Just a heads-up. A user "Wartortle" (a Pokemon reference, apparently) has been voting "keep" /en masse/ on the VfD page with no explanations for awhile now. He has been questioned (politely) numerous times as to his intentions via his talk page.... there has been no response. I think the time may come for Jimbo to give him a talking too... or else we all could decide together if this is vandalism of a sort.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=...
The above link is to his contributions page.
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
Dante Alighieri wrote:
Just a heads-up. A user "Wartortle" (a Pokemon reference, apparently) has been voting "keep" /en masse/ on the VfD page with no explanations for awhile now. He has been questioned (politely) numerous times as to his intentions via his talk page.... there has been no response. I think the time may come for Jimbo to give him a talking too... or else we all could decide together if this is vandalism of a sort.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=...
The above link is to his contributions page.
A better solution would be to accept his votes at face value, worth neither more nor less than anyone else's. Obviously he has a strong attitude against deletions in general. There should be no obligation for him to justify his votes.
You forget that many of these people just fade away even without the fuss.
Ec
On Thursday 23 October 2003 12:27 pm, Ray Saintonge wrote:
A better solution would be to accept his votes at face value, worth neither more nor less than anyone else's. Obviously he has a strong attitude against deletions in general. There should be no obligation for him to justify his votes.
Of course there is a need to justify votes in contentious cases, and most regular contributers to VfD do so. VfD, despite its title, is not just a voting booth but also a discussion area about deletion. How can one make an informed decision if one does not know the motivations of the people casting the votes?
Best, Sascha Noyes
Sascha Noyes wrote:
On Thursday 23 October 2003 12:27 pm, Ray Saintonge wrote:
A better solution would be to accept his votes at face value, worth neither more nor less than anyone else's. Obviously he has a strong attitude against deletions in general. There should be no obligation for him to justify his votes.
Of course there is a need to justify votes in contentious cases, and most regular contributers to VfD do so. VfD, despite its title, is not just a voting booth but also a discussion area about deletion. How can one make an informed decision if one does not know the motivations of the people casting the votes?
I don't waste a lot of time at VfD, and I don't visit the Village Pump much anymore. I find that the amount of time that I spend on the mailing lists more than adequately fills the time that I have available for controversy. So the ones who enjoy working on VfD shouldn't complain about others having different priorities. Maybe the people who don't justify themselves do so because they don't feel the need to engage in the same old tired defences over and over and over again. And why should someone else'e motivation affect your decision to make an informed vote?
Perhaps we should ask the people who put things on VfD to explain what they did to improve the situation before they made that request. ;-)
Ec
At 09:27 AM 10/23/2003, you wrote:
A better solution would be to accept his votes at face value, worth neither more nor less than anyone else's. Obviously he has a strong attitude against deletions in general. There should be no obligation for him to justify his votes.
There is no reason for the charitable assumptions that you suggest. In fact, there are reasons NOT to assume the above. Anyone with a passionately held anti-deletionist position would most likely have spoken out at some point, or at least answered queries on his talk page. Historically he has also voted to "Delete" /en masse/ on the VfD page as well. These are, in my opinion, the actions of a troll.
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
Dante Alighieri wrote:
At 09:27 AM 10/23/2003, you wrote:
A better solution would be to accept his votes at face value, worth neither more nor less than anyone else's. Obviously he has a strong attitude against deletions in general. There should be no obligation for him to justify his votes.
There is no reason for the charitable assumptions that you suggest. In fact, there are reasons NOT to assume the above. Anyone with a passionately held anti-deletionist position would most likely have spoken out at some point, or at least answered queries on his talk page. Historically he has also voted to "Delete" /en masse/ on the VfD page as well. These are, in my opinion, the actions of a troll.
I always though that it was very unwiki to assume malicious intent. When was this changed? If the guy is inconsistent about his votes that should be his problem, not ours. If you think he's such a troll just stop feeding him.
BTW it would make it easier to trace these items if there were "(cur)" features on the user contribution pages - especially when they have worked on such a heavily edited page as VfD. Wartortle's most recent edit was on the 22nd and is already out of the most recent 50 in the page history. This made tracking the facts a lot more difficult.
Ec
At 01:08 PM 10/23/2003, you wrote:
I always though that it was very unwiki to assume malicious intent. When was this changed?
Unwiki or not, it is sometimes the intelligent assumption.
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
Dante Alighieri wrote:
Just a heads-up. A user "Wartortle" (a Pokemon reference, apparently) has been voting "keep" /en masse/ on the VfD page with no explanations for awhile now. He has been questioned (politely) numerous times as to his intentions via his talk page.... there has been no response. I think the time may come for Jimbo to give him a talking too... or else we all could decide together if this is vandalism of a sort.
It's now vandalism to vote on Votes for Deletion??? He should respond to comments on his user talk page, but since he's relatively new, are we sure that he's noticed them? Even then, it's not vandalism of /any/ sort to ignore comments; that falls under the "problematic user" business. (If you believe that he's really an old troll, then that's different, especially if he's voting dishonestly. But you didn't mention that.)
If you want to delete things on consensus, and you note that Wartortle has written nothing but Pokémon articles, and has actually edits VfD more often that any of those, and that therefore his objections to any consensus among others are irrelevant to you, and you ignore him, then that's fine with me. But if you say that VfD requires only a supermajority of 75%, then you're going to see a hell of a lot more of this later on. I agree that people ought to give reasons on VfD, but if y'all make it nothing a simple numerical vote, then that's all that it'll become.
-- Toby
Toby Bartels wrote:
But if you say that VfD requires only a supermajority of 75%, then you're going to see a hell of a lot more of this later on.
I think that's a legitimate point against any voting rule that is strictly numerical.
I wish the damned website weren't so slow or I could study these things more effectively.
Well, if that's all he's doing, I'm unlikely to say that it's vandalism or even anything much to worry about. I do think it'd be good if he responded, at least by saying "Well, I'm a radical inclusionist and I think everything should be included." That's a respectable, if wrong, position.
Dante Alighieri wrote:
Just a heads-up. A user "Wartortle" (a Pokemon reference, apparently) has been voting "keep" /en masse/ on the VfD page with no explanations for awhile now. He has been questioned (politely) numerous times as to his intentions via his talk page.... there has been no response. I think the time may come for Jimbo to give him a talking too... or else we all could decide together if this is vandalism of a sort.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=...
The above link is to his contributions page.
Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l