[WikiEN-l] Before reverting blanking, please read the text

[Parker Peters]

On 10/19/06, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> --- "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Matt R wrote:
> > > --- "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> And the other /other/ take-home message is that if you're going to
> > >> revert someone, and they revert back, discuss it with them! I'm sick
> and
> > >> tired of finding user accounts with many many contributions which
> were
> > >> all reverted as "vandalism", and yet there is nothing on their talk
> page.
> > >
> > > Discussing is good practice in most situations, but I think in this
> type of
> > > instance the onus is on the blanker to provide some reason. If a new
> user
> > > blanks an article without explanation, the odds are overwhelming that
> it's
> > > vandalism (or a test, or whatever). Just revert; it's simply not worth
> the
> > time
> > > to drop a note with such odds. Moreover, it's very likely is that
> someone
> > with
> > > a genuine reason to blank the article will communicate his reason very
> > shortly
> > > thereafter (did that happen in this case?)
>
> >
> >
> > If by "send a private email to the contact address of last resort" you
> > mean "communicate their reason", well, yeah. Not the most effective
> > method, though; it would have been far better if the person who reverted
> > had left a simple {{blanking}} on their talk page:
>
> Even better, of course, would have been for the person to have used (say)
> the
> edit summary box to give some indication of why they were blanking an
> encyclopedia article. I really do feel that the onus is on them to give
> some
> reason for their drastic action, which is otherwise indistinguishable from
> hundreds of similar acts of vandalism a day.
>

Yes, because every new user can instantly find without any trouble at all
every one of our miscellaneous and contradictory policies, procedures, and
history on every bit of trivial drama that's ever occurred on Wikipedia, and
know exactly what they should be doing and how to go about doing it.

You do realize how completely stupid you sound, right?

This is a textbook example of watching wikipedians ignore AGF and not bother
to communicate with someone. I suggested all new accounts should receive the
welcome message planted on the new username's talk page, rather than waiting
for another editor to do it and I mean it.

For chrissakes, people, we need to give new editors the tools and
information and make it EASIER for them to join in. Instead, what do we do?
We have a bunch of semi-secret policies and procedures hiding everywhere, we
speak in code, half the supposed "policies" are just something some boob
with no life came up with in order to justify his powers anyways, our
dispute resolution system is a joke, and AGF has been thrown down the
shitter in favor of Admins Rule All.