Hi,
You'll have to pardon me as I've been on break for a little bit.
I'm just wondering how oversight is much different than an admin just deleting an article and restoring all but the selected revision.
It's not like the revision is deleted in the database.
So why have a separate permissions group?
On 6/22/06, Ilya N. ilyanep@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
You'll have to pardon me as I've been on break for a little bit.
I'm just wondering how oversight is much different than an admin just deleting an article and restoring all but the selected revision.
Becuase the version was one click away from restor
It's not like the revision is deleted in the database.
That isn't exactly true.
On 6/22/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/22/06, Ilya N. ilyanep@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
You'll have to pardon me as I've been on break for a little bit.
I'm just wondering how oversight is much different than an admin just deleting an article and restoring all but the selected revision.
Becuase the version was one click away from restor
It's not like the revision is deleted in the database.
That isn't exactly true.
Well, it isn't, though.
Jay.
Ilya N. wrote:
Hi,
You'll have to pardon me as I've been on break for a little bit.
I'm just wondering how oversight is much different than an admin just deleting an article and restoring all but the selected revision.
It's not like the revision is deleted in the database.
So why have a separate permissions group?
Because we have 950 admins, and at least one of them is a member of Wikitruth and has been undeleting stuff to get it posted there.
On 6/23/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Ilya N. wrote:
Hi,
You'll have to pardon me as I've been on break for a little bit.
I'm just wondering how oversight is much different than an admin just deleting an article and restoring all but the selected revision.
It's not like the revision is deleted in the database.
So why have a separate permissions group?
Because we have 950 admins, and at least one of them is a member of Wikitruth and has been undeleting stuff to get it posted there.
Um, I'm not exactly a en-wp-insider (coming rather from dewp), and I don't want to critisize anything but: If a sysop is found to undelete stuff to post it afterwards on Wikitruth etc., why isn't he just desysopped (/why isn't a desysopping/ArbCom procedure started)? Regards Michael
On 6/23/06, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
Um, I'm not exactly a en-wp-insider (coming rather from dewp), and I don't want to critisize anything but: If a sysop is found to undelete stuff to post it afterwards on Wikitruth etc., why isn't he just desysopped (/why isn't a desysopping/ArbCom procedure started)?
Because we don't know which admin has done this, just that it happened.
-Matt
On 6/23/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/23/06, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
Um, I'm not exactly a en-wp-insider (coming rather from dewp), and I don't want to critisize anything but: If a sysop is found to undelete stuff to post it afterwards on Wikitruth etc., why isn't he just desysopped (/why isn't a desysopping/ArbCom procedure started)?
Because we don't know which admin has done this, just that it happened.
okay, I see... Michael
-Matt _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/23/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Because we don't know which admin has done this, just that it happened.
Yet. To quote Saw2 "Oh yes, there will be blood." (But not really, desysopping won't physically harm anybody... unlike the possibilities some of these other "watch" sites may present.) I can't believe I just quoted Saw2. ;-)
--LV
On 6/23/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/23/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Because we don't know which admin has done this, just that it happened.
Yet. To quote Saw2 "Oh yes, there will be blood." (But not really, desysopping won't physically harm anybody...
Sure. But desysopping somebody needs less time/skills than preparing a legal action against him ;-) (and it's something against which he cannot file an appeal)
Michael
On 6/23/06, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/23/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/23/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Because we don't know which admin has done this, just that it happened.
Yet. To quote Saw2 "Oh yes, there will be blood." (But not really, desysopping won't physically harm anybody...
Sure. But desysopping somebody needs less time/skills than preparing a legal action against him ;-) (and it's something against which he cannot file an appeal)
You're wrong there; our villain will be able to file an appeal with ArbCom; they'll laugh at him, but he will be able to appeal.
Actually, that's an interesting question; presuming we ever identify the Wikitruth admin(s), will it stop at summary desysopping, or do we expect that they will also be community banned?
On 6/23/06, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
You're wrong there; our villain will be able to file an appeal with ArbCom; they'll laugh at him, but he will be able to appeal.
Actually, that's an interesting question; presuming we ever identify the Wikitruth admin(s), will it stop at summary desysopping, or do we expect that they will also be community banned?
I don't think there's any question that it won't be both. Abusing undeletion privileges is definitely grounds for the first, and the way he did is sufficient for the second- we indef ban for less.
~maru
On 6/23/06, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/23/06, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/23/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/23/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Because we don't know which admin has done this, just that it happened.
Yet. To quote Saw2 "Oh yes, there will be blood." (But not really, desysopping won't physically harm anybody...
Sure. But desysopping somebody needs less time/skills than preparing a legal action against him ;-) (and it's something against which he cannot file an appeal)
You're wrong there; our villain will be able to file an appeal with ArbCom; they'll laugh at him, but he will be able to appeal.
Of course he can. But: If he appeals to ArbCom, it will be dealt with much faster (and favourable for Wikipedia) than if he is able to appeal to the whole bunch of appeal courts (up to Supreme Court if he has the time for it), and this will take *a lot of time*. So I don't think we can compare this.
Actually, that's an interesting question; presuming we ever identify the Wikitruth admin(s), will it stop at summary desysopping, or do we expect that they will also be community banned?
I think, if a sysop is found to be the person who has published deleted content, he should also be community banned. However I must say that I was unable to find a applicable paragraph in [[Wikipedia:Banning policy]], probably as it is a rather unusual case. But, as Mark Wagner said, as long as he didn't undelete the page but only looked at it, it might be quite difficult to find the person who has done so... Michael
G'day Michael N,
On 6/23/06, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/23/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
Yet. To quote Saw2 "Oh yes, there will be blood." (But not really, desysopping won't physically harm anybody...
Sure. But desysopping somebody needs less time/skills than preparing a legal action against him ;-) (and it's something against which he cannot file an appeal)
You're wrong there; our villain will be able to file an appeal with ArbCom; they'll laugh at him, but he will be able to appeal.
Actually, that's an interesting question; presuming we ever identify the Wikitruth admin(s), will it stop at summary desysopping, or do we expect that they will also be community banned?
De-sysopping for certs: we have no need for untrustworthy admins. As for community banning, well; wouldn't it be more interesting to find out what upset this person in the first place? Assuming they aren't a mole out to prove how easy it is to become an admin (this has been planned many times), they presumably aren't your standard Wikitruth "I went there and made a dick of myself and they objected for some reason" troll. It would be nice to know what happened to this person that they betrayed us, partly to prevent anyone else doing the same, but mostly because improving the experience of anyone editing Wikipedia in good faith is a Good Thing to aim for.
Cheers,
On 6/23/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Because we don't know which admin has done this, just that it happened.
There's no log of who undeletes something?
I presume the article in question is known...
On 6/23/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/23/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Because we don't know which admin has done this, just that it happened.
There's no log of who undeletes something?
An admin can view the contents of a deleted page without actively undeleting it.