On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:30:49 -0500, "Parker Peters" <onmywayoutster(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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". 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) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

--- "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

Andrew Gray wrote: 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 10/20/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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&…) 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

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

Ray Saintonge wrote: And hence it is not blatant. IMO, of course.

On 10/19/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. -- geni

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote: 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 Thu, 19 Oct 2006 10:50:33 -0700, "Mark Wagner" &lt;carnildo(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: So they found another, better way. Sure, we should check [[WP:BLP]] cases a little more carefully than <s>spam</s> organsiations. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG