[WikiEN-l] More AfD toxicity

Steve Bennett stevage at gmail.com
Fri Feb 10 16:23:21 UTC 2006

  To slightly play devil's advocate, I was recently playing with the
anti vandalism tools and several times came across new articles that
had been created. One was [[Gortex]], clearly a mis-spelling for
[[Gore-Tex]]. So I wiped it and replaced it with a redirect. Fair
enough, right?

Another was an apparent copyvio - I added a copyvio template. Still ok?

Then I came across [[GoogLunaPlex]] (sp?) It sounded like some sort of
April Fool's joke or hoax or something. I put {deletebecause|probably
hoax} or something on it. The trouble is, I wasn't really sure. What
would be nice if there was a tag that said "At first glance, this is
junk. Can someone please check this, and either remove this template,
or complete the nomination". Instead, the only tag I know of basically
says "This evil piece of trash needs to die now".

Hence your hurt feelings.

There are a lot of crap articles that created. I don't think tagging
them for deletion is necessarily "assuming bad faith" - I believe the
Gortex example was an editor working in good faith. It's simply a
necessarily brusque way of dealing with a large number of articles of
questionable worth.

I did come across another article called "Hook-catch" or something
which I probably could have given your description of "apparent nn
selfref neologism." It sounded like some term that a couple of kids
had made up to describe getting their genitals caught in something -
at first glance. I labelled it for deletion, but again, would have
been very happy for someone to unlabel it if they had the faintest
clue what it was actually about.


On 2/10/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> This morning I began the process of writing [[cart00ney]] (with two
> zeros).  I saved my work when I got up to refill my coffee, and when I
> returned, [[User:Savidan]] had nominated my incomplete stub for deletion
> with the cryptic reason "apparent nn selfref neologism."  The article
> had existed for a grand total of nine (9) minutes.  Savidan made no
> attempt to contact me, and made no effort to discuss the obviously
> in-progress article on its talk page.
> Perhaps the full article would still be an "apparent nn selfref
> neologism," whatever that is.  Perhaps the full article would deserve to
> be obliterated with all the contempt that the AfD regulars regularly
> heap on articles they don't understand or simply dislike.  Perhaps it
> would belong in Wikipedia.  You'll never know now.  Nine (9) minutes
> after it was begun, Savidan eagerly began the process of destroying it
> before its creation had completed.
> I don't really think we needed further demonstrations of the
> disgustingly toxic assumptions of bad faith that are inextricably
> integral to the entire AfD process, but I will take this opportunity to
> thank Savidan for yet another demonstration of how despicable it is.
> - --
>  Sean Barrett     | Careful. We don't want to
>  sean at epoptic.org | learn from this. --Calvin
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> iD8DBQFD7LcPMAt1wyd9d+URAtJMAJ9xLtS51w8hdfghMtSTT24rB11OOQCfYym7
> u5pBgyHNRl3q4+N10pBbQG4=
> =9qCT
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list