Administrator Yanksox has deleted Daniel Brandt's article with the following summary: "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Are you people even human?"
Yanksox then proceeded to delete his or her user page with the summary "My, My. Hey, Hey / Won't you let me burnout or fadeaway?"
Cool Cat has started a Deletion Review on this, at the following URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_23#...
Consensus there appears to be to endorse the deletion.
I thought it would be important to mention this on the mailing list, considering the number of people who have participated in debates over the existence of the Daniel Brandt article over the years.
~Mark Ryan
Mark Ryan wrote:
Consensus there appears to be to endorse the deletion.
I thought it would be important to mention this on the mailing list, considering the number of people who have participated in debates over the existence of the Daniel Brandt article over the years.
Every time I think I can't get more disgusted, something else happens. It's bad enough we can get the right mix of editors to bully the rest of us around, now we're going to cave to Brandt?
Incredibly, insanely lame.
-Jeff
On 24/02/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Every time I think I can't get more disgusted, something else happens. It's bad enough we can get the right mix of editors to bully the rest of us around, now we're going to cave to Brandt?
Incredibly, insanely lame.
You don't think we should delete people's biographies upon request, where those people are of very marginal notability? Because apparently it's quite common for us to perform such deletions upon request nowadays, under WP:BLP or something.
~Mark Ryan
Mark Ryan wrote:
You don't think we should delete people's biographies upon request, where those people are of very marginal notability? Because apparently it's quite common for us to perform such deletions upon request nowadays, under WP:BLP or something.
No. I also disagree with the idea of "marginal" "notability" for Brandt. Yanksox should be blocked for vandalism and deadminned immediately, but that won't happen.
Wikipedia's completely lost its way.
-Jeff
And you should be moderated for trolling. Seriously. Not surprised your RFA failed.
On 23/02/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Mark Ryan wrote:
You don't think we should delete people's biographies upon request, where those people are of very marginal notability? Because apparently it's quite common for us to perform such deletions upon request nowadays, under WP:BLP or something.
No. I also disagree with the idea of "marginal" "notability" for Brandt. Yanksox should be blocked for vandalism and deadminned immediately, but that won't happen.
Wikipedia's completely lost its way.
-Jeff
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
No, he shouldn't. I think his comments were right on the money (but I have more hope for Wikipedia).
On 2/23/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
And you should be moderated for trolling. Seriously. Not surprised your RFA failed.
On 23/02/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Mark Ryan wrote:
You don't think we should delete people's biographies upon request, where those people are of very marginal notability? Because apparently it's quite common for us to perform such deletions upon request nowadays, under WP:BLP or something.
No. I also disagree with the idea of "marginal" "notability" for Brandt. Yanksox should be blocked for vandalism and deadminned immediately, but that won't happen.
Wikipedia's completely lost its way.
-Jeff
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I don't want to sound like Peter Parkers, but this closing of the DRV was, frankly, wrong. It was closed about 2.5 hours after the review was opened. Yes, yes I know about WP:SNOW, but WP:PROCESS matters too. There were a few valid keep votes near the end.
Anyway, FYI, here's the cached link: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:l9nE4AhDCB0J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dani...
On 2/23/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
FWIW deletion has been speedily endorsed. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I agree that the speedy endorsement was wrong. Anyway, for formality, AFD'd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Brandt_%...
On 24/02/07, gjzilla@gmail.com gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
I don't want to sound like Peter Parkers, but this closing of the DRV was, frankly, wrong. It was closed about 2.5 hours after the review was opened. Yes, yes I know about WP:SNOW, but WP:PROCESS matters too. There were a few valid keep votes near the end.
Anyway, FYI, here's the cached link:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:l9nE4AhDCB0J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dani...
On 2/23/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
FWIW deletion has been speedily endorsed. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
NSLE (Wikipedia) wrote:
I agree that the speedy endorsement was wrong. Anyway, for formality, AFD'd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Brandt_%...
Speedily closed again, since the article is apparently back on DRV according to the closer. Also it appears that the redirect to [[Google Watch]] that had briefly been created at [[Daniel Brandt]] has been deleted too.
Glad we're being spared a lot of trouble by deleting this thing. :)
gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
I don't want to sound like Peter Parkers, but this closing of the DRV was, frankly, wrong. It was closed about 2.5 hours after the review was opened. Yes, yes I know about WP:SNOW, but WP:PROCESS matters too. There were a few valid keep votes near the end.
Anyway, FYI, here's the cached link: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:l9nE4AhDCB0J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dani...
On 2/23/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
FWIW deletion has been speedily endorsed.
Another travesy of Wikijustice. I don't know what's more disconcerting - that few seem to see the problem, or that people are so willing to approve of such nonsense.
-Jeff
Frankly, two and a half hours for a DRV is bordering on the ridiculous. Very few people have the opportunity to see it and form opinions in this time; hell, a lot of them won't even be awake. This was a vastly out of process speedy deletion, considering the article had survived so many AfDs. But we could perhaps consider it to be in the spirit of IAR. But you don't then justify an out of process deletion with an out of process speedy endorsement. Discussion is _not_ bad. All this does is cause more and more discussion over the nature of the closure, and less and less on the issue (and thus even _less_ attention goes on the rest of the encyclopaedia). Jimbo commented on the Peppers DRV "As I say, I think it would have been slightly better to let it run for at least 24 hours"; this is going in the opposite direction. Trebor
Trebor Rowntree wrote:
Frankly, two and a half hours for a DRV is bordering on the ridiculous. Very few people have the opportunity to see it and form opinions in this time; hell, a lot of them won't even be awake. This was a vastly out of process speedy deletion, considering the article had survived so many AfDs. But we could perhaps consider it to be in the spirit of IAR.
I doubt undeleting it again under the same spirit of IAR would go over well.
Myself, I'm about to head out of the house and be without internet connectivity for at least eight hours. It's not even a question of sleeping. The speediness with which this is all being done is silly considering how long the article and its attendant "controversy" has been around.
On 2/23/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Myself, I'm about to head out of the house and be without internet connectivity for at least eight hours. It's not even a question of sleeping. The speediness with which this is all being done is silly considering how long the article and its attendant "controversy" has been around.
Indeed. Wikis are not suited for fast debate, and we are not in any rush, yet these decisions are still being made in a matter of hours. What is this accomplishing other than confusion and irritation?
On 2/23/07, Trebor Rowntree trebor.rowntree@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed. Wikis are not suited for fast debate, and we are not in any rush, yet these decisions are still being made in a matter of hours. What is this accomplishing other than confusion and irritation?
We're probably making the Wikipedia Review people happy. That's always nice, to make people happy. Feels like you are making the world better, when you make people feel happy :)
--Oskar
If only both sides could see that it's just no longer worth chasing the matter either way - in the end we'll still get the same result - one side fuming and the other side working to ensure the decision remains, and we'll end up with even more of a split ex-community.
On 24/02/07, Trebor Rowntree trebor.rowntree@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/23/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Myself, I'm about to head out of the house and be without internet connectivity for at least eight hours. It's not even a question of sleeping. The speediness with which this is all being done is silly considering how long the article and its attendant "controversy" has been around.
Indeed. Wikis are not suited for fast debate, and we are not in any rush, yet these decisions are still being made in a matter of hours. What is this accomplishing other than confusion and irritation? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Trebor Rowntree wrote:
Frankly, two and a half hours for a DRV is bordering on the ridiculous. Very few people have the opportunity to see it and form opinions in this time; hell, a lot of them won't even be awake. This was a vastly out of process speedy deletion, considering the article had survived so many AfDs. But we could perhaps consider it to be in the spirit of IAR.
I doubt undeleting it again under the same spirit of IAR would go over well.
Myself, I'm about to head out of the house and be without internet connectivity for at least eight hours. It's not even a question of sleeping. The speediness with which this is all being done is silly considering how long the article and its attendant "controversy" has been around.
Really. One needs to add an internet connectivity feature to hypodermic needles.
Ec
This is ridiculous.
Daniel Brandt article gets deleted at 9.53pm my time. Gets noticed and put on Deletion Review at 10.54pm. The link to the Deletion Review gets posted in #wikipedia-en-admins at 11.12pm.
Then, considering the controversial nature of this article, I draw attention to it on this mailing list at 12.17am.
At 1.21am, the first mention of this deletion review goes on AN/I.
At 1.26am, after 2 and a half hours of debate, it gets closed as a "snowball" endorse, and attempts to "unclose" it are met with reverts.
Below is the history of the numerous AfD debates for this article, which I feel is relevant here (when considering whether to apply a snowball clause):
This page was previously nominated for deletion. Consider the prior discussions before re-nominating: Speedy keep, AFD 07 November 2005. Keep, AFD 13 November 2005. Snowball keep, AFD 05 April 2006. Speedy keep, AFD 12 April 2006. Speedy Keep, AFD 13 April 2006. Speedy keep, AFD 5 June 2006. Speedy keep, AFD 10 June 2006. Snowball keep, AFD 19 June 2006. Speedy keep, AFD 13 July 2006. Speedy keep, AFD 12 August 2006. Keep, AFD 28 December 2006.
Considering that history, how could it possibly be considered appropriate to close this article's deletion review after only 2.5 hours, when most interested users have not even had notice of the DRV's existence?
~Mark Ryan
Mark Ryan schreef:
At 1.26am, after 2 and a half hours of debate, it gets closed as a "snowball" endorse, and attempts to "unclose" it are met with reverts.
And then, at 16:57utc, the outcome was changed to "Taken to AfD", which now means there is one single place to discuss the issue.
Perhaps not exactly according to process, but that seems like a reasonable resolution. Let's not discuss the AfD's and DRV's any longer.
Eugene
On 2/23/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
Considering that history, how could it possibly be considered appropriate to close this article's deletion review after only 2.5 hours, when most interested users have not even had notice of the DRV's existence?
Agreed. This may or may not be a good time to re-evaluate Brandt's notability, but trying to push through an obviously out of process deletion through aggressive posturing is not my idea of how Wikipedia should work. The proposition that this will reduce the time wasted on this issue is self-defeating; all this is going to accomplish is set into a motion another shitstorm around this issue, and hurt the Wikipedia community.
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 2/23/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
Considering that history, how could it possibly be considered appropriate to close this article's deletion review after only 2.5 hours, when most interested users have not even had notice of the DRV's existence?
Agreed. This may or may not be a good time to re-evaluate Brandt's notability, but trying to push through an obviously out of process deletion through aggressive posturing is not my idea of how Wikipedia should work. The proposition that this will reduce the time wasted on this issue is self-defeating; all this is going to accomplish is set into a motion another shitstorm around this issue, and hurt the Wikipedia community.
What some people don't understand is that slowing down can get you there faster. Rushing things is like throwing silver iodide into the outhouse to start a shitstorm, thereby ensuring that things will take longer.
Ec
On 2/24/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
And you should be moderated for trolling. Seriously. Not surprised your RFA failed.
What an incredibly ironic statement for you to make Chacor.
Though I am certainly far from an inclusionist myself I agree with BDJ here. I believe Brandt's notability is certainly in question, I'm growing sick of renegade sysops making crazy decisions - then attempting to steamroller them through citing IAR, SNOW and the like. The deletion should be overturned, and let's do this properly (via AfD), please
On 2/23/07, Glen S wikiglen@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/24/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
And you should be moderated for trolling. Seriously. Not surprised your RFA failed.
What an incredibly ironic statement for you to make Chacor.
Though I am certainly far from an inclusionist myself I agree with BDJ here. I believe Brandt's notability is certainly in question, I'm growing sick of renegade sysops making crazy decisions - then attempting to steamroller them through citing IAR, SNOW and the like. The deletion should be overturned, and let's do this properly (via AfD), please
I am an inclusionist, and I think Brandt's notability is in question...
I'm going to stay out of the AFD/DRV. I do encourage everyone to respect the process on this - the process lets everyone who does care about it vent and explain themselves and talk about it.
I have no intention of jumping into the Brandt problem, but just because you dislike Jeff's opinions is no reason for making a totally unfounded accusation of trolling.
Ec
NSLE (Wikipedia) wrote:
And you should be moderated for trolling. Seriously. Not surprised your RFA failed.
On 23/02/07, Jeff Raymond wrote:
Mark Ryan wrote:
You don't think we should delete people's biographies upon request,
where those people are of very marginal notability? Because apparently it's quite common for us to perform such deletions upon request nowadays, under WP:BLP or something.
No. I also disagree with the idea of "marginal" "notability" for Brandt. Yanksox should be blocked for vandalism and deadminned immediately, but that won't happen.
Wikipedia's completely lost its way.
Jeff Raymond says...
Yanksox should be blocked for vandalism and deadminned immediately, but that won't happen.
NSLE says...
And you should be moderated for trolling. Seriously. Not surprised your RFA failed.
Jimbo does...
Exactly what Jeff Raymond suggested.
Gee wow, Jimbo agrees with the "troll". Perhaps we should now moderate Jimbo for "troll support" or something. Expressing an opinion you do not agree with is not trolling.
On 2/23/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
And you should be moderated for trolling. Seriously. Not surprised your RFA failed.
On 23/02/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Mark Ryan wrote:
You don't think we should delete people's biographies upon request, where those people are of very marginal notability? Because apparently it's quite common for us to perform such deletions upon request nowadays, under WP:BLP or something.
No. I also disagree with the idea of "marginal" "notability" for Brandt. Yanksox should be blocked for vandalism and deadminned immediately, but that won't happen.
Wikipedia's completely lost its way.
-Jeff
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 24/02/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Gee wow, Jimbo agrees with the "troll". Perhaps we should now moderate Jimbo for "troll support" or something. Expressing an opinion you do not agree with is not trolling.
Jimbo hasn't blocked Yanksox from editing, as far as I know.
~Mark Ryan
Jeff Raymond schreef:
Mark Ryan wrote:
You don't think we should delete people's biographies upon request, where those people are of very marginal notability? Because apparently it's quite common for us to perform such deletions upon request nowadays, under WP:BLP or something.
No. I also disagree with the idea of "marginal" "notability" for Brandt.
IMHO, it's perfectly possible to make a good encyclopedia without a Daniel Brandt page. If his page was deleted because of his repeated demands, it would be bad. But we shouldn't just keep the page just because he's annoying us.
Yanksox should be blocked for vandalism and deadminned immediately, but that won't happen.
I may agree with this. It does seem to me to have been a move designed to be controversial, and to disrupt wikipedia to leave a departing message.
On the other hand, consensus seems to be that he's right, so... in view of AGF and IAR, ... let's just say this whole affair is simply NOT IMPORTANT ENOUGH to be upset about it.
Wikipedia's completely lost its way.
It's still a damn fine encyclopedia, with or without [[Daniel Brandt]].
Eugene
On 23/02/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Mark Ryan wrote:
Consensus there appears to be to endorse the deletion.
I thought it would be important to mention this on the mailing list, considering the number of people who have participated in debates over the existence of the Daniel Brandt article over the years.
Every time I think I can't get more disgusted, something else happens. It's bad enough we can get the right mix of editors to bully the rest of us around, now we're going to cave to Brandt?
And here we have the entire problem with this article (and a few others).
The community as a whole is very twitchy about some issues. Someone wants us to remove a page on them, we say "fuck you, we're not censoring ourselves, we're going to make the page *better*". And we get so caught up in doing this that the quiet voice of common sense - do we really need to have this article? is it worth the effort? is the subject of encyclopedic notability? what does editorial judgement say? gets lost in the noise.
"Caving to Brandt" may have the same functional effect as "applying common sense", but that doesn't make doing the latter the same as the former.
Mark Ryan wrote:
Administrator Yanksox has deleted Daniel Brandt's article with the following summary: "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Are you people even human?"
Riiiight. So I guess the implication is that we're expecting Daniel to stop "troubling" Wikipedia now that his entry is gone.
Hypothetically speaking, let's say that in six months Daniel is still "troubling" Wikipedia just as much as he is now. Does that mean we can undelete his article then?
Now Doc has taken it back to DRV. Proper decision. ~~~~!
On 2/23/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Mark Ryan wrote:
Administrator Yanksox has deleted Daniel Brandt's article with the following summary: "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Are you people even human?"
Riiiight. So I guess the implication is that we're expecting Daniel to stop "troubling" Wikipedia now that his entry is gone.
Hypothetically speaking, let's say that in six months Daniel is still "troubling" Wikipedia just as much as he is now. Does that mean we can undelete his article then?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/23/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
Administrator Yanksox has deleted Daniel Brandt's article with the following summary: "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Are you people even human?"
Yanksox then proceeded to delete his or her user page with the summary "My, My. Hey, Hey / Won't you let me burnout or fadeaway?"
Cool Cat has started a Deletion Review on this, at the following URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_23#...
Consensus there appears to be to endorse the deletion.
I thought it would be important to mention this on the mailing list, considering the number of people who have participated in debates over the existence of the Daniel Brandt article over the years.
~Mark Ryan
I really fail to see the problem. Policy accepts that any admin may undo a speedy. Process has not been followed. The deletion is not universaly supported therefor it should be trivial for one of our 11 hundread admins to undelete.
On 24/02/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I really fail to see the problem. Policy accepts that any admin may undo a speedy. Process has not been followed. The deletion is not universaly supported therefor it should be trivial for one of our 11 hundread admins to undelete.
Bumm13 undeleted it because of this, I think, and had it re-deleted within a minute because the undeletion was "out of process". I think because it's on deletion review, it doesn't matter what the manner of its deletion was; if it's on DRV, it seems it has to stay deleted until the end of the debate. Well, that's the way it's being pushed anyway.
~Mark Ryan
On 2/23/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/02/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I really fail to see the problem. Policy accepts that any admin may undo a speedy. Process has not been followed. The deletion is not universaly supported therefor it should be trivial for one of our 11 hundread admins to undelete.
Bumm13 undeleted it because of this, I think, and had it re-deleted within a minute because the undeletion was "out of process". I think because it's on deletion review, it doesn't matter what the manner of its deletion was; if it's on DRV, it seems it has to stay deleted until the end of the debate. Well, that's the way it's being pushed anyway.
~Mark Ryan
That isn't true. Process is more complex than that.
Mark Ryan wrote:
On 24/02/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I really fail to see the problem. Policy accepts that any admin may undo a speedy. Process has not been followed. The deletion is not universaly supported therefor it should be trivial for one of our 11 hundread admins to undelete.
Bumm13 undeleted it because of this, I think, and had it re-deleted within a minute because the undeletion was "out of process". I think because it's on deletion review, it doesn't matter what the manner of its deletion was; if it's on DRV, it seems it has to stay deleted until the end of the debate. Well, that's the way it's being pushed anyway.
Looks like a situation that needs an injection of common sense.
Ec
Mark Ryan wrote:
Administrator Yanksox has deleted Daniel Brandt's article with the following summary: "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Are you people even human?"
Yanksox then proceeded to delete his or her user page with the summary "My, My. Hey, Hey / Won't you let me burnout or fadeaway?"
Cool Cat has started a Deletion Review on this, at the following URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_23#...
Consensus there appears to be to endorse the deletion.
I thought it would be important to mention this on the mailing list, considering the number of people who have participated in debates over the existence of the Daniel Brandt article over the years.
~Mark Ryan
I'm caught in a bit of a paradox...I didn't know who Daniel Brandt was until I went to the article history, which might suggest that having an entry on him is useful. Of course, the only reason his name even came to my attention was the debate about the article's deletion... :)
It seems like he may be a marginally notable character, and if indeed there is precedent for respecting deletion requests for marginally notable characters, then it's probably best to keep it deleted.
However, it must have been pretty predictable that a speedy delete would cause controversy, and accusations of abuse of admin powers. If we do have such a practice of removing marginally notable characters at their request, shouldn't we codify that somehow, so as to avoid (or at least reduce) the controversy?
-Rich Holton
Rich Holton wrote:
However, it must have been pretty predictable that a speedy delete would cause controversy, and accusations of abuse of admin powers. If we do have such a practice of removing marginally notable characters at their request, shouldn't we codify that somehow, so as to avoid (or at least reduce) the controversy?
The problem is that we have nowhere near consensus for such a policy. A large number of editors support it, and a large number of editors oppose it. Different specific cases have gone different ways, mostly depending on who showed up to the debate that day.
-Mark
What an awful abuse of admin powers.
On 2/23/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Rich Holton wrote:
However, it must have been pretty predictable that a speedy delete would cause controversy, and accusations of abuse of admin powers. If we do have such a practice of removing marginally notable characters at their request, shouldn't we codify that somehow, so as to avoid (or at least reduce) the controversy?
The problem is that we have nowhere near consensus for such a policy. A large number of editors support it, and a large number of editors oppose it. Different specific cases have gone different ways, mostly depending on who showed up to the debate that day.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/23/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Rich Holton wrote:
However, it must have been pretty predictable that a speedy delete would cause controversy, and accusations of abuse of admin powers. If we do have such a practice of removing marginally notable characters at their request, shouldn't we codify that somehow, so as to avoid (or at least reduce) the controversy?
The problem is that we have nowhere near consensus for such a policy. A large number of editors support it, and a large number of editors oppose it. Different specific cases have gone different ways, mostly depending on who showed up to the debate that day.
That there is no system for listing names of certain BLP based deletes lends to the sense that these are OFFICE actions. Even talk pages get removed and we have to wonder WTF? So theres this thin line between notablity and sensitivity - stating a preference for the latter doesnt really offer people a method by which they can be more attuned to peoples feelings and less attuned to just encyclopise everything.
-Stevertigo
PS: For BLP use something like {{deletedbio}} instead of {{deletedpage}}. There is no {{deletedbio}} AFAIK so someone needs to make one.
-Stevertigo
Encyclopise?
Adam
On 2/23/07, stvrtg stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/23/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Rich Holton wrote:
However, it must have been pretty predictable that a speedy delete
would
cause controversy, and accusations of abuse of admin powers. If we do have such a practice of removing marginally notable characters at
their
request, shouldn't we codify that somehow, so as to avoid (or at least reduce) the controversy?
The problem is that we have nowhere near consensus for such a policy. A large number of editors support it, and a large number of editors oppose it. Different specific cases have gone different ways, mostly depending on who showed up to the debate that day.
That there is no system for listing names of certain BLP based deletes lends to the sense that these are OFFICE actions. Even talk pages get removed and we have to wonder WTF? So theres this thin line between notablity and sensitivity - stating a preference for the latter doesnt really offer people a method by which they can be more attuned to peoples feelings and less attuned to just encyclopise everything.
-Stevertigo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Delirium wrote:
Rich Holton wrote:
However, it must have been pretty predictable that a speedy delete would cause controversy, and accusations of abuse of admin powers. If we do have such a practice of removing marginally notable characters at their request, shouldn't we codify that somehow, so as to avoid (or at least reduce) the controversy?
The problem is that we have nowhere near consensus for such a policy. A large number of editors support it, and a large number of editors oppose it. Different specific cases have gone different ways, mostly depending on who showed up to the debate that day.
-Mark
So, without consensus on the removing (bio's of) marginally notable characters, the speedy delete seems completely unjustifiable.
Does anyone have a clue as to what triggered this action at this particular time?
-Rich
Delirium wrote:
Rich Holton wrote:
However, it must have been pretty predictable that a speedy delete would cause controversy, and accusations of abuse of admin powers. If we do have such a practice of removing marginally notable characters at their request, shouldn't we codify that somehow, so as to avoid (or at least reduce) the controversy?
The problem is that we have nowhere near consensus for such a policy. A large number of editors support it, and a large number of editors oppose it. Different specific cases have gone different ways, mostly depending on who showed up to the debate that day.
That absence of consensus alone contraindicates any kind of speedy action. When who shows up in a "speedy" situation that hour (not just that day) makes a difference there is just too much room for abuse. What happens with Brandt or any other person that wants an article about himself removed is only one little corner of the problem. A truly collaborative environment has no place for debates that depend on some kind of win/lose paradigm. Speedy deletes should never be a weapon for winning a POV war. Unless something is _immediately_ dangerous it can afford the time for due process. Immediate gratification is not important.
Ec
On Feb 24, 2007, at 3:28 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
That absence of consensus alone contraindicates any kind of speedy action. When who shows up in a "speedy" situation that hour (not just that day) makes a difference there is just too much room for abuse. What happens with Brandt or any other person that wants an article about himself removed is only one little corner of the problem. A truly collaborative environment has no place for debates that depend on some kind of win/lose paradigm. Speedy deletes should never be a weapon for winning a POV war. Unless something is _immediately_ dangerous it can afford the time for due process. Immediate gratification is not important.
This gets at another very, very fundamental problem, though - one that is increasingly ripping the project apart at a foundational level. (I am not, it should be noted, speaking here on a community level. I'm talking about the encyclopedia itself.)
Our due process is capricious and based on who shows up. This is most obvious on AfD, where articles are serially renominated until they get deleted. The renominations are justified under the slogan "consensus can change," but in practice it's not consensus that changes - few of the people who voted keep the previous few times even show up to weigh in. That's not consensus changing - that's the equivalent of asking daddy if you can have a cookie because mommy said no.
-Phil
Phil Sandifer wrote:
On Feb 24, 2007, at 3:28 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
That absence of consensus alone contraindicates any kind of speedy action. When who shows up in a "speedy" situation that hour (not just that day) makes a difference there is just too much room for abuse. What happens with Brandt or any other person that wants an article about himself removed is only one little corner of the problem. A truly collaborative environment has no place for debates that depend on some kind of win/lose paradigm. Speedy deletes should never be a weapon for winning a POV war. Unless something is _immediately_ dangerous it can afford the time for due process. Immediate gratification is not important.
This gets at another very, very fundamental problem, though - one that is increasingly ripping the project apart at a foundational level. (I am not, it should be noted, speaking here on a community level. I'm talking about the encyclopedia itself.)
Our due process is capricious and based on who shows up. This is most obvious on AfD, where articles are serially renominated until they get deleted. The renominations are justified under the slogan "consensus can change," but in practice it's not consensus that changes - few of the people who voted keep the previous few times even show up to weigh in. That's not consensus changing - that's the equivalent of asking daddy if you can have a cookie because mommy said no.
-Phil
I agree that this is a troublesome development. The more active users, the more of an issue this becomes. Finding a good way to fix this is not easy.
[brainstorm] How about if there is a list somewhere of AFD participants. Anyone can add their name to the list, but an AFD can only be closed when a quorum (TBD) of those participants have made some comment on the deletion proposal. Someone will be de-listed if they have not commented on any proposal for a defined period. Of course, they can immediately re-join the list of participants at any time. [/brainstorm]
NB: A "brainstorm" in this context means a relatively unfiltered idea, intended primarily to stimulate thought, modifications, and other proposals. Seldom will an initial brainstorm idea be accepted as is.
-Rich Holton
On 2/24/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Our due process is capricious and based on who shows up.
This is part of what I call the "loud minority effect" which is an evil version of "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". This is when small numbers of highly opinionated people just happen to yell louder then everybody else.
This is most obvious on AfD, where articles are serially renominated until they get deleted. The renominations are justified under the slogan "consensus can change," but in practice it's not consensus that changes - few of the people who voted keep the previous few times even show up to weigh in. That's not consensus changing - that's the equivalent of asking daddy if you can have a cookie because mommy said no.
I once suggested a limited "double jeopardy" system for AFD but not too many people liked it. I thought it would keep articles from getting nominated over and over and over again. Notable things don't one day magically stop being notable.
I don't spend much time at DRV, what's the policy for DRVs that have no consensus? This one is looking like a fairly even split. Common sense would seem (to me) to be that consensus to endorse is required for speedy deletions, otherwise they get undeleted, and consensus to undelete is required for AfDs, otherwise they stay deleted. In other words, this article should probably end up being undeleted. Is that how it works, or is there precedent for something else?
On 2/23/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't spend much time at DRV, what's the policy for DRVs that have no consensus? This one is looking like a fairly even split. Common sense would seem (to me) to be that consensus to endorse is required for speedy deletions, otherwise they get undeleted, and consensus to undelete is required for AfDs, otherwise they stay deleted. In other words, this article should probably end up being undeleted. Is that how it works, or is there precedent for something else?
Good question. A recent DRV of one of the Rachel Marsden articles -- I speedied it in accordance with an ArbCom ruling, which allowed speedy deletion if an admin felt there were BLP issues -- had a majority in favor of keeping it deleted, but an admin undeleted it anyway, then moved it to AfD, arguing that there had to be a consensus in favor of the deletion, not just a majority.
The policy seems to imply this is the case with all deletions, not just speedies, which means that DRV has basically become pointless, assuming I've understood it correctly.
Sarah
Slim Virgin wrote:
The policy seems to imply this is the case with all deletions, not just speedies, which means that DRV has basically become pointless, assuming I've understood it correctly.
Yup. You essentially have. There have been too many recent failures to indicate otherwise, IMo. It's only typically good for uncontroversial A7s and gross mistakes at AfD.
-Jeff
On 2/23/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/23/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't spend much time at DRV, what's the policy for DRVs that have no consensus? This one is looking like a fairly even split. Common sense would seem (to me) to be that consensus to endorse is required for speedy deletions, otherwise they get undeleted, and consensus to undelete is required for AfDs, otherwise they stay deleted. In other words, this article should probably end up being undeleted. Is that how it works, or is there precedent for something else?
Good question. A recent DRV of one of the Rachel Marsden articles -- I speedied it in accordance with an ArbCom ruling, which allowed speedy deletion if an admin felt there were BLP issues -- had a majority in favor of keeping it deleted, but an admin undeleted it anyway, then moved it to AfD, arguing that there had to be a consensus in favor of the deletion, not just a majority.
The policy seems to imply this is the case with all deletions, not just speedies, which means that DRV has basically become pointless, assuming I've understood it correctly.
Sarah
Before voting to keep, please review the evidence presented at
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=5641&view=findpost...
Thank you.
Nobs01
FYI: Jimbo is not happy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
Yanksox desysopped by Jimbo fiat, Geni and Freakofnurture temporarily desysopped pending referral to Arbcom (case not filed publically as of yet, I assume email/IRC is happening or will soon...)
George Herbert wrote:
FYI: Jimbo is not happy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
Yanksox desysopped by Jimbo fiat, Geni and Freakofnurture temporarily desysopped pending referral to Arbcom (case not filed publically as of yet, I assume email/IRC is happening or will soon...)
Smart move, if not a little too late. Too bad it won't go further backwards to others who have been just as abusive. Somehow, wheel warring is more important?
-Jeff
Smart move, if not a little too late. Too bad it won't go further backwards to others who have been just as abusive. Somehow, wheel warring is more important?
Absolutely. Wheel warring is the greatest offence an admin can commit. Other forms of abuse are bad, but can generally be resolved after a bit of discussion. A wheel war gets in the way of that discussion and makes it very difficult to resolve the initial situation- that is why Jimbo had to step in.
On 2/23/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely. Wheel warring is the greatest offence an admin can commit.
I can think of three greater ones in under a second. Putting the goatse in sitenotice for example.
Other forms of abuse are bad, but can generally be resolved after a bit of discussion. A wheel war gets in the way of that discussion and makes it very difficult to resolve the initial situation- that is why Jimbo had to step in.
After the wheel war was over? In case you forget by the time I acted there had already been an attempt to shut down all discussion.
I can think of three greater ones in under a second. Putting the goatse in sitenotice for example.
That would be reverted in seconds. Very little harm done.
Other forms of abuse are bad, but can generally be resolved after a bit of discussion. A wheel war gets in the way of that discussion and makes it very difficult to resolve the initial situation- that is why Jimbo had to step in.
After the wheel war was over? In case you forget by the time I acted there had already been an attempt to shut down all discussion.
Yes, shutting down all discussion is exactly the problem I said happens with wheel wars. Everyone believes they are doing the right thing and it's the other admin that is wheel warring, but arguments along those lines pretty much never hold water. If an admin tries to shut down discussion, the correct action is to elevate the issue to the next level in the dispute resolution process (AN/I, RFC, ArbCom), not to unilaterally counter the unilateral action.
On 2/24/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
That would be reverted in seconds. Very little harm done.
seconds is too slow. Anonnotice then or somewhere a bit more obscure.
Yes, shutting down all discussion is exactly the problem I said happens with wheel wars.
nyet that was done before the wheel war.
Everyone believes they are doing the right thing and it's the other admin that is wheel warring, but arguments along those lines pretty much never hold water. If an admin tries to shut down discussion, the correct action is to elevate the issue to the next level in the dispute resolution process (AN/I, RFC, ArbCom), not to unilaterally counter the unilateral action.
What would AN/I have done? RFC? no I really can't see that helping. ArbCom? I doubt they would be interested in a case purely around article deletetion.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I can think of three greater ones in under a second. Putting the goatse in sitenotice for example.
That would be reverted in seconds. Very little harm done.
It would be exceptional for an admin to post such a picture, unless he is trying to document his own hara-kiri.
Ec
On Feb 24, 2007, at 4:33 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I can think of three greater ones in under a second. Putting the goatse in sitenotice for example.
That would be reverted in seconds. Very little harm done.
It would be exceptional for an admin to post such a picture, unless he is trying to document his own hara-kiri.
For which there are far better and more destructive options. (My personal favorite choice is history merging vandalism. Which, to date, nobody has done, and which, to date, I remain surprised that nobody has done.)
-Phil
WP:BEANS
Adam
On 2/24/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 24, 2007, at 4:33 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I can think of three greater ones in under a second. Putting the goatse in sitenotice for example.
That would be reverted in seconds. Very little harm done.
It would be exceptional for an admin to post such a picture, unless he is trying to document his own hara-kiri.
For which there are far better and more destructive options. (My personal favorite choice is history merging vandalism. Which, to date, nobody has done, and which, to date, I remain surprised that nobody has done.)
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Phil Sandifer wrote:
On Feb 24, 2007, at 4:33 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I can think of three greater ones in under a second. Putting the goatse in sitenotice for example.
That would be reverted in seconds. Very little harm done.
It would be exceptional for an admin to post such a picture, unless he is trying to document his own hara-kiri.
For which there are far better and more destructive options. (My personal favorite choice is history merging vandalism. Which, to date, nobody has done, and which, to date, I remain surprised that nobody has done.)
Don't give them ideas! :-)
Ec
The creator of the Daniel Brandt article stated he/she did not believe Brandt to be a "credible source"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&...
This was after two contentious Arbitration cases over an article that Brandt was used as a reputable critic. When Brandt reacted to the inclusions that he and his organization were somehow aligned or associated with a particularly reprehensible organization, Mr. Brandt perhaps justifiably reacted with indignance. Soon thereafter, Mr. Brandt as a source of criticism was nolonger deemed reputable for an article in which two prior Arbitration case he had been adjudicated as a valid and reputable critic.. The problems is, and remains, the source of the criticism against Brandt does not meet WP policies for inclusion.
Now, in examining this problem, we see both Brandt and his critic feel dredging up old disputes from 16 years ago is unfair. Nevertheless, the source of Brandt's criticism simply has more friends in WP sympathetic to his cause than Brandt does. So others not knowing the dispute get caught in the crossfire. It appears now there is enough consensus among editors more familiar with the locus of the dispute to just let it go, and let Mr. Brandt have his privacy. Wikipedia is not a battlefield, and this has been allowed to go on long enough.
Jeff Raymond wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
FYI: Jimbo is not happy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
Yanksox desysopped by Jimbo fiat, Geni and Freakofnurture temporarily desysopped pending referral to Arbcom (case not filed publically as of yet, I assume email/IRC is happening or will soon...)
Smart move, if not a little too late. Too bad it won't go further backwards to others who have been just as abusive. Somehow, wheel warring is more important?
I can't complain about this, but when cleaning the stables it still has to be done one stall at a time.
In the little ironies department, wasn't Yanksox one of the admins that Parker Peters was gunning for? ;-)
Ec
On 2/23/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Yanksox desysopped by Jimbo fiat, Geni and Freakofnurture temporarily desysopped pending referral to Arbcom (case not filed publically as of yet, I assume email/IRC is happening or will soon...)
Yes Virginia, there is an 800 pound Gorilla and sometimes we need him.
This is one of the days where I'm *very* glad Jimbo's around. Too much of this crap slides by...
There's no justification for the re-deletion or the DRV shenanigans. After it was deleted, the proper actions were obvious: undo the deletion; if someone other than Yanksox wanted to delete it, take it to AFD. All redeletions, listings at DRV, and closing the AFD were simply wrong, not in the "I disagree" way, but in the 1+1=3, driving on the wrong side of the street, "Yes or no?" "Fish." way. That admins who should know better were endorsing the action on DRV says something is very, very wrong.
-- Jake Nelson [[en:User:Jake Nelson]]
On 2/23/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/23/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Yanksox desysopped by Jimbo fiat, Geni and Freakofnurture temporarily desysopped pending referral to Arbcom (case not filed publically as of yet, I assume email/IRC is happening or will soon...)
Yes Virginia, there is an 800 pound Gorilla and sometimes we need him.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/23/07, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
Before voting to keep, please review the evidence presented at... Nobs01
Can people (particularly those who are already banned from Wikipedia) who post links to slanderous and defamatory conspiracy-mongering harassment fora be immediately and permanently banned from this list as well? Thanks.
Jay.
In a way, the "easiest" close for this would be overturn and list at AfD. The issue of content and process have been conflated into a debate which is not on a single issue. An AfD would allow the focus to be purely on the issues of the subject (notability, BLP, author request, whatever) and not on the "correctness" of the deleting admin. But we'll see what the closer (probably [[User:GRBerry]]) decides. Trebor