[WikiEN-l] Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

Wed Jan 18 21:45:22 UTC 2006

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

geni stated for the record:

> On 1/18/06, Travis Mason-Bushman <travis at gpsports-eng.com> wrote:
> 
>>Have you read some of the comments on that page's Talk page? They wish
>>eventually to entirely abolish [[WP:IAR]] "and expunge its history."
> 
> Good anyone who need IRA to justify their actions should have carried
> them out in the first place.

WP:IAR is one of the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia.  An attack on it
is an attack on the basic structure of our project to create an
encyclopedia.

>>The idea that "process is important" inherently puts rules and bureaucracy
>>above writing an encyclopaedia - and we are here to write an encyclopaedia,
>>correct? What [[WP:IAR]] states at its root is a principle that is central
>>to Wikipedia - that is to say, that if you're doing what you believe is
>>something that will benefit the encyclopaedia, damn the rules and do it
>>anyway.
> 
> Perhaps but don't expect mercy if you make the wrong descision. If you
> throw the rules out of the window don't complain if you go that way
> too (I have not ben playing to much Max Payne I have not ben playing
> to much Max Payne)

Ah, so you're planning to abolish WP:AGF, too.  Is WP:NPOV third on your
list?

>>The fact that nothing (except image deletions) is permanent on Wikipedia
>>makes [[WP:IAR]] work. If someone doesn't believe that my [[WP:BOLD]]
>>invocation of [[WP:IAR]] was proper, they are free to boldly revert it, or
>>in the case of a deletion, find one of those 700 admins to undelete it, in
>>which case a discussion can begin.
> 
> Or we could do the discussion bit first you know. to quote Tony Sidaway:
> 
> Wikipedia is not a multiplayer game, it's not a time-critical affair.
> If something needs to be done, it'll wait until tomorrow, or most
> likely someone else will do it if it urgently needs to be done. --Tony
> Sidaway|Talk 20:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
> 
> 
>>[[WP:IAR]] at its core, is about the fact that it is more beneficial to the
>>encyclopaedia to *do* something than to worry about going through five
>>levels of something Wikipedia is not, namely bureaucracy, before doing it.
> 
> Outside of directly improveing article content it is in fact often
> beneficial to do nothing on wikipedia. Problems have a tendancy to
> solve themselves given time
> 
> 
>>Being [[WP:BOLD]], a principle which I think no one would disagree with,
>>often requires its complement, [[WP:IAR]].
>>
>>-FCYTravis
>>
> 
> 
> WP:BOLD does not apply to admin actions.~~~~
> --
> geni

Wrong.  Admins are as encouraged to be as bold as any other editor.  The
word "admin" does not appear on WP:BOLD at all, let alone as an exception.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | All life is six-to-five against.
 sean at epoptic.org |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDzrbyMAt1wyd9d+URAv2hAJ9WRT4m3q4Y+aNrORbWpLfXLmhhxgCcD9to
23aWnrrNsQfn2I8ta+QoakE=
=gBK7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----