I twice deleted a newbie's article called [[First Bull Run]]. The first time, it was deleted because it was a copright violation. The second time, because its entire content consisted of nothing but a link to the page that the copyright violation had come from. I indicated both times that the title was wrong, it should be [[Battle of First Bull Run]]. The third time, the user actually created a useful article, although still with the wrong name, which Danny redirected to a correct article name.
Some anonymous person who is using the URL 172.158.95.251, and whose use history contains only attacks against me, is arguing that I should have submitted those pages to the Votes for deletion page before deleting them. And The Cunctator is backing him up.
I find this a ridiculous stance. Are we required to put EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE on the votes for deletion page, and then wait a week and for some other use to delete them? The Wikipedia:Policy on permanent deletion of pages page CLEARLY says "If the page contains no useful content (all gibberish for example) and no useful history, this step may be skipped."
Are we really going to have to list every article on Votes for deletion? That is completely unwieldy.
Zoe
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
Zoe-
I find this a ridiculous stance. Are we required to put EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE on the votes for deletion page, and then wait a week and for some other use to delete them?
No. However, in case of copyright infringements, we try to follow the policy of putting a boilerplate text on the page first:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ABoilerplate_text (search for "copyright infringement")
In these cases, the page should also be added to VfD. This is done so that the user gets an opportunity to clarify whether this was really done without permission, or whether the text is actually his. If a user has a history of such violations and has made no effort to resolve them, this step may be considered unnecessary.
It's a bit tedious (I suggest bookmarking the boilerplate page), but there have been plenty of cases where anonymous users have added stuff from their own homepages, so I think it's still a useful procedure to follow. Also, the above text is fairly courteous and non-confrontational.
Regards,
Erik
If this is to be the standard policy, and the 1 week limit is maintained on the Votes for Deletion page, and I am not allowed to delete any pages that I put on the Votes for deletion page, then I see no point in even attempting to delete any pages. This is completely unworkable.
Oh, and by the way, The Cunctator has unilaterally, without discussion, deleted "If the page contains no useful content (all gibberish for example) and no useful history, this step may be skipped." from the [[Wikipedia:Policy on permanent deletion of pages]] page.
Zoe
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Zoe-
I find this a ridiculous stance. Are we required
to
put EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE on the votes for deletion page, and then wait a week and for some other use
to
delete them?
No. However, in case of copyright infringements, we try to follow the policy of putting a boilerplate text on the page first:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ABoilerplate_text
(search for "copyright infringement")
In these cases, the page should also be added to VfD. This is done so that the user gets an opportunity to clarify whether this was really done without permission, or whether the text is actually his. If a user has a history of such violations and has made no effort to resolve them, this step may be considered unnecessary.
It's a bit tedious (I suggest bookmarking the boilerplate page), but there have been plenty of cases where anonymous users have added stuff from their own homepages, so I think it's still a useful procedure to follow. Also, the above text is fairly courteous and non-confrontational.
Regards,
Erik
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
Zoe-
If this is to be the standard policy, and the 1 week limit is maintained on the Votes for Deletion page, and I am not allowed to delete any pages that I put on the Votes for deletion page, then I see no point in even attempting to delete any pages. This is completely unworkable.
I disagree. Copyright violations are the exception, junk pages are the rule. The latter can be deleted without delay. But we need to avoid copyright paranoia and give every user the benefit of the doubt. Not everyone realizes that it is necessary for them to give us permissions before we can use their material. Furthermore, users who copy material from elsewhere often become good contributors over time -- treating them with courtesy is a good approach. Honestly: Have you been aware of all the finer points of copyright before joining Wikipedia? Most people aren't. Be a little forgiving.
Oh, and by the way, The Cunctator has unilaterally, without discussion, deleted "If the page contains no useful content (all gibberish for example) and no useful history, this step may be skipped." from the [[Wikipedia:Policy on permanent deletion of pages]] page.
Already reverted by Koyaanis. I consider this a violation of Wikiquette -- important policies like that should not be unilaterally removed without *prior* discussion.
Regards,
Erik
On Sun, 2003-05-18 at 00:06, Erik Moeller wrote:
Zoe-
Oh, and by the way, The Cunctator has unilaterally, without discussion, deleted "If the page contains no useful content (all gibberish for example) and no useful history, this step may be skipped." from the [[Wikipedia:Policy on permanent deletion of pages]] page.
Already reverted by Koyaanis. I consider this a violation of Wikiquette -- important policies like that should not be unilaterally removed without *prior* discussion.
Ah, unilaterally. I'm such the unilateralist. Is there any difference between "without discussion" and "unilaterally"? If not, both Zoe and Erik are being redundant simply for rhetorical effect (the implication being that I have no desire to work with others toward the common good).
I apologize for upsetting Erik and Zoe. I trust that they recognize that I desire to work with others toward the common good.
Okay; starting an ex post facto prior discussion:
In his edit summary, KQ stated that the issue was previously hashed out on the mailing list and Decided by Jimmy.
It's essentially impossible to find out what policy edits arise from what discussion--that is, if the policy was "unilaterally" added "without discussion" by someone several months before or if it arose out of a long discussion on the mailing list. If that discussion was referenced anywhere, then it would be possible for me (or others) to see where the decision came from.
Finally, while Jimbo is a useful arbiter of policy decisions, it's not healthy to consider that decisions he makes about editing policy to be the Word of Wikipedia Written in Stone. He's not all-knowing or perfect, as I think he would agree.
Cunc-
Ah, unilaterally. I'm such the unilateralist. Is there any difference between "without discussion" and "unilaterally"?
The term "unilaterally" implies that you deliberately ignore previously expressed dissent with your point of view. You note that many people call you an "unilateralist". Apparently you are well aware of the complaints regarding your behavior. Still I have noticed no change in it. In this instance you proved Zoe "wrong" not by responding with an argument, but by simply changing the policy she referred you to. An Orwellian discussion tactic: "We've always been at war with Eurasia."
I apologize for upsetting Erik and Zoe.
Don't forget KQ, who reverted your change before I could.
I trust that they recognize that I desire to work with others toward the common good.
Many of your actions seem to be provocative for no discernable reason.
It's essentially impossible to find out what policy edits arise from what discussion--that is, if the policy was "unilaterally" added "without discussion" by someone several months before or if it arose out of a long discussion on the mailing list. If that discussion was referenced anywhere, then it would be possible for me (or others) to see where the decision came from.
I agree. The history of the policies is sometimes difficult to trace. It still surprises me that you would question this particular policy, since it has been practiced with your knowledge at least since around August 2002, when we switched to Phase III. All deletions are visible in the deletion log, and many of them contain the junk content as a reason, without them being listed on the VfD page. If a practice is in de facto use, this is all the more a reason not to change the respective policy without previous discussion.
Finally, while Jimbo is a useful arbiter of policy decisions, it's not healthy to consider that decisions he makes about editing policy to be the Word of Wikipedia Written in Stone. He's not all-knowing or perfect, as I think he would agree.
If Jimbo explicitly approves a certain policy, this policy should only be changed after a discussion, including his approval for a change. He is the "benevolent dictator" of Wikipedia. If we reached decisions by consensus, we wouldn't do so.
Regards,
Erik
On Sun, 2003-05-18 at 01:34, Erik Moeller wrote:
Cunc-
Ah, unilaterally. I'm such the unilateralist. Is there any difference between "without discussion" and "unilaterally"?
The term "unilaterally" implies that you deliberately ignore previously expressed dissent with your point of view. You note that many people call you a "unilateralist".
Actually, there's only a select few who call me a unilateralist.
Apparently you are well aware of the complaints regarding your behavior. Still I have noticed no change in it. In this instance you proved Zoe "wrong" not by responding with an argument, but by simply changing the policy she referred you to. An Orwellian discussion tactic: "We've always been at war with Eurasia."
By "wrong" you mean "right", right? Too many layers of irony. Though I'll dispute that what I did makes me a unilateralist, I won't dispute that it was a the wrong thing to do.
I apologize for upsetting Erik and Zoe.
Don't forget KQ, who reverted your change before I could.
KQ made no indication that he was upset.
I trust that they recognize that I desire to work with others toward the common good.
Many of your actions seem to be provocative for no discernable reason.
I try to explain my actions. if you can't discern the reason for them, feel free to ask. Or, if you prefer, attack them and me; I'll generally respond with an explanation if someone says that I'm an idiot trying to destroy Wikipedia. But asking nicely also works. Whatever you prefer; de gustibus non est disputandum.
It's essentially impossible to find out what policy edits arise from what discussion--that is, if the policy was "unilaterally" added "without discussion" by someone several months before or if it arose out of a long discussion on the mailing list. If that discussion was referenced anywhere, then it would be possible for me (or others) to see where the decision came from.
I agree. The history of the policies is sometimes difficult to trace. It still surprises me that you would question this particular policy, since it has been practiced with your knowledge at least since around August 2002, when we switched to Phase III. All deletions are visible in the deletion log, and many of them contain the junk content as a reason, without them being listed on the VfD page. If a practice is in de facto use, this is all the more a reason not to change the respective policy without previous discussion.
Though it's evidently a surprise to you, I don't assiduously check the deletion log against the VfD page.
The reason I had written "ex post facto prior discussion" was that I was attempting to move past the issue of my actions, and discuss the issue of the policy. Sound reasonable?
Cunc-
Though it's evidently a surprise to you, I don't assiduously check the deletion log against the VfD page.
Neither do I. You check RC. You check VfD. It's quite obvious from looking at these semi-regularly that hundreds of pages are deleted without being listed on VfD.
The reason I had written "ex post facto prior discussion" was that I was attempting to move past the issue of my actions, and discuss the issue of the policy. Sound reasonable?
Just try to be a little less "unilateral", and we shall all get along nicely. I think your problem is that you always assume you alone have to protect Wikipedia from going down a spiral of abuse -- trust me, a lot of people care about this kind of abuse not happening. Try working with them.
Regards,
Erik
On 5/18/03 2:36 AM, "Erik Moeller" erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Cunc-
Though it's evidently a surprise to you, I don't assiduously check the deletion log against the VfD page.
Neither do I. You check RC. You check VfD. It's quite obvious from looking at these semi-regularly that hundreds of pages are deleted without being listed on VfD.
Actually, I rarely check RC.
The reason I had written "ex post facto prior discussion" was that I was attempting to move past the issue of my actions, and discuss the issue of the policy. Sound reasonable?
Just try to be a little less "unilateral", and we shall all get along nicely. I think your problem is that you always assume you alone have to protect Wikipedia from going down a spiral of abuse -- trust me, a lot of people care about this kind of abuse not happening. Try working with them.
In reply to your thoughts: I don't, I know, and I do. Trust me.
By the way, it's slightly difficult for me to work with people when they impugn my actions and intentions.
Erik Moeller wrote:
All deletions are visible in the deletion log, and many of them contain the junk content as a reason, without them being listed on the VfD page. If a practice is in de facto use, this is all the more a reason not to change the respective policy without previous discussion.
I do this all the time. Page created with "hello" or "you stink" or "hjkdhfgkjdfgh" - I delete right away with the summary "junk". I looked through the VfD history to find the line Cunc removed (to restore it) but I can't see it.
Let's bring the conversation back to the essentials :)
I think the current policy on deletions works well and doesn't need changing. We have far too many nonsense pages to list them all for a week, we should continue deleting them quickly (by nonsense I mean the "jahgkjhkjgh" and random sentence pages). And I agree copyright issues should continue to be given a weeks grace, we get some good pages from what may initially look like a problem.
with WikiLove,
sannse
p.s. this list has been getting *busy* - how about reintroducing WikiKarma? :)
WikiKarma: de-MSing [[Bjork]]
--- tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com wrote:
sannse wrote:
p.s. this list has been getting *busy* - how about
reintroducing WikiKarma?
What's the wikikarma to wikilove conversion rate? and what's that in wikidollars?
karma: plenty of minor edits this morning
Wikidollars ??? Are you not living in England ?
Wikikarma : avoiding to have half of the french wikipedia articles moved the meta space as it is going to happen *very* soon if the french little fat budda insist of excluding so-said non-neutral articles from the article space.
Incidentely, I invite any wikipedians feeling a deletion as been done outside of the due process, to register it on
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
On Sunday 18 May 2003 01:58, sannse wrote:
Let's bring the conversation back to the essentials :)
I think the current policy on deletions works well and doesn't need changing. We have far too many nonsense pages to list them all for a week, we should continue deleting them quickly (by nonsense I mean the "jahgkjhkjgh" and random sentence pages).
There's really no need to list things like that, but in general a more open, inspectable, reversible deletion process would be better. For instance, if the deletion log is improved and connected to the undeletion system, and if any user can view deleted pages or undo the deletion during X time period.
This will save on grumbling by making it easier to find and restore things, while not adding the huge burden of a manually run list/wait/remove system.
For comparison with some other wikis: on the original WikiWiki at c2.com, anyone can mark a page for deletion by replacing its text with a link to "DeleteTestAndWelcome" or another such page beginning with "Delete" which describes why the page is being deleted. To make the deletion permanent, any other user can edit the page and resave it, which erases the stored backup revision. To instead cancel the deletion, any user can edit it, call up the backup copy, and save it. Actual intervention from Ward would be very rare.
MeatBallWiki has a somewhat similar system, but being UseMod-based it has KeptPages (like our page history, but the older revisions are culled after some time) and so greater ability to revert. Permanent deletions are made automatically after some period of time without being edited if left in the 'DeletedPage' state.
What we basically have to ask ourselves is: what is the benefit of instantly deleting pages with no ability for all but a select few to see and judge what was deleted and restore it if appropriate? The most worrisome cases of delete-worthy pages we have are probably the suspected copyright violations, since their presence in Wikipedia and distribution from our web site and in our backup dumps has potential legal implications. Yet, we've apparently decided as a community to *not* delete such pages immediately.
So what benefit is there to having the ability? It's a temptation to use it where it might not be appropriate; oversight is limited; and most significantly it promotes ill-will among those who aren't in the club. That's un-Wiki.
Very occasionally it is useful to delete some junk page immediately to fix up certain renaming operations, or to delete and immediately restore a page to recombine broken page histories. These are very rare administrative actions, which could probably be worked into a better interface which is more specific to the task.
The general case does _not_ require instant deletions, and would be better served by an open, reviewable, reversible process that does go ahead and take automatic action after a timeout with no objections.
More comments and constructive suggestions are welcome at: http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletion_management_redesign
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
WikiKarma: http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/wikipedia/phase3/includes/Art...
The Cunctator wrote:
Finally, while Jimbo is a useful arbiter of policy decisions, it's not healthy to consider that decisions he makes about editing policy to be the Word of Wikipedia Written in Stone. He's not all-knowing or perfect, as I think he would agree.
*grumble*, *grumble*, yeah, I guess I have to agree. :-)
There are things, though, that Have Been Decided. They are never beyond further discussion, of course. And if I ever fall into refusing to discuss some unpopular policy, or refusing to change it in the face of major criticism, then I fully expect people to hold my feet to the fire.
Having said that, should we discuss the deletion policy?
--Jimbo
Is 64.12.96.14 the (banned?) No-Fx? I checked its contributions which are all seemingly innocuous stuff on video games, but I think s/he made a vandalous contribution to Zoe's page which JohnOwens reverted... Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Assistant Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
Given No-FX's most recent vandalization of Zoe's user-page, I believe he/she/it should be banned. I guess this should be discussed for a while, but I vote for banning as soon as possible. Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Assistant Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 5/6/2003
No-FX is Michael, as is very apparent. Michael has aleady been banned. I don't see what needs to be discussed.
Zoe
--- "steven l. rubenstein" rubenste@ohiou.edu wrote:
Given No-FX's most recent vandalization of Zoe's user-page, I believe he/she/it should be banned. I guess this should be discussed for a while, but I vote for banning as soon as possible. Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Assistant Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 5/6/2003
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
No, I think it should be discussed.
If No-FX is making a new account to evade banning, who's to say he won't do it again? He will. We need to convince him that Wikipedia is not the place for him.
On a side note, if you stopped getting these vandals so mad at you, they wouldn't keep vandalising your userpage (as I understand, this has happened more than once). --LittleDan
--- Zoe zoecomnena@yahoo.com wrote:
No-FX is Michael, as is very apparent. Michael has aleady been banned. I don't see what needs to be discussed.
Zoe
--- "steven l. rubenstein" rubenste@ohiou.edu wrote:
Given No-FX's most recent vandalization of Zoe's user-page, I believe he/she/it should be banned. I guess this should
be
discussed for a while, but I vote for banning as soon as possible. Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Assistant Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 5/6/2003
Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
On a side note, if you stopped getting these vandals so mad at you, they wouldn't keep vandalising your userpage (as I understand, this has happened more than once).
Can you give us examples of behaviors that you think have tended to get these vandals mad?
--Jimbo
And how do you suggest I do that?
Zoe
--- Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
On a side note, if you stopped getting these vandals so mad at you, they wouldn't keep vandalising your userpage (as I understand, this has happened more than once). --LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
Zoe wrote:
Oh, and by the way, The Cunctator has unilaterally, without discussion, deleted "If the page contains no useful content (all gibberish for example) and no useful history, this step may be skipped." from the [[Wikipedia:Policy on permanent deletion of pages]] page.
It's TC's opinion[*] that his edit summary (which shows up on Recentchanges) ''is'' the (start of) discussion. If you think that that's not good enough (and I often think that TC edits policy pages too quickly myself), then it's good to remember to review all of his edits to policy pages. Such a habit could never hurt anyway!
[*] Or my understanding of his opinion, at least. Please correct, Cunc.
-- Toby
--- Zoe zoecomnena@yahoo.com wrote:
I twice deleted a newbie's article called [[First Bull Run]]. The first time, it was deleted because it was a copright violation. The second time, because its entire content consisted of nothing but a link to the page that the copyright violation had come from. I indicated both times that the title was wrong, it should be [[Battle of First Bull Run]]. The third time, the user actually created a useful article, although still with the wrong name, which Danny redirected to a correct article name.
Some anonymous person who is using the URL 172.158.95.251, and whose use history contains only attacks against me, is arguing that I should have submitted those pages to the Votes for deletion page before deleting them. And The Cunctator is backing him up.
I find this a ridiculous stance. Are we required to put EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE on the votes for deletion page, and then wait a week and for some other use to delete them? The Wikipedia:Policy on permanent deletion of pages page CLEARLY says "If the page contains no useful content (all gibberish for example) and no useful history, this step may be skipped."
Are we really going to have to list every article on Votes for deletion? That is completely unwieldy.
Zoe
I have a memory that a long time ago, Quercus posted something which came from his site. He was politely said that this could be a cp infrigement, and asked if he was the author of it, and if the content was free.
Another reaction could have been to immediately delete the content since it clearly came from another web site.
I think the first move was more polite and let room for explanation.
This said, as I already stated, this page "vote for deletion" is as heavy as a french administration.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com