An administrator, CHAIRBOY, has accused me on User:XP of being some banned user. I have no interest, having seen the prolonged wars that can develop from these things, of participating further in Wikipedia. However, I choose to exercise my right to vanish and specifically requested that my talk page be blanked, protected, and hidden from non-admins. However, this administrator has now twice reverted me on my own talk page, including with use of the admin revert tool--which, as far as I know, is a violation.
Why am I not allowed to blank and vacate my own talk page, and have it protected afterwards to keep troll comments off of it? This CHAIRBOY individual has taken ownership of my talk page.
- XP
It's the hidden from non-admins part that is a problem. If you did any significant editing, the discussions on your talk page could be of interest to other editors even after you leave. It could be tagged as belonging to a left user, it can be protected from trolls, and it might even be blankable, but it cannot be deleted.
Mgm
On 12/20/06, X P xpwiki@gmail.com wrote:
An administrator, CHAIRBOY, has accused me on User:XP of being some banned user. I have no interest, having seen the prolonged wars that can develop from these things, of participating further in Wikipedia. However, I choose to exercise my right to vanish and specifically requested that my talk page be blanked, protected, and hidden from non-admins. However, this administrator has now twice reverted me on my own talk page, including with use of the admin revert tool--which, as far as I know, is a violation.
Why am I not allowed to blank and vacate my own talk page, and have it protected afterwards to keep troll comments off of it? This CHAIRBOY individual has taken ownership of my talk page.
- XP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
It's the hidden from non-admins part that is a problem. If you did any significant editing, the discussions on your talk page could be of interest to other editors even after you leave. It could be tagged as belonging to a left user, it can be protected from trolls, and it might even be blankable, but it cannot be deleted.
In general, I do not agree with this approach. Allowing people to vanish, including deleting their user and user_talk pages, is often the best way to part company with dignity. "Could be of interest" should not be the standard, I think, but rather "Is indispensable to the functioning of the encyclopedia."
There can be exceptions, of course. If a user repeatedly joins and deletes (perhaps sockpuppeting), causing a lot of disruptive demands to delete their userpage, we could just ignore it if that seemed like the best way to deal with it.
But in general, I see no reason to have a general policy of keeping talk pages around that make someone who would like to leave us unhappy.
Sounds reasonable, but how do we make the distinction between 'indispensible' an 'of interest'? Should we leave a note on the page that an admin is willing to retrieve info from deletion should be be needed?
Mgm
On 12/21/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
It's the hidden from non-admins part that is a problem. If you did any significant editing, the discussions on your talk page
could
be of interest to other editors even after you leave. It could be tagged
as
belonging to a left user, it can be protected from trolls, and it might
even
be blankable, but it cannot be deleted.
In general, I do not agree with this approach. Allowing people to vanish, including deleting their user and user_talk pages, is often the best way to part company with dignity. "Could be of interest" should not be the standard, I think, but rather "Is indispensable to the functioning of the encyclopedia."
There can be exceptions, of course. If a user repeatedly joins and deletes (perhaps sockpuppeting), causing a lot of disruptive demands to delete their userpage, we could just ignore it if that seemed like the best way to deal with it.
But in general, I see no reason to have a general policy of keeping talk pages around that make someone who would like to leave us unhappy. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It's hard to tell. I've deleted User Talk pages before, but have also declined to delete them before. I've never had a problem deleting User Talk pages for newer users who want to 'quit', especially if all thats on their page is welcome messages and/or orphanbot notices.
X ----- Original Message ----- From: "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] issue with an admin refusing to allow me "right tovanish"
Sounds reasonable, but how do we make the distinction between 'indispensible' an 'of interest'? Should we leave a note on the page that an admin is willing to retrieve info from deletion should be be needed?
Mgm
On 12/21/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
It's the hidden from non-admins part that is a problem. If you did any significant editing, the discussions on your talk page
could
be of interest to other editors even after you leave. It could be tagged
as
belonging to a left user, it can be protected from trolls, and it might
even
be blankable, but it cannot be deleted.
In general, I do not agree with this approach. Allowing people to vanish, including deleting their user and user_talk pages, is often the best way to part company with dignity. "Could be of interest" should not be the standard, I think, but rather "Is indispensable to the functioning of the encyclopedia."
There can be exceptions, of course. If a user repeatedly joins and deletes (perhaps sockpuppeting), causing a lot of disruptive demands to delete their userpage, we could just ignore it if that seemed like the best way to deal with it.
But in general, I see no reason to have a general policy of keeping talk pages around that make someone who would like to leave us unhappy. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/21/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
It's the hidden from non-admins part that is a problem. If you did any significant editing, the discussions on your talk page
could
be of interest to other editors even after you leave. It could be tagged
as
belonging to a left user, it can be protected from trolls, and it might
even
be blankable, but it cannot be deleted.
In general, I do not agree with this approach. Allowing people to vanish, including deleting their user and user_talk pages, is often the best way to part company with dignity. "Could be of interest" should not be the standard, I think, but rather "Is indispensable to the functioning of the encyclopedia."
There can be exceptions, of course. If a user repeatedly joins and deletes (perhaps sockpuppeting), causing a lot of disruptive demands to delete their userpage, we could just ignore it if that seemed like the best way to deal with it.
But in general, I see no reason to have a general policy of keeping talk pages around that make someone who would like to leave us unhappy.
The specific claim here is that this was a rootology sockpuppet, rootology having been banned in the ED arbcom case.
The evidence is being closely held, but I trust the admins in question.
I find this all sort of unfortunate, because before that case rootology seemed like he might be contributing positively, but he left in rather a huff and under a cloud.
rootology?
On 12/21/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/21/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
It's the hidden from non-admins part that is a problem. If you did any significant editing, the discussions on your talk page
could
be of interest to other editors even after you leave. It could be
tagged
as
belonging to a left user, it can be protected from trolls, and it
might
even
be blankable, but it cannot be deleted.
In general, I do not agree with this approach. Allowing people to vanish, including deleting their user and user_talk pages, is often the best way to part company with dignity. "Could be of interest" should not be the standard, I think, but rather "Is indispensable to the functioning of the encyclopedia."
There can be exceptions, of course. If a user repeatedly joins and deletes (perhaps sockpuppeting), causing a lot of disruptive demands to delete their userpage, we could just ignore it if that seemed like the best way to deal with it.
But in general, I see no reason to have a general policy of keeping talk pages around that make someone who would like to leave us unhappy.
The specific claim here is that this was a rootology sockpuppet, rootology having been banned in the ED arbcom case.
The evidence is being closely held, but I trust the admins in question.
I find this all sort of unfortunate, because before that case rootology seemed like he might be contributing positively, but he left in rather a huff and under a cloud.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Dec 21, 2006, at 3:15 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
rootology?
A discussion on the block of User:XP, including administrators who reviewed the evidence to support the block, is available here: http://tinyurl.com/ydkfor
What is this all about?
Curious,
Marc Riddell
From: "X P" xpwiki@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:10:10 -0800 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] issue with an admin refusing to allow me "right to vanish"
An administrator, CHAIRBOY, has accused me on User:XP of being some banned user. I have no interest, having seen the prolonged wars that can develop from these things, of participating further in Wikipedia. However, I choose to exercise my right to vanish and specifically requested that my talk page be blanked, protected, and hidden from non-admins. However, this administrator has now twice reverted me on my own talk page, including with use of the admin revert tool--which, as far as I know, is a violation.
Why am I not allowed to blank and vacate my own talk page, and have it protected afterwards to keep troll comments off of it? This CHAIRBOY individual has taken ownership of my talk page.
- XP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l