-----Original Message----- From: Ron Ritzman [mailto:ritzman@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 05:33 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: [WikiEN-l] Out of process deletions
On 3/25/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)" wrote
I think we need some input from the Office as to how this situation should be handled on-wiki.
Maybe. But the deletion of a badly-sourced attack piece biography would not be the > problem.
And that's exactly why we have CSD, AFD, PROD etc.
"Out of process" deletions have their uses and the ability to do them is a necessary tool in fighting the firehose of crap but I offer this proposal to avoid any more Brandt type wheel wars..
If an admin makes an "out of process" deletion, then any other admin if free to restore the article without prejudice. If restored, it cannot be deleted again by anyone without going through one of the established deletion processes. (AFD, CSD, etc) If the admin who originally deleted it, deletes it again, he is subject to the immediate loss of his admin privs. If deleted by another admin, he is informed that it is a contested "out of process" delete and the article is restored again. If he deletes it again, he could lose his privs.
This protection shouldn't last forever though. After a certain amount of time has passed, perhaps a month or 3 (that can be determined by consensus) someone can try to "OOP" it again.
No, that's why we have BLP. Malicious material may be reverted and deleted without limit by any user. There will be no penalty forthcoming from the arbitration committee for such actions. Normal penalties will apply to users restoring such material.
Fred
On 3/25/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
No, that's why we have BLP. Malicious material may be reverted and deleted without limit > by any user.
And if it's deleted for that reason and no other admin restores it then fine.
Quoting BLB 3
"Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion"
I'm assuming that admins are reasonable people, otherwise they shouldn't be admins. Therefore, if admin Foo, speedy deletes a bio because he feels that there is no NPOV version to revert to and that deletion is reverted by admin BAR, then admin BAR reasonably believes that the bio can be made NPOV.
At this point what would be better, to discuss the deletion "in process" or have wheel war with the article being deleted and restored over and over again?
BLP? BLB? BAR?
I have to admit, Citizendium does have a point.
The acronymization of Wikipedia has gotten totally out of control.
Or should I say, the AOW has gotten TOC.
On 3/25/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/25/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
No, that's why we have BLP. Malicious material may be reverted and
deleted without limit > by any user.
And if it's deleted for that reason and no other admin restores it then fine.
Quoting BLB 3
"Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion"
I'm assuming that admins are reasonable people, otherwise they shouldn't be admins. Therefore, if admin Foo, speedy deletes a bio because he feels that there is no NPOV version to revert to and that deletion is reverted by admin BAR, then admin BAR reasonably believes that the bio can be made NPOV.
At this point what would be better, to discuss the deletion "in process" or have wheel war with the article being deleted and restored over and over again?
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 3/27/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
BLP? BLB? BAR?
I have to admit, Citizendium does have a point.
The acronymization of Wikipedia has gotten totally out of control.
Or should I say, the AOW has gotten TOC.
No because TOC is table of contents
A better one would be
TLAs are running into WTF more often
(both of those are valid WP:Whatever links)
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:53:23 -0400, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
The acronymization of Wikipedia has gotten totally out of control.
Maybe, maybe not. I pipeline them when talking to newbies or people that may not understand, but I would not use the full text version of, say, WP:BLP when discussing things with experienced editors any more than I would talk to colleagues about the Transport Control Protocol stacks or their Internet Protocol addresses.
Brevity is, after all, the soul of wit. Just so long as we don't become the soles of Ar.
Guy (JzG)