confronted with a giant penis because they made a page about their dog.

And also as yet reading through the proposal I have no idea what this page is intended for. Vandalism? Pages that violate Wikipedia is not? Things that fall under WP:CSD? Evil Monkey∴Hello 23:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is intended for everything anyone wants to otherwise delete. -Splash 23:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not. Half the problem with this Community is selfish editors acting out their biases. I don't really care if you want to delete something. Act on behalf of our cornerstone goals.

Deletion, speedy or otherwise, is always inappropriate for expressing your disagreement with anything. So is zapping. So is page blanking. So is barging in and editing the matter to suit yourself.

The only appropriate editing in this Community (with the possible exception of your user page) is editing that promotes the goals of the Project. Zap, if you dare, only if you are pretty damn sure that this action must have this effect.

The other half of the problem with this Community is wise editors afraid to employ their good judgement. We need more editors willing to exercise individual good judgement. There is no substitute for this. A hundred timid fools do not somehow equal one wise man -- no matter how organized. No process can replace good, mature, responsible, individual action.

Since zapping is obviously a drastic step, it's also obvious that it ought only be taken in extreme cases. Unfortunately, we have great wads of these extreme cases coming in the door every day. — Xiong 熊 talk * 02:31, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

Safer alternative

Whilst I do not particularly support this proposal as a whole, a safer alternative than the sandbox (first impressions count, censorship or not) would be a dedicated protected-page. -Splash 23:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fragmented discussion merged from User talk:Xiong -- please avoid fragmented discussions. — Xiong 熊 talk * 00:02, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I, for one, would consider redirecting an article that should be deleted to the sandbox (or some other obviously innapropriate place) to be a form of vandalism. So, it's not really long-established that you can redirect anything anywhere. On the other hand, redirecting to some special "marker" page would be less innapropriate (but still, why not just tagging it for deletion?). --cesarb 23:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirects

As Splash says, redirecting across namespaces considered harmful.

Then don't do it. New targets have been created for more namespaces. You can create more.

Redirecting to the Sandbox is likely to be confusing to at least some of the people who create meaningless little articles.

Then don't do that. The method has been changed to indicate redirection to the method page itself.

It seems likely to promote awkward edit wars between people who think they are looking at their shiny new articles and people who think they are playing in the sandbox.

I think we're past this point now.

I also agree with Evil Monkey that you never know what you're going to get in the Sandbox.

And this.

I don't even want to contemplate the potential for Zap-warring over honestly disputable articles.

Then don't do that. Edit warring is always bad.

Redirecting an article title to a related article is good. When someone created Hamodialysis with nonsense, it makes total sense to treat it as a misspelling of "hemodialysis" and redirect accordingly. No new tools, no new policy, no new anything needed for this.

You're absolutely right. If a related article exists, that is the proper target of a redirect. I can't uphold your statement strongly enough. The only purpose of the Zap family of dummy targets is to serve as redirect targets for page titles that can't possibly be redirected to anything else.

If you believe this is the empty set, then this suggests you:

1. Don't zap anything.

2. If Somebody zaps something -- redirects to a Zap dummy target -- find the better redirect target and fix the redirect. Be Bold.

Redirecting an article title to an unrelated target increases chaos, not order. Not good.

I think some page titles cannot properly be redirected to anything except a dummy target. I'd rather redirect to the Sandbox, the Main Page, Zap, or the creator's User page than strain to find something distantly and inappropriately related (GNAA → Black History Month).

Whether or not you want to call it a "policy" or "guideline" or a "set of instructions with tools" is not the point. Putting this list of instructions in the Wikipedia namespace positions it as a recommended practice. I do not believe this practice should be recommended. FreplySpang (talk) 00:08, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is certainly not a policy, guideline, or even a set of instructions; it is a set of tools and a description of a currently available method. I tried hard not to recommend zapping to anybody, and anybody who zaps and points to me for justification will be in hot water.

Zap at your own risk. Do not zap unless you are thoroughly familiar with all of the policies relevant to your chosen action.

I think I'll add that to the page. Better? — Xiong 熊 talk * 01:01, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

Okay. All the sandbox-related arguments went away while I was typing. Great. (Redirecting to Wikipedia:Zap still likely to be confusing for newbies though.) And no, I am not suggesting that some farfetched target should be contrived for any given article one wants deleted. Nevertheless. Placing a "description of a currently available method" in Wikipedia space, with supporting tools even, has the rhetorical effect of recommending the use of the method. Putting a "don't do this unless you're sure" warning at the top of the page confuses the message but does not overcome it. I still think this "method" page does not belong in Wikipedia: space. FreplySpang (talk) 01:27, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Don't just shit on it. Improve it. I challenge you to build, and not merely tear down. — Xiong 熊 talk * 02:17, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

Not here, thanks. I do not share your fundamental objection to deletion. FreplySpang (talk) 11:07, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

It's a wiki -- so fix it

You asked for it, you got it. Now, the method specified is to redirect exclusively to dedicated target pages. I thought of this, but I kind of liked the Sandbox.

You know, guys, this is a wiki. I don't own the front side of this page. ~~Anybody could have fixed this.~~ (Hell, Somebody did! I guess it's working --X.)

As for why not just tagging it for deletion, well, if you want to do that, fine. I want to move objectionable content out of the way as quickly as possible, with a minimum of delay and debate. Obviously this kind of Bold action is only acceptable in extreme cases -- if there's really room for debate, it's inappropriate.

After zapping, you can still go right ahead and nominate, debate, vote, close, and beg for an admin to mop up. I won't stop you, and I certainly won't say that zapping something pre-empts further action. Go ahead and let 'er rip.

Folks seem to miss the point that anybody who zaps a page takes the entire responsibility for the action on his own head. He does not have a policy to fall back on; nothing on the front side of this page gives anybody special permission to exercise this method. There is no exemption from good conduct. If you're not damn sure it's appropriate to zap, don't do it. — Xiong 熊 talk * 00:15, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

You know, this proposal looks like it would fit perfectly as one of the experiments at WP:XD. Then, why creating a separate page for it? Why not just add it to the place where most people interested in such experiments are already looking? --cesarb 00:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an experiment; it's an existing method brought to light. This approach has always been available -- all I've done is add tools to make it more coherent. — Xiong 熊 talk * 00:44, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

It's not really "available" if it's considered vandalism. The proposal would be to say "no, this is not vandalism if you do it this way". --cesarb 00:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Show me where it says redirection = vandalism. — Xiong 熊 talk * 02:15, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

Image redirection

This doesn't work. If you change the image description of to a redirect, you get the old image, but the new image description. And it doesn't change what appears on the articles that use it. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that. What's your solution? How would you improve this method? Upload Image:Zap on top of the bad content? That still preserves the original version in file history (not edit history, but it's linked from the image page). — Xiong 熊 talk * 00:40, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

WonderBread

WonderBread (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) moved this page to Wikipedia:POINT. Sockpuppetry suspected (check his contribs). Reporting on WP:AN/I.

Folks, this is an ugly one... looks like it could be another Wikipedians-for-Decency-level situation. ~~ N (t/c) 00:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One More Time

This is not a policy proposal! I certainly did not write it as such. I don't think it has become a policy proposal. It is completely inappropriate to label it as a proposal!

Oh, I understand the thinking: "If it were a policy proposal, then everybody would hate it. So let's call it a policy proposal, because that's the fastest way to get it shot down." That is jackassed bad-faith. If you think something has merit to be a policy proposal, you propose it. If you don't, you don't.

If this were a policy proposal, then it could not be considered for deletion, since all policy proposals demand the full attention of the entire Community -- for as long as the Community may choose to chew on it, and there is no end to that.

It is pure rat-bastardy to tag this page repeatedly with every damn label you can find -- delete it, propose it as policy, slap a Toby on it, go crazy. At least make up your mind what you think it is -- or better yet, look to the author's stated intentions. It's not hard.

This is nothing but a list of dummy redirect targets and an explanation of how to use them and why you might wish to do so. This is like so many things in this world, which I guess you have to grow up to understand: Personal responsibility is key. You don't -- you can't -- make a policy telling people to take individual action without the sanction of policy and process. That would be madness.

For what I dearly wish was the last time: If you don't understand something, please don't mess with it. Thank You. — Xiong 熊 talk * 19:35, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

Yes, it is a policy proposal, because currently the activities it suggests would be considered vandalism and not permitted. If a page was zapped, it would almost certainly be unzapped and CSDed or VFDed. This page is proposing that zapping be officially recognized as OK, something that there is a consensus against. ~~ N (t/c) 21:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Show me where it says "I propose zapping be officially recognized as OK". Point to that text, or demonstrate a related construction. (I've already challenged the assertion that redirection = vandalism; nobody has answered that, either.) — Xiong 熊 talk * 15:42, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

What is this?

Umm, could somebody explain to me, well, what the purpose of "zapping" is? And give a better description of the process? Right now, I'm confused as to what this is and why somebody would want to do it. Best I can figure out, it looks like a variant on the "pure-wiki deletion" proposal. Is that right? The Literate Engineer 19:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's nothing more than a variant of Experimental deletion, even if the original creator says it isn't. --cesarb 19:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, what benefit does it offer over the present system? I'm trying to figure out why somebody (me, really) would ever want to do this. Isn't it just an embellishment of page-blanking? The Literate Engineer 06:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

None. WP:POINT. Yes. Hope that helps! Nandesuka 03:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected Policy

Let's look over this. At the VfD everyone voting keep who's not Xiong is saying keep, tag it with rejected, and keep it as an archive of a failed good faith proposal. Xiong says its not a proposal. However, the Wikipedia community has labeled it IS one. Wikipedia is about consensus, and being the original author, unfortunately, doesn't mean anything. May I quote a warning underneath this text box? If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. Xiong should take this into account and let us keep the {{rejected}} on the page. R e dwolf24 (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Head scratching

I don't understand what people are thinking here. There seems to be a basic lack of understanding about what it means to seek endorsement of a statement as "policy". I'm going to try, very seriously, once more, to correct this misunderstanding. Then, I'm going to remove the "failed policy proposal" tag -- again.

Let's illustrate this concept with a simple example. One day I decide that it would be good if I were to wear a stick of butter for a hat. However, I fear to do so -- who knows, people might laugh at me, it might be against the law, maybe I'll be the only one to do it and I'll feel left out of the group. So, I write on a piece of paper: "Wearing of butter hats is permitted." Then, I nail this to the tree in public square. That is a policy proposal.

If a number of people stop, read the paper, and say, "Yes, that's a great idea," then that proposal becomes policy, through a gradual process of increasing community acceptance. Perhaps some stop to sign their names; perhaps others go so far as to edit it to read "Wearing of butter hats is required." It's entirely possible that a mass meeting will be held, speeches in support, the text of the proposal engraved on a plaque and bolted to the wall of city hall.

If more people who read this proposal walk by, ignore it, or perhaps even stop to write comments on the paper such as "This is silly" and "Butter hats draw flies" then the proposal fails. It does not become community policy. This does not mean that I am forbidden to wear a stick of butter on my head, or call it a hat -- forbidding butter hats would be another, distinctly different policy initiative.

However, none of the above applies here. I do not seek community endorsement; I do not fear to walk around with a stick of butter on my head. I don't ask for permisssion, and I certainly don't ask anybody else to join me. All I have done is to put a stick of butter on my head and put up a paper saying, "If you see somebody with a stick of butter on his head, then that is his choice of headgear."

Some of you are confusing a statement with a proposal. A statement just means "This is what I am doing." A proposal means "I think you should do this" or at least "I think you should let me do this". Is that clear?

It is possible for the community to convert a proposal into policy: "We agree; butter hats are okay." It is possible for the community to convert a proposal into failed policy: "We don't agree that butter hats are okay." But it is impossible to convert a mere statement into a failed policy: "We don't agree that Xiong is wearing a stick of butter on his head." That is denial of reality.

One more time, very clearly: Any editor can, at any time, redirect any page to any other location. Cross-namespace redirects have been questioned, but they can still be performed. Redirects within a namespace are a part of normal editing activity; nobody can possibly challenge this directly. Shall I file an RfC against every editor who redirects a page? Maybe I'll just take a 24-hour slice out of Recent Changes and charge that every such editor has vandalizing. I don't think so.

If you don't agree that some redirect of mine is wise, you can revert it. You might want to discuss that on talk. You'll surely read my explanation of why I redirected before you revert, right? And, of course, if you think one of my redirects is in bad faith, then you can always get angry and take action against me. That is why zapping is a personal action, demanding the actor take personal responsibility. If I don't seek Community endorsement of my action before I take it, then I pretty much have to assume all the consequences of my action. You can always attack me for my wrong action -- but it will do no good at all to attack the tool.

Having decided to redirect a page, I created a dummy redirect target, with explanation. This is a mere tool. It will do nobody any good to delete such a target -- none at all; that would lead to chaos. It is safe and sane to have only one dummy redirect target, or at worst, one per namespace. I hope nobody imagines that screwing with this page will have any effect whatever on any editor's ability to redirect a page anywhere he chooses. If cross-namespace redirects are the primary concern, then it's really dumb to go around deleting namespace-specific dummy redirect targets!

Note that when I created this page, I chose the Sandbox as the primary dummy redirect target. Objections were raised -- good ones. That's why Zap itself is now the primary dummy redirect target. If you screw with it enough, then it will become a poor choice, and editors will go looking for another. What's the point?

Remember: If you see somebody, anybody, do something you don't like, go ahead and question that. Don't waste everybody's time questioning the tools he uses or the name he put to the action. Question the action directly.

If you see somebody wearing butter on his head, tell him to wash it off before it draws flies. Don't waste time telling him it's not a hat; don't make an ass out of yourself by first calling butter hat wearing a new proposed law, then voting against it.

— Xiong 熊 talk * 15:36, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

The consensus here is clearly that this is a policy proposal. If you remove the tag, then I (or presumably one of the other several hundred editors reading) will put it back. I will quote myself from another page in this namespace:

The maze of pages in the Wikipedia: namespace can be extremely confusing and intimidating to new users. Many of them are policies, and many of them are guidelines, and editors refer to items in the namespace them by gnostic-sounding abbreviations constantly. It is unfair to those users to put things in the Wikipedia: space that are neither fish nor fowl without some attempt to indicate what they are looking at.

You wrote an article that looks, walks, talks, and quacks like a duck. Your vigorous claims that it is not, in fact, a duck, have been noted, but disagreed with. If you find it distressing to have other editors point out that it is a duck, then I sincerely suggest that you find a more appropriate place for it, such as a subpage of your User space, although as a rejected proposal that may no longer be an option; perhaps keeping a copy in your userspace without the rejected tag is your best option here. Kind regards, Nandesuka 16:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your writing is spirited, but still falls short of passing the test: Answer the challenge directly! Tell me: In what way does the page propose a policy? This is a matter of fact, not of opinion. No "consensus" that the Moon is made of green cheese will make it so.

I certainly disagree that Community consensus has expressed itself on the matter; few editors have even commented in any way. Indeed, I feel that a primary cause of the breakdown in our Community values is that a very small group is able to control nearly any issue, by speaking loudly and quickly and claiming a spurious "consensus". The greatest concession I will make in this direction is that many editors have expressed their opposition to the activity so described.

The opposition is noted, and I reacted in conciliatory fashion, by strengthening the warning against imagining that Community support existed for zapping. I agree that it does not. Any editor who undertakes such a bold act is on his own. Read that warning carefully. I believe it goes very far toward removing any shadow of doubt: This is not policy.

Your point that this page may not belong in Wikipedia namespace is well taken. Unfortunately, this is an outstanding issue that goes far beyond one page. Zap does not belong in userspace, because it is public. It does not belong in helpspace, because that has become dominated by automatic copies of Meta pages.

I have, in other places, advocated new namespaces. Personally, I think the Wikipedia namespace should be retired; it is cumbersome to type and confusing. I absolutely agree that Zap does not belong in the same namespace as Wikipedia:Manual of Style -- but there is no better place for it now. I find a link to m:Namespace proposal, but I'm unable to load the page just now, so I can't say if the discussion is active.

Again, I strongly agree with this last point of yours. I think it well demonstrates the need for new namespaces. — Xiong 熊 talk * 17:16, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

A number of random, mostly unrelated, points, in no particular order:

The silence on the part of the editors is probably mostly because they've given up trying to convince you.
"Zapping" has almost the same effect as blanking. What happens when an article is blanked? The answer is: it's reverted, unless it was the article's only editor who blanked it, in which case it is simply deleted.
Most people do not share your deep dislike for deletion.
Tagging a page for deletion is at least as quick as "zapping" it, and often quicker.
If you are afraid of mirrors, you can blank it at the same time you tag it for deletion.
The editors commenting here are mostly a self-selected subset of all editors who care more about wikipedia policies than most.
If a page that should not be speedy deleted is "zapped", it's the same kind of vandalism as blanking an article, which is almost the same kind of vandalism of adding a bogus speedy tag.
If a page that should be speedy deleted is "zapped", it only creates more work for the sysops later, who will have to chase them and delete them.
There's already a large backlog without creating more things to do.
If people started to "zap" pages, you would have another set of people following them around and changing the redirects into speedy tags. Then why not adding a speedy tag instead?
"Zapping" leaves blue links behind. Deleting leaves red links behind.
The VfD/AfD/RfD/CfD/IfD/MD debates are centralized and grouped by area of expertise.
If everyone else says it's a dumb idea, you have to consider it might be a dumb idea after all.
Speedy is restricted; the set of valid reasons for speedy deletion was carefully chosen so no good content is lost.
Notice most of the "keep" votes on MD (or WFD, or whatever is today's name for it) are because it's a (failed) policy proposal.

(You do not need to do a point-by-point reply; this is just a dump of some of the ideas floating around in my mind.)

--cesarb 20:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddle about

Leave the warning alone. You're making matters worse -- even from your own point of view:

Zapping is not a system for deleting a page. It is an action that any editor can take, rather than tagging for deletion, engaging the Community in a long-winded debate over the flavor of a particular bit of nasty garbage, or (if an admin) simply deleting on sight and worrying whether consensus will support you after the fact. The primary values of zapping are that it is not deletion, it is not a system, and is reversible by any other editor.

This is not the place to tell editors, "Don't zap!" At some point, you begin to create your very own policy anti-proposal. This is pretty much unwise, since then all previous debate on the page becomes invalid. You've changed the nature of the page, so it must be debated all over again. Bad idea.

The page Zap itself is not the place to debate the page. This Talk page is. See above. Edit this page if you think you can improve it; don't try to destroy it under the guise of improving it. That is editing in bad faith. I've attempted to restore the page to a useful state by removing damage and retaining improvement. Please don't make work for other editors; either improve the Project, or leave it alone. Thank You!

— Xiong 熊 talk * 16:05, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that editors are correcting the warning to the stronger, less ambiguous version out of a wish to debate. You are under a misapprehension. The debate has already occurred, and consensus has been reached. The stronger warning is appropriate because a weaker one may mislead those who don't obsessively read talk pages into doing something extremely unwise, such as trying to zap an article as per the instructions in this thoroughly rejected policy proposal. We are no longer debating the community consensus. We are implementing it. You are welcome to continue to pose questions and engage in discussion, of course, and to convince the community of the wisdom of your position. But I worry on your behalf. You seem to indicate, below, that you are inclined to interpret a lack of spirited debate as in indication that the community agrees with the consensus of whoever spoke last. I want to make sure you understand that this is incorrect. Consensus is not determined through stamina, but through discussion. Part of discussion is listening to what those around you say. Everyone around you has indicated that this is a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad policy proposal. They are not under any obligation to repeat themselves ad infinitum simply because you don't like the result. I suggest you gird yourself to accept this, so that you are not overly disappointed. Kind regards, Nandesuka 18:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Answering objections directly

I notice that when I make a counter-challenge, it is often ignored. Some editors seem to miss the point that if you are unable or unwilling to contest a point, you yield it. I have so far answered every objection raised, and I yield nothing; my opponents have yielded much. Perhaps it is time for editors to rethink their positions and protect any claim they desire to maintain to intellectual honesty.

I shall continue to answer objections, however put, to the best of my ability:

Creates extra work for RfD. The text "aksgajshgs" shouldn't be a page in ANY incarnation.

I disagree. The redirect can be left in place indefinitely. No harm is done, and much immediate good. I find it hard to believe there is even such a process as RfD -- anybody who so chooses to waste his time should be given a good supply of busywork. Any process that deletes redirects en masse should be eliminated, as it masks history, leading to lack of transparancy and all the other ills that come from "we know better than you"-ism.

However, if you insist that the page be deleted, then surely it is no more effort to delete it as a redirect than as a page itself. The only difference is that "work" is shifted from one deletion category to another.

Redirecting across namespaces is discouraged unless its actually handy.

My impression is that cross-namespace redirects are always discouraged. In any case, the point is moot -- the page does not provide for or suggest cross-namespace redirects. I did write it with that weakness, but as soon as the objection was raised, I overcame it by creating namespace-specific dummy redirect targets. If there is an insufficiency of these, they may be created and added to the list.

CSD is much cleaner... (speedy deletion)

I don't even understand this position; it seems unrelated to the second half of the statement. Cleaner in what way? Less dirt and grime? Less sweat? More fair? The sheer volume of pages shoved through speedy means that any given page gets little or no attention before it is done to death. Having been speedied, it becomes inaccessible, invisible; soon, it is buried under a pile of corpses. I should hate to have good, though obscure, content thus frog-marched to the gas chamber.

Speedy is evil.

...and unrevertible except by other admins.

That's not a Good Thing. It takes just two editors to speedy something: one to tag, one admin to chop off its head. I have no special faith in admins, as a class; many have ridden a ripple of support into office over vocal and well-reasoned objections. I don't see that any two editors have the right to decide for all of us.

I can zap, and you can disagree. You can revert the zap, and that's the end of zapping for that -- clearly, as I state on the page, repeated zapping is in bad faith. Zapped and restored, the ball is in the air again, and something else must be done with it -- beyond the scope of this page.

— Xiong 熊 talk * 16:43, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

What's this talk about yielding? I've never accepted that line of thinking, that if you don't respond to something, you must agree. What about the thought process of "If you ignore him, he'll give up and go away?" Not saying that's what's going on here, but... Anyway, on topic, I disagree with your characterization of CSD and your statement that there's value to redirecting to what is effectively a blank page - a dummy target, especially since it preserves bad content in the form of the page history. CSD doesn't "frog march good content to the gas chamber", it gets rid of valueless text that doesn't deserve to exist. And if something doesn't belong in the current-page-form of an article, it doesn't belong anywhere. We preserve the history, as I understand it, for a combination of technical and legal reasons, and it does help with things like vandalism reversion. Nonetheless... an alternative to publication or deletion is uncalled for. "Zapping" has indeed long been possible. Perhaps now is the time to ban it? The Literate Engineer 19:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How can you not have faith in admins? They were elected by the community, so that's a consensus of the community trusting them. Plus Xiong, you are the only one truly for Zap, notice how most those voting keep just want it for historical interest. Keep the banner. R e dwolf24 (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Around and around

Congratulations, guys; I'm starting to tire of this. I have other fish to fry -- juicier, tastier, and of more nutritious content. I still say this is one of the most astonishing displays I have seen -- either of stupidity or ignorance, I'm not sure which.

I no longer have any interest in this page whatever; if I decide to zap something, I will; and I'll have to take responsibility for that when the time comes -- as always.

Zapping -- given whatever name -- is simply redirection, well documented. Nothing in current policy forbids this outright, so it's absurd to say so -- it's just not true. Go ahead and create an anti-redirection policy proposal, if you like; until that is accepted, zap away.

I do intend to abandon this page, therefore I shall not attempt to meet any further challenge to it. Please yourselves. — Xiong 熊 talk * 11:42, 2005 September 11 (UTC)

If you ever do "zap" something, I will be more than happy to revert it and give you a 24-hour block for vandalism. --Carnildo 02:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A bit harsh? I would point out to whoever does it that its a failed proposal and it says on the page to NOT do it. I don't know about blocking. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zapping may not explicitly be forbidden, but that doesn't mean it's permitted. Virtually anyone would consider it to be vandalism, and you know that. ~~ N (t/c) 17:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it is explicitly forbidden by a consensus of wikipedia. In fact I have not seen any admins who have supported this. R e dwolf24 (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, no admins have supported this, so it is presumed that it is explicitly forbidden in Wikipedia. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 20:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a chat weapon

This is not a constructive Wikipolicy. It's just a very effective discussion armament. Very effective at first, but then everyone realizes they can use it and either revert it or start zapping on their own. Chaos ensues and no one is happier. I will never, ever support anything like this.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 18:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]