[Wikipedia-l] Admins (I suspect LMS) permanently deleting things without reason

[Tim Chambers]

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