--- "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Matt R wrote:
> --- "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And the other /other/ take-home message is that if you're going to
>> revert someone, and they revert back, discuss it with them! I'm sick
and
>> tired of finding user accounts with many
many contributions which
were
>> all reverted as "vandalism",
and yet there is nothing on their talk
page.
>
> Discussing is good practice in most situations, but I think in this
type of
> instance the onus is on the blanker to
provide some reason. If a new
user
> blanks an article without explanation, the
odds are overwhelming that
it's
> vandalism (or a test, or whatever). Just
revert; it's simply not worth
the
time
> to drop a note with such odds. Moreover, it's very likely is that
someone
with
a genuine reason to blank the article will
communicate his reason very
shortly
> thereafter (did that happen in this case?)
If by "send a private email to the contact address of last resort" you
mean "communicate their reason", well, yeah. Not the most effective
method, though; it would have been far better if the person who reverted
had left a simple {{blanking}} on their talk page:
Even better, of course, would have been for the person to have used (say)
the
edit summary box to give some indication of why they were blanking an
encyclopedia article. I really do feel that the onus is on them to give
some
reason for their drastic action, which is otherwise indistinguishable from
hundreds of similar acts of vandalism a day.
Yes, because every new user can instantly find without any trouble at all
every one of our miscellaneous and contradictory policies, procedures, and
history on every bit of trivial drama that's ever occurred on Wikipedia, and
know exactly what they should be doing and how to go about doing it.
You do realize how completely stupid you sound, right?
This is a textbook example of watching wikipedians ignore AGF and not bother
to communicate with someone. I suggested all new accounts should receive the
welcome message planted on the new username's talk page, rather than waiting
for another editor to do it and I mean it.
For chrissakes, people, we need to give new editors the tools and
information and make it EASIER for them to join in. Instead, what do we do?
We have a bunch of semi-secret policies and procedures hiding everywhere, we
speak in code, half the supposed "policies" are just something some boob
with no life came up with in order to justify his powers anyways, our
dispute resolution system is a joke, and AGF has been thrown down the
shitter in favor of Admins Rule All.