More AfD toxicity

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
54 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

More AfD toxicity

Sean Barrett-2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

This morning I began the process of writing [[cart00ney]] (with two
zeros).  I saved my work when I got up to refill my coffee, and when I
returned, [[User:Savidan]] had nominated my incomplete stub for deletion
with the cryptic reason "apparent nn selfref neologism."  The article
had existed for a grand total of nine (9) minutes.  Savidan made no
attempt to contact me, and made no effort to discuss the obviously
in-progress article on its talk page.

Perhaps the full article would still be an "apparent nn selfref
neologism," whatever that is.  Perhaps the full article would deserve to
be obliterated with all the contempt that the AfD regulars regularly
heap on articles they don't understand or simply dislike.  Perhaps it
would belong in Wikipedia.  You'll never know now.  Nine (9) minutes
after it was begun, Savidan eagerly began the process of destroying it
before its creation had completed.

I don't really think we needed further demonstrations of the
disgustingly toxic assumptions of bad faith that are inextricably
integral to the entire AfD process, but I will take this opportunity to
thank Savidan for yet another demonstration of how despicable it is.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Careful. We don't want to
 [hidden email] | learn from this. --Calvin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD7LcPMAt1wyd9d+URAtJMAJ9xLtS51w8hdfghMtSTT24rB11OOQCfYym7
u5pBgyHNRl3q4+N10pBbQG4=
=9qCT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More AfD toxicity

Steve Bennett-4
Hello,
  To slightly play devil's advocate, I was recently playing with the
anti vandalism tools and several times came across new articles that
had been created. One was [[Gortex]], clearly a mis-spelling for
[[Gore-Tex]]. So I wiped it and replaced it with a redirect. Fair
enough, right?

Another was an apparent copyvio - I added a copyvio template. Still ok?

Then I came across [[GoogLunaPlex]] (sp?) It sounded like some sort of
April Fool's joke or hoax or something. I put {deletebecause|probably
hoax} or something on it. The trouble is, I wasn't really sure. What
would be nice if there was a tag that said "At first glance, this is
junk. Can someone please check this, and either remove this template,
or complete the nomination". Instead, the only tag I know of basically
says "This evil piece of trash needs to die now".

Hence your hurt feelings.

There are a lot of crap articles that created. I don't think tagging
them for deletion is necessarily "assuming bad faith" - I believe the
Gortex example was an editor working in good faith. It's simply a
necessarily brusque way of dealing with a large number of articles of
questionable worth.

I did come across another article called "Hook-catch" or something
which I probably could have given your description of "apparent nn
selfref neologism." It sounded like some term that a couple of kids
had made up to describe getting their genitals caught in something -
at first glance. I labelled it for deletion, but again, would have
been very happy for someone to unlabel it if they had the faintest
clue what it was actually about.

Steve

On 2/10/06, Sean Barrett <[hidden email]> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> This morning I began the process of writing [[cart00ney]] (with two
> zeros).  I saved my work when I got up to refill my coffee, and when I
> returned, [[User:Savidan]] had nominated my incomplete stub for deletion
> with the cryptic reason "apparent nn selfref neologism."  The article
> had existed for a grand total of nine (9) minutes.  Savidan made no
> attempt to contact me, and made no effort to discuss the obviously
> in-progress article on its talk page.
>
> Perhaps the full article would still be an "apparent nn selfref
> neologism," whatever that is.  Perhaps the full article would deserve to
> be obliterated with all the contempt that the AfD regulars regularly
> heap on articles they don't understand or simply dislike.  Perhaps it
> would belong in Wikipedia.  You'll never know now.  Nine (9) minutes
> after it was begun, Savidan eagerly began the process of destroying it
> before its creation had completed.
>
> I don't really think we needed further demonstrations of the
> disgustingly toxic assumptions of bad faith that are inextricably
> integral to the entire AfD process, but I will take this opportunity to
> thank Savidan for yet another demonstration of how despicable it is.
>
> - --
>  Sean Barrett     | Careful. We don't want to
>  [hidden email] | learn from this. --Calvin
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFD7LcPMAt1wyd9d+URAtJMAJ9xLtS51w8hdfghMtSTT24rB11OOQCfYym7
> u5pBgyHNRl3q4+N10pBbQG4=
> =9qCT
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More AfD toxicity

Steve Bennett-4
In reply to this post by Sean Barrett-2
Hello,
  To slightly play devil's advocate, I was recently playing with the
anti vandalism tools and several times came across new articles that
had been created. One was [[Gortex]], clearly a mis-spelling for
[[Gore-Tex]]. So I wiped it and replaced it with a redirect. Fair
enough, right?

Another was an apparent copyvio - I added a copyvio template. Still ok?

Then I came across [[GoogLunaPlex]] (sp?) It sounded like some sort of
April Fool's joke or hoax or something. I put {deletebecause|probably
hoax} or something on it. The trouble is, I wasn't really sure. What
would be nice if there was a tag that said "At first glance, this is
junk. Can someone please check this, and either remove this template,
or complete the nomination". Instead, the only tag I know of basically
says "This evil piece of trash needs to die now".

Hence your hurt feelings.

There are a lot of crap articles that created. I don't think tagging
them for deletion is necessarily "assuming bad faith" - I believe the
Gortex example was an editor working in good faith. It's simply a
necessarily brusque way of dealing with a large number of articles of
questionable worth.

I did come across another article called "Hook-catch" or something
which I probably could have given your description of "apparent nn
selfref neologism." It sounded like some term that a couple of kids
had made up to describe getting their genitals caught in something -
at first glance. I labelled it for deletion, but again, would have
been very happy for someone to unlabel it if they had the faintest
clue what it was actually about.

Steve

On 2/10/06, Sean Barrett <[hidden email]> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> This morning I began the process of writing [[cart00ney]] (with two
> zeros).  I saved my work when I got up to refill my coffee, and when I
> returned, [[User:Savidan]] had nominated my incomplete stub for deletion
> with the cryptic reason "apparent nn selfref neologism."  The article
> had existed for a grand total of nine (9) minutes.  Savidan made no
> attempt to contact me, and made no effort to discuss the obviously
> in-progress article on its talk page.
>
> Perhaps the full article would still be an "apparent nn selfref
> neologism," whatever that is.  Perhaps the full article would deserve to
> be obliterated with all the contempt that the AfD regulars regularly
> heap on articles they don't understand or simply dislike.  Perhaps it
> would belong in Wikipedia.  You'll never know now.  Nine (9) minutes
> after it was begun, Savidan eagerly began the process of destroying it
> before its creation had completed.
>
> I don't really think we needed further demonstrations of the
> disgustingly toxic assumptions of bad faith that are inextricably
> integral to the entire AfD process, but I will take this opportunity to
> thank Savidan for yet another demonstration of how despicable it is.
>
> - --
>  Sean Barrett     | Careful. We don't want to
>  [hidden email] | learn from this. --Calvin
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFD7LcPMAt1wyd9d+URAtJMAJ9xLtS51w8hdfghMtSTT24rB11OOQCfYym7
> u5pBgyHNRl3q4+N10pBbQG4=
> =9qCT
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More AfD toxicity

Gareth Hughes-2
In reply to this post by Sean Barrett-2
I sympathize, but, in the end, we can only judge articles by what they
are now and what's in their history. We can hazzard a guess that an
article is going to improve rapidly into an encyclopaedic golden
apple, but the chance of that happening seems less likely when the
article is called [[cart00ney]] (with two zeros). I'm not saying that
we can't have good articles with names like this, but, on average,
this stuff isn't. If I had Savidan's watchlist, I might have done the
same.

And the moral of the story is: don't press that 'Save page' button
until your article looks like it's going somewhere good.

Alternative solution: create a 'Gone for coffee, back in 10' template.
Unfortunate side-effect of such an alternative: out of the AFD into
the TFD!

Gareth Hughes.

On 10/02/06, Sean Barrett <[hidden email]> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> This morning I began the process of writing [[cart00ney]] (with two
> zeros).  I saved my work when I got up to refill my coffee, and when I
> returned, [[User:Savidan]] had nominated my incomplete stub for deletion
> with the cryptic reason "apparent nn selfref neologism."  The article
> had existed for a grand total of nine (9) minutes.  Savidan made no
> attempt to contact me, and made no effort to discuss the obviously
> in-progress article on its talk page.
>
> Perhaps the full article would still be an "apparent nn selfref
> neologism," whatever that is.  Perhaps the full article would deserve to
> be obliterated with all the contempt that the AfD regulars regularly
> heap on articles they don't understand or simply dislike.  Perhaps it
> would belong in Wikipedia.  You'll never know now.  Nine (9) minutes
> after it was begun, Savidan eagerly began the process of destroying it
> before its creation had completed.
>
> I don't really think we needed further demonstrations of the
> disgustingly toxic assumptions of bad faith that are inextricably
> integral to the entire AfD process, but I will take this opportunity to
> thank Savidan for yet another demonstration of how despicable it is.
>
> - --
>  Sean Barrett     | Careful. We don't want to
>  [hidden email] | learn from this. --Calvin
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFD7LcPMAt1wyd9d+URAtJMAJ9xLtS51w8hdfghMtSTT24rB11OOQCfYym7
> u5pBgyHNRl3q4+N10pBbQG4=
> =9qCT
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More AfD toxicity

MacGyverMagic/Mgm
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-4
On 2/10/06, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Then I came across [[GoogLunaPlex]] (sp?) It sounded like some sort of
> April Fool's joke or hoax or something. I put {deletebecause|probably
> hoax} or something on it. The trouble is, I wasn't really sure. What
> would be nice if there was a tag that said "At first glance, this is
> junk. Can someone please check this, and either remove this template,
> or complete the nomination". Instead, the only tag I know of basically
> says "This evil piece of trash needs to die now".


There's already such a template it's called {{afd}}.
Anyway. Sean, did you tag your in progress article with {{inuse}}?
Upon returning did you talk to Savidan about his actions?

The thing is, he can't mindread and it's not uncommon for people to leave
things unfinished. If you're patrolling Recentchanges or Newpages, you don't
have the time, to recheck if someone finished their article. It will take
the speed out of your work.

If you tag it with {{inuse}} or work on it in your userspace, you've got a
lot lower chance of it getting deleted.

Mgm
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More AfD toxicity

Sean Barrett-2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

MacGyverMagic/Mgm stated for the record:

> Anyway. Sean, did you tag your in progress article with {{inuse}}?
> Upon returning did you talk to Savidan about his actions?

Answer One: No, I didn't tag it.  Frankly, I didn't think of it.  I
literally: realized my coffee cup was empty; stood up, realized I was
using my Windows box so I was in danger of crashing and losing my work,
bent over, threw an edit summary in the box, and hit "save."  When
returned after getting my coffee, I hit "edit," and saw the deletion
verbiage at the top of the edit box.  Nine (9) minutes had elapsed.
Thank Cthulhu Savidan got there before ten minutes had elapsed: all of
Wikipedia might have been destroyed.

I have learned from that mistake.  Never again will I add an article to
Wikipedia that is not completely and entirely perfect, with multiple
insistences of notability and scores of footnotes in place.  Wikipedia
does not allow works-in-progress; all contributions must be camera-ready
for world-wide publication or they will be obliterated on sight.

Answer Two: Yes, I left a note on his talk page, and he replied on mine.
 What difference does that make?  Does the burden of defending
information against obliteration fall on me, the contributor?  Or is the
burden on the obliterater to demonstrate why that particular information
should be deleted?  Actually, the answers to those questions are
disgustingly obvious; what I should be asking is /should/ the burden of
defending information be placed on the one building Wikipedia?
/Shouldn't/ the one who wants to obliterate information be required to
at least attempt to communicate with the one who wants to add it?

> The thing is, he can't mindread and it's not uncommon for people to leave
> things unfinished. If you're patrolling Recentchanges or Newpages, you don't
> have the time, to recheck if someone finished their article. It will take
> the speed out of your work.

0 NO3Z!!11!  DON'T TAKE THE SPEED OUT!!!11!!eleventy-one

> If you tag it with {{inuse}} or work on it in your userspace, you've got a
> lot lower chance of it getting deleted.

If I never contribute anything until it is utterly perfect, I'll have a
lower chance (maybe not a lot lower, I admit) of it getting deleted.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Careful. We don't want to
 [hidden email] | learn from this. --Calvin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD7QPTMAt1wyd9d+URAgptAJ99GLsvPU2tl+snA+mIiZJQtICrdACfZJN2
+m5VdSqf5qGMwWKGkqti81w=
=Y9sW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More AfD toxicity

geni
On 2/10/06, Sean Barrett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Thank Cthulhu Savidan got there before ten minutes had elapsed: all of
> Wikipedia might have been destroyed.
>

Nine minutes is unacceptably slow for NP patrol. Looks like we may
need more recurets

>Does the burden of defending
> information against obliteration fall on me, the contributor?

To a degree. There is a certian minium standard that the article is
expected to meet (ie is expected not to look like a speedy candidate).
Above that the burned heavily falls on anyone trying to delete the
thing



--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More AfD toxicity

Stan Shebs
In reply to this post by Sean Barrett-2
Sean Barrett wrote:

>Answer Two: Yes, I left a note on his talk page, and he replied on mine.
>
How come you didn't use your Staff of Arbcom to turn him into a
tiny little pile of ashes? 1/2 :-) We've got way too many noobs
running around pretending to be knowledgeable, and there seems to
be no incentive for them to learn.

Stan

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More AfD toxicity

MacGyverMagic/Mgm
In reply to this post by Sean Barrett-2
Actually, you should both communicate - which you have done. It's simply not
practical to contact someone for every deletion you want to do especially if
you believe it breaks the rules (which I would when you start an article
with "X is a neologism...". But really who starts isn't really important.

I think this was simply a misunderstanding on Savidan's part which wouldn't
have happened if you ran out of coffee. Just an unfortunate get together of
circumstances.

I'm still wondering why it matters if someting is tagged within 9 minutes of
its creation or after 30 minutes, 3 days, or 6 months. The point of
recentchanges patrol is to get to stuff that needs to be deleted before too
many people see it. People who want to delete something need to give a
reason why (which was probably "non-notable neologism" in this case).
Creators need to make sure they establish notability early on, preferably in
their first edit.

I think you can continue editing without running into any problems with
half-finished articles by simply tagging them. You can't overlook an
{{inuse}} tag and it's easy to apply.

It would be a shame to see someone stop contributing less than perfect
articles over one incident.

Mgm


On 2/10/06, Sean Barrett <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> MacGyverMagic/Mgm stated for the record:
>
> > Anyway. Sean, did you tag your in progress article with {{inuse}}?
> > Upon returning did you talk to Savidan about his actions?
>
> Answer One: No, I didn't tag it.  Frankly, I didn't think of it.  I
> literally: realized my coffee cup was empty; stood up, realized I was
> using my Windows box so I was in danger of crashing and losing my work,
> bent over, threw an edit summary in the box, and hit "save."  When
> returned after getting my coffee, I hit "edit," and saw the deletion
> verbiage at the top of the edit box.  Nine (9) minutes had elapsed.
> Thank Cthulhu Savidan got there before ten minutes had elapsed: all of
> Wikipedia might have been destroyed.
>
> I have learned from that mistake.  Never again will I add an article to
> Wikipedia that is not completely and entirely perfect, with multiple
> insistences of notability and scores of footnotes in place.  Wikipedia
> does not allow works-in-progress; all contributions must be camera-ready
> for world-wide publication or they will be obliterated on sight.
>
> Answer Two: Yes, I left a note on his talk page, and he replied on mine.
> What difference does that make?  Does the burden of defending
> information against obliteration fall on me, the contributor?  Or is the
> burden on the obliterater to demonstrate why that particular information
> should be deleted?  Actually, the answers to those questions are
> disgustingly obvious; what I should be asking is /should/ the burden of
> defending information be placed on the one building Wikipedia?
> /Shouldn't/ the one who wants to obliterate information be required to
> at least attempt to communicate with the one who wants to add it?
>
> > The thing is, he can't mindread and it's not uncommon for people to
> leave
> > things unfinished. If you're patrolling Recentchanges or Newpages, you
> don't
> > have the time, to recheck if someone finished their article. It will
> take
> > the speed out of your work.
>
> 0 NO3Z!!11!  DON'T TAKE THE SPEED OUT!!!11!!eleventy-one
>
> > If you tag it with {{inuse}} or work on it in your userspace, you've got
> a
> > lot lower chance of it getting deleted.
>
> If I never contribute anything until it is utterly perfect, I'll have a
> lower chance (maybe not a lot lower, I admit) of it getting deleted.
>
> - --
> Sean Barrett     | Careful. We don't want to
> [hidden email] | learn from this. --Calvin
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFD7QPTMAt1wyd9d+URAgptAJ99GLsvPU2tl+snA+mIiZJQtICrdACfZJN2
> +m5VdSqf5qGMwWKGkqti81w=
> =Y9sW
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More AfD toxicity

Guettarda
In reply to this post by Stan Shebs
I suppose the thing that surprises me about this is the fact that people tag
work without taking a look at who the author is.  Sure, if you see something
brand new by an anon or by a redlinked name, you may want to take a careful
look at it.  If, on the other hand, you see something by Sean, you take for
granted that established contributors tend not to write "selfref
neologisms".  If you see something like that from someone like Sean (or like
Dunc, which was what sparked a mess a few months ago) you give them the
benefit of the doubt - bookmark the page, maybe add it to your "to do" list
- but don't afd it.  To be honest, if you see something brand new by a new
author you give them a chance to clean it up as well.  Shooting first and
asking questions later is bound to only cause bad blood.  In Sean's case, it
isn't going to drive him away, but a new editor could easily be driven off.

Ian

On 2/10/06, Stan Shebs <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Sean Barrett wrote:
>
> >Answer Two: Yes, I left a note on his talk page, and he replied on mine.
> >
> How come you didn't use your Staff of Arbcom to turn him into a
> tiny little pile of ashes? 1/2 :-) We've got way too many noobs
> running around pretending to be knowledgeable, and there seems to
> be no incentive for them to learn.
>
> Stan
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More AfD toxicity

Sean Barrett-2
In reply to this post by Stan Shebs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stan Shebs stated for the record:

> Sean Barrett wrote:
>
>> Answer Two: Yes, I left a note on his talk page, and he replied on mine.
>>
> How come you didn't use your Staff of Arbcom to turn him into a
> tiny little pile of ashes? 1/2 :-) We've got way too many noobs
> running around pretending to be knowledgeable, and there seems to
> be no incentive for them to learn.
>
> Stan

I would have, but I've loaned my staff to Orrie while his is in the shop
for a tune-up.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Careful. We don't want to
 [hidden email] | learn from this. --Calvin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD7Q/zMAt1wyd9d+URAtffAJ45SToSvrbo7jzAdiQ/dt/UdNBG1ACeK4ie
QXDKHCykAJ8UD0xk42YyFMI=
=8qhy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More AfD toxicity

Stan Shebs
In reply to this post by geni
geni wrote:

>On 2/10/06, Sean Barrett <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>Does the burden of defending
>>information against obliteration fall on me, the contributor?
>>
>
>To a degree. There is a certian minium standard that the article is
>expected to meet (ie is expected not to look like a speedy candidate).
>Above that the burned heavily falls on anyone trying to delete the
>thing
>
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that AfD nominators
recognize the names of the longtime active editors, and to guess
that there might be a good reason for the article being in such
a state. I just don't see how someone with all of three weeks of
WP experience is going to have developed a good sense for what
should be in or out.

Stan

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More AfD toxicity

geni
On 2/10/06, Stan Shebs <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that AfD nominators
> recognize the names of the longtime active editors, and to guess
> that there might be a good reason for the article being in such
> a state.

How many of the names on the admin list do you recognise?

>I just don't see how someone with all of three weeks of
> WP experience is going to have developed a good sense for what
> should be in or out.
>
> Stan

which is why they don't have the delete button.


--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More AfD toxicity

Steve Bennett-4
In reply to this post by Guettarda
Hi,
  What I see wrong in this process is that the original author
couldn't/wasn't willing to "save" the article.  This seems like the
right order of events in these situations:

Author writes hacky article
RC patrol tags it as crap
Author sees it tagged, sighs with indignation, removes tag, keeps working.

However, if as in most cases, the author never comes back, then a week
later or whatver it is removed.

I don't see why the RC patrol should not tag it as crap, if, indeed,
it was crap. I don't think Sean is disputing that his article was
crap, just that he was planning on making it better. If he doesn't put
an in progress tag on it (and I've never actually seen one, to be
honest), then it's not unreasonable that he has to fish his
half-finished crap out of the bin before he can keep turning it into a
masterpiece.

Steve

On 2/10/06, Guettarda <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I suppose the thing that surprises me about this is the fact that people tag
> work without taking a look at who the author is.  Sure, if you see something
> brand new by an anon or by a redlinked name, you may want to take a careful
> look at it.  If, on the other hand, you see something by Sean, you take for
> granted that established contributors tend not to write "selfref
> neologisms".  If you see something like that from someone like Sean (or like
> Dunc, which was what sparked a mess a few months ago) you give them the
> benefit of the doubt - bookmark the page, maybe add it to your "to do" list
> - but don't afd it.  To be honest, if you see something brand new by a new
> author you give them a chance to clean it up as well.  Shooting first and
> asking questions later is bound to only cause bad blood.  In Sean's case, it
> isn't going to drive him away, but a new editor could easily be driven off.
>
> Ian
>
> On 2/10/06, Stan Shebs <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Sean Barrett wrote:
> >
> > >Answer Two: Yes, I left a note on his talk page, and he replied on mine.
> > >
> > How come you didn't use your Staff of Arbcom to turn him into a
> > tiny little pile of ashes? 1/2 :-) We've got way too many noobs
> > running around pretending to be knowledgeable, and there seems to
> > be no incentive for them to learn.
> >
> > Stan
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More AfD toxicity

Guettarda
On 2/10/06, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> I don't see why the RC patrol should not tag it as crap, if, indeed,
> it was crap. I don't think Sean is disputing that his article was
> crap, just that he was planning on making it better. If he doesn't put
> an in progress tag on it (and I've never actually seen one, to be
> honest), then it's not unreasonable that he has to fish his
> half-finished crap out of the bin before he can keep turning it into a
> masterpiece.
>
> Steve


Actually, it wasn't crap.  Have a look at the stub that was {{afd}}'d
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cart00ney&oldid=39073156

It's tagged as a stub, it's referenced - it's far from being an FA, but it's
nowhere near "crap" (not in a general Wikipedia context)

Ian
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More AfD toxicity

Stan Shebs
In reply to this post by geni
geni wrote:

>On 2/10/06, Stan Shebs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that AfD nominators
>>recognize the names of the longtime active editors, and to guess
>>that there might be a good reason for the article being in such
>>a state.
>>
>
>How many of the names on the admin list do you recognise?
>
All of them, of course - don't you? :-) The name of the editor is
the most useful way to triage a long list of changes - known
trustworthy editors almost always make good edits, everybody else
needs a closer look.

Stan

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More AfD toxicity

Stan Shebs
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-4
Steve Bennett wrote:

>Hi,
>  What I see wrong in this process is that the original author
>couldn't/wasn't willing to "save" the article.  This seems like the
>right order of events in these situations:
>
>Author writes hacky article
>RC patrol tags it as crap
>Author sees it tagged, sighs with indignation, removes tag, keeps working.
>
Current process doesn't allow for that however - once afd tag is
added, it's supposed to stay on until all the randoms get a chance
to vote on the article in its unfinished state. Even if you fix up
the article, most people don't go back and update their votes.
Even worse, if the vote is to delete, people will point to that as
a reason not to re-create a completed article later.

Stan

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More AfD toxicity

Keith Old
On 2/11/06, Stan Shebs <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>
> >Hi,
> >  What I see wrong in this process is that the original author
> >couldn't/wasn't willing to "save" the article.  This seems like the
> >right order of events in these situations:
> >
>
> >Author writes hacky article
> >RC patrol tags it as crap
> >Author sees it tagged, sighs with indignation, removes tag, keeps
> working.
> >
> Current process doesn't allow for that however - once afd tag is
> added, it's supposed to stay on until all the randoms get a chance
> to vote on the article in its unfinished state. Even if you fix up
> the article, most people don't go back and update their votes.
> Even worse, if the vote is to delete, people will point to that as
> a reason not to re-create a completed article later.
>
> Stan
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

When I fix an article, I tell the people who have voted delete, if most of
the votes are in favour  of delete. Most people change their vote. I am yet
to be convinced that AfD is particularly toxic given that any possible
process will mean that articles that people have worked will end up being
deleted and will get upset.

Having said that, the proposed deletion system is working well.

Regards


Keith Old


Keith Old
User:Capitalistroadster
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More AfD toxicity

MacGyverMagic/Mgm
In reply to this post by Stan Shebs
On 2/10/06, Stan Shebs <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >  What I see wrong in this process is that the original author
> >couldn't/wasn't willing to "save" the article.  This seems like the
> >right order of events in these situations:
> >
> >Author writes hacky article
> >RC patrol tags it as crap
> >Author sees it tagged, sighs with indignation, removes tag, keeps
> working.
> >
> Current process doesn't allow for that however - once afd tag is
> added, it's supposed to stay on until all the randoms get a chance
> to vote on the article in its unfinished state. Even if you fix up
> the article, most people don't go back and update their votes.
> Even worse, if the vote is to delete, people will point to that as
> a reason not to re-create a completed article later.
>
> Stan


1. AFDs don't have to keep running if the nominator retracts their
nomination and if you can get keep votes from all the other participants.
2. The speedy rule is "substantially similar content. Once AFDed for being
unfinished, doesn't mean no article should ever be there.

Mgm
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More AfD toxicity

David Carson
In reply to this post by Guettarda
Guettarda wrote:

>Actually, it wasn't crap.  Have a look at the stub that was {{afd}}'d
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cart00ney&oldid=39073156
>
>It's tagged as a stub, it's referenced - it's far from being an FA, but it's
>nowhere near "crap" (not in a general Wikipedia context)
>  
>

I don't believe the nominator ever said it was crap. He said it was a
non-notable neologism, and thus the _topic_ was not suitable for
Wikipedia (the topic was crap, if you like). This is a completely
separate issue to the quality of the article's content (which was
excellent, probably higher than 99% of the first saved versions of
articles).

Cheers!
David...
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
123