---- Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
============= --- "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" alphasigmax@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?)
-- Matt ===================================================== As WP:BLP points out, blanking content is often the first method that the subject of an article will use to fix an inaccurate entry. This is really an newbie issue as much as anything else. It is perfectly reasonable for them to remove information that they know to be false.
For an experienced user to simply revert the blanking without any attempt to communicate with the user is more problematic to my mind than the blanking.
We need to determine if it is vandalism or an attempt to correct incorrect information and act accordingly.
Take care, Sydney aka FloNight aka Poore5
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 7:27:58 -0400, Sydney aka FloNight poore5@adelphia.net wrote:
For an experienced user to simply revert the blanking without any attempt to communicate with the user is more problematic to my mind than the blanking.
Not really. Page blanking is counted as simple vandalism, suitable for use of rollback. We really mustn't lose sight of the fact that this is the only instance thus far presented where page blanking without summaries by a new account with no other edits was anything other than vandalism. Is it really so hard for a new user to find out how to correct a problem, contact the office, attract attention or in some other way fix the issue? It may be that it is.
Guy (JzG)
On 10/19/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 7:27:58 -0400, Sydney aka FloNight poore5@adelphia.net wrote:
For an experienced user to simply revert the blanking without any attempt to communicate with the user is more problematic to my mind than the blanking.
Not really. Page blanking is counted as simple vandalism, suitable for use of rollback. We really mustn't lose sight of the fact that this is the only instance thus far presented where page blanking without summaries by a new account with no other edits was anything other than vandalism. Is it really so hard for a new user to find out how to correct a problem, contact the office, attract attention or in some other way fix the issue? It may be that it is.
Guy (JzG)
It is. Nobody bothered sending a welcome message, or any other form of talkpage message, to the user. Nothing was generated automatically to help them become an effective editor or help them learn now to work within the system.
And it's poor attitudes like yours that I've been seeing for the past few months that make our problems worse. Instead of taking two minutes to look at the reason for an action, instead of assuming good faith, you just go off on your "vandal-fighting" attitude where all ill-advised behavior and collateral damage is OK in the name of "fighting vandals".
Parker.
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:30:49 -0500, "Parker Peters" onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
Not really. Page blanking is counted as simple vandalism, suitable for use of rollback. We really mustn't lose sight of the fact that this is the only instance thus far presented where page blanking without summaries by a new account with no other edits was anything other than vandalism. Is it really so hard for a new user to find out how to correct a problem, contact the office, attract attention or in some other way fix the issue? It may be that it is.
It is. Nobody bothered sending a welcome message, or any other form of talkpage message, to the user. Nothing was generated automatically to help them become an effective editor or help them learn now to work within the system.
So, based on your review of all the new accounts which have started off with page blanking, how many have you discovered that have gone on to be valuable contributors? How many are drive-bys? How many are subsequently blocked as vandalism-only accounts?
"Hard cases make bad law".
And it's poor attitudes like yours that I've been seeing for the past few months that make our problems worse. Instead of taking two minutes to look at the reason for an action, instead of assuming good faith, you just go off on your "vandal-fighting" attitude where all ill-advised behavior and collateral damage is OK in the name of "fighting vandals".
Thanks so much for taking time out of your busy schedule to patronise me.
Is vandalism a significant problem on Wikipdeia? Yes. Is reversion of valid blanking by accounts newly registered to fix a problem, but without the knowledge to comment, request help elsewhere, or include an edit summary, a significant problem on Wikipedia? We have, to date, one example. Let's try to maintain a sense of proportion, shall we? Bear in mind that I actually take the time to userfy egregious vanity from single purpose accounts if the username matches the subject, because in the end newbies *do* matter, but demanding that every vandalism edit be accompanied by the planting of a shrubbery on the user's Talk page does not seem to be based on any realistic assessment of the problem. I'd have no problem with the vandalbots doing this automagically, but I'm not intending to bother just yet. With over ten thousand articles on my watchlist, many of them vandal magnets, I really don't see it as a productive use of my time. Feel free to sue me.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote: <snip>
Is vandalism a significant problem on Wikipdeia? Yes. Is reversion of valid blanking by accounts newly registered to fix a problem, but without the knowledge to comment, request help elsewhere, or include an edit summary, a significant problem on Wikipedia? We have, to date, one example. Let's try to maintain a sense of proportion, shall we?
"We have, to date, one example".
We have, /that we can remember/, one example. How many other examples have been raised in the past, nobody can remember. How many other incidences there have been, nobody knows. I somewhat suspect that none of the current admins care, either, because they're all too busy making themselves feel big and important and patting each other on the back for making the most mouse-button-clicks in an hour. Never mind the actual intent, it's the number of button clicks that count!
Bear in mind that I actually take the time to userfy egregious vanity from single purpose accounts if the username matches the subject, because in the end newbies *do* matter, but demanding that every vandalism edit be accompanied by the planting of a shrubbery on the user's Talk page does not seem to be based on any realistic assessment of the problem.
You make it sound like we're asking you to chop down the tallest tree in the forest with a herring. We're not. We're asking you to use a little bit of Common Sense. How on earth is someone meant to defend themselves if they don't even know the crime that they've been charged with? How on earth is a newbie meant to learn that there are certain things they're not supposed to be doing something if nobody ever tells them?
--- "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote: You make it sound like we're asking you to chop down the tallest tree in the forest with a herring. We're not. We're asking you to use a little bit of Common Sense. How on earth is someone meant to defend themselves if they don't even know the crime that they've been charged with? How on earth is a newbie meant to learn that there are certain things they're not supposed to be doing something if nobody ever tells them?
Hang on, I thought we were just reverting an unexplained page blanking by a new account without communicating with them. We're not, as far as I recall, charging them with a crime or requiring that they defend themselves from anything.
You mentioned common sense. I think most people have enough common sense to realise that if they blank an encyclopedia article without giving any reason for it, and then it's undone, they should probably try something else. Common sense suggests that if someone's figured out where the "edit" link and "save page" button is, they're not too far off from the "discussion" link or the "edit summary" box. It really isn't that hard.
Assume good faith is a fine principle, but the suggestion here seems to be that editors must engage every such page blanker in dialogue based on the remote chance that they just might have a good reason for doing it, even though they didn't bother giving it at the time. That just doesn't seem worthwhile to me; the effort involved seems disproportionate to any possible harm.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
On 19/10/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Assume good faith is a fine principle, but the suggestion here seems to be that editors must engage every such page blanker in dialogue based on the remote chance that they just might have a good reason for doing it, even though they didn't bother giving it at the time. That just doesn't seem worthwhile to me; the effort involved seems disproportionate to any possible harm.
No, the suggestion that kicked this off is that editors should eyeball the material which was blanked to check that *it itself* isn't vandalism or other miscellanous undesirableness before automatically reverting. I've spotted a few cases in the past where someone has rolled back to vandalism because someone helpfully tried to remove it; I suspect I may have done it myself.
The issue here isn't that someone blanked their own page and was reverted without us talking to them. The issue is that someone blanked their own page *containing blatant crap* and was reverted for it; the issue is that, to outsiders, this sort of not-quite-paying-attention error looks and feels like *we're* actively trying to push this stuff about them.
Andrew Gray wrote:
The issue here isn't that someone blanked their own page and was reverted without us talking to them. The issue is that someone blanked their own page *containing blatant crap* and was reverted for it;
Actually, it wasn't all _that_ blatant. Blatant crap is stuff like "GEORGE IS GAY LLOLZORS!!1!". The article was neatly formatted, had a nice picture, was well categorized, and the first half of it was completely plausible (and as it turns out mostly true). The second half, which contained the objectionable bit, was not readily distinguishable from the first simply by scanning ones' eyes lightly over it. Still not correct to revert to but an understandable thing to overlook under the circumstances.
Some of the reactions in this thread to this mistake are way over the top, IMO, we should not be holding our editors to unreasonably strict standards of perfection. This was an "oops, should have read that more carefully" situation, not a "what kind of brainless moron would do such a thing!?" situation.
On 10/19/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote: [snip]
Some of the reactions in this thread to this mistake are way over the top, IMO, we should not be holding our editors to unreasonably strict standards of perfection. This was an "oops, should have read that more carefully" situation, not a "what kind of brainless moron would do such a thing!?" situation.
The first post in the thread made it clear that its intent was not to single out that particular edit, but rather criticize a class of behaviors.
Yes, it's possible that the person in this case read the text and missed it. Although its unlikely, since the text itself made it clear that it was an unsourced/unsubstianted rumor.
I'm not, nor was uninvited primarily complaining about random mistakes, rather we were complaining about a systematic failure.
As such there is no attempt being made to hold our editors to any real standard, beyond simply taking the most minimal steps necessary to ensure that they will not fail to do the right thing every single time something in the form of a compound vandalism occurs.
So you'll have to pardon me for my "over the top" reply when I see people suggesting that simply reading the screen is too difficult for our editors.
On 10/20/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/19/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote: [snip]
Some of the reactions in this thread to this mistake are way over the top, IMO, we should not be holding our editors to unreasonably strict standards of perfection. This was an "oops, should have read that more carefully" situation, not a "what kind of brainless moron would do such a thing!?" situation.
The first post in the thread made it clear that its intent was not to single out that particular edit, but rather criticize a class of behaviors.
Yes, it's possible that the person in this case read the text and missed it. Although its unlikely, since the text itself made it clear that it was an unsourced/unsubstianted rumor.
I'm not, nor was uninvited primarily complaining about random mistakes, rather we were complaining about a systematic failure.
As such there is no attempt being made to hold our editors to any real standard, beyond simply taking the most minimal steps necessary to ensure that they will not fail to do the right thing every single time something in the form of a compound vandalism occurs.
So you'll have to pardon me for my "over the top" reply when I see people suggesting that simply reading the screen is too difficult for our editors.
Nobody seemed to care at all when I brought up obvious vandalism that had been restored by FreakofNurture ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kakashi_Hatake&diff=79744377&a...) who was obviously hunting a user that I still consider fraudulently banned after they were obviously wikistalked and harassed.
In fact, nobody cares at all when accusations of "sockpuppet" are thrown around freely by our POV crusaders, or when "vandal fighters" take arbitrary and over the top actions without the slightest regard for AGF or civility.
At least, that's how it seems. Right now, I've watched as over half the participants on this thread are trying to defend an absolutely indefensible refusal by an admin to contact a user who has an issue with an article and find out what the real problem is, a refusal to even leave a warning message or better yet the NEW USER WELCOME MESSAGE.
So yeah. We have systemic problems. All over the place. But by bringing them up, I was labeled a "troll" by some personalities on this list, and told by two people in private emails to "well fuck off if you're leaving then."
That's why I said we've broken wikipedia. I meant it.
Parker
On 10/20/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
At least, that's how it seems. Right now, I've watched as over half the participants on this thread are trying to defend an absolutely indefensible refusal by an admin to contact a user who has an issue with an article and find out what the real problem is, a refusal to even leave a warning message or better yet the NEW USER WELCOME MESSAGE.
Talking about absolutely indefensible refusals to contact users who have done things in an incorrect way, have you [1] mentioned this to Darwinek [2]?
[1] Or anyone else for that matter [2] Hint: the answer is no
Some of the reactions in this thread to this mistake are way over the top, IMO, we should not be holding our editors to unreasonably strict standards of perfection. This was an "oops, should have read that more carefully" situation, not a "what kind of brainless moron would do such a thing!?" situation.
I'm more of a "what kind of incivil jerk would revert it and then not bother to send anyone a message asking them politely to not blank pages, and upon seeing they were a newbie give them the welcome message as well" kind of person myself.
The first blanking I chalk up to someone realizing that the article was at least half libelous bullshit.
The second blanking I chalk up to the reverting editor's not doing their goddamn job.
The rest I chalk up to the downfall of AGF and civility as admins have realized they're untouchable and never bother with them anymore.
Parker
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
The issue here isn't that someone blanked their own page and was reverted without us talking to them. The issue is that someone blanked their own page *containing blatant crap* and was reverted for it;
Actually, it wasn't all _that_ blatant. Blatant crap is stuff like "GEORGE IS GAY LLOLZORS!!1!". The article was neatly formatted, had a nice picture, was well categorized, and the first half of it was completely plausible (and as it turns out mostly true). The second half, which contained the objectionable bit, was not readily distinguishable from the first simply by scanning ones' eyes lightly over it. Still not correct to revert to but an understandable thing to overlook under the circumstances.
Your example is easy to find because it is in all caps. However a simple "George is gay" in normal typeface in the middle of a long article about somebody named George (Curious George?) will not be easily noticed.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Actually, it wasn't all _that_ blatant. Blatant crap is stuff like "GEORGE IS GAY LLOLZORS!!1!".
Your example is easy to find because it is in all caps. However a simple "George is gay" in normal typeface in the middle of a long article about somebody named George (Curious George?) will not be easily noticed.
And hence it is not blatant. IMO, of course.
Matt R wrote:
--- "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote: You make it sound like we're asking you to chop down the tallest tree in the forest with a herring. We're not. We're asking you to use a little bit of Common Sense. How on earth is someone meant to defend themselves if they don't even know the crime that they've been charged with? How on earth is a newbie meant to learn that there are certain things they're not supposed to be doing something if nobody ever tells them?
Hang on, I thought we were just reverting an unexplained page blanking by a new account without communicating with them. We're not, as far as I recall, charging them with a crime or requiring that they defend themselves from anything.
Oh, it goes beyond just reverting them. In this case the user was blocked without communication.
On 10/19/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
We have, /that we can remember/, one example. How many other examples have been raised in the past, nobody can remember. How many other incidences there have been, nobody knows. I somewhat suspect that none of the current admins care, either, because they're all too busy making themselves feel big and important and patting each other on the back for making the most mouse-button-clicks in an hour. Never mind the actual intent, it's the number of button clicks that count!
A lot of cases of self blanking end up at CSD. I think I may have seen the odd case where a copyvio has been blanked.
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 01:46:59 +0930, "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Bear in mind that I actually take the time to userfy egregious vanity from single purpose accounts if the username matches the subject, because in the end newbies *do* matter, but demanding that every vandalism edit be accompanied by the planting of a shrubbery on the user's Talk page does not seem to be based on any realistic assessment of the problem.
You make it sound like we're asking you to chop down the tallest tree in the forest with a herring. We're not. We're asking you to use a little bit of Common Sense. How on earth is someone meant to defend themselves if they don't even know the crime that they've been charged with? How on earth is a newbie meant to learn that there are certain things they're not supposed to be doing something if nobody ever tells them?
Common sense indicates that wholesale blanking is usually vandalism.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 01:46:59 +0930, "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Bear in mind that I actually take the time to userfy egregious vanity from single purpose accounts if the username matches the subject, because in the end newbies *do* matter, but demanding that every vandalism edit be accompanied by the planting of a shrubbery on the user's Talk page does not seem to be based on any realistic assessment of the problem.
You make it sound like we're asking you to chop down the tallest tree in the forest with a herring. We're not. We're asking you to use a little bit of Common Sense. How on earth is someone meant to defend themselves if they don't even know the crime that they've been charged with? How on earth is a newbie meant to learn that there are certain things they're not supposed to be doing something if nobody ever tells them?
Common sense indicates that wholesale blanking is usually vandalism.
Experience (rather than common sense) may very well suggest that possibility. It's a valid presumption, but that only suggests that the matter should be investigated further before asserting that it is in fact vandalism.
Ec
On 10/19/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 7:27:58 -0400, Sydney aka FloNight poore5@adelphia.net wrote:
For an experienced user to simply revert the blanking without any attempt to communicate with the user is more problematic to my mind than the blanking.
Not really. Page blanking is counted as simple vandalism, suitable for use of rollback. We really mustn't lose sight of the fact that this is the only instance thus far presented where page blanking without summaries by a new account with no other edits was anything other than vandalism.
It may be the only case presented here, but in the short time I've been involved in OTRS, I've seen several cases where someone is reporting that they blanked a defamatory article about themselves, only to have it back the next time they checked.
Is it really so hard for a new user to find out how to correct a problem, contact the office, attract attention or in some other way fix the issue? It may be that it is.
Yes, it apparently is. Usually, by the time it gets to OTRS, they're in a mood where it sounds like their next step will be to call their lawyer.
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 10:50:33 -0700, "Mark Wagner" carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
It may be the only case presented here, but in the short time I've been involved in OTRS, I've seen several cases where someone is reporting that they blanked a defamatory article about themselves, only to have it back the next time they checked.
So they found another, better way. Sure, we should check [[WP:BLP]] cases a little more carefully than <s>spam</s> organsiations.
Guy (JzG)