> Well, let me put it this way: if someone (say, Admin Example)
> reverts a block on a given troublemaker for whatever reason,
> then the troublemaker becomes that person's (i.e. Admin
> Example's) problem. The Admin who blocked the troublemaker in
> the first place should be allowed to go on with her/his
> business on Wikipedia.
>
> That's my opinion on the matter. YMMV.
>
> Geoff
It sounds like the Admins need a coordinator or manager. I'd be happy to
volunteer for that job. (Any Admins who want me to manage them, email me
or leave me a note on my talk page.{
I've already taken on the role of Coordinator by creating and
maintaining [[Wikipedia:Account suspensions]]. It survived a vote and
has received community approval. A number of Admins have used it.
It's for those cases which are not clearcut: things other than "simple
vandalism" or "3RR violation". Anything where you're not sure enough to
do it by yourself, quietly, but you don't want to make a big arbcom
matter out of it.
Ed Poor
geni wrote:
> Arguments about AFD that will go nowhere I can live with since it
> doesn't require any new policy and doesn't have any impact on those
> who wish to avoid the debate.
Until their hard work gets trashed, of course.
"I'm not interested in politics."
"Politics is interested in you."
- d.
> About deletion: There's a simple way to avoid repeated
> run-ins with AFD. Write better articles that even hard-core
> deletionists wouldn't think of deleting. One or 2 lines more
> in a stub can make the difference between viable context or
> possible deletion candidate.
>
> --Mgm
Something else I just realized: if people want to turn your new article
into a REDIRECT or just delete it entirely, maybe it should merely be a
_section_ of another article.
Or you may have bitten off more than you can chew - as I did this week
with the evolution-creation controversy. At first I got mad and counted
off my reversions up to the 3RR limit - even started an RFC! But then I
realized that one of the 20th Century's top issues can't be summarized
so easily. It was like trying to eat an entire roast ox in one mouthful!
By the way, thanks to Guettarda and others who helped me see the size
(and some of the shape) of the topic.
Ed Poor
Former Bureaucrat
Former Developer
Uh, let's see ... Does that leave anything?
Maybe they are 1.0 grade material ;)
Check this out:
http://www.britannica.com/search?query=wikipedia+&go_button.x=9&go_button.y…
Wikipedia's not notable either ;)
Jack (Sam Spade)
> On 9/30/05, Phroziac <phroziac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have no problem with cruft. That information would be fine if it was
> > actually in an article, and not by itself.
> >
> > But....there are thousands of these things Most have little or no
> > information added to them since rambot!
>
SPUI wrote:
> I'd honestly have no problem with merging into the town, as it is a
> local landmark. It shouldn't break the GFDL even if the article is
> deleted, as the revision history is now available to all for deleted
> articles.
Probably the best way, then, to work around the poisonous dysfunction
of xFD is to make the deletion moot by merging it into the town
article and making the name a redirect.
- d.
There definitely seems to be this ongoing argument over the way AfD is
handled, or whether or not it is being correct or accurate in its
judgements for articles to be deleted. This seems to get dredged up
once every, say, three months (along with arguments over RfA
standards) and as yet we haven't really done anything very firm about
it, except change the name of what seems to me to be a universally
hated procedure.
I think we should try to think of either how to fix AfD if it is
really as bad as we think, or if it is totally beyond repair replace
it with something better. Kim Bruning and I were discussing "pure
wiki" forms of deletion some time ago, which involved page blanking,
and Kim authored a series of experimental deletion procedures (which I
tried out for a few articles) at [[Wikipedia:Experimental deletion]].
Personally I am not so sure this is a great deal better, but it's a
start. If anyone can come up with a better process, please do add it
to the page.
To those taking issue with AfD deletions - forgive me for being an
arsehole, but {{sofixit}}. I think that rather than arguing over the
way that AfD operates, we should work towards fixing or replacing it,
using these cases where users have taken exception to AfDs as feedback
for the current process. Otherwise, we'll just be having this same
argument in three months time or so, in a sort of "Groundhog Day"
scenario. :-) And we all know how unproductive arguments can be on
Wikipedia.
Best regards,
-- Nick, [[User:NicholasTurnbull]]
SPUI wrote:
>David Gerard wrote:
>> It says *what*? Remove that promptly. If you don't want to, I will.
>I would if I wasn't blocked for 3RR.
Bah. *waves* I had a look at the paragraph in the page and it doesn't
make sense. It barely makes sense in context of the talk page. I can't
see what to remove, but it needs an addition because it is not tne
whole important bits of the story.
- d.
SPUI wrote:
>David Gerard wrote:
>> Probably the best way, then, to work around the poisonous dysfunction
>> of xFD is to make the deletion moot by merging it into the town
>> article and making the name a redirect.
>Lucky me - I'd already done that for the ones that have been deleted,
>despite the guide to VFD warning against it! Ah, the joy of cheating the
>system.
It says *what*? Remove that promptly. If you don't want to, I will.
That will have been put there by some idjit who feels a burning need
to hamper the operation of Wikipedia for the sake of a
higher-throughput deletion procedure. Bollocks to that - merging
content is always an option.
>Now all we need is someone complaining that it shouldn't be in
>the town article, but at least that can't be brushed under the rug with
>vfd, just a nice healthy revert war.
Let's see if it's started by someone who *just happens* to be a VFD habitue.
- d.
>Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 06:38:26 -0400
>From: SPUI <drspui(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Crap vfd nominations
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <433D15A2.2010605(a)gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1;
>format=flowed
>So is this b------- voting.
It is when you can't access voting pages because of
being blocked.
- and then, if while you are still blocked and the
argument is progressing, so to keep up with it fairly
you announce your intentions on your userpage, there's
a chance it will offend an admin who for it will block
you further. Saying that announcing your intentions
consitutes making attacks on other users and defending
yourself constitutes making legal threats.
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com