Jesse W wrote:
And, for "vandalism", it still is. For misguided people - it has always been discussion until either the misguided people change their minds or enough other people get fed up, then more or less forceful requests to leave.
There are no such things as page creation vandals? How interesting. Do please expand on this fascinating new insight into what is currently happening on WIkipedia?
On 7/7/06, Cobb sealclubbingfun@googlemail.com wrote:
There are no such things as page creation vandals? How interesting. Do please expand on this fascinating new insight into what is currently happening on WIkipedia?
They exist but uncomon. New editors an IPs can't create new pages and WP:CSD takes care of most of the rest.
Sigh. And now for "never-attribute-to-malice-what-can-be-explained-by-stupidity,-part -2"...
On Jul 6, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Cobb wrote:
Jesse W wrote:
And, for "vandalism", it still is. For misguided people - it has always been discussion until either the misguided people change their minds or enough other people get fed up, then more or less forceful requests to leave.
There are no such things as page creation vandals?
Of course there are - creating a page is a type of editing, and, like all types of edits, creating pages can be done in bad faith with intent to damage the 'pedia - that is vandalism. Typical examples include creating pages that say "Joe is gay!", or creating pages containing subtle hoaxes - you can't do that accidentally, or due to misunderstanding, only by actively intending to damage the 'pedia.
However, many bad pages created are not created in bad faith - the people who create them are not vandals. People who think the encyclopedia would benefit from an article on their novel theory of history, or their new company, or this fascinating new website they just came across - *are* *not* acting in bad faith, and *are* *not* intending to damage the 'pedia (although, in fact, they are), and so *are* *not* vandals. You seemed to be implying they were.
How interesting. Do please expand on this fascinating new insight into what is currently happening on WIkipedia?
I just did. Hopefully you will be able to respond to it with some actual attention this time.
Jesse Weinstein
Cobb,
Jesse W wrote:
And, for "vandalism", it still is. For misguided people - it has always been discussion until either the misguided people change their minds or enough other people get fed up, then more or less forceful requests to leave.
There are no such things as page creation vandals? How interesting. Do please expand on this fascinating new insight into what is currently happening on WIkipedia?
Pages created solely as vandalism can be, and almost always are, speedied at will be any administrator. Those that are mistakenly nominated on AfD are generally speedy closed and deleted, but on rare occasions we have seen vandal-created pages go through the AfD process fully before being deleted. In all cases: speedy, early-close AfD, process-followed AfD, whatever, the article is deleted.
I find it very hard to believe that you have *ever* nominated an article for AfD and seen it kept, either by AfD or DRV. Please don't bullshit us, it's very tiresome.
Err ...
I find it very hard to believe that you have *ever* nominated an article for AfD and seen it kept, either by AfD or DRV. Please don't bullshit us, it's very tiresome.
That's "pure vandalism article", of course, not "article".
I find it *very* easy to believe that Cobb might have nominated good articles and seen them kept, but it's rather unlikely he's ever stuck a pure vandalism article on AfD and not had it deleted.
Bah.