Lauritsen speedy deletion?? - WikiEN-l - lists.wikimedia.org

List overview All Threads
Download

Lauritsen speedy deletion??

Deletion and the Sabbath (was...

Arbitration Committee members...

Brown, Darin

16 Nov 2005 16 Nov '05

11:04 p.m.

[[John Lauritsen]] was recently nominated for speedy deletion by some ignorant moron. SPEEDY deletion. Absolutely unbelievable. How many more cases do we have to show?? darin

Reply

Show replies by date

Sam Korn

16 Nov 16 Nov

11:24 p.m.

On 11/16/05, Brown, Darin <Darin.Brown(a)enmu.edu> wrote:

[[John Lauritsen]] was recently nominated for speedy deletion by some ignorant moron. SPEEDY deletion. Absolutely unbelievable. How many more cases do we have to show??

Unless you say what you are trying to prove, probably quite a few. Sam

Reply

MacGyverMagic/Mgm

11:28 p.m.

Yes, the speedy was probably by someone who wasn't well informed. You can avoid it by adding sources and expanding the entry so it's no longer a 2-sentence stub. On 11/17/05, Brown, Darin <Darin.Brown(a)enmu.edu> wrote:

[[John Lauritsen]] was recently nominated for speedy deletion by some ignorant moron. SPEEDY deletion. Absolutely unbelievable. How many more cases do we have to show?? darin _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

M. Creidieki Crouch

11:49 p.m.

[[John Lauritsen]] was recently nominated for speedy deletion by some ignorant moron. SPEEDY deletion. Absolutely unbelievable. How many more cases do we have to show??

I assume you're making an argument against the "no claim of notability" speedy criterion? The current article doesn't state notability; it mentions only profession. Being an activist or journalist aren't notable enough to merit automatic inclusion. So [[John Lauritsen]] seems to qualify. -- Creidieki

Reply

Tony Sidaway

21 Nov 21 Nov

11:39 a.m.

On 11/16/05, M. Creidieki Crouch <creidieki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

[[John Lauritsen]] was recently nominated for speedy deletion by some ignorant moron. SPEEDY deletion. Absolutely unbelievable. How many more cases do we have to show??

I assume you're making an argument against the "no claim of notability" speedy criterion? The current article doesn't state notability; it mentions only profession. Being an activist or journalist aren't notable enough to merit automatic inclusion. So [[John Lauritsen]] seems to qualify.

CSD A7 doesn't excuse a RC patroller being too lazy to do any research.

Reply

Sam Korn

5:57 p.m.

On 11/21/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:

CSD A7 doesn't excuse a RC patroller being too lazy to do any research.

Actually, Tony, I disagree. It requires the admin to do nothing more than read the article and decide whether there is a claim of notability. If there is not, it is a speedy candidate. Research is a ridiculous requirement for admins at peak time. Work is hard enough as it is. -- Sam

Reply

Tony Sidaway

11 p.m.

On 11/21/05, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote: Research is a

ridiculous requirement for admins at peak time. Work is hard enough as it is.

I cannot believe that a Wikipedia editor is seriously suggesting that research is too much to ask. Please reconsider.

Reply

Sam Korn

11:11 p.m.

On 11/21/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I cannot believe that a Wikipedia editor is seriously suggesting that research is too much to ask. Please reconsider.

Please attempt RC patrol at ~12-1am UTC on a weekday. Then you will see what I mean. -- Sam

Reply

Tony Sidaway

11:42 p.m.

On 11/21/05, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/21/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I cannot believe that a Wikipedia editor is seriously suggesting that research is too much to ask. Please reconsider.

Please attempt RC patrol at ~12-1am UTC on a weekday. Then you will see what I mean.

Is research more difficult to perform during those hours for some reason? Is Google less accessible, perhaps, or do your arms tire and becom unable to lift books from the shelf and open them? Assuming that both of those circumstances pertain, perhaps you should refrain from performing RC patrol at that time of day. Especially if it may lead to your deletion of articles without bothering to perform any research.

Reply

Ray Saintonge

22 Nov 22 Nov

8:35 a.m.

Tony Sidaway wrote:

On 11/21/05, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/21/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I cannot believe that a Wikipedia editor is seriously suggesting that research is too much to ask. Please reconsider.

Please attempt RC patrol at ~12-1am UTC on a weekday. Then you will see what I mean.

Is research more difficult to perform during those hours for some reason? Is Google less accessible, perhaps, or do your arms tire and becom unable to lift books from the shelf and open them? Assuming that both of those circumstances pertain, perhaps you should refrain from performing RC patrol at that time of day. Especially if it may lead to your deletion of articles without bothering to perform any research.

Midnight UTC = 1900 EST, just when the masses in that populous time zone are sitting down after dinner to spend a little computer time. Ec

Reply

Sam Korn

4:13 p.m.

On 11/21/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Is research more difficult to perform during those hours for some reason? Is Google less accessible, perhaps, or do your arms tire and becom unable to lift books from the shelf and open them? Assuming that both of those circumstances pertain, perhaps you should refrain from performing RC patrol at that time of day. Especially if it may lead to your deletion of articles without bothering to perform any research.

If pages filling the speedy criteria during those hours, I will not be doing research to rescue them. At other times, the amount of vandalism is far lower, so there's more time to research. My method is fully within policy. -- Sam

Reply

Philip Sandifer

4:23 p.m.

On Nov 22, 2005, at 11:13 AM, Sam Korn wrote:

If pages filling the speedy criteria during those hours, I will not be doing research to rescue them. At other times, the amount of vandalism is far lower, so there's more time to research. My method is fully within policy.

It is, however, wholly outside any realm of reason or what is good for the project. -Phil

Reply

Sam Korn

4:31 p.m.

On 11/22/05, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:

It is, however, wholly outside any realm of reason or what is good for the project.

The kind of page I would delete is the one that says "John Smith is a brilliant footballer. One day he's going to play in the Premiership!" That line would be speediable under A7. It is not good content that gets deleted. It is only bad stuff. -- Sam

Reply

Philip Sandifer

4:32 p.m.

On Nov 22, 2005, at 11:31 AM, Sam Korn wrote:

On 11/22/05, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:

It is, however, wholly outside any realm of reason or what is good for the project.

The kind of page I would delete is the one that says "John Smith is a brilliant footballer. One day he's going to play in the Premiership!" That line would be speediable under A7. It is not good content that gets deleted. It is only bad stuff.

But, to review, that is not what the Lauritsen article was. -Phil

Reply

Sam Korn

4:34 p.m.

On 11/22/05, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:

But, to review, that is not what the Lauritsen article was.

I wasn't talking about specifics. I can't, as I can't access Wikipedia at the moment. I was talking about the general point. -- Sam

Reply

John Lee

4:34 p.m.

Sam Korn wrote:

On 11/21/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Is research more difficult to perform during those hours for some reason? Is Google less accessible, perhaps, or do your arms tire and becom unable to lift books from the shelf and open them? Assuming that both of those circumstances pertain, perhaps you should refrain from performing RC patrol at that time of day. Especially if it may lead to your deletion of articles without bothering to perform any research.

If pages filling the speedy criteria during those hours, I will not be doing research to rescue them. At other times, the amount of vandalism is far lower, so there's more time to research. My method is fully within policy. -- Sam

This debate strikes me as being one, at its core, about eventualism versus immediatism. Tony is arguing that the encyclopedia will clean itself up eventually, and that if in doubt, it's better to leave possible CSDs alone. Sam and geni are arguing from an immediatist perspective, that if it can't be cleaned up immediately and is of no encyclopedic value *as it is now*, then it's best junked. Sam is right in that his approach is compliant with existing policy, as he is deleting articles of no encyclopedic value. Tony is also justified in saying that it may be better to clean up the article and replace the unencyclopedic material instead of outright deleting. I'd say it depends on how much time you have, and what you prioritise: an enyclopedia with minimal chance of someone hitting the random page button and receiving an article consisting of "dis d00d is kewl", or an encyclopedia where the article says "{{cleanup}} dis dood is kewl". Both types of people, IMO, should just go ahead and doing what they feel is right, as this seems to be a matter of pure personal preference. In the end, things will work out: people will come along and recreate a proper version of the article if it's deleted, and if the article was pure junk, then not much has been lost. As Dpbsmith has often said on VfD/AFD, in the long run, it matters little whether these articles are kept or deleted. Nobody should lose too much sleep, if any, over this issue. John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])

Reply

Tony Sidaway

10:37 p.m.

On 11/22/05, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gawab.com> wrote:

Tony is arguing that the encyclopedia will clean itself up eventually, and that if in doubt, it's better to leave possible CSDs alone.

You have misread me. I have simply argued that nobody should perform deletions without doing some research. I hoped that we could all agree that it is unacceptable to delete an article because you are ignorant of the subject (which is excusable) and too lazy to either do research or list on AfD (which is not excusable).

Reply

Karl A. Krueger

23 Nov 23 Nov

1:27 a.m.

On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 12:34:54AM +0800, John Lee wrote:

This debate strikes me as being one, at its core, about eventualism versus immediatism. Tony is arguing that the encyclopedia will clean itself up eventually, and that if in doubt, it's better to leave possible CSDs alone. Sam and geni are arguing from an immediatist perspective, that if it can't be cleaned up immediately and is of no encyclopedic value *as it is now*, then it's best junked. Sam is right in that his approach is compliant with existing policy, as he is deleting articles of no encyclopedic value. Tony is also justified in saying that it may be better to clean up the article and replace the unencyclopedic material instead of outright deleting.

Well, of course it's best to replace the unencyclopedic material with encyclopedic material. But sometimes the best is the enemy of the good. (If you insist that a person not do _anything_ to help a situation if they can't do the _best_ thing, then you decrease dramatically the likelihood that anyone will do anything to help at all.) It is certainly _good_ (although not best) to speedily delete "dis d00d is kewl" articles, because they drag down the overall quality of the encyclopedia. Because doing so is good, it is not merely acceptable but also to be encouraged ... when a better alternative is not convenient. (Remember, just because a junk article is speedied *doesn't* mean that a non-junk article under the same title will be deleted. Deleting junk doesn't get in the way of creating value.) And junk articles aren't merely of "no encyclopedic value" -- they are of _negative_ value to the encyclopedia, just as vandalism, spam, or attack pages are. Removing "dis d00d is kewl" or "your mom so gay" articles is an active improvement and should be encouraged by everyone who cares about retaining and including more value in the project. -- Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger(a)whoi.edu>

Reply

geni

1:45 a.m.

On 11/22/05, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gawab.com> wrote:

This debate strikes me as being one, at its core, about eventualism versus immediatism. Tony is arguing that the encyclopedia will clean itself up eventually, and that if in doubt, it's better to leave possible CSDs alone. Sam and geni are arguing from an immediatist perspective, that if it can't be cleaned up immediately and is of no encyclopedic value *as it is now*, then it's best junked.

Oh nothing that simple. Eventualism gives two ways to analyise the situation: Leveing rubish doesn't matter becuase it will improve Deleting rubish doesn't matter becuase there will be plently more along in five minutes. Thus eventualism doesn't ultimately support either side. -- geni

Reply

Brian Haws

2:48 a.m.

--- geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/22/05, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gawab.com> wrote:

This debate strikes me as being one, at its core,

about eventualism

versus immediatism. Tony is arguing that the

encyclopedia will clean

itself up eventually, and that if in doubt, it's

better to leave

possible CSDs alone. Sam and geni are arguing from

an immediatist

perspective, that if it can't be cleaned up

immediately and is of no

encyclopedic value *as it is now*, then it's best

junked. Oh nothing that simple. Eventualism gives two ways to analyise the situation: Leveing rubish doesn't matter becuase it will improve Deleting rubish doesn't matter becuase there will be plently more along in five minutes. Thus eventualism doesn't ultimately support either side. -- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

But eventualism does support a tag and bag system...during high volume periods, if garbage gets through, the vast majority of it will end up in orphan or lonelypage special pages. Now, there's a large backlog there but they are filtered in that way and can be examined, they are not lost in the vastness of Wikipedia. (if I understand those special pages correctly) I see invalid speedy deletions everytime I look, valid content is lost, good new users are confused, annoyed and in some cases lost. If we're not going to honor speedy criteria then why even have them? Garbage content hurts us as does losing valid content...but we have control over deleting garbage...once good content is lost, for the most part it's just gone, we don't know when or if we'll ever get it back... I think there's a way to make tag and bag work if we want to, keeping encyclodpedic content is what we're supposed to be doing...anyway, sorry for the rant....

Reply

geni

3:27 a.m.

On 11/23/05, Brian Haws <brian(a)bhaws.com> wrote:

But eventualism does support a tag and bag system...during high volume periods, if garbage gets through, the vast majority of it will end up in orphan or lonelypage special pages. Now, there's a large backlog there but they are filtered in that way and can be examined, they are not lost in the vastness of Wikipedia. (if I understand those special pages correctly)

No it doesn't since eventualism position allows you to conclude there is nothing to be lost by deleting rubish

I see invalid speedy deletions everytime I look, valid content is lost, good new users are confused, annoyed and in some cases lost. If we're not going to honor speedy criteria then why even have them?

I gives people a lovely warm feeling.

Garbage content hurts us as does losing valid content...but we have control over deleting garbage...once good content is lost, for the most part it's just gone, we don't know when or if we'll ever get it back...

Eventualism means that you don't have to worry about when and juding by the number of new pages that surface on my watchlist there is no real question of if.

I think there's a way to make tag and bag work if we want to, keeping encyclodpedic content is what we're supposed to be doing...anyway, sorry for the rant....

Encyclodpedic content is a subjective term and therefor useless. -- geni

Reply

Brian Haws

4:04 a.m.

--- geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/23/05, Brian Haws <brian(a)bhaws.com> wrote:

But eventualism does support a tag and bag system...during high volume periods, if garbage

gets

through, the vast majority of it will end up in

orphan

or lonelypage special pages. Now, there's a large backlog there but they are filtered in that way

and

can be examined, they are not lost in the vastness

of

Wikipedia. (if I understand those special pages correctly)

No it doesn't since eventualism position allows you to conclude there is nothing to be lost by deleting rubish

There is nothing to be lost by deleting rubbish...

I see invalid speedy deletions everytime I look,

valid

content is lost, good new users are confused,

annoyed

and in some cases lost. If we're not going to

honor

speedy criteria then why even have them?

I gives people a lovely warm feeling.

Garbage content hurts us as does losing valid

content...but we

have control over deleting garbage...once good

content

is lost, for the most part it's just gone, we

don't

know when or if we'll ever get it back...

Eventualism means that you don't have to worry about when and juding by the number of new pages that surface on my watchlist there is no real question of if.

What I mean is that we have no control over the addition of a certain topic. If someone adds a page on some city in Italy and it gets deleted, we have no idea when or if it'll be added again....

I think there's a way to make tag and bag work if

we

want to, keeping encyclodpedic content is what

we're

supposed to be doing...anyway, sorry for the

rant....

Encyclodpedic content is a subjective term and therefor useless.

It is subjective to a certain degree, everyone has a slightly different idea of what it means, but the fact remains that our job is adding content that the community generally considers valid to wikipedia...

-- geni

The point is that high volume isn't a reason not to use tag and bag. If garbage gets by the first line of RC patrol, we still know where to look for it. And in the meantime we aren't deleting as much valid content, as defined by what doesn't fit speedy criteria. It may or may not get by AFD, but at least there are more eyes on it...as there should be on speedies....

_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

Sean Barrett

22 Nov 22 Nov

8:23 p.m.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Sam Korn stated for the record:

If pages filling the speedy criteria during those hours, I will not be doing research to rescue them. At other times, the amount of vandalism is far lower, so there's more time to research. My method is fully within policy.

Ja, he vas only followink orders.... - -- Sean Barrett | I specifically asked you not to sean(a)epoptic.org | program my Internet with pornography. | I want it removed immediately.

...PGP SIGNATURE...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDg34xMAt1wyd9d+URAojtAJwIH608pMdMK9+UKxhSipIOBVCptQCfWF0z vmkYnyvvkCMEvQ2AYzAZfYU= =K2as -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply

Sam Korn

8:36 p.m.

On 11/22/05, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org> wrote:

Sam Korn stated for the record:

If pages filling the speedy criteria during those hours, I will not be doing research to rescue them. At other times, the amount of vandalism is far lower, so there's more time to research. My method is fully within policy.

Ja, he vas only followink orders....

I think I have been arguing at cross-purposes all evening. Ah well. -- Sam

Reply

Tony Sidaway

10:34 p.m.

On 11/22/05, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote: My method

is fully within policy.

Which policy do you claim permits you to delete articles without doing any research?

Reply

Sam Korn

10:36 p.m.

On 11/22/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/22/05, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote: My method

is fully within policy.

Which policy do you claim permits you to delete articles without doing any research?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion See article A7. Research is not demanded. -- Sam

Reply

Tony Sidaway

11:09 p.m.

On 11/22/05, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/22/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/22/05, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote: My method

is fully within policy.

Which policy do you claim permits you to delete articles without doing any research?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion See article A7. Research is not demanded.

You're a Wikipedia editor, not a jobsworth. Of course research is demanded.

Reply

Sam Korn

11:18 p.m.

On 11/22/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:

You're a Wikipedia editor, not a jobsworth. Of course research is demanded.

I think we are probably crossing wires about what I would delete. I would only delete something that was plainly outside policy. Remember that I generally am just as keen to keep stuff as you are. I am just saying that I don't research every deletion I make, because there simply isn't time. Note that I don't take A7 to mean "this guy isn't notable" but "this article doesn't claim this guy is notable". I consider myself very generous in this point of view. But researching every deletion needn't be necessary. If people don't want articles deleted, they should make it plain why the article's being written. Housecleaning is an essential part of Wikipedia. I don't intend to waste my time proving that this guy is someone notable. That's the author's job. I consider my role as a cleaner as entirely separate from that as an editor and writer. -- Sam

Reply

Karl A. Krueger

23 Nov 23 Nov

1:56 a.m.

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 11:18:16PM +0000, Sam Korn wrote:

On 11/22/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:

You're a Wikipedia editor, not a jobsworth. Of course research is demanded.

I think we are probably crossing wires about what I would delete. I would only delete something that was plainly outside policy. Remember that I generally am just as keen to keep stuff as you are. I am just saying that I don't research every deletion I make, because there simply isn't time. Note that I don't take A7 to mean "this guy isn't notable" but "this article doesn't claim this guy is notable". I consider myself very generous in this point of view.

This is exactly correct. A7 says that if an article about a person fails to _assert_ notability, the article can be speedied. It doesn't mean deleting articles because we don't *believe* their claims of notability. It means deleting articles that don't *bother* to make any claims of notability. A7 doesn't require that we research and evaluate the truth of an article's claims. When reviewing an article under A7, we should assume that everything it says is precisely true. If what it says *still* isn't notable, that's when A7 requires deletion. Consider the following article: Joe Schmoo Joe Schmoo is Fred Bloggs's cousin. He is a fun guy at parties. Under A7 review, we don't need to research whether or not Joe Schmoo is Fred Bloggs's cousin. We don't need to research whether he is a fun guy at parties. We can assume, for the time being, that the article is correct, and that these things are true. Under this assumption, we then ask if any of the claims made are notable. None are. Neither being Fred Bloggs's cousin, nor being a fun guy at parties, is a reason that a person should be in an encyclopedia. That's all we need. Under A7, the Joe Schmoo article is eligible for deletion. It doesn't matter if there are other notable facts about Joe Schmoo. (Could be that he's a famous researcher in biodynamic insect physics who published a ground-breaking article on bee fusion.) The article didn't state any of those claims, so they don't enter into the A7 review. If someone wants to come along later and write a new article about Joe Schmoo that *does* claim notability, that's great! They're absolutely permitted to do so, and the previous A7 deletion *must not* militate against the new, notable article. -- Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger(a)whoi.edu>

Reply

Tony Sidaway

2:08 a.m.

On 11/22/05, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I would only delete something that was plainly outside policy.

...is the wrong answer. We only delete rubbish. Stuff that isn't rubbish doesn't need a policy to justify us not deleting it.

But researching every deletion needn't be necessary.

If you don't do your homework, you won't know whether you're deleting rubbish. Of course you need to do research!

Reply

geni

2:56 a.m.

On 11/23/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/22/05, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I would only delete something that was plainly outside policy.

...is the wrong answer. We only delete rubbish. Stuff that isn't rubbish doesn't need a policy to justify us not deleting it.

It's a bit hard to fit CSD without being rubish

If you don't do your homework, you won't know whether you're deleting rubbish. Of course you need to do research!

Research? Ah yes. How much RC patrol have you done lately? -- geni

Reply

Phil Boswell

22 Nov 22 Nov

11:06 a.m.

"Sam Korn" <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:cbffa3750511211511m6ea7055g2cd7f9fb82ff3c8f@mail.gmail.com... On 11/21/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I cannot believe that a Wikipedia editor is seriously suggesting that research is too much to ask. Please reconsider.

Please attempt RC patrol at ~12-1am UTC on a weekday. Then you will see what I mean.

Please consider doing your RC patrol at a time when you are alert enough to do it properly. If you are in the wrong timezone, that's hardly your fault. You presumably wouldn't drive or "operate heavy machinery" (to borrow the cough syrup cliché) when you are feeling tired: why treat what you obviously regard as an important job with any less care? -- Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]

Reply

geni

3:59 p.m.

On 11/22/05, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell(a)gmail.com> wrote:

"Sam Korn" <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:cbffa3750511211511m6ea7055g2cd7f9fb82ff3c8f@mail.gmail.com... On 11/21/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I cannot believe that a Wikipedia editor is seriously suggesting that research is too much to ask. Please reconsider.

Please attempt RC patrol at ~12-1am UTC on a weekday. Then you will see what I mean.

Please consider doing your RC patrol at a time when you are alert enough to do it properly. If you are in the wrong timezone, that's hardly your fault. You presumably wouldn't drive or "operate heavy machinery" (to borrow the cough syrup cliché) when you are feeling tired: why treat what you obviously regard as an important job with any less care? -- Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]

It doesn't matter how alert you are. At certain times (ok pretty much anytime except sunday morning) RC patrol is all about speed. Those ten minutes you spent reseaching were ten minuites which could have been spent keeping out vandalism. -- geni

Reply

Philip Sandifer

4:22 p.m.

On Nov 22, 2005, at 10:59 AM, geni wrote:

It doesn't matter how alert you are. At certain times (ok pretty much anytime except sunday morning) RC patrol is all about speed. Those ten minutes you spent reseaching were ten minuites which could have been spent keeping out vandalism.

I would rather let vandalism accidentally survive for ten extra minutes than delete good content. -Phil

Reply

geni

23 Nov 23 Nov

1:39 a.m.

On 11/22/05, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 22, 2005, at 10:59 AM, geni wrote:

It doesn't matter how alert you are. At certain times (ok pretty much anytime except sunday morning) RC patrol is all about speed. Those ten minutes you spent reseaching were ten minuites which could have been spent keeping out vandalism.

I would rather let vandalism accidentally survive for ten extra minutes than delete good content. -Phil

Ok lets have a look at how RC patrol really works. Assume that you are not useing any bots because I don't you go to the page and load up a load of recent changes in tabs. Assuming you have it set to hide loged in users that means that at this time of day you can load up about a miniutes worth. That lot takes me about 4 minutes to process which means we probably need about 5 admins on RC patrol to catch most stuff at this time of day. I caught two bit of vandalism when I just did this. Now lets look at what happens if we through a vandlilised article into the system. Hopefuly it will get caught but suppose 3 of our 5 admins are off doing research and it gets through. If it survives more than say two minutes then RC patrol is not going to see it. So how long does it last then? Well it depends. Our next line of defence is watchlists. A while back I had an article on my watchlist that was getting vandalised once a day at a pretty regular time. It was probably on a few people's watchlists and the vandalism normaly lasted about an hour (latter it got less beacuse I knew when to expect it). For the watchlist system to pick stuff up we are probably talking hours not 10 minutes. But what if it isn't on the watchlist of any regular editor (hardly unlikely my watchlist is only has 1.5K items on it)? Well then we are relying on someone stubling apon it. This can take days. I know cases where it took months. The increaseing size of wikipedia only makes things worse in this respect. So all in all your ten minutes analysis is completely flawed. -- geni

Reply

Sean Barrett

22 Nov 22 Nov

8:17 p.m.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 geni stated for the record:

It doesn't matter how alert you are. At certain times (ok pretty much anytime except sunday morning) RC patrol is all about speed. Those ten minutes you spent reseaching were ten minuites which could have been spent keeping out vandalism.

Better to destroy fifty good article than allow one "joey is gay!!!!!1" to last ten minutes, right? - -- Sean Barrett | I specifically asked you not to sean(a)epoptic.org | program my Internet with pornography. | I want it removed immediately.

...PGP SIGNATURE...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDg3znMAt1wyd9d+URAmDFAJ0eXPD63KMSfZ4QUSqM/Aeu/SIXtQCghTFr NcUJ0FLtvgdaEliP/U/9iJg= =DhO/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply

Sam Korn

4:15 p.m.

On 11/22/05, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell(a)gmail.com> wrote:

"Sam Korn" <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:cbffa3750511211511m6ea7055g2cd7f9fb82ff3c8f@mail.gmail.com... On 11/21/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I cannot believe that a Wikipedia editor is seriously suggesting that research is too much to ask. Please reconsider.

Please attempt RC patrol at ~12-1am UTC on a weekday. Then you will see what I mean.

Please consider doing your RC patrol at a time when you are alert enough to do it properly. If you are in the wrong timezone, that's hardly your fault. You presumably wouldn't drive or "operate heavy machinery" (to borrow the cough syrup cliché) when you are feeling tired: why treat what you obviously regard as an important job with any less care?

I said precisely nothing about not being alert. I was only referring to the amount of vandalism at those times. -- Sam

Reply

6765

days inactive

6772

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

36 comments

13 participants

tags (0)

participants (13)

Brian Haws
Brown, Darin
geni
John Lee
Karl A. Krueger
M. Creidieki Crouch
MacGyverMagic/Mgm
Phil Boswell
Philip Sandifer
Ray Saintonge
Sam Korn
Sean Barrett
Tony Sidaway