On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 09:48:16AM -0400, ClockworkSoul wrote:
I love that quote, David. :)
I think that brevity is important here, and the purpose is just to tell
them that their vote may not be counted, and not to take it personally.
Here is the exact text I used, which I think makes the point adequately:
Welcome, {{PAGENAME}}! We noticed that you placed a vote on
[[{{{1}}}]]. Participation in the community is encouraged, of
course, but your status as a brand new user means that your vote
''might not'' be counted if the administrator that tallies the votes
believes that you might be another user logged in under a second
account (a so-called "[[Wikipedia:Sock puppet|sock puppet]]").
Please understand that this is a common practice on Wikipedia, and
that it is necessary to prevent deliberate "loading" of our votes.
Of course, it's subject to change, but I really think that it should be
kept short.
I agree that it should be kept short, but I'm also of the opinion that
it should include text to the effect that "votes" are not votes per se,
and may be ignored for no other reason than the fact that they may be
considered invalid for purposes of gaining a community consensus. A
bunch of people whose only connection with Wikipedia is a VfD, and who
will likely never have anything to do with Wikipedia again aside from
that VfD and, perhaps, some vadalism, is not someone whose "vote" is
particularly valuable in a test of community consensus.
Maybe that's just me, though.
Frankly, I have little sympathy for John Cheese and his cronies. Yes,
some Wikipedians have responded to them in the same manner they've
approached the Wikipedia community. While those Wikipedian responses
are unfortunate and should be dealt with internally in much the same way
that they'd be dealt with if they were responses to other Wikipedians,
John Cheese and crew being somehow offended by this is absurd
considering their own behavior. He has come here with the sole purpose
of removing encyclopedic information from an encyclopedia, and he
somehow expects the community that maintains the encyclopedia to bow to
his wishes. I sincerely hope we wouldn't delete an entry about someone
just because that someone wishes it. Just as someone creating an entry
about himself should be chastised for creating a vanity article, John
Cheese's efforts here should be viewed as attempting a "vanity
deletion". To take up what is essentially a violent opposition to our
policies, then expect that nobody from Wikipedia will act equally
unreasonably in return, is an asinine slip in judgment: a community of
dozens has essentially declared war on a community of hundreds of
thousands, and is surprised when a handful of those hundreds of
thousands lack perfect self-control. As I said, I have little sympathy.
Keep the article, if it's in any way encyclopedic. Ignore any and all
votes from members of the PWOT community when the people voting have
only participated in Wikipedia procedures because of John Cheese's
actions, whether they vote for or against. Be courteous, but firm, with
these vandals as we should with any. Finally, and most importantly,
don't let spite motivate any of your actions in dealing with these
people.
--
Chad Perrin
[ CCD CopyWrite |
http://ccd.apotheon.org ]