---- Bacchante Maenad <bacchante(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>Why are you competing with him? Do you really want to have another username, or are you just being sarcastic? Stop being a booger, and decide if this is something that you really want to do, or if you are just trying to torture the heck out of yourself.
Hi,
> I tried again to create a username and predictably the self described
> angry Wikipedia admin username, Freakofnurture, immediately blocked me from
> editing. The name I choose was "Even Small Children Can Edit Wikipedia" and
> his explanation is "yep, and i'm keeping it safe for them". It's curious
> how this person became an admin, being so angry, his consistent not assuming
> good faith and not being genuine in his communications. It seems in the
> wikipedia user-space there is plenty of room for anger and nastiness and not
> much for humor.
>
> Bacchante
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: Jimmy Wales
> So how should this work in practice?
How about tweaking the {{afd2}} template to force a
more rational line of conversation and debate? At the
moment, our AfD debates are free for alls. By forcing
a bit of structure onto the debate, might we be able
to being an end to *both* "NN, del" votes on one side
and the screaming for blood on the other?
The template could generate the following type of
layout:
---------------------------------------------
==[[Foo]]==
[[User:Foouser]] proposes that this article be deleted
'''five days from today''' because:
{{reason}}
Your opinions on this proposed deletion are
encouraged. Please give clear, well-thought-out
reasons for your thinking in this matter. Editors with
experience in this subject field are encourage to
identify themselves. This is '''not a vote'''; a
neutral administrator will weigh up the rough
consensus and '''make a decision based upon it and
other factors''' when this process has ended.
===Keep===
===Delete===
===Other options===
'''Note: Comments, rebuttals and discussion are
welcome on ''[[Wikipedia talk:Articles for
deletion/Foo]]'' but will be removed from this
page.'''
---------------------------------------------
=REDVERS=
___________________________________________________________
24 FIFA World Cup tickets to be won with Yahoo! Mail http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
So wikipedians like me who have (unsucessfully) supported the userboxes are all bad people just clogging up the system?
Molu
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 14:00:09 -0400
From: Jimmy Wales
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] "should not be written by an interested party"
To: English Wikipedia
Message-ID: <4458EFA9.9070700(a)wikia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Steve Bennett wrote:
> Any idea how often people edit their own articles? That is, how
> frequently an outsider publicly makes it known that they are editing
> their own article? Once a day? Once a week? We could always have a
> set of processes for these situations, where users who are good with
> the kid gloves can take them by the hand and help them get the best
> out of an awkward situation. There is still the problem of becoming
> aware of these situations.
Agreed, fully, with both the problem and the general direction of a
solution.
WP:OFFICE should be a last resort, and long before we get to that point,
we need a way for non-partisan, good wikipedians, who (despite the
userboxers and myspacers clogging up the system lately) are still very
much in control of the project, to find and concentrate some very strong
brainpower on these articles.
--
#######################################################################
# Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge #
# http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world #
#######################################################################
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.
Hi,
as everybody probably knows here, userboxes made vote-stacking
und campaigning easy, since one can easily find the "right" people
to vote on a subject.
Maybe a technical solution to this problem is possible.
What if a bot substitutes all userboxes on the user-pages?
Maybe it's even possible to somehow "tag" a template,
so it is always substituted? This could be used on warning
templates as well.
Of course this wouldn't eliminate vote-stacking at all,
since one can still find the "right" people on various
Wikiproject pages, but IMHO it's still a step in the right
direction.
best regards
--
Raphael
I've recently received messages on my talk page calling me a 'hypocrite' as
I nominated something for deletion under the grounds of listcruft.
Basically, I campaign for civility around the Wikipedia and by calling
something -cruft I'm apparently uncivil.
Cruft is a term generally used on AfD - may it be fan or listcruft. It is
used so much, I never even realised it could be looked upon as uncivil!
IMO, calling me a hypocrite is a lot more uncivil (if not even a breach of
[[WP:NPA]]) than calling something listcruft.
I have no interest in making a big deal over this :D .
Thanks
--
Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
G'day Brian,
> On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 01:27:09AM -0700, Pete Bartlett wrote:
> > >Er. [[WP:OWN]]? Images are an exception, as nearly all images
> are the
> > >work of one or two people at most. Articles are not. Articles
> can,
> > >and often are, watched. Wikipedians ought to pay attention to
> their
> > >watchlists if they wish to express opinions about their
> contributions.>
> > The vast majority of AfDed articles are very new and have just
> one author.
>
> Indeed and it is likely that they are put off by having their gems
> described as "cruft". However, I think people are put off more by
> otherthings:-
I would make a distinction between "gems" and "articles that should not be deleted". Good articles are rarely put on AfD (an exception is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TransLink_%28S…, which I started myself and wholly acknowledge received a *lot* of effort; but which is not an encyclopaedia article). Articles that need work and could one day become real gems, however, are put on AfD all the time, and this is a pity.
> 1. General jargon of which cruft is just one.
Absolutely true.
> 2. Being put to AfD within hours or sometimes minutes of starting the
> article. I think this is most offensive. New editors are finding their
> way. They are not obsessed with WP. They have a life. They will take
> time to develop the article. If someone thinks the article is bad,
> theymake a note of it and follow it for a week or so, talk to the
> editor on
> his talk page and perhaps the article talk page. It is sheer bad
> mannersand certainly biting the newbie to push something to Afd so
> quickly. There
> is no hurry. WP is not going to be perfect tomorrow if you speedy
> deletea few articles.
Indeed. What's the rush?
> 3. Comments on Afd like, "looks non-verifiable to me", "seems
> non-notable" and other comments that show the nominator has not done
> enough homework before jumping to conclusions. I have seen quite a few
> AfDs withdrawn recently after the nom realises that the debate is
> showing they were quite wrong. Nominating something for deletion
> has its
> responsabilities.
For many people, nominating an article is no different from "voting" to delete. I've been sporadically trying, along with several others, over the past few months to lift the quality of AfD nominations (the AfD nomination I link above, I would consider a minimum standard). An article nominated for deletion on the grounds of non-notability, for example, should include the reasons the nominator believes the article is non-notable, any steps he took to verify this (check history for number of editors, check "what links here", check Google, and so on), relevant policy if any, and so on. What it should *not* include is any bolded recommendation ("'''Delete''' NN"), insults, or the word "merge".
> 4. Nominations which are basically "I do not understand this, so lets
> see whether people want to delete it". We should want to improve and
> keep stuff, noit delete it.
Absolutely.
> I could go on. AfD depresses me for several reasons and the fact that
> most of the articles are so bad they deserve deletion is only one of
> them. It is the others that could be improved that leads to so much
> trouble.
Fortunately there are very few of these, but those that crop up could be handled much better.
> > >> It is amazing how often AfD debates
> > >> do not benefit from the opinion of the original creator.
>
> They may not have set their preferences so articles they edit
> automatically go on their watchlist. They probably do not yet
> understandthe watchlist system. Welcome messages should advise
> newbies on the
> watchlist.
Uhh, *no*. Welcome messages are long enough as it is --- I often wonder how many newbies take the time to read the current crop of welcome messages, let alone an expanded version.
Cheers,
--
MarkGallagher
Hi, I was just blocked for 100 days --it is an obvious mistake, hopefully someone can check it out. (apperently I have been making poor, pov edits. --However, I have only made one article edit in the past week, and it was removal of a pov, albiet popular one). I have had a bit of an issue with sockpuppets in the past, although nothing serious. I have also had a username change, as my last one had a personal attachment. See my userpage at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Myciconia
Thanks in advance,
Brian
---------------------------------
Now you can have a huge leap forward in email: get the new Yahoo! Mail.
No thanks. As you say, it's just informing people, and it's okay irrespective of sample selection methods. Wikipedia is not a democracy, there's no such thing as vote stacking. And please stop wheel-warring without consensus.
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 20:32:12 -0400
From: Ben McIlwain
Subject: [WikiEN-l] We need a policy against vote-stacking
To: English Wikipedia
Message-ID: <44594B8C.1030001(a)gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I recently came across a very contentious Afd having to deal with the
movement to impeach George W. Bush. The discussion was overwhelmed with
vote-stacking. I caught two users doing it and temporarily blocked
them, but was reverted by an admin who says it's "not in policy" that we
can block for that. I've also since discovered a third person who was
vote-stacking.
Vote-stacking is wrong, it is harmful to Wikipedia, and it needs to be
discouraged and stopped. The simple way to do this is to block users
who are doing this. If it's not in the policy now, it should be.
I heard the argument, "Well, if you're just informing other users,
that's not vote-stacking." That's wrong on two counts. First of all,
all of this vote-stacking going on here was specifically encouraging
people to come to the Afd and vote a specific way. And, even if the
message is "neutrally worded", it's still vote-stacking unless I'm
sending it out to a random sample of Wikipedians. Do you think these
vote-stackers were using a random sample? No. They were sending the
messages to people they know already vote their way. In this case, it
appears to be a combination of a What links here on the {{User
republican}} userbox and an examination of which ways people voted on
the previous Afd, and then selectively sending the message to just the
people who previously voted in agreement with the vote-stackers views.
We cannot put up with these attempts at gaming our consensus-based
system. Consensus doesn't work when it just becomes a numbers game of
who can recruit the most votes. And trying to make a rational decision
about the merits of an article when a bunch of sheeple are coming in
mindlessly on both sides and voting without even considering the issues
is absurd. We need to deal with this problem. We need to modify our
policy so that it IS a blockable offense to vote-stack and game the system.
- --
Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFEWUuMvCEYTv+mBWcRAjkAAJ9JMYgoDcXMZkfFAbfKXmA7gyn0kACfT/Kl
1wdpoLvHP4fzhrECLwXGtsA=
=TV21
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
G'day Steve,
> On 03/05/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia(a)philwelch.net> wrote:
> > Not that it's unprecedented for people on this list to be civility
> > hypocrites.
>
> Eep, let's chill, everyone, please?
I think he was making a joke (referring to Joe's problem of being accused of "hypocrisy"). If so, it was ... reasonably ... droll. I guess. Definitely unnecessary, regardless of the verdict.
If he was not joking, it was of course an unconscionable insult and I shall stand ready to defend Phil B's honour in a duel at dawn. Smelly socks at twenty paces, Phil W! Are you ready?
Cheers,
--
MarkGallagher
Ah, look who's being vain. And some people actually call Wikipedia anti-elitist *shakes his head*
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 13:58:39 -0700
From: Philip Welch
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Cruft
To: English Wikipedia
Message-ID: <48ECE898-69A0-48C1-83C8-B718CF20AC96(a)philwelch.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
On May 3, 2006, at 1:47 PM, charles matthews wrote:
>>>> If someone wants to join that community, they have to learn the
>>>> jargon. Even the most welcoming communities work this way.
>>>
>>> No they don't. You're describing rude, myopic communities with
>>> little real
>>> interest in outreach. Not a global voluntary organisation.
>>
>> Only rude, myopic communities have their own jargon?
>
> Not at all. Medical doctors have jargon, for example. But only
> certain
> people actually do expect what you say, that is, to join the
> community you
> must immerse yourself in the jargon. The analogy here is not with
> becoming
> a doctor, but in taking part in a discussion with one
Exactly. People who become Wikipedians should learn the jargon, and
it's quite clear that at AfD, the opinions of *wikipedians* are the
opinions that matter. Not the opinions of every anonymous contributor
who comes in a vain ballot-stuffing attempt.
>> The purpose of jargon is to make communication easier within a group.
>> Everyone here knows what "cruft" is.
>
> Actually, the thread demonstrates the precise opposite: it is used
> by people
> who have really no idea of its denotation and connotations.
The explication I read at [[Cruft]] and at the Jargon File's entry
for "cruft" fit well within what I understood the meaning of "cruft"
to be on Wikipedia.
>> In AfD contexts, it's extraneous
>> content not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
>
> Well, the actual usage is as a pejorative-type suffix; what you are
> smuggling there into 'extraneous'.
That's not what I'm smuggling there, that's what the word means, and
that's what I and many others have always understood it to mean. The
fact that large numbers of people don't know that only reiterates my
point that we should educate Wikipedians about the jargon.
"Listcruft" is cruft in the form of a list. "Fancruft" is cruft of
interest only to fans of the topic in question.
>> We're all willing to explain that to newbies. And anyone who's
>> offended by the
>> word "cruft" needs to grow a thicker skin, because once we start
>> making up euphemisms for it, we'll end up with even more impenetrable
>> jargon than we have now.
>
> As I say, myopic rude jargon-using people miss the point of the
> Wikipedia
> mission; which is not to send people away seething. Hacker
> mentality must
> die.
Once again: you deride "myopic rude jargon-using people" for their
incivility, not realizing that calling people "myopic" and "rude"
just because they use technical jargon is in itself uncivil.
--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.