At 12:32 PM 6/23/2003, you wrote:
At 12:13 23/06/2003 -0700, Dante wrote:
I'm not saying that this is a bannable
offense, but it certainly is
quesitonable. PP seems to have singlehandedly removed another user's vote
from [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/vote]].
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_…
Note, the edit comment read: "(should a user with only one edit really
get a vote? )"
Just for the record, what was meant by the summary was that the person
whose vote was removed had made only one other edit apart from that vote.
I think that Pizza Puzzle had a point here - it would be easy for somebody
to rig a vote by creating lots of new usernames and voting with each of
them (I'm not saying that's what was going on here by the way, this is
just a general observation). People who are interested in voting as a
decision-making process probably need to discuss this and come up with
some sort of policy.
One could say that whatever the case, PP removing the vote in question
without discussion was wrong. Then again, one could argue he was just
being bold in updating pages, and that it's not beyond anybody to
reinstate the vote.
Lee (Camembert)
WikiKarma: [[Grimshaw]]
I don't think it would be fair to characterize him as "bold in updating"
the page. He removed another user's vote unilaterally. Whether or not the
length of a user's edit history SHOULD be relevant, policy-wise, it isn't
currently convention. As I understand it, one typically updates pages based
on convention... it is "dangerous" to engage in such controversial activity
with neither convention nor discussion in support.
That being said, as I stated previously, I'm not supporting a ban on PP,
just saying that his action on the above page was perhaps relevant to the
pre-existing discussion.
-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri(a)digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
-Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321