Tony Sidaway wrote:
> It's a stick of dynamite. If for the sake of the project you need to do
> something and the rules are in the way, you may take it upon yourself to
> emply the dynamite.
> If when the smoke clears there is agreement that things are better than they
> would have been otherwise, there may be a little polite applause. Otherwise
> you'd better just reverse what you did, apologise, and move on.
Indeed. From [[m:Bash]]:
<Tony_Sidaway> What did Ed do, exactly? Delete VfD?
<DavidGerard> yep.
<DavidGerard> deleted vfd.
<DavidGerard> :-O
<DavidGerard> just the front index page, not the daily pages ;-)
<Tony_Sidaway> Hmmm. I had no idea this little VfD would become a cause
celebre.
<Tony_Sidaway> "You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!"
- d.
> Due to a widespread confusion regarding the
> application of IAR as a policy, rather than simply an
> informal guideline, I propose deleting the third leg
> of the so-called policy trifecta.
*Fuck* no. You think the rules lawyers are a plague now?
- d.
Phroziac wrote:
"They're halfway decent stubs, but we really don't need a lot of one
line articles, and we probably really didn't loose anything by
deleting them."
We probably should not be speedying "halfway decent stubs". Speedy
deletion is supposedly for complete junk, stuff that cannot be salvaged by
editing because it shouldn't be on Wikipedia in the first place. Thanks
for undeleting the Alberta lake one.
Actually on "one-line articles", my preference is for articles (or at
least article intros) that can fit into the first screen. This is an
internet encyclopedia and if you can't say something useful in the first
paragraph then the reader will wander off to another site. If an article
can be written well as a single sentence, I think that's a good
thing--indeed an ideal to aim for.
My tongue is only half-way inside my cheek. I think there's the germ of a
good idea here, that has been lost in the quest for "featured articles",
which in my opinion are often unsuited to the format. For instance
today's front page contains an article about the Krag-Petersson repeating
rifle which doesn't manage to give any dates at all until the second
paragraph (and then only the date of adoption by the Norwegian Navy),
although the most significant thing about the rifle is that it was "the
first repeating rifle adopted by the armed forces of Norway" How did the
editors manage to miss the date out of the first sentence? How did it
pass FA in that state?
DF wrote:
>>>Maybe having the fluffy stuff is good too, but if IAR
>>>is going to be a core principle is should more clearly
>>>state when and why admins choose to ignore all rules.
>>>
>>>
It is effectively impossible to anticipate in advance the circumstances
and reasons in which "Ignore all rules" would apply. That's in the very
nature of the statement and a key reason for its existence.
This is not to deny that attempts to invoke the principle must have a
supporting rationale when the situation presents itself. The fact that
the page closes by saying "ignore all rules...including this one" should
be a clear signal that as policies go, the principle is a flimsy twig
and will not serve to justify anything by itself.
Incidentally, I would also point out that the application of "Ignore all
rules" does not limit itself to the actions of administrators.
--Michael Snow
I have written a proposal which basically suggests blanking protected
pages, and leaving a template on them that kinda combines
{{protected}} and {{twoversions}}. You can see it at [[WP:NVP]], or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_version_protection
Please keep discussion of this on the relevant talk page, to avoid
fragmentation.
On 9/19/05, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On the contrary. IAR is crucial to Wikipedia,
> because it allows us a "common sense override".
> This means that we can always act in the best
> interests of the encyclopaedia, even when it is not
> directly allowed in policy.
>
> IAR is a vital part of the "Wiki" part of
> Wikipedia, just as NPOV is vital to the "pedia".
I agree with the principle that common sense should
trump bureaucracy, etc., but I have never really liked
the way that IAR is expressed. (When was the last
time the average person read it, really?) The current
text reads:
If rules make you nervous and depressed, then simply
use common sense as you go about working on the
encyclopedia. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause
you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is
best to ignore all rules... including this one.
This sounds like the kind of thing one would feed to a
newbie to help them relax, despite which I have never
seen a newbie cite it. By contrast there are plenty
of admins who will cite IAR to justify various
actions. I would like to hope that none of them were
doing it because they were "nervous or confused". As
a policy statement, IAR really ought to say something
more along the lines of: The ultimate goal of
Wikipedia is create an encyclopedia. The community
may choose to ignore any rules if they happen to
conflict with this goal.
Maybe having the fluffy stuff is good too, but if IAR
is going to be a core principle is should more clearly
state when and why admins choose to ignore all rules.
-DF
On 9/19/05, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>One of the major subtexts of IAR is that policy is
there to help write an encyclopedia; if policy gets in
the way of that, policy is and should be ignored.
And why is that subtext, and not say in the text of
the text? That is the essence of the point I was
trying to make before.
-DF
It was my understanding that they could... or am I wrong?
--Ryan
> From: geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Re: Desysopping inactive admins
>
> On 9/19/05, Ryan W. (Merovingian) <bigwiki(a)earthling.net> wrote:
> > As Phrozaic pointed out, inactive admins are theoretically much
> > less of targets for account hijackers. Nevertheless, I am in
> > full support of more bureaucrats.
> >
> > --Ryan
> >
>
> since when could they de-admin people?
>
>
> --
> geni
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.comhttp://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
Thanks for clearing that up. I think we should have either more stewards, or give bureaucrats the ability to desysop, assuming, of course, that stewards have other things to attend to. The English Wikipedia seems to be the largest, and may be a special case, no?
--Ryan
> From: geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Desysopping inactive
> admins
>
> On 9/19/05, Ryan W. (Merovingian) <bigwiki(a)earthling.net> wrote:
> > It was my understanding that they could... or am I wrong?
> >
> > --Ryan
>
> Removeing is stewards only. There is a case for more stewards but I
> don't think there will be another election for a while.
> --
> geni
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.comhttp://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
This only went to steve, oops.
On 9/19/05, Phroziac <phroziac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> But IAR is *good*. We aren't overly legalistic, bureaucratic, etc.
>
> On 9/19/05, steve v <vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Due to a widespread confusion regarding the
> > application of IAR as a policy, rather than simply an
> > informal guideline, I propose deleting the third leg
> > of the so-called policy trifecta.
> >
> > NPOV was always the prime directive, and some tussles
> > we came up with the word "civility"(*) to shape a good
> > secondary. The third leg, although necessary to
> > satisfy the requirements of standing furniture and
> > designated "trifecta" was never quite as clear.
> > Perhaps we should vote if there is actually a third,
> > and if so what that should be. Drawing from a list of
> > actual policy, of course and not just this "flimsy
> > whimsy trumps policy history" nonsense.
> >
> > SV
> > *
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-October/007069.html
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
>