I have just noticed that a few days ago, a user removed the names of several women from a certain "MILF actress" category [1], but he was summarily reverted and threatened with a block for acting outside of normal CFD procedure.
'''If you depopulate a category while it's under discussion at CFD, you may be blocked and possibly have your AWB priviledges [sic] temporarily or permanently revoked.'' '[2]
That's right, even for categories which have no business existing to begin with.
Maybe we can at least add
<includeonly>__HIDDENCAT__</includeonly>
to the {{cfd}} template, or better still add
{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Category|__HIDDENCAT__}}
to {{cfd}} and {{prod}} and all {{db-whatever}} templates.
this would keep dubious categories out of articles without tampering with the list of members (articles, subcats) which the cfd participants will often want to peruse.
—C.W.
[1] I believe this was a BLP issue in every case (otherwise it would be too disgusting to think about o.O) [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koavf&diff=210421337...
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
I have just noticed that a few days ago, a user removed the names of several women from a certain "MILF actress" category [1], but he was summarily reverted and threatened with a block for acting outside of normal CFD procedure.
'''If you depopulate a category while it's under discussion at CFD, you may be blocked and possibly have your AWB priviledges [sic] temporarily or permanently revoked.'' '[2]
That's right, even for categories which have no business existing to begin with.
Holyfuckingcrap. That's ridiculous.
-Matt
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 2:34 AM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Holyfuckingcrap. That's ridiculous.
I've posted to the user's talk page in support, and disgust that he was put through crap for doing what was clearly and obviously right.
-Matt
2008/5/11 Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com:
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
I have just noticed that a few days ago, a user removed the names of several women from a certain "MILF actress" category [1], but he was summarily reverted and threatened with a block for acting outside of normal CFD procedure.
'''If you depopulate a category while it's under discussion at CFD, you may be blocked and possibly have your AWB priviledges [sic] temporarily or permanently revoked.'' '[2]
That's right, even for categories which have no business existing to begin with.
Holyfuckingcrap. That's ridiculous.
-Matt
Not really such actions are an absolute pain to undo so it is best to check they are the right thing to do in advance.
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 3:06 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Not really such actions are an absolute pain to undo so it is best to check they are the right thing to do in advance.
Except in really-freakin'-obvious cases like this. Where the category is a pretty certain BLP violation on even first glance. Where the inclusion in the category is based on absolutely no sourcing. Where the category's membership is based on personal opinion.
Categories don't get special protection from the content rules, even if they're up at CfD.
-Matt
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 8:06 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Not really such actions are an absolute pain to undo so it is best to check they are the right thing to do in advance.
Someone emptying the category could just make a note on the discussion, with a link to their contribs page, and the edits could simply be undone. Fairly straightforward.
I went to that page, and yikes, it makes a very simple process look incredibly complex.
To nominate a category for deletion, it is only necessary to tag the category and put a nomination at WP:CFD. The whole thing takes a couple of minutes even for a rather slow editor. Precisely how the CFD howto became so ridiculously complicated mystifies me. Adding words cannot make the process more complex or useful, and can only make it much, much more difficult for newcomers to understand how devastatingly simple Wikipedia processes are.
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 5:27 PM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
I have just noticed that a few days ago, a user removed the names of several women from a certain "MILF actress" category [1], but he was summarily reverted and threatened with a block for acting outside of normal CFD procedure.
'''If you depopulate a category while it's under discussion at CFD, you may be blocked and possibly have your AWB priviledges [sic] temporarily or permanently revoked.'' '[2]
That's right, even for categories which have no business existing to begin with.
But isn't that what CFD is meant to determine?
I'm not necessarily agreeing with this but wouldn't you get similar warnings if you blanked an article that was up for AFD?
On 5/11/08, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not necessarily agreeing with this but wouldn't you get similar warnings if you blanked an article that was up for AFD?
If I there was a good reason to do this, I would do it and ignore any warnings. I know a few people who wouldn't hesitate to block me but they thankfully tend not to frequent AFD.
—C.W.
[[WP:IGNORE]] Im a huge endorser of that. Mww113
Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 16:43:27 -0500 From: charlottethewebb@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] go process wonks!!!1 (was rah rah ree, kick 'em in the knee, or not)
On 5/11/08, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not necessarily agreeing with this but wouldn't you get similar warnings if you blanked an article that was up for AFD?
If I there was a good reason to do this, I would do it and ignore any warnings. I know a few people who wouldn't hesitate to block me but they thankfully tend not to frequent AFD.
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh...
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not necessarily agreeing with this but wouldn't you get similar warnings if you blanked an article that was up for AFD?
Depending on the circumstances. It's commonplace to stub an article that's full of BLP violations while an AFD is progressing (or indeed to speedy it).
-Matt