Today, aplank deleted a collection of pages on meta.
See http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta%3ADeletion_log
The deletion policy on meta states that pages should stay between 15 to 30 days listed on vfd before being deleted. The long delay time is due to the fact users do not come to meta as often that they come to local wikipedia, so are given more time to react.
Most of the pages perl deleted have been listed for about a week. Others, I added yesterday. And some pages have never been listed at all.
Granted, I think that most of these pages had to be deleted, however, I do not think any of them qualified to speedy deletion, given that most have been on meta for a full year.
In any cases, I think there is a rule, not a very drastic one, but a rule anyway. I think it should be respected.
And the rule state "list article on vfd, and wait between 15 to 30 days";
------
On meta, there is another rule which I think is inappropriate. It states "any sysop on any wikipedia shall be sysop automatically upon request on meta". I propose a change of policy, so that a user making a request is at least not opposed by its peers.
Please, give feedback on these two points
* What do we do when sysop do not respect rules on meta ? * Is that ok that any sysop on any wiki is made sysop on meta, without any approval by anyone, or without any chance to express disapproval
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
It strikes me that the pages should be listed on VfD of en.Wikipedia so this little backwater that is not closely watched no longer exists. I think creating a separate sysop list for Meta that "controlled" it would be a way of playing politics within Wikipedia.
Perhaps there should be more integration so that separate separate accounts and logging in could be eliminated.
Fred
From: Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 00:00:48 -0700 (PDT) To: wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Deletions on meta
Today, aplank deleted a collection of pages on meta.
See http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta%3ADeletion_log
The deletion policy on meta states that pages should stay between 15 to 30 days listed on vfd before being deleted. The long delay time is due to the fact users do not come to meta as often that they come to local wikipedia, so are given more time to react.
Most of the pages perl deleted have been listed for about a week. Others, I added yesterday. And some pages have never been listed at all.
Granted, I think that most of these pages had to be deleted, however, I do not think any of them qualified to speedy deletion, given that most have been on meta for a full year.
In any cases, I think there is a rule, not a very drastic one, but a rule anyway. I think it should be respected.
And the rule state "list article on vfd, and wait between 15 to 30 days";
On meta, there is another rule which I think is inappropriate. It states "any sysop on any wikipedia shall be sysop automatically upon request on meta". I propose a change of policy, so that a user making a request is at least not opposed by its peers.
Please, give feedback on these two points
- What do we do when sysop do not respect rules on
meta ?
- Is that ok that any sysop on any wiki is made sysop
on meta, without any approval by anyone, or without any chance to express disapproval
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Anthere wrote:
Today, aplank deleted a collection of pages on meta.
See http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta%3ADeletion_log
The deletion policy on meta states that pages should stay between 15 to 30 days listed on vfd before being deleted. The long delay time is due to the fact users do not come to meta as often that they come to local wikipedia, so are given more time to react.
Some readers of this list may be confused as to why some people consider this to be such a big deal. Perhaps some background on Perl would help.
Perl is a user who has been obssessed with sysopship and other forms of status since shortly after he joined Wikipedia. He makes many good contributions under one name, and applies for sysopship, and then when his bad reputation starts catching up with him, he switches names and tries again. So far he has done this 4 times. He has contributed as Aplank, Greenmountainboy, Sennheiser, NASA and Perl. When confronted as a new identity with allegations that he is another Alex Plank reincarnation, he strongly denies it, but when evidence is presented, he admits it and expresses remorse. For some of us, these expressions of remorse seem shallow, considering the number of times he has repeated his behaviour. However Perl does have his supporters. People point out that his most recent reincarnation has done lots of good work, and that perhaps we should forgive. Despite this, his most recent request for adminship on en was easily voted down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&...
The root cause of Perl's bad reputation is the actions he performed as his initial identity, Aplank/Alexandros. He removed adverse comments about himself, he did something controversial at Mother Theresa which offended some people (not sure what exactly), and he "vandalised" Adam Carr's user page. Personally I have found his behaviour rash and impulsive, so I wouldn't trust him with sysop access.
Here are some of his previous sysopship applications. Note that during the course of the Greenmountainboy and Sennheiser applications, his identity was exposed, and some refactoring occurred.
As Aplank/Alexandros: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&...
There was also one on the French Wikipedia: http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia:Administrateur&...
As Greenmountainboy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&...
As Sennheiser:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&...
As Perl:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&...) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&...
The Perl identity was exposed before the first adminship request. Perl requested sysop access on the inactive Maori Wikipedia, which I happily granted him, not knowing at that time who he was. Then he requested developer access. I received a tip-off, checked the logs, and, in a very angry state, posted the result to IRC. At Angela's request, I didn't desysop him.
Anyway, it suprised some of us when Perl requested sysop access on Wikibooks, and it was approved with two people supporting (Mav and Theresa) and none against. But it's only wikibooks, it's no big deal. Then Mav gave him sysop access on meta. While stricly speaking this is allowed by policy, it seems to be against the majority opinion, at least on the English Wikipedia.
I'd like to request that Perl be desysopped on meta, and that the policy be changed to require more stringent controls on who becomes a sysop there.
-- Tim Starling
Tim Starling wrote:
Perl is a user who has been obssessed with sysopship and other forms of status since shortly after he joined Wikipedia. He makes many good contributions under one name, and applies for sysopship, and then when his bad reputation starts catching up with him, he switches names and tries again. So far he has done this 4 times. He has contributed as Aplank, Greenmountainboy, Sennheiser, NASA and Perl.
I might add that I have had a rather insightful talk with him about it and from it I gained the impression that he has now come to understand the inappropriateness of sock puppets and has agreed to stop reincarnating. I believe him this, and I also believe that his previous actions were - from his point of view - in good faith (I know this is difficult to appreciate for some). I have the strong impression that he never meant to hurt anyone's feelings or to make anyone feel cheated or deceived, and it seems to me that he now understands that this is what he has caused, and so he stopped.
I also believe that if he had been granted adminship, he would only have applied the privileges in good faith (he certainly never caused any damange on the Maori Wikipedia or Wikibooks). Nevertheless, of course, in the light of the circumstances, it is difficult to trust his good faith, which is why I voted against him in the hope that he wouldn't view it as hostility against him.
I hope this shed some light on his motives and intentions; I think he's a really nice guy, and he doesn't deserve being badmouthed for his actions or being accused of being deliberately disruptive. This doesn't mean I'm defending his actions, but I think he just needs a little bit of social guidance, if you see what I mean. I am certainly glad that he is still around, and I'm sure he will continue to make valuable contributions in the future.
Greetings, Timwi
Timwi wrote:
I might add that I have had a rather insightful talk with him about it and from it I gained the impression that he has now come to understand the inappropriateness of sock puppets and has agreed to stop reincarnating. I believe him this, and I also believe that his previous actions were - from his point of view - in good faith (I know this is difficult to appreciate for some). I have the strong impression that he never meant to hurt anyone's feelings or to make anyone feel cheated or deceived, and it seems to me that he now understands that this is what he has caused, and so he stopped.
I also believe that if he had been granted adminship, he would only have applied the privileges in good faith (he certainly never caused any damange on the Maori Wikipedia or Wikibooks). Nevertheless, of course, in the light of the circumstances, it is difficult to trust his good faith, which is why I voted against him in the hope that he wouldn't view it as hostility against him.
I hope this shed some light on his motives and intentions; I think he's a really nice guy, and he doesn't deserve being badmouthed for his actions or being accused of being deliberately disruptive. This doesn't mean I'm defending his actions, but I think he just needs a little bit of social guidance, if you see what I mean. I am certainly glad that he is still around, and I'm sure he will continue to make valuable contributions in the future.
Perl is a nice guy who isn't deliberately disruptive. He's just impulsive, has little understanding of the effect his actions will have on other people, and is unwilling accept criticism. He might be nice, he might be sincere, but I'm afraid I don't trust him with adminship.
-- Tim Starling
As a matter of fact, I also had (long ago, during the "Mother Teresa" affair, when he was "Aplank" and turned into "Alexandros") a long talk with him (several) and I want to stress that I have the strong feeling that he has always acted in good faith, although he has repeatedly misbehaved (in an objective sense, that is). This is what prevents me to promote him (vote for him) to be a sysop right now. I also think he needs a long time to prove his ability to manage complicated affairs.
I hope he is reading this mail list.
Pedro.
* Tim Starling ts4294967296@hotmail.com [2004-04-13]:
Timwi wrote:
I might add that I have had a rather insightful talk with him about it and from it I gained the impression that he has now come to understand the inappropriateness of sock puppets and has agreed to stop reincarnating. I believe him this, and I also believe that his previous actions were - from his point of view - in good faith (I know this is difficult to appreciate for some). I have the strong impression that he never meant to hurt anyone's feelings or to make anyone feel cheated or deceived, and it seems to me that he now understands that this is what he has caused, and so he stopped.
I also believe that if he had been granted adminship, he would only have applied the privileges in good faith (he certainly never caused any damange on the Maori Wikipedia or Wikibooks). Nevertheless, of course, in the light of the circumstances, it is difficult to trust his good faith, which is why I voted against him in the hope that he wouldn't view it as hostility against him.
I hope this shed some light on his motives and intentions; I think he's a really nice guy, and he doesn't deserve being badmouthed for his actions or being accused of being deliberately disruptive. This doesn't mean I'm defending his actions, but I think he just needs a little bit of social guidance, if you see what I mean. I am certainly glad that he is still around, and I'm sure he will continue to make valuable contributions in the future.
Perl is a nice guy who isn't deliberately disruptive. He's just impulsive, has little understanding of the effect his actions will have on other people, and is unwilling accept criticism. He might be nice, he might be sincere, but I'm afraid I don't trust him with adminship.
-- Tim Starling
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Tim Starling wrote
Timwi wrote:
I hope this shed some light on his motives and intentions; I think he's a really nice guy, and he doesn't deserve being badmouthed for his actions or being accused of being deliberately disruptive. This doesn't mean I'm defending his actions, but I think he just needs a little bit of social guidance, if you see what I mean. I am certainly glad that he is still around, and I'm sure he will continue to make valuable contributions in the future.
Perl is a nice guy who isn't deliberately disruptive. He's just impulsive, has little understanding of the effect his actions will have on other people, and is unwilling accept criticism. He might be nice, he might be sincere, but I'm afraid I don't trust him with adminship.
Funny that just after I read this, he made a request to be an admin at Wikisource, saying
I'm a sysop on wikibooks and I would like to also have that status here. I frequently transwiki things from wikibooks and I would like to be able to delete accidental pages that I create without needing to list them.
If I look at his contributions, I don't even have to scroll to see them all. There's nothing controversial in that list. A willingness on his part to participate in discussions might be my first criterion before acting.
Until at least one other Wikisourceror has noticed his request, I guess I haven't really noticed it either. :-)
Ec
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org