"Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net schrieb:
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
Sorry, but there is an important step missing in your 'logical conclusions'. Cunctator unprotected the page -> The page was protected. Correct. (after correct workding) The page was protected -> Someone protected the page. Correct (in all probability). Someone protected the page -> A sysop protected the page. Correct. A sysop protected the page -> A sysop abused their power. Nope, sorry.
General rule is that sysops should not protect pages that they are involved in. The general rule is NOT that sysops should not protect pages. If that were the rule, sysops would not have been given the possibility to protect pages in the first place.
Andre Engels
Andre Engels wrote:
"Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net schrieb:
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
Sorry, but there is an important step missing in your 'logical conclusions'. Cunctator unprotected the page -> The page was protected. Correct. (after correct workding) The page was protected -> Someone protected the page. Correct (in all probability). Someone protected the page -> A sysop protected the page. Correct. A sysop protected the page -> A sysop abused their power. Nope, sorry.
General rule is that sysops should not protect pages that they are involved in. The general rule is NOT that sysops should not protect pages. If that were the rule, sysops would not have been given the possibility to protect pages in the first place.
Nothing in any of what I said implied that any simple application of blocking priveleges was necessarily an abuse of power. What is an abuse of power is the use of those powers to impose a particular point of view. Insisting on including the VfD notice in an article when its future existence is the topic of debate does express a POV. A person who has not previously participated in an article, and who makes any substantive change in the contents of the article in conjunction with the application of the blocking process, no longer can be said to be approaching the subject with clean hands. Therein lies the abuse of power. Furthermore, a person actively engaged in an edit war can quietly ask a previously uninvolved colleague whom he knows shares the same POV to block the article. That would be within the letter of the rules, but just slightly conspiratorial.
Ec
Yet another example of Votes for Deletion being broken:
Delete. Like people, books listed in WP shold be famous or important. We are not big enough to list everything/everybody. Anjouli 05:09, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The fun continues...
On 17:58, 26 Nov 2003 Kingturtle deleted "Hertz doctrine" (voted for deletion. 2 votes to keep, 8 votes (including mine) to delete)
1. The entry listed on Votes for Deletion was Hearst doctrine, not Hertz doctrine.
2. After Hearst doctrine was listed on Votes for Deletion, I created the entry Hertz doctrine and significantly editing the content that had been at Hearst doctrine.
3. Kingturtle, unless I am mistaken, made no effort to preserve the content that was listed on that page at what he considered a more appropriate title.
I'd like to request that someone revert the section in [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]] on the VfD listing boilerplate to either version oldid=1817959 or if people feel that all of my changes are controversial and unhelpful (sorry for the oversimplification) to version oldid=1817954, the one before.
The changes made since: 1) removed a version of the boilerplate with which (after the edit made in 1817959) I had little complaint, leaving only one with which I disagree, and 2) changed the official policy to something I am actively in dispute with.
Both changes have been made by people who are in active dispute with me. This is why I am asking for someone else to revert the standing policy until the differences are resolved, rather than simply changing it back and listing my reasons why on the talk page.
Change 1) (oldid=1818182, Daniel Quinlan: new verbose version should always be used) was made by someone who has called for removal of my sysop privs.
Change 2) (oldid=1824137 (Fuzheado: Put into words the convention we have already -- putting VfD notice at the top of articles) was made by someone who was in dispute with me over that very issue at [[Sunset High School]].
--tc
On 11/27/03 5:00 PM, "Andre Engels" engelsAG@t-online.de wrote:
"Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net schrieb:
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
Sorry, but there is an important step missing in your 'logical conclusions'. Cunctator unprotected the page -> The page was protected. Correct. (after correct workding) The page was protected -> Someone protected the page. Correct (in all probability). Someone protected the page -> A sysop protected the page. Correct. A sysop protected the page -> A sysop abused their power. Nope, sorry.
General rule is that sysops should not protect pages that they are involved in. The general rule is NOT that sysops should not protect pages. If that were the rule, sysops would not have been given the possibility to protect pages in the first place.
That last line doesn't make sense. Just because a power exists does not mean it should be used as a general rule.
I believe the general rule IS that sysops should not protect pages, inasmuch as that is an extremely anti-Wiki action that prevents the majority of Wikipedians from participating in the process of contributing.
If that is not the general rule, then that would be rather upsetting.
The Cunctator wrote:
I believe the general rule IS that sysops should not protect pages, inasmuch as that is an extremely anti-Wiki action that prevents the majority of Wikipedians from participating in the process of contributing.
If that is not the general rule, then that would be rather upsetting.
It doesn't seem that long ago that Ed Poor was sewverely chastized for even suggesting that he might protect a page.
Ec