Persons have recently taken to deleting pages totally (i.e. with the admin delete command) without any justification or even prior discussion as to why they are doing this. Pages that were deleted include [[Reasons for deleting page titles]], [[Wikipedia vandalism]], [[Vandalism/Talk]], TheCunctator's subpage of [[Wikipedia commentary]] listing pages that were deleted (unfortuantely I can't remember what its title was), and I don't know what else.
Unfortunately, when someone uses the admin delete command no public record is kept of what they deleted, so I don't know who did it. But I strongly suspect LMS. He insists he did not delete [[Reasons for deleting page titles]], and I'll have to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. However, he said on [[Reasons for deleting page titles]] (a statement he later deleted from that page) that "I have indeed deleted several other pages though" and that he didn't know who had deleted that page. Why did he make these statements and then retract them? Did he mistakenly think he had deleted several other pages, or is he just unwilling to admit what he had done? And why did he delete the statement that he didn't know who did? Was it that he discovered who did it, but isn't willing to say so?
I have tried to raise this issue with him on Wikipedia, but beyond "I did not delete this page", he has had nothing more to say. I tried to raise the issue with him on [[Larry Sanger]], but all he did was delete my comment. When one is accused of deleting things without justification, deleting the accusation only lends credence to it.
Simon J Kissane
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com
--- Simon Kissane sj_kissane@yahoo.com wrote:
Persons have recently taken to deleting pages totally (i.e. with the admin delete command) without any justification or even prior discussion as to why they are doing this.
Sigh. Seems that all Wikipedians are equal, but some are more equal than others after all.
I'm eager to hear how Larry and Jimbo weigh in on this recent development. It marks a draconian twist in the evolution of the 'pedia. But as for me, I'll ignore this quasi-fartboy behavior and will keep my eye on our goal to create an encyclopedia.
This is a blow to the harmony of the Wikipedia community, but until the conflict gets resolves, there is a simple response that keeps all sides of the disagreement engaged -- at least until the anonymous perpetrator speaks up: the authors of controversial topics ("controversial" defined by the type of pages being deleted) should keep a copy of the source of their pages on their personal computers. They could also be mirrored at another site so they can be shared. I started a list at http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OtherUseModWikis. Pick one.
Jimbo, I'd especially appreciate hearing from you whether Bomis is willing to host a meta-wiki where page content can diverge from the Wikipedia objective.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com
Tim,
As you know, on nearly all issues, I am content simply to state my opinion and then let the cards fall where they may. Things usually work out reasonably well that way. But, in fact, I do have more authority on this project than do others. So does Jimbo, of course. On issue of more importance, when a controversial or important decision must be made, my role in this project is to make it (or delegate it) and, if necessary, to defend it (or to justify it in advance). As you also know, in such situations I usually do my best to get an idea of what the community consensus is, and my decision is almost always, if not always, to express that consensus.
Tim, I completely reject the notion that the issue raised by Simon's post constitutes "a blow to the harmony of the Wikipedia community." I honestly think most people don't care about the situation. I think they understand that I was engaged in an "edit war" with The Cunctator and Simon, who mistakenly think it is *important* (that it will actually achieve something of importance, other than a bit of "heat and noise") to test and to call into question the limits of my authority. That's what they've been doing lately. I think most Wikipedians are of the opinion that I should be given at least as much authority as I have taken upon myself, and that stunts by people who are doing their best to question that *small* bit of authority that I have asserted are not particularly interesting.
This situation is of course made all the more absurd because I have *always* shown myself to be sensitive to the opinions of others-- particularly when they are expressed politely. And nearly everybody knows this. I know full well, by the way, that this is what makes it so much fun to press my buttons: I have been responding in earnest. I don't want to change in that respect, but if I have to, I will have to moderate the sensitivity of my responses in order to stop wasting my time.
I do reserve the right to permanently delete things--particularly when they have little merit and when they are posted by people whose main motive is evidently to undermine my authority and therefore, as far as I'm concerned, damage the project. Now suppose that, in my experience, if I make an attempt to justify this or other sorts of decisions, the people in question will simply co-opt huge amounts of my time and will never simply say, "Larry, you win; we realize that this decision is up to you, and we'll have to respect it." Then, in order to preserve my time and sanity, I have to act like an autocrat. In a way, I am being trained to act like an autocrat. It's rather clever in a way--if you think college-level stunts are clever. Frankly, it's hurting the project, guys--so stop it, already. Just write articles--please!
I confidently predict that in the indefinite future, there will be other somewhat similar situations, in which people's pages are deleted and the injured parties will demand justice in a public forum. Then I will, of course, be accused of acting like an autocrat. In many cases, these accusations will be raised by teenagers and college students with too much time on their hands, and by intelligent people with mental problems whether moderate or serious. These people could indeed co-opt my time and that of everyone else, if we let them. The situation will only get worse with time, if we let it. But we shouldn't let this happen.
In such situations, I'm going to have to trust that you will trust that I am acting in the best interests of Wikipedia, and indeed not abusing my authority.
(Recently some people have written in to give me such support. I do not regard this as a blank check. I regard it as a serious responsibility.)
Larry
P.S. Those of you who are still paying attention must be tired of me making these sorts of speeches. I'm very sorry, it's tiresome to me, too, but it *is* necessary. Hopefully, all such unpleasantness will be behind us very soon.
LMS wrote:
...On issue of more importance, when a controversial or important decision must be made, my role in this project is to make it (or delegate it) and, if necessary, to defend it (or to justify it in advance).
Hmm. The pages Simon mentions don't seem controversial to me, nor do I believe they're important. But he said they were deleted with extreme prejudice, and that's what I went on record to protest. It wasn't my content, so I'm not going to fight for it. It's gone. But your reply doesn't shed light on the mystery. I guess I have to go on record, too, to say that I am not questioning your authority. I greatly appreciate the role you play.
I completely reject the notion that the issue raised by Simon's post constitutes "a blow to the harmony of the Wikipedia community." ... stunts by people who are doing their best to question that *small* bit of authority that I have asserted are not particularly interesting.
If you completely reject it, then it seems you are rejecting the contribution that Simon, TheCunctator, and I bring to the community. It certainly matters in a personal way to the former two, and it matters to me on the basis of principle.
Larry, the mystery remains. Who deleted the pages mentioned by Simon, and why? If it wasn't you (as in one case he says you already stated that it wasn't), then what's your point here? And if it was, then why "waste time" talking in generalities? Simon raised specific issues. True, the generalities are important as a matter of policy, but I don't think Simon cares about that right now. I know that I wouldn't if I couldn't figure out who was trashing ''my'' work.
...In such situations, I'm going to have to trust that you will trust that I am acting in the best interests of Wikipedia, and indeed not abusing my authority.
If I knew in precisely which situations you had exerted your authority, I would have a basis for trust. As it stands, all I know is this:
1. You will delete pages when you deem it to be in the 'pedia's best interests. I have no problem with this. I haven't written anything similar to ''any'' of the deleted content in question.
2. Someone is deleting content, but no one knows why because that individual hasn't explained his or her motives. The content doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to the goals of Wikipedia, as held by "consensus" of the community, so only two Wikipedians seem to be directly affected.
The consequence is this: if I have any doubt whatsoever about whether content that I create for Wikipedia is relevant to its goals, I'll be keeping a copy on my personal computer. Not a big deal. But it is, indeed, a blow to community harmony that I have to resort to such tactics.
Jimbo wrote:
Jimbo, I'd especially appreciate hearing from you whether Bomis is willing to host a meta-wiki where page content can diverge from the Wikipedia objective.
Absolutely!
Thanks. Looking forward to the announcement of the URL.
Dave McKee wrote:
I hope these problems can be sorted out in an adult and businesslike manner, and that any mistakes or omissions are learnt from.
Ditto.
"I say we take off, and nuke the site from orbit. Its the only way to be sure." -- Ellen Ripley, "Aliens"
References: http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-November/000700.html http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-November/000701.html http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-November/000702.html http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-November/000704.html http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-November/000705.html
There is a "delete this page" function in the PHP wikipedia, for "privileged" users only. As I anticipate this to be a problem for some "normal" users, as demonstrated here, I added an automatic log page to that function ([[Log:Page Deletions]]). Every permanent page deletion via that function will be recorder there, with date and user name, and will show on the "Recent Changes" page.
I demonstrated it at http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml?title=special:RecentChanges with the old "Feature Requests" page, for those who'd like an example.
The log page cannot be edited by *anyone* via the web interface. Of course, I cannot prevent the direct edit of the database.
Magnus Manske
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com]On Behalf Of lsanger@nupedia.com Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 1:53 AM To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Admins (I suspect LMS) permanently deleting things without reason
I'll reply again tomorrow.
Larry
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
There is a "delete this page" function in the PHP wikipedia, for "privileged" users only. As I anticipate this to be a problem for some "normal" users, as demonstrated here, I added an automatic log page to that function ([[Log:Page Deletions]]). Every permanent page deletion via that function will be recorder there, with date and user name, and will show on the "Recent Changes" page.
I demonstrated it at http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml?title=special:RecentChanges with the old "Feature Requests" page, for those who'd like an example.
The log page cannot be edited by *anyone* via the web interface. Of course, I cannot prevent the direct edit of the database.
Now that feature addition is the kind I like!
I still think documentation is crucial, but I hope you can understand why I don't feel welcome to contribute to anything regarding Wikipedia any more, at least publicly.
If possible, you might want to set up a bugzilla.
yours, The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com
"Magnus Manske" Magnus.Manske@epost.de writes:
There is a "delete this page" function in the PHP wikipedia, for "privileged" users only.
Why only for them? A normal user can make the page empty after all. If we're going to remove the biggest disadvantages of page deletion (that is, removal of the page history, including the notion of the deletion itself), it is no problem to give this privilege to everyone.
As Jimbo pointed out, deleting a page is better than turning it empty.
Pages that cannot be edited by normal users are of course exempt.
An "expunge" command that removes a page and all history, just as the current delete operation does may or may not be necessary. If implemented, it should probably be combined with blacklisting the page title so that creating a page with same name is prohibited until further notice.
Tim Chambers wrote:
Jimbo, I'd especially appreciate hearing from you whether Bomis is willing to host a meta-wiki where page content can diverge from the Wikipedia objective.
Absolutely!
I'm investigating the page deletion "allegations" (are they allegations, or just the usual argumentative give and take?).
Some of the issues here are complicated and will not admit of any really easy answers. If someone starts using the main wikipedia namespace for stuff that doesn't really belong there, we need to move it out. By "we" I mean all of us. But the problem is that we won't always all agree.
"rough consensus and running code"...
It is possible that in testing the page deletion command, I had something to do with all of this. I was looking at some of these pages, fiddling with some other windows, and editing the URL line. I may have made a mistake at some point and in seeking to look at one of these pages, deleted it by accident. I am not specifically aware of doing this, but it is possible.
If it's really important, there should be no problem in re-creating these pages, and I hope that a mistake of mine didn't cause anyone any undue convenience.
I have never intentionally deleted anything other than a test page, and really have no plans to ever do so myself.
Pages that were deleted include [[Reasons for deleting page titles]], [[Wikipedia vandalism]], [[Vandalism/Talk]], TheCunctator's subpage of [[Wikipedia commentary]] listing pages that were deleted (unfortuantely I can't remember what its title was), and I don't know what else.
The following are really misnamed, and should at least be moved to: [[Wikipedia/Reasons for deleting page titles]] [[Wikipedia/Vandalism]] [[Wikipedia/Vandalism_Talk]] or something like this.
Certainly the mixing, on [[Vandalism]] of the general concept of vandalism and wikipedia-specific vandalism is probably not appropriate. A customer looking for information about vandalism -- perhaps statistics on vandalism, the history of vandalism, the story of the original vandal tribes, etc., is not looking for information about wikipedia vandalism.
LMS. He insists he did not delete [[Reasons for deleting page titles]], and I'll have to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. However, he said on [[Reasons for deleting page titles]] (a statement he later deleted from that page) that "I have indeed deleted several other pages though" and that he didn't know who had deleted that page. Why did he make these statements and then retract them? Did he mistakenly think he had deleted several other pages, or is he just unwilling to admit what he had done?
I think it is not co-operative of you to suggest that he's "unwilling to admit". :-) Let's assume that I did it, by sheer accident, and let's accept my apology for any pain that I have caused, and let's all move on. I will help to restore the pages.
--Jimbo
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I think it is not co-operative of you to suggest that he's "unwilling to admit". :-) Let's assume that I did it, by sheer accident, and let's accept my apology for any pain that I have caused, and let's all move on. I will help to restore the pages.
I agree with this analysis of the situation.
I'll compose a (publicly-editable, of course) page about what basic policies we will follow in deleting pages permanently.
Frankly, the last two weeks have been unusually unpleasant for me, and this situation must stop. My continuing to add, indeed, detailed replies does nothing but continue the unpleasantness, so I'm going to issue the following blanket apology:
I'm *truly* sorry for any unjustified contribution I have made to the flame-ridden atmosphere of Wikipedia in recent weeks, and I fully acknowledge that there are a number of issues that I could have handled more diplomatically, tactfully, and with greater friendliness and good will.
In the future I will try to do better in all respects; being a fallible human, however, I can guarantee that I will make mistakes.
Larry Sanger
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org