All right, Votes for Deletion is broken.
And has been for some time. Are you volunteering to write the code to fix it?
We should trust users to remove pages from VfD
that should *obviously* not be deleted
We already do this. However, we only do this where there is consensus, or the expectation of consensus, that the page should obviously not be deleted. Basically, you can remove a page from VfD whenever you are confident that nobody will object to your removal.
Where you've removed a page because the issue has been resolved by a redirect, move it to ''redirects for deletion'' as a quick check that the resulting redirect is not going to cause any problems.
When unlisting a page, move the conversation to the talk page of the article in question, or to the user who listed it. I think all this stuff is already written down in our deletion policy, by the way, so that's always good reading. Thrilling stuff it is, too.
-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper
Martin Harper wrote:
We should trust users to remove pages from VfD
that should *obviously* not be deleted
We already do this. However, we only do this where there is consensus, or the expectation of consensus, that the page should obviously not be deleted. Basically, you can remove a page from VfD whenever you are confident that nobody will object to your removal.
This is sophistry in support of a reverse onus.. The onus must remain on those who want the article deleted. This attempts to shift that onus on those who want the reference removed from the VfD. The attitude of the deletionists toward what should be deleted is a lot more severe than mine, and I simply don't trust them.
Ec
On 11/26/03 5:06 PM, "Martin Harper" martin@myreddice.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
All right, Votes for Deletion is broken.
And has been for some time. Are you volunteering to write the code to fix it?
If by "the code" you mean the "code of behavior", then yes. This is a situation where the solution is not primarily technological, but social.
Of course, as Lessig discussed, it's a fallacy to believe that the two kinds of code (legal and machine) are wholly distinct.
Fortunately, most of the necessary tools necessary for solving the bad entry problem have now been developed: stub indicators, the "restore deleted edits" option, the deletion log (though that needs to have a more friendly interface).
Now the problem is primarily behavioral, which can be fixed through "legal" code.
We have some codes, which you seem willing to ignore. Unprotecting a page that you are involved in an edit war in, and then re-editing it to your point, comes to mind. Marking contentious changes as minor also comes to mind. The second is merely bad Wikiquette, the first is a sysop violation, and could result in your having your sysop authority taken away. OliverP, among others, has demanded that I lose my sysop authority for deleting what I, in my innocence, thought was a nonsense article. Where is the reciprocity?
RickK
The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com wrote: On 11/26/03 5:06 PM, "Martin Harper" wrote:
All right, Votes for Deletion is broken.
And has been for some time. Are you volunteering to write the code to fix it?
If by "the code" you mean the "code of behavior", then yes. This is a situation where the solution is not primarily technological, but social.
Of course, as Lessig discussed, it's a fallacy to believe that the two kinds of code (legal and machine) are wholly distinct.
Fortunately, most of the necessary tools necessary for solving the bad entry problem have now been developed: stub indicators, the "restore deleted edits" option, the deletion log (though that needs to have a more friendly interface).
Now the problem is primarily behavioral, which can be fixed through "legal" code.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
Rick wrote:
We have some codes, which you seem willing to ignore. Unprotecting a page that you are involved in an edit war in, and then re-editing it to your point, comes to mind. Marking contentious changes as minor also comes to mind. The second is merely bad Wikiquette, the first is a sysop violation, and could result in your having your sysop authority taken away. OliverP, among others, has demanded that I lose my sysop authority for deleting what I, in my innocence, thought was a nonsense article. Where is the reciprocity?
Surely, whoever alleges that Cunc was abusing his sysop powers, must recognize that Cunc's opponents were equally guilty of such misdeeds.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote: Surely, whoever alleges that Cunc was abusing his sysop powers, must recognize that Cunc's opponents were equally guilty of such misdeeds.
RickK and Maximus Rex have clearly listed what, when and where Cunctator did with his edits. Perhaps you could do the same for the supposedly "equally guilty" opponents.
-Fuzheado
Andrew Lih wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote: Surely, whoever alleges that Cunc was abusing his sysop powers, must recognize that Cunc's opponents were equally guilty of such misdeeds.
RickK and Maximus Rex have clearly listed what, when and where Cunctator did with his edits. Perhaps you could do the same for the supposedly "equally guilty" opponents.
Refer to the same articles. If Cunc abused sysop powers by unblocking them, someone had likely abused Sysop powers by blocking it in the first place.
Ec .
"Likely"? So, in other words, you're talking out of your hat, because you have no evidence to support your contention.
RickK
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote: Andrew Lih wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote: Surely, whoever alleges that Cunc was abusing his sysop powers, must recognize that Cunc's opponents were equally guilty of such misdeeds.
RickK and Maximus Rex have clearly listed what, when and where Cunctator did with his edits. Perhaps you could do the same for the supposedly "equally guilty" opponents.
Refer to the same articles. If Cunc abused sysop powers by unblocking them, someone had likely abused Sysop powers by blocking it in the first place.
Ec .
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
I suppose I should not have used the word "likely". It was just too polite. :-)
Cunc could not possibly have unblocked something without it having been blocked, but I'm sorry I keep forgetting that some people have difficulties accepting logical conclusions as evidence :-P
Ec
Rick wrote:
"Likely"? So, in other words, you're talking out of your hat, because you have no evidence to support your contention.
RickK
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Andrew Lih wrote: >>Ray Saintonge wrote: >>Surely, whoever alleges that Cunc was abusing his sysop powers, must >>recognize that Cunc's opponents were equally guilty of such misdeeds. >> > >RickK and Maximus Rex have clearly listed what, when and where Cunctator >did with his edits. Perhaps you could do the same for the supposedly >"equally guilty" opponents. > Refer to the same articles. If Cunc abused sysop powers by unblocking them, someone had likely abused Sysop powers by blocking it in the first place. Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Cunc could not possibly have unblocked something without it having
been
blocked, but I'm sorry I keep forgetting that some people have difficulties accepting logical conclusions as evidence :-P
My problem with this is you are suggesting that the two actions are equivalent.
When an article has been protected, it's normally because there's been an edit war on that article. This is normal procedure, and what seems to have been done here.
The normal Wikipedia convention / etiquette is that then all parties to the edit war should calm the hell down and discuss things more rationally instead of continuing the war. It seems to be generally be accepted protocol that at that point, none of the participants should edit the article until an uninvolved third party decides that sensible discourse has prevailed and unblocks the page. One of the participants in an edit war using their sysop powers to ignore article protection has generally been considered bad form indeed. This is what The Cunctator has been accused of.
Certainly, others may have behaved badly -- but I don't see any signs of anyone else doing something considered 'abuse of sysop privileges', which is generally considered more serious than engaging in an edit war.
If you're going to allege that others have also abused their privileges, be specific.
-Morven
Please elaborate in what manner I have been "guilty of such misdeeds". Pleae explain what Angela and Hephaestos have done to be guilty of such misdeeds.
RickK
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote: Rick wrote:
We have some codes, which you seem willing to ignore. Unprotecting a page that you are involved in an edit war in, and then re-editing it to your point, comes to mind. Marking contentious changes as minor also comes to mind. The second is merely bad Wikiquette, the first is a sysop violation, and could result in your having your sysop authority taken away. OliverP, among others, has demanded that I lose my sysop authority for deleting what I, in my innocence, thought was a nonsense article. Where is the reciprocity?
Surely, whoever alleges that Cunc was abusing his sysop powers, must recognize that Cunc's opponents were equally guilty of such misdeeds.
Ec
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard