[solved] Outdated dustbin policy documentation

schard · 2019-03-09 10:23:33

The documentation of the dustbin policy under: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Co … _deletion) seems outdated, since I've never seen a dustbinned thread be deleted after five days. May this part be deleted from the documentation?

Last edited by schard (2019-03-10 08:27:10)

Lone_Wolf · 2019-03-09 13:57:45

The oldest post in the dustbin is from 2007-01-27 05:14:24 , doesn't look like any threads in dustbin have been deleted after that date.
Policy should be updated ( or followed ... )

Trilby · 2019-03-09 14:26:39

Some threads are, some aren't. It is not done automatically - each thread must be individually deleted, and it is/was up to the individual moderator who binned the thread to go back and delete it 5 days later if they wanted to. Some mods/admins frequently do so, others not so much. It's not so practical some times, it's easy to forget, and in many cases it's useful to keep the 'evidence' around longer for cases when the user who posted the thread engages in a continued pattern of behavior.

I would advocate for the simple change of "s/will/may/" as I believe this is the spirit of the law, or at least how it is used: a dustbinned thread should stay in the bin for at least 5 days. This acts as a reasonable appeal period. So if one's thread get's binned, it will not totally vanish before 5 days.

I'd actually prefer threads be deleted sparingly. When someone has a thread that violates many community standards, it's useful to check their post history. If they have a long string of dustbinned threads for similar problems, then they aren't learning and should be banned (as happened with one today). If all their old dustbinned threads get deleted, though, we'd have to rely on our memory of that username to prevent continued violations.

Last edited by Trilby (2019-03-09 14:29:42)

WorMzy · 2019-03-09 15:11:13

Trilby wrote:

Some mods/admins frequently do so, others not so much.

This sums it up. I'm probably up there with the worst offenders for neglecting this duty, whereas others are far more diligent.

Slithery · 2019-03-09 16:18:12

Yep. +1 to what WorMzy said

I don't think that I've ever permenantly deleted anything, in fact I must have missed that bit completely in the documentation for new mods as until now I didn't realise that it was part of my job.

I wholeheartedly agree with Trilby though (as always ) - keeping the threads visible is an invaluable resource to the mods. Today's episode was a great example, It wouldn't have been as easy to make the same decisions without being able to refer back to previous dustbinned posts.

I'd prefer for the current system to stay in place and the wiki be changed rather than vice-versa. In the future I'll try to remember to permenantly delete threads that I've binned, but only if they contain 100% irrelevant noise that wouldn't be instructive to other posters.

schard · 2019-03-09 16:47:41

@Slithery. Well then you obviously agree with my initial suggestion, too, since I never suggested that the mods should change their behaviour according to the policy, but the documentation to be updated.
Not being in any kind of special position, I can understand that it's probably a good idea to keep old dustbinned threads to enable the mods to put a user's post history into context.

Slithery · 2019-03-09 16:55:12

schard wrote:

@Slithery. Well then you obviously agree with my initial suggestion, too, since I never suggested that the mods should change their behaviour according to the policy, but the documentation to be updated.

Correct.

I'm all for Trilby's s/will/may/ solution, it just needs one of the wiki mods to approve a change to such an important page.

Have you posted a suggestion on the relevant wiki talk page yet? The forum isn't really the correct place for this sort of discussion as none of the relevant people will be notified.

I apologise if you've done this already. Am currently on my mobile which doesn't have my wiki credentials stored

schard · 2019-03-09 17:04:04

I did not and thank you for the hint. I thought, that this very forum was the correct place to discuss a possible change.

Slithery · 2019-03-09 17:59:21

Have just read back my last post and feel that I need to clarify slightly.

The forum was the correct place to start such a discussion as it directly effects our practices, but the only people that can effect such a change in the wiki are their mods - who happen to be a completely different set of people (although with some slight crossover).

I'm going to bring this up with the rest of the forum mods [1] and see if we can reach a consensus before deciding on either more appropriate wording for the wiki or a change in policy.

Will report back when we have some progress...

[1] https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=244797

Slithery · 2019-03-09 18:07:17

Well that was easy.
Done

Edit - If only obvious decisions could be agreed and pushed into official documentation so quickly in all walks of life. Arch is surely a model community

Thanks for the input schard.

Arch Linux

#1 2019-03-09 10:23:33

[solved] Outdated dustbin policy documentation

#2 2019-03-09 13:57:45

Re: [solved] Outdated dustbin policy documentation

#3 2019-03-09 14:26:39

Re: [solved] Outdated dustbin policy documentation

#4 2019-03-09 15:11:13

Re: [solved] Outdated dustbin policy documentation

#5 2019-03-09 16:18:12

Re: [solved] Outdated dustbin policy documentation

#6 2019-03-09 16:47:41

Re: [solved] Outdated dustbin policy documentation

#7 2019-03-09 16:55:12

Re: [solved] Outdated dustbin policy documentation

#8 2019-03-09 17:04:04

Re: [solved] Outdated dustbin policy documentation

#9 2019-03-09 17:59:21

Re: [solved] Outdated dustbin policy documentation

#10 2019-03-09 18:07:17

Re: [solved] Outdated dustbin policy documentation

Board footer