Re: [WikiEN-l] Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Re: [WikiEN-l] Edit warring at...

Re: #wikipedia-en-admins

David Gerard

18 Jan 2006 18 Jan '06

3:07 p.m.

Justin Cormack wrote:

...

Clearly we need a good definition of what listed means; also investment trusts and suchlike generally have laxer requirements and probably should not be included.

Show replies by date

Jon

18 Jan 18 Jan

6:48 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

Of course, talking of bogus guidelines that unfortunately have more support than they deserve, Tony was acting in complete violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Process_is_Important and here was me thinking we were trying to write an encyclopaedia:) Jon David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Justin Cormack wrote:

...

Clearly we need a good definition of what listed means; also investment trusts and suchlike generally have laxer requirements and probably should not be included.

What I'm reading here is that the guideline in question was clearly bogus and ignoring it as bogus was the right thing to do. And if people are going to cite it on AFD, it'll need some sort of ratification from people other than five AFD regulars. - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l --------------------------------- To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.

Tony Sidaway

7 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/18/06, Jon <thagudearbh(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

...

Of course, talking of bogus guidelines that unfortunately have more support than they deserve, Tony was acting in complete violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Process_is_Important

Um, yes. In utter and complete contempt for it. :)

Travis Mason-Bushman

7:04 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

There's one thing that Tony and I violently agree on: The idea that "process is important" is pernicious and harmful to the creation of an encyclopaedia. -FCYTravis On 1/18/06 11:00 AM, "Tony Sidaway" <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 1/18/06, Jon <thagudearbh(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Of course, talking of bogus guidelines that unfortunately have more support than they deserve, Tony was acting in complete violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Process_is_Important

Um, yes. In utter and complete contempt for it. :) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

geni

7:23 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/18/06, Travis Mason-Bushman <travis(a)gpsports-eng.com> wrote:

...

There's one thing that Tony and I violently agree on: The idea that "process is important" is pernicious and harmful to the creation of an encyclopaedia.

Really? We have tens of thousands of editors. Over 700 admins. Imagain if they all decided to ignore process on a regular basis. -- geni

Travis Mason-Bushman

7:35 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

Have you read some of the comments on that page's Talk page? They wish eventually to entirely abolish [[WP:IAR]] "and expunge its history." The idea that "process is important" inherently puts rules and bureaucracy above writing an encyclopaedia - and we are here to write an encyclopaedia, correct? What [[WP:IAR]] states at its root is a principle that is central to Wikipedia - that is to say, that if you're doing what you believe is something that will benefit the encyclopaedia, damn the rules and do it anyway. The fact that nothing (except image deletions) is permanent on Wikipedia makes [[WP:IAR]] work. If someone doesn't believe that my [[WP:BOLD]] invocation of [[WP:IAR]] was proper, they are free to boldly revert it, or in the case of a deletion, find one of those 700 admins to undelete it, in which case a discussion can begin. [[WP:IAR]] at its core, is about the fact that it is more beneficial to the encyclopaedia to *do* something than to worry about going through five levels of something Wikipedia is not, namely bureaucracy, before doing it. Being [[WP:BOLD]], a principle which I think no one would disagree with, often requires its complement, [[WP:IAR]]. -FCYTravis On 1/18/06 11:23 AM, "geni" <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 1/18/06, Travis Mason-Bushman <travis(a)gpsports-eng.com> wrote:

There's one thing that Tony and I violently agree on: The idea that "process is important" is pernicious and harmful to the creation of an encyclopaedia.

Really? We have tens of thousands of editors. Over 700 admins. Imagain if they all decided to ignore process on a regular basis. -- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Haukur Þorgeirsson

8:01 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

...

The fact that nothing (except image deletions) is permanent on Wikipedia makes [[WP:IAR]] work. If someone doesn't believe that my [[WP:BOLD]] invocation of [[WP:IAR]] was proper, they are free to boldly revert it, or in the case of a deletion, find one of those 700 admins to undelete it, in which case a discussion can begin.

This last sentence is the important point. When people challenge your ignoring of established process you have to sit down and discuss things with them - not just keep reverting to the version you think is better and say that discussion is a waste of time. This goes even when you think your view is "common sense" or "obviously correct". If it really is, you will be able to convince other Wikipedians of it. Our hobby is building an encyclopedia - many of us are quite reasonable people :) Process is basically a way of facilitating discussion and cooperation in this large collaborative project. That's why some of us think it's important, not for its own sake. Regards, Haukur

Travis Mason-Bushman

8:09 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

It's the concept of the "Process is important" process fetish that I disagree with. Process is necessary, but as you say, not for its own sake. Just as there must be a purpose to invoke [[WP:IAR]], there ought to be a purpose to require the assistance of process. If the only reason someone can come up with to oppose an action is, "it was out of process," then the action was probably correct. -FCYTravis On 1/18/06 12:01 PM, "Haukur ﬁorgeirsson" <haukurth(a)hi.is> wrote:

...

Process is basically a way of facilitating discussion and cooperation in this large collaborative project. That's why some of us think it's important, not for its own sake. Regards, Haukur

Sam Korn

8:27 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/18/06, Travis Mason-Bushman <travis(a)gpsports-eng.com> wrote:

...

Quite so. Process ___***is***___ important, just not (nearly) as important as that damned encyclopaedia. -- Sam

John Lee

19 Jan 19 Jan

3:26 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:

...

Strong ditto here. While process should never *ever* get in the way of common sense, once people acting in good faith start reverting your actions, it's time for process to step in. Process acts as a way to limit the anarchy of IAR. It may be evil, but it's very much a necessary evil. Also bear in mind that undermining one process often indirectly erodes other processes. If an admin wheel wars over the deletion of an article with other admins acting in good faith and gets away with it, pretty soon new admins will figure, "Why not apply to this to blocking wheel wars?" And so on. Tony has been arguing that the deletion process is borked. That, I think we can all agree on, even if we disagree on how it's broken. However, that's not licence to wholly ignore it, unless you have no respect for the establishment of process at all. If you seek the replacement of this borked process by something better, once this goal is achieved, your actions in ignoring process will eventually be used as an excuse by other admins (no matter how well-meaning) to ignore the process you support because in their opinion, it's borked. And if you don't seek the replacement of this process, then you're just disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point (or no point at all, maybe). John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])

Ray Saintonge

6:14 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

John Lee wrote:

...

Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:

When people challenge your ignoring of established process you have to sit down and discuss things with them - not just keep reverting to the version you think is better and say that discussion is a waste of time. This goes even when you think your view is "common sense" or "obviously correct". If it really is, you will be able to convince other Wikipedians of it. Our hobby is building an encyclopedia - many of us are quite reasonable people :) Process is basically a way of facilitating discussion and cooperation in this large collaborative project. That's why some of us think it's important, not for its own sake.

While process should never *ever* get in the way of common sense, once people acting in good faith start reverting your actions, it's time for process to step in. Process acts as a way to limit the anarchy of IAR. It may be evil, but it's very much a necessary evil. Also bear in mind that undermining one process often indirectly erodes other processes. If an admin wheel wars over the deletion of an article with other admins acting in good faith and gets away with it, pretty soon new admins will figure, "Why not apply to this to blocking wheel wars?" And so on. Tony has been arguing that the deletion process is borked. That, I think we can all agree on, even if we disagree on how it's broken. However, that's not licence to wholly ignore it, unless you have no respect for the establishment of process at all. If you seek the replacement of this borked process by something better, once this goal is achieved, your actions in ignoring process will eventually be used as an excuse by other admins (no matter how well-meaning) to ignore the process you support because in their opinion, it's borked. And if you don't seek the replacement of this process, then you're just disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point (or no point at all, maybe).

When process must be the basis for a decision it must do the least harm; it should give the best opportunity for a real resolution. In situations where sysops differ process shouold favour keeping in the general case. A least harm approach could still favouur deletion in cases where legal problems such as copyvios, libel or privacy are a major factor. When the only issue is notability we are talking abour a highly subjective concept; that explains why it has been such a perennial problem. When undeletion depends almost completely on whether the deletion process was followed correctly rather than on content it's clear that process has become overly dominant. John's argument is like that of any other politicians who like things the way they are. I don't think that Tony is wholly ignoring the process; it's more like civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is a perfectly acceptable way of opposing unjust laws. I realize that the sophistry in John's arguments is more subtle than that. He doesn't complain of disrespect of the process, but of disrespect of the establishment. An establishment needs to repeatedly earn respect, or expect to be challenged. There is also a black and white aspect to how John views process; it's either the way it is, or some completely different proces from what now exists. In that view, just as the current process is something to be defended so too the hypothetical different process becomes a goal that would need defending if it were to succeed. So, yes, others will ignore that new process just as much as they are ignoring the present process; that's a good thing. Dealing with a single article should not need to involve a person in a broad unending discussion of general process. If a person feels that a particular corporation is notable, that needs to be discussed on its own merits. Falling back on general process ignores the fact that the financial pages form a larger part of daily newspapers than comic strips. Ec

geni

8:13 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/19/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

So our inclusion standards are set but the most liberal sysops? I really don't think that is an acceptable way of doing things (apart from anything else it makes the issue very personal).

...

A least harm approach could still favouur deletion in cases where legal problems such as copyvios, libel or privacy are a major factor. When the only issue is notability we are talking abour a highly subjective concept; that explains why it has been such a perennial problem. When undeletion depends almost completely on whether the deletion process was followed correctly rather than on content it's clear that process has become overly dominant.

almost There are cases where deletion has been reversed for being an incorrect descision

...

John's argument is like that of any other politicians who like things the way they are. I don't think that Tony is wholly ignoring the process; it's more like civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is a perfectly acceptable way of opposing unjust laws.

You just accused Tony of dissruption. And [[WP:POINT]] violations. I would suggest that you rethink any position that results in useing terms such as "unjust laws" to refure to wikipedia policy.

...

Dealing with a single article should not need to involve a person in a broad unending discussion of general process. If a person feels that a particular corporation is notable, that needs to be discussed on its own merits. Falling back on general process ignores the fact that the financial pages form a larger part of daily newspapers than comic strips. Ec

Not it doesn't. From [[WP:CORP]]: "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." -- geni

Ray Saintonge

10:17 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

geni wrote:

...

On 1/19/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

So our inclusion standards are set but the most liberal sysops? I really don't think that is an acceptable way of doing things (apart from anything else it makes the issue very personal).

Not exactly, but by those who would want standards to do least harm, or who would like peace in the community. If you want to take that personally that's your problem.

...

almost There are cases where deletion has been reversed for being an incorrect descision

That statement seems on a par with those people who say that they have a best friend that's black.

...

You just accused Tony of dissruption. And [[WP:POINT]] violations.

Who would be so fucking foolish as to twist praise for civil disobedience into an accusation of disruption.

...

I would suggest that you rethink any position that results in useing terms such as "unjust laws" to refure to wikipedia policy.

It doesn't take much rethinking to reaffirm what I said. There are whole countries where any suggestion that it can promulgate unjust laws would result in severe consequences. Was it my error to believe that Wikipedia was not one of those countries?

...

Not it doesn't. From [[WP:CORP]]: "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself."

That kind of rule parrotting suggests that you don't spend a hell of a lot of time looking at the financial pages of newspapers. Ec

geni

11:41 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/19/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

Not exactly, but by those who would want standards to do least harm, or who would like peace in the community. If you want to take that personally that's your problem.

Strangly I would argue my standards would cause the least harm and I certianly want peace in the community.

...

That statement seems on a par with those people who say that they have a best friend that's black.

I fail to see the logic. The above also appears to be an appeal to emotion

...

Who would be so fucking foolish as to twist praise for civil disobedience into an accusation of disruption.

Civil disobedience also causes dissruption. That is the whole point.

...

Wikipedia is not a country.

...

That kind of rule parrotting suggests that you don't spend a hell of a lot of time looking at the financial pages of newspapers. Ec

What is your chain of logic here? -- geni

Tony Sidaway

21 Jan 21 Jan

2:39 a.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/19/06, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gawab.com> wrote:

...

Tony has been arguing that the deletion process is borked. That, I think we can all agree on, even if we disagree on how it's broken. However, that's not licence to wholly ignore it,

Welll, I'd say that it's a very good reason to use your noggin and reverse its most egregiously borked decisions. Something that you may have noticed some of us are quite adept at doing. Looks like Jimmy Wales took a leaf from our book! :)

geni

3:10 a.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/21/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 1/19/06, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gawab.com> wrote:

Tony has been arguing that the deletion process is borked. That, I think we can all agree on, even if we disagree on how it's broken. However, that's not licence to wholly ignore it,

Not really. Your recent record only looks good compared to your out of process deletion record. -- geni

Sean Barrett

4:09 a.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 geni stated for the record:

...

On 1/21/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Not really. Your recent record only looks good compared to your out of process deletion record. -- geni

"Out of process" -- that means "bad," right? Does it matter what the result was? - -- Sean Barrett | There's no place like 127.0.0.1 sean(a)epoptic.org |

...PGP SIGNATURE...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD0bQCMAt1wyd9d+URArVvAJ4yKiZLY9/cESsWPkW550TJ8P9keQCfWiaU D6/daHcXCN2ktGx5tTfYln4= =9wwm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Ray Saintonge

7:49 a.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

Sean Barrett wrote:

...

geni stated for the record:

On 1/21/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Not really. Your recent record only looks good compared to your out of process deletion record. geni

"Out of process" -- that means "bad," right? Does it matter what the result was?

Absolutely! You can't allow facts to interfere with process, or nothing would get accomplished ;-) Ec

geni

2:49 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/21/06, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org> wrote:

...

"Out of process" -- that means "bad," right?

Not always. It means bad in the same way fair use means bad

...

Does it matter what the result was?

Sure if you made what everyone agreed was the right descission. -- geni

Alphax (Wikipedia email)

8:08 a.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

geni wrote:

...

On 1/21/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 1/19/06, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gawab.com> wrote:

Tony has been arguing that the deletion process is borked. That, I think we can all agree on, even if we disagree on how it's broken. However, that's not licence to wholly ignore it,

Not really. Your recent record only looks good compared to your out of process deletion record.

The only time when process should take priority over common sense is when dealing with the laws of physics. -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

geni

2:50 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/21/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

The only time when process should take priority over common sense is when dealing with the laws of physics.

Or when dealing with a large number of people who don't know who you are and have no real reason to trust your judgement. Process allows us to get along. -- geni

Sean Barrett

3 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 geni stated for the record:

...

On 1/21/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:

The only time when process should take priority over common sense is when dealing with the laws of physics.

Or when dealing with a large number of people who don't know who you are and have no real reason to trust your judgement. Process allows us to get along. -- geni

If this discussion is an example of how well "process" allows us to get along, "process" isn't doing a very good job. - -- Sean Barrett | Anything not worth doing is not worth doing well. sean(a)epoptic.org |

...PGP SIGNATURE...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD0kx7MAt1wyd9d+URAuHbAJ9oIC9/HRjSerrV/Cj49NHmO6hU4ACdEvia yeL72VPG3xo37uwwulBHqKQ= =RBHM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

geni

3:23 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/21/06, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org> wrote:

...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 geni stated for the record:

On 1/21/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:

The only time when process should take priority over common sense is when dealing with the laws of physics.

Or when dealing with a large number of people who don't know who you are and have no real reason to trust your judgement. Process allows us to get along. -- geni

If this discussion is an example of how well "process" allows us to get along, "process" isn't doing a very good job.

Really? Would you rather all issues were solved by admins sluging it out through wheel wars? -- geni

Sean Barrett

3:41 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 geni stated for the record:

...

On 1/21/06, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 geni stated for the record:

On 1/21/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:

The only time when process should take priority over common sense is when dealing with the laws of physics.

Or when dealing with a large number of people who don't know who you are and have no real reason to trust your judgement. Process allows us to get along. -- geni

If this discussion is an example of how well "process" allows us to get along, "process" isn't doing a very good job.

Really? Would you rather all issues were solved by admins sluging it out through wheel wars? -- geni

I'm sorry; the connection you are trying to make between what I wrote and your sky-falling false dichotomy is not a working connection. Please check your logic and try again, or ask your operator for assistance. - -- Sean Barrett | Anything not worth doing is not worth doing well. sean(a)epoptic.org |

...PGP SIGNATURE...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD0lY2MAt1wyd9d+URArLgAJ9r5Y4frrsj3Z39wbL77w0Qyz6n0wCdEfbk ihO0F2d2CwWlrMnGIj8xqBA= =YO5s -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

geni

3:55 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/21/06, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org> wrote:

...

Yuo stated that process wasn't letting us get on very well. The alturnative is worse. -- geni

Sean Barrett

4:04 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 geni stated for the record:

...

On 1/21/06, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org> wrote:

Yuo stated that process wasn't letting us get on very well. The alturnative is worse. -- geni

The alternative to not getting along well is getting along better. Why do you think that is worse? - -- Sean Barrett | Anything not worth doing is not worth doing well. sean(a)epoptic.org |

...PGP SIGNATURE...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD0lukMAt1wyd9d+URAseUAJ4kQlCQ+iYNSlbYoh8+55b1fJoslQCfb47u +LWwJlzq16EHo4bDKzhpf8Y= =5H5h -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

geni

5:05 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/21/06, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org> wrote:

...

The alternative to not getting along well is getting along better. Why do you think that is worse? - -- Sean Barrett | Anything not worth doing is not worth doing well.

There are people on wikipedia that I really don't like. Process means that I can work with them. -- geni

fun＠thingy.apana.org.au

22 Jan 22 Jan

6:03 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

geni (geniice(a)gmail.com) [060122 04:05]:

...

On 1/21/06, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org> wrote:

...

> The alternative to not getting along well is getting along better. Why > do you think that is worse?

...

There are people on wikipedia that I really don't like. Process means that I can work with them.

Unless you were writing hastily without thinking, what you appear to be saying here is that you regard yourself as a problem. - d.

geni

6:40 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/22/06, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:

...

Unless you were writing hastily without thinking, what you appear to be saying here is that you regard yourself as a problem. - d.

There are 1000s of editors on wikipedia. The odds of me liking and getting on with all of them are pretty much zero. However process (and a reasonably common goal) means that I don't have to like someone to work with them. Once we move outside process personal opinion about a person matters a lot. Do you trust the person? Do you really honestly deep down belive they are acting in good faith? -- geni

Sam Korn

9:50 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/22/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Quite so. And if we learn to assume good faith (and we don't need a policy page to tell us *that* is a good idea), we should get along fine. -- Sam

Tony Sidaway

10:12 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/22/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 1/22/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Quite so. And if we learn to assume good faith (and we don't need a policy page to tell us *that* is a good idea), we should get along fine.

Well said. Process is not a substitute for assuming good faith, and current behavior *within the process*, partly on AfD but *particularly on DRV*, is actively destructive of the assumption. Much of what passes for discussion on DRV is little short of naked thuggery.

Ray Saintonge

10:17 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

geni wrote:

...

On 1/22/06, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:

Unless you were writing hastily without thinking, what you appear to be saying here is that you regard yourself as a problem. - d.

Speaking as someone who most of the time disagrees with geni, it's also important to express agreement when it does happen as with the above statement. Similarly the fact that I more often agree with David does not prevent me from getting into a polarized debate with him on an other issue. Ec

geni

18 Jan 18 Jan

8:37 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/18/06, Travis Mason-Bushman <travis(a)gpsports-eng.com> wrote:

...

Have you read some of the comments on that page's Talk page? They wish eventually to entirely abolish [[WP:IAR]] "and expunge its history."

Good anyone who need IRA to justify their actions should have carried them out in the first place.

...

The idea that "process is important" inherently puts rules and bureaucracy above writing an encyclopaedia - and we are here to write an encyclopaedia, correct? What [[WP:IAR]] states at its root is a principle that is central to Wikipedia - that is to say, that if you're doing what you believe is something that will benefit the encyclopaedia, damn the rules and do it anyway.

Perhaps but don't expect mercy if you make the wrong descision. If you throw the rules out of the window don't complain if you go that way too (I have not ben playing to much Max Payne I have not ben playing to much Max Payne)

...

Or we could do the discussion bit first you know. to quote Tony Sidaway: Wikipedia is not a multiplayer game, it's not a time-critical affair. If something needs to be done, it'll wait until tomorrow, or most likely someone else will do it if it urgently needs to be done. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

...

[[WP:IAR]] at its core, is about the fact that it is more beneficial to the encyclopaedia to *do* something than to worry about going through five levels of something Wikipedia is not, namely bureaucracy, before doing it.

Outside of directly improveing article content it is in fact often beneficial to do nothing on wikipedia. Problems have a tendancy to solve themselves given time

...

Being [[WP:BOLD]], a principle which I think no one would disagree with, often requires its complement, [[WP:IAR]]. -FCYTravis

WP:BOLD does not apply to admin actions.~~~~ -- geni

Sam Korn

8:45 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/18/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Good anyone who need IRA to justify their actions should have carried them out in the first place.

I'm not sure that using the IRA to justify your actions for you is ever a good idea!

...

WP:BOLD does not apply to admin actions.~~~~

No, but its spirit (as in, don't spend ages discussing where you could just cut to the chase and do it). -- Sam

geni

8:50 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/18/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 1/18/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Good anyone who need IRA to justify their actions should have carried them out in the first place.

I'm not sure that using the IRA to justify your actions for you is ever a good idea!

my statement should have read "Good anyone who needs IRA to justify their actions should not have carried them out in the first place."

...

WP:BOLD does not apply to admin actions.~~~~

No, but its spirit (as in, don't spend ages discussing where you could just cut to the chase and do it). -- Sam

No, but its spirit (as in, don't spend ages discussing where you could just cut to the chase and do it). Whatever they are calling VFU these days doesn't take that long to go through. -- geni

Sam Korn

8:53 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/18/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 1/18/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not sure that using the IRA to justify your actions for you is ever a good idea!

my statement should have read "Good anyone who needs IRA to justify their actions should not have carried them out in the first place."

I was referring to [[IRA]], not [[WP:IAR]]. I was attempting levity. I shan't try again...

...

WP:BOLD does not apply to admin actions.~~~~

No, but its spirit (as in, don't spend ages discussing where you could just cut to the chase and do it).

No, but its spirit (as in, don't spend ages discussing where you could just cut to the chase and do it). Whatever they are calling VFU these days doesn't take that long to go through.

I was contesting your statement in principle, not in specifics. -- Sam

geni

8:58 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/18/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 1/18/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 1/18/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not sure that using the IRA to justify your actions for you is ever a good idea!

my statement should have read "Good anyone who needs IRA to justify their actions should not have carried them out in the first place."

I was referring to [[IRA]], not [[WP:IAR]]. I was attempting levity. I shan't try again...

Well the IRA do have a long history of ignoreing policy.

...

WP:BOLD does not apply to admin actions.~~~~

No, but its spirit (as in, don't spend ages discussing where you could just cut to the chase and do it).

No, but its spirit (as in, don't spend ages discussing where you could just cut to the chase and do it). Whatever they are calling VFU these days doesn't take that long to go through.

I was contesting your statement in principle, not in specifics. -- Sam

If something would end up takeing very large amounts of discussion you must conclude that: a) it isn't going to be popular in which case you shouldn't be doing it b)there are some problem users in which case something needs to be done about those users c)you are not very good at proposeing things In which case I would advise against trying to use [[WP:IRA]] (since you are going to need very good interpersonal skills to pick things up afterwards if things go wrong). -- geni

BJörn Lindqvist

22 Jan 22 Jan

4:48 a.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/18/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 1/18/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 1/18/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Good anyone who need IRA to justify their actions should have carried them out in the first place.

I'm not sure that using the IRA to justify your actions for you is ever a good idea!

my statement should have read "Good anyone who needs IRA to justify their actions should not have carried them out in the first place."

There is a certain process when responding to public mailing lists too: 1. Read what you are replying to. 2. Try to understand what you are replying to. 3. Write your reply. 4. Make sure it is coherent, relevant and not a total waste of time for others to read. 4. Spellcheck it. 5. Capitalize sentences. 6. Send it. Please do not sidestep this process. Process is important. WikiEN-l is not an AOL chat room, it's not a time-critical affair. If something needs to be written, it'll wait until tomorrow, or most likely someone else will write it if it is not pure crap. Don't expect mercy if you write garbage. If you throw the rules out of the window don't complain if you go that way too (I have not ben playing to much Max Payne I have not ben playing to much Max Payne) -- mvh Björn

Haukur Þorgeirsson

10:35 a.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

...

Don't expect mercy if you write garbage.

Okay, okay, already :) But geni doesn't write garbage - his pithy replies are often scathingly true and always insightful, spellchecker or no spellchecker. Regards, Haukur

Sean Barrett

18 Jan 18 Jan

9:45 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 geni stated for the record:

...

On 1/18/06, Travis Mason-Bushman <travis(a)gpsports-eng.com> wrote:

Have you read some of the comments on that page's Talk page? They wish eventually to entirely abolish [[WP:IAR]] "and expunge its history."

Good anyone who need IRA to justify their actions should have carried them out in the first place.

WP:IAR is one of the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia. An attack on it is an attack on the basic structure of our project to create an encyclopedia.

...

Ah, so you're planning to abolish WP:AGF, too. Is WP:NPOV third on your list?

...

Outside of directly improveing article content it is in fact often beneficial to do nothing on wikipedia. Problems have a tendancy to solve themselves given time

Being [[WP:BOLD]], a principle which I think no one would disagree with, often requires its complement, [[WP:IAR]]. -FCYTravis

WP:BOLD does not apply to admin actions.~~~~ -- geni

Wrong. Admins are as encouraged to be as bold as any other editor. The word "admin" does not appear on WP:BOLD at all, let alone as an exception. - -- Sean Barrett | All life is six-to-five against. sean(a)epoptic.org |

...PGP SIGNATURE...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDzrbyMAt1wyd9d+URAv2hAJ9WRT4m3q4Y+aNrORbWpLfXLmhhxgCcD9to 23aWnrrNsQfn2I8ta+QoakE= =gBK7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

geni

10:12 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/18/06, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org> wrote:

...

WP:IAR is one of the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia.

It wasn't original hard policy

...

An attack on it is an attack on the basic structure of our project to create an encyclopedia.

No it isn't. [[WP:IRA]] is broken. It was broken the first time someone tried to cite in thier defence. [[WP:IRA]] is not a defence if you decide to ignore the rules. The only defence for doing that is to be able to show it was the right thing to do.

...

Ah, so you're planning to abolish WP:AGF, too.

Well I don't like makeing assumptions. But what has assumeing good faith got to do with anything? Ignoreing the rules means you think you know better than the people who put together the rules and those that accepted them. If you are right then good for you. If you are wrong then the issue of actions tending to have consiquenes kicks in

...

Is WP:NPOV third on your list?

No there is a seperate wiki for that

...

Wrong. Admins are as encouraged to be as bold as any other editor. The word "admin" does not appear on WP:BOLD at all, let alone as an exception.

[[WP:BOLD]] covers article content only. Admins are free to be bold as editors. WP:BOLD clearly does not encourage them to be bold as admins. -- geni

grm_wnr

21 Jan 21 Jan

9:38 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

geni wrote:

...

[[WP:BOLD]] covers article content only. Admins are free to be bold as editors. WP:BOLD clearly does not encourage them to be bold as admins.

That's very true and I wish people what stop saying "I [[WP:BOLD]]ly deleted that" and the like. [[WP:BOLD]] redirects to [[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages]], not [[Wikipedia:Be bold]]. All "bold" actions using admin privileges (and some "bold" actions that any user can do) are actually [[WP:IAR]]. grm_wnr

Tony Sidaway

9:50 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/21/06, grm_wnr <grmwnr(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

All "bold" actions using admin privileges (and some "bold" actions that any user can do) are actually [[WP:IAR]].

Same thing really, except that bold administrator actions can only be reversed by equally bold administrators. Bold editing needn't be abusive; nor need bold administrative actions, though both must be carried out with a sensitivity which is often proportional to one's opinion that the edit is necessary. Both types of bold action require bold, but not insensitive, justification, which must be provided in a forthright and cooperative manner. The community may ultimately withhold the presumption of good faith from a person who abuses the principles. For further thoughts on this, see various discussions on my talk page history involving Xoloz and myself. I commend Xoloz's comments and have learned much from the dialog.

Tony Sidaway

9:55 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/21/06, I wrote:

...

Both types of bold action require bold, but not insensitive, justification, which must be provided in a forthright and cooperative manner. The community may ultimately withhold the presumption of good faith from a person who abuses the principles. For further thoughts on this, see various discussions on my talk page history involving Xoloz and myself. I commend Xoloz's comments and have learned much from the dialog.

Oops, I should say that I am User:Tony Sidaway on English Wikipedia and my talk page history is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&action… Please add "&limit=500" or something to the above URL if you want to have a proper guddle, otherwise you'll probably just get the latest three days or so; I am considering selling the syndication rights of my talk page on ebay. :)

Haukur Þorgeirsson

10:03 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

...

Please add "&limit=500" or something to the above URL if you want to have a proper guddle, otherwise you'll probably just get the latest three days or so; I am considering selling the syndication rights of my talk page on ebay. :)

Hah! Your talk page is released under the GFDL like everything else :) I would like to second Tony's suggestion - the conversation between him and Xoloz is good reading. Regards, Haukur

Tony Sidaway

10:36 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/21/06, Haukur Þorgeirsson <haukurth(a)hi.is> wrote:

...

Hah! Your talk page is released under the GFDL like everything else :)

We're talking about ebay. Think about it... :)

Ray Saintonge

22 Jan 22 Jan

12:05 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

Tony Sidaway wrote:

...

On 1/21/06, Haukur Þorgeirsson <haukurth(a)hi.is> wrote:

Hah! Your talk page is released under the GFDL like everything else :)

We're talking about ebay. Think about it... :)

GFDL is a non-exclusive licence. Potential buyers could still view it here for free, but an eBay version by the celebrated original author could have incompatible restrictions. In the world of eBay they managed to sell an ordinary US $1.00 bill for 62 cents plus shipping, The grilled Virgin Mary did go for a not so cheesy $28,000.00. William Shatner's kidney stone was sold at auction for £14,000, but I don't think that was eBay. With the right marketting, who knows ... ? Ec

Anthony DiPierro

5:16 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

GFDL is a non-exclusive licence.

Somewhat... "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document except as expressly provided for under this License. Any other attempt to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Document is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. " So anyone using your GFDLed work under another license would apparetnly automatically have her rights under the GFDL terminated. At least, if that clause is upheld. Anthony

Ray Saintonge

10:05 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

Anthony DiPierro wrote:

...

On 1/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

GFDL is a non-exclusive licence.

I don't think that it applies in the case at hand. We were talking about Tony's user page. Assuming that what's on there was written solely by him, he still has the right as the original grantor of the licence to also grant rights to others that are different from the ones expressed in the GFDL. Nobody else has the right to do that with Tony's text. Ec

Tony Sidaway

11:17 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

Assuming that what's on there was written solely by him, he still has the right as the original grantor of the licence to also grant rights to others that are different from the ones expressed in the GFDL. Nobody else has the right to do that with Tony's text.

Quite. And the exception for that substantial part of my userpage which is derived from the work of others is explicitly mentioned in the disclaimer.

Anthony DiPierro

23 Jan 23 Jan

2:09 a.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

Anthony DiPierro wrote:

On 1/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

GFDL is a non-exclusive licence.

Sure, Tony can grant other rights to people outside the GFDL. But, according to the GFDL, if anyone actually exercises those rights the GFDL itself is automatically revoked. IOW, according to the GFDL, you can use one license or the other - you can't use both (so to call the GFDL a "non-exclusive license" deserves some caveats). Anthony

Matt Brown

2:41 a.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/22/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:

...

Are you sure this is the correct reading of the GFDL? I see it as meaning that you cannot take a GFDL'd document and relicense it. NOT that the original author cannot release their own original work under multiple licenses. -Matt

Anthony DiPierro

5:45 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/22/06, Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 1/22/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:

I don't see any other way to read it. It doesn't say you can't relicense the document. It says you can't "copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document except as expressly provided for under this License" and that doing so (actually, according to the language, merely "attempt"ing to do so) will "automatically terminate your rights under this License." Now, that's just what the license says. I don't know if a judge would enforce such a rule. It is rather unconscionable. Anthony

Matt Brown

6:25 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/23/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:

...

On 1/22/06, Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Technically speaking, though, "the Document" is only the GFDL-licensed version. If you work on an original, non-GFDL version and then relicense a version as GFDL which you release, then the wording cannot affect the parent document. Also, if you are the original author, you are not relying on any rights granted by the GFDL. The GFDL grants people who are not the copyright holder the right to distribute. If you are yourself the copyright holder, you do not require the GFDL in order to distribute the work - you are using your natural rights as a copyright holder, not any additional rights the GFDL grants you. I suspect at the very least that my reading is the reading the FSF intended, and that the ambiguity is thanks to rather poor legal wording of the license, rather than original intention. -Matt

Tony Sidaway

7:36 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

The clause anthony cites does not apply to the copyright holder, but to a non-copyright holder who wants to use the licensed material--that person obviously may not modify the terms of the license (the "You" in the wording of the license). The copyright holder retains full rights.

Anthony DiPierro

24 Jan 24 Jan

1:57 a.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/23/06, Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 1/23/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:

On 1/22/06, Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying there. The wording doesn't affect the document, it revokes the GFDL for someone who copies (etc.) the document in some way outside the permissions of the GFDL. But you do have a point that a separate version of the Document might not be considered "the Document". I guess that would rectify the situation for the case of a Document dual-licensed. Instead of one Document, you call it two.

...

Also, if you are the original author, you are not relying on any rights granted by the GFDL. The GFDL grants people who are not the copyright holder the right to distribute. If you are yourself the copyright holder, you do not require the GFDL in order to distribute the work - you are using your natural rights as a copyright holder, not any additional rights the GFDL grants you.

Yes, what Tony said. I wasn't talking about the rights of the original author, but rather the rights of the person given permission under the GFDL.

...

I suspect at the very least that my reading is the reading the FSF intended, and that the ambiguity is thanks to rather poor legal wording of the license, rather than original intention. -Matt

Well, the original intention seems clear - to revoke permission under the GFDL to someone (other than the original author, of course) who breaks the GFDL. It's actually a clause originally from the GPL, where it makes a lot more sense, because the GPL tries to tie the permissions on distribution to the permissions on modification rather than keep them seperable. But in terms of the GFDL, I think it's clear that if, for instance, you took a GFDLed document, changed an invariant section, and then redistributed it, the intention is that you'd be breaking the GFDL and therefore your permission under the GFDL would be revoked. What I was suggesting is that this clause might come into effect even if you had permission, for instance under a separate license grant, to change that invariant section and redistribute the document. I think you're right that this wasn't the reason that clause was added. But I also don't think it's clear what the author intended to happen in that situation. I do think it is clear, though, that the author wasn't thinking merely of the fact "that you cannot take a GFDL'd document and relicense it." Anyway, this tangent was fun and slightly educational, but it's worn out its welcome on my part :). Unless you have a particular question about what I was trying to say I'm going to just leave my crazy ideas about the GFDL as is. Anthony

Matt Brown

3:51 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/23/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:

...

Anyway, this tangent was fun and slightly educational, but it's worn out its welcome on my part :). Unless you have a particular question about what I was trying to say I'm going to just leave my crazy ideas about the GFDL as is.

Fine enough by me ;) I think the best lesson to learn from this is that the GFDL is a confusing document that doesn't necessarily mean what one thinks it means, what it should mean, or even possibly what its authors meant it to mean ... -Matt

grm_wnr

21 Jan 21 Jan

10:24 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

Tony Sidaway wrote:

...

On 1/21/06, grm_wnr <grmwnr(a)gmail.com> wrote:

All "bold" actions using admin privileges (and some "bold" actions that any user can do) are actually [[WP:IAR]].

True; but still we have the two pages. I only said that people should not justify their actions with a reference to a guideline page that doesn't even mention the thing they've been doing, especially since there's another page that does. Or we should just merge the two (yes, I know that won't happen). grm_wnr

Tony Sidaway

10:39 p.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

On 1/21/06, grm_wnr <grmwnr(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Historically both pages express the same sentiment. In recent months it has become popular to cite or attack IAR, but really it can all be boiled down to "it's a wiki".

Alphax (Wikipedia email)

22 Jan 22 Jan

1:48 a.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

Tony Sidaway wrote:

...

On 1/21/06, grm_wnr <grmwnr(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Historically both pages express the same sentiment. In recent months it has become popular to cite or attack IAR, but really it can all be boiled down to "it's a wiki".

"Nobody taught me how to do this stuff. Figure it out yourself. You won't break anything... probably." -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

Ray Saintonge

19 Jan 19 Jan

8:45 a.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

Travis Mason-Bushman wrote:

...

Have you read some of the comments on that page's Talk page? They wish eventually to entirely abolish [[WP:IAR]] "and expunge its history."

That certainly doesn't surprise me. It certainly is a problem for people who feel that rules are necessary to make make life livable.

...

As a rule IAR should take second place only to "Assume good faith". Ec

Haukur Þorgeirsson

9:19 a.m.

New subject: Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

...

As a rule IAR should take second place only to "Assume good faith".

And "neutral point of view" and "verifiability" and the copyright policy and "no original research" and "no personal attacks"... But I'm fine with IAR as it is worded in the simplified ruleset: "Ignore all rules, including this one. Don't worry! If you just want to add some useful information to an article in a commonsense way, DO SO. On the other hand, if someone suggests that there is an established and sensible way to do something, please ignore this rule and listen to them." It's when IgnoreAllRules turns into IgnoreAllOtherOpinions when I really start getting scared. Regards, Haukur

6690

days inactive

6696

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

61 comments

16 participants

tags (0)

participants (16)

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
Anthony DiPierro
BJörn Lindqvist
David Gerard
fun＠thingy.apana.org.au
geni
grm_wnr
Haukur Þorgeirsson
John Lee
Jon
Matt Brown
Ray Saintonge
Sam Korn
Sean Barrett
Tony Sidaway
Travis Mason-Bushman