Redirect was deleted by User:Kusma from [[Schachter]] to [[Schechter]]. A valid redirect: the latter article is about a German surname which may be spelt Schachter (the in-text title of the article is, in fact, Schachter).
After a little digging I found out the only reason he had deleted this important redirect is because "[p]ages created by banned users while they were banned" is a reason to speedily delete.
Am I wrong to think that deleting valid articles and redirects based on who the creator was is nonsensical and against what we're trying to achieve?
On 14/03/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Am I wrong to think that deleting valid articles and redirects based on who the creator was is nonsensical and against what we're trying to achieve?
Who the creator was can make a difference - when clearing the work of vandals, often admins just zap the lot - it means someone coming through later after the same vandal won't spot them. Usually someone (hopefully the deleting admin) should remake the link so it carries the endorsement of a good editor.
Speedy deletion errors should be correctable by speedy deletion cleanup patrol with no rancor on either side - first admin through to clean up the firehose of crap, second to correct the inevitable human error.
- d.
On 3/14/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Redirect was deleted by User:Kusma from [[Schachter]] to [[Schechter]]. A valid redirect: the latter article is about a German surname which may be spelt Schachter (the in-text title of the article is, in fact, Schachter).
After a little digging I found out the only reason he had deleted this important redirect is because "[p]ages created by banned users while they were banned" is a reason to speedily delete.
Am I wrong to think that deleting valid articles and redirects based on who the creator was is nonsensical and against what we're trying to achieve?
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If it's an occasional mistake, cut some slack (check history to see if he was doing cleanup) . If it wasn't, then it's process-for-the-process-sake-wonkery-wonkery-willy-wonka kinda guy and should be sent to room 101
If it's an occasional mistake, cut some slack (check history to see if he was doing cleanup) . If it wasn't, then it's process-for-the-process-sake-wonkery-wonkery-willy-wonka kinda guy and should be sent to room 101
I think this is an example of where process should be followed even when it seems pointless. If we don't follow it then the banning policy is actually "Banned users are not allowed to make useless edits.", rather than "Banned users are not allowed to edit." The former is not a useful policy (it basically makes bans a form of probation).
All edits by banned users should be deleted, if they're useful, they can be remade by someone else who can take responsibility for them.
On 3/14/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If it's an occasional mistake, cut some slack (check history to see if he was doing cleanup) . If it wasn't, then it's process-for-the-process-sake-wonkery-wonkery-willy-wonka kinda guy and should be sent to room 101
I think this is an example of where process should be followed even when it seems pointless. If we don't follow it then the banning policy is actually "Banned users are not allowed to make useless edits.", rather than "Banned users are not allowed to edit." The former is not a useful policy (it basically makes bans a form of probation).
All edits by banned users should be deleted, if they're useful, they can be remade by someone else who can take responsibility for them.
Fair enough, but we should give credit where credit is due; i.e. in the edit summary put "Originally created by banned user MegaTroll." --~~~~
On 14/03/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If it's an occasional mistake, cut some slack (check history to see if he was doing cleanup) . If it wasn't, then it's process-for-the-process-sake-wonkery-wonkery-willy-wonka kinda guy and should be sent to room 101
I think this is an example of where process should be followed even when it seems pointless. If we don't follow it then the banning policy is actually "Banned users are not allowed to make useless edits.", rather than "Banned users are not allowed to edit." The former is not a useful policy (it basically makes bans a form of probation).
All edits by banned users should be deleted, if they're useful, they can be remade by someone else who can take responsibility for them.
Maybe I'm too hungry for efficiency but this kind of redundant repetition of work strikes me as pointless. What's more, deleting another's edits and resubmitting them as your own seems plagiaristic - credit where credit's not due.
Maybe I'm too hungry for efficiency but this kind of redundant repetition of work strikes me as pointless. What's more, deleting another's edits and resubmitting them as your own seems plagiaristic - credit where credit's not due.
The correct person should be credited in the edit summary, that's true. It does seem pointless, but if you're going to let banned users edit then they aren't really banned, are they?
On 14/03/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe I'm too hungry for efficiency but this kind of redundant repetition of work strikes me as pointless. What's more, deleting another's edits and resubmitting them as your own seems plagiaristic - credit where credit's not due.
The correct person should be credited in the edit summary, that's true. It does seem pointless, but if you're going to let banned users edit then they aren't really banned, are they?
Banning doesn't stop a person editing Wikipedia, it is used with an aim to do this by banning their username of choice (and any sockpuppets they're found to have). If a user cannot freely edit Wikipedia under their username of choice they are banned.
IMO, the punishment is not lessened if we passively accept useful edits made by them during a ban.
On 3/14/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Redirect was deleted by User:Kusma from [[Schachter]] to [[Schechter]]. A valid redirect: the latter article is about a German surname which may be spelt Schachter (the in-text title of the article is, in fact, Schachter).
This may be currently a valid redirect. However, creation of useless redirects and concatenation of various dsambiguation pages that are only mildly related is a major part of the problem with this particular user. See [[Wikipedia:SU]] for some context (cleaning up those pages and making sure they conform to the [[MoS:DP]] is a major headache). After a couple dozen sockpuppets of this particular user, I no longer care that he sometimes does make useful or marginally useful edits, I just revert / delete all of them when I come across them. In this particular case, I think anything else is a major waste of time (or will do nothing but contribute to the cleanup backlog).
Instead of talking about whether deleting this redirect (whose existence or nonexistence doesn't really matter all that much) was a good idea, I invite everybody to help fix the pages listed at [[Wikipedia:SU]].
Kusma
After a little digging I found out the only reason he had deleted this important redirect is because "[p]ages created by banned users while they were banned" is a reason to speedily delete.
Am I wrong to think that deleting valid articles and redirects based on who the creator was is nonsensical and against what we're trying to achieve?
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l