Anthony DiPierro wrote:
As for Jimbo's comment (he apparently doesn't know the full story) that I should have used the mailing list, I have had nothing but trouble with the mailing list. I'm not even sure if this will go through. The mailing list is a terrible place to run a wiki. The wiki should be run on the wiki itself.
Instead of inserting a conclusion here, I'm going to take another day or more to think about things first. I'm seriously disturbed by the hypocrisy of this organisation right now.
Jimbo can't always be expected to investigate every dispute, and there's nothing wrong with his suggestion that people try the mailing list in this kind of situation. It's not the only option, but plenty of options are better than provoking an edit war to make a point. The thing is, trying these options takes time, and apparently some people lack the patience and self-discipline to wait more than a few minutes to accomplish what they want.
Part of the problem is that quite a few people (Anthony is certainly not the only one - others have been debated here on the list as well) seem to feel perfectly justified in violating the 3-revert guideline. Not only do they blatantly exceed the limit, but in most of these cases they don't even pause before crossing the line. They make no attempt to get more of the community involved, which is the only way consensus can develop when issues are contested. Instead, they should be trying a number of other options, of which posting to the mailing list is merely one. There is also IRC, contacting other users who are on the wiki at the time (especially those who have edited the article before), mediation, [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment]], etc. I might entertain an argument that more than 3 reverts can be justified, but _never_ if you haven't tried other means of dealing with the situation first.
What's really appalling is that in many instances, not even the talk page of the disputed article is being used. The only communication going on is through edit summaries, and since those typically consist of "rv", accusations of vandalism, snide remarks, or the pre-filled edit summary from an admin using the rollback button, it's worse than useless.
--Michael Snow
Michael Snow wrote:
What's really appalling is that in many instances, not even the talk page of the disputed article is being used. The only communication going on is through edit summaries, and since those typically consist of "rv", accusations of vandalism, snide remarks, or the pre-filled edit summary from an admin using the rollback button, it's worse than useless.
I fully endorse this paragraph.
I'd rather see people fighting dirty on the talk pages than a revert war. At least in a case like that, there is a glimmer of hope for communication.
But of course, I would rather see people not fighting dirty at all, but rather seeking to influence others through kindness, reason, and patience.
--Jimbo
Michael Snow wrote:
What's really appalling is that in many instances, not even the talk page of the disputed article is being used. The only communication going on is through edit summaries, and since those typically consist of "rv", accusations of vandalism, snide remarks, or the pre-filled edit summary from an admin using the rollback button, it's worse than useless.
If we're going to have a rollback button, I have a request: a text box for a meaningful summary next to it. It can start filled with the present default summary, but make it easy to make a rollback meaningful.
- d.
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
If we're going to have a rollback button, I have a request: a text box for a meaningful summary next to it. It can start filled with the present default summary, but make it easy to make a rollback meaningful.
Uh - adding an extra step will make the feature much less useful. I can very quickly use my middle mouse button to open many tabs for each rollback. If I had to pause for each one and hit a button, then that would at least triple the amount of time it takes me to revert vandalism.
If admins are abusing this feature, then they should be told to knock it off and only use their sysop user rights to fight vandalism. Using those powers as a tool to use against your opponents in an edit war is not acceptable and was my main point with former-admin 168...
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On 07/21/04 19:56, Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
If we're going to have a rollback button, I have a request: a text box for a meaningful summary next to it. It can start filled with the present default summary, but make it easy to make a rollback meaningful.
Uh - adding an extra step will make the feature much less useful. I can very quickly use my middle mouse button to open many tabs for each rollback. If I had to pause for each one and hit a button, then that would at least triple the amount of time it takes me to revert vandalism.
Sorry, I was using the wrong word - I mean keeping the present rollback *link*, but adding a pre-filled edit summary box. So you can still go zap-zap-zap-zap-zap on vandals in Firefox, but if something is clearly a revert but could be explained as well you can fill in that.
If admins are abusing this feature, then they should be told to knock it off and only use their sysop user rights to fight vandalism. Using those powers as a tool to use against your opponents in an edit war is not acceptable and was my main point with former-admin 168...
Edit wars are Bad. I swear I grit my teeth and count to three if I get to reverting. Or try to.
- d.
If admins are abusing this feature, then they should be told to knock it off and only use their sysop user rights to fight vandalism. Using those powers as a tool to use against your opponents in an edit war is not acceptable and was my main point with former-admin 168...
Just to clarify then, are admins only supposed to use the rollback link in cases of simple vandalism? I wasn't aware that this was policy, and I've used it a couple of times to revert things that were a little more complex than run-of-the-mill vandalism. Of course, I've never gotten into a revert war (how *do* people manage that?) but I'd still like to make sure I'm following the rules.
moink
moink wrote:
If admins are abusing this feature, then they should be told to knock it off and only use their sysop user rights to fight vandalism. Using those powers as a tool to use against your opponents in an edit war is not acceptable and was my main point with former-admin 168...
Just to clarify then, are admins only supposed to use the rollback link in cases of simple vandalism? I wasn't aware that this was policy, and I've used it a couple of times to revert things that were a little more complex than run-of-the-mill vandalism. Of course, I've never gotten into a revert war (how *do* people manage that?) but I'd still like to make sure I'm following the rules.
moink
If you refer to what happened to 168, I would certainly recommand that you only use that feature against pure vandal. Though there seems to be no rule about it, it was perceived an abuse to use it in an edit war, all the more against a non sysop.
It is not a rule, but I think it is best that sysops should not use power they have in disagreement with other users who do not have that power. Yes, both can do revert, but using the rollback feature is perceived as a "power".
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 20:43:19 +0200, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
It is not a rule, but I think it is best that sysops should not use power they have in disagreement with other users who do not have that power. Yes, both can do revert, but using the rollback feature is perceived as a "power".
The problem with rollback is the dismissiveness of it, for one thing -- it's fundamentally treating an addition 'as vandalism' - not even worth a comment as to why it's removed. Though that's no worse than just entering 'rv' or 'revert' as the comment.
The other problem with rollback is it reverts not just the most recent change, but rather rolls back to the last edit by another user. This means if you're using it on non vandalism, it's possible to accidentally roll back too far.
-Matt (User:Morven)
Matt Brown wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 20:43:19 +0200, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
It is not a rule, but I think it is best that sysops should not use power they have in disagreement with other users who do not have that power. Yes, both can do revert, but using the rollback feature is perceived as a "power".
The problem with rollback is the dismissiveness of it, for one thing -- it's fundamentally treating an addition 'as vandalism' - not even worth a comment as to why it's removed.
Yes, this is *exactly* it. You have the exact word. Once, I did a roll back with someone (not a sysop) for an addition I perceived wrong. The person pointed out to me how dismissed he felt. Since then, I have decided not to use this again, except for extrem cases of vandalism.
What troubles me most is that people are fighting over trivial things. If they are going to edit war, it should at least be a topic worth arguing over.
~Mark
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:09:07 -0700, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
What's really appalling is that in many instances, not even the talk page of the disputed article is being used. The only communication going on is through edit summaries, and since those typically consist of "rv", accusations of vandalism, snide remarks, or the pre-filled edit summary from an admin using the rollback button, it's worse than useless.
I fully endorse this paragraph.
I'd rather see people fighting dirty on the talk pages than a revert war. At least in a case like that, there is a glimmer of hope for communication.
But of course, I would rather see people not fighting dirty at all, but rather seeking to influence others through kindness, reason, and patience.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Have you seen [[Talk:Drew Barrymore]]? :^(
RickK
Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote: What troubles me most is that people are fighting over trivial things. If they are going to edit war, it should at least be a topic worth arguing over.
~Mark
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.