-
User talk:182.178.24.34 (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
restore)
A sysop incorrectly applied
WP:CSD (i.e. actually abused his privileges) and
refused to discuss his mistake. I would not object if that page ended in deletion at some point in the future (say, after a week). But not now, where such deletion may conceal a part of reasons for blocking a vandal.
Incnis Mrsi (
talk)
16:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- The page history consisted of a warning from ClueBot and some vandalism from the IP which was reverted by Elockid. Why would we need to keep such content around, exactly?
Hut 8.5
17:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- We do have a policy that this should not be done in the absence of some other reason--the usual ones are creation by a banned user, or vandalism, by which I interpret vandalism on the page itself. In this case, there was vandalism on the page itself, and that should have been cited as the reason. It wasn't very severe as vandalism goes, just a bit mapped image of a grinning face and the words "I am a troll", but there is no reason to leave that visible, even in the edit history. I think the best explanation of treating vandalism in such a manner is the essay
WP:DENY. I would have given a better explanation , but I don't think it much of an error. The admin involved is a very experienced vandal fighter and checkuser--just to be sure I have looked at a few dozen of his recent user space deletions, and I think them all entirely justified.
DGG (
talk )
20:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- WP:DENY is good, I respect this policy. Should Wikipedia override WP:CSD for the greater glory of WP:DENY, though? If some sysopped vandal fighters will routinely lie about deletion reasons, this may lead to distrust to entire page deletion system. Such thing as
WP:CSD#G6 implies that a reason for deletion is technical, not political.
Incnis Mrsi (
talk)
02:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Amend the log to cite G3 not G6, to to mention obvious trolling. Should G3 explicitly include blatant trolling? Should revision deletion be used instead of full deletion? Due process is not required in responding to trolling. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
10:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- If we don't have a CSD that empowers an administrator to delete obvious trolling, then that's a deficiency we ought to rectify. I can't see that it's in the encyclopaedia's best interests to restore this content. I accept that Incis Mrsi's nomination appears to be arguable in accordance with our rules, but I suggest that this would be one of the relatively rare occasions when rules should be
suspended in the encyclopaedia's best interests.—
S Marshall
T/
C
11:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Correct deletion – Use some
common sense; that dreck does not belong, nor is it ever justified, on Wikipedia, ever. --
MuZemike
02:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Just a bunch of flames. We all know that user_talk pages are generally useful. If one feels that this particular page is not, then s/he has to substantiate this. I do not think that the user_talk of a recently blocked (say, a hour ago) dynamic-IP vandal is a useless thing. Everyone could see that the vandal was warned, continued with his vandalism and was rightfully blocked.
Incnis Mrsi (
talk)
04:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- Your initial statement, I would not object if that page ended in deletion at some point in the future (say, after a week). This defeats your justification for retaining a page as deleting a page after a certain amount of time would still deny everyone the information that the user was blocked correctly. You're not making much sense to me.
Elockid (
Talk)
03:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- I am not familiar with alternative opportunities to attract the community's attention to Elockid's abuse. A direct talks proved insufficient, but the case is too petty for ArbCom or so. Now, Wikipedia will know that Elockid's deletion reasons should not be trusted. He either will avoid "I am an administrator and hence do the right thing" ethos in the future, or will eventually have his privileges recalled. The fate of the unreg's talk page really does not matter.
Incnis Mrsi (
talk)
11:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- I don't object to revision deletion of trolling, but why delete the warning from ClueBot. Also, the page should now contain a CSD deletion notification. Elockid, why not just blank the trolling, and optionally block the IP if it continues? --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
06:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- One of my main criteria to performing revdeletion is that there is a useful or extensive history. There was none in case. Another is the severity of the edit or disuption. I wouldn't call this a high degree of inappropriateness or an elevated level of disuption which is what revdelete is supposed to be used for. In any case, I am also under the impression that Incnis Mrsi would still call that inappropriate as it conceals the reason for blocking. A little background info. Prior to that IP being used, the person was already disrupting Wikipedia. This was not their first time. This is a returning vandal who has already been warned and blocked previously.
Elockid (
Talk)
12:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- IMHO there was nothing wrong neither in the prompt blocking of that dynamic-IP vandal, nor in (eventual) deletion of his trolling and its consequences such as ClueBot warnings. There is another thing which is wrong: Elockid consider his troll-fighting to be a high-priority task, which can override WP:CSD and even the consensus. Trolls should be reverted and ignored, but not used as a pretext to break established rules.
Incnis Mrsi (
talk)
12:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- What consensus would that be? As far as I can see, I don't see any consensus. Unlike WP:Help (WP:+) which I repeat has no authority to dictate what's right or wrong whatsoever, you've already been directed by two users at another policy, WP:IAR, yes it's an actual policy. Furthermore, your statement of
Non-criteria 13 was incorrect. Ahem: The following are not by themselves sufficient to justify speedy deletion. I didn't even use this as a justification for deleting the page. Yes, this is maintenance.
Elockid (
Talk)
13:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- It is really sad that, even after a week of discussion, Elockid failed to realize that his deletion was neither technical nor uncontroversial (G6 implies both). It is even more sad that Elockid apparently does not understand some things about foundations of Wikipedia. These are
WP: Five pillars and decision of users which "dictates what's right or wrong whatsoever", not (secondary) policies and guidelines themselves. Secondary policies are policies because express the consensus, not because they exist. Of course, I know what means
WP: Ignore all rules. In this exact case, this means that a user_talk page could be speedily deleted for the greater glory of Wikipedia even if "non-criterion 13" discourage this. But any such decision implies a responsibility and requires a substantiation. I would not doubt in Elockid's trustworthiness were the deletion reason be just a text string "a page does not constitute anything but a dynamic-IP trolling" (although I possibly disagreed with that outcome). Filling the reason field with "G6" was merely a deception (i.e. lie), not "ignoring rules". What substantiation did Elockid, DGG and MuZemike provide? "We are sysops, we know better what is The Right Thing…" or even an outright Internet flame. I do not see how
template talk: Usertalksuper, indirectly mentioned by Elockid, is relevant to this case, but if Elockid insists, I could comment on his thoughts on that matter too.
Incnis Mrsi (
talk)
15:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
- How about S Marshall who also mentioned WP:IAR? He/she is not admin. I am insisting that you need greater familiarity with policies, regulations, community norms. You've been incorrect in one, thinking that non-criteria applies, and two, WP:+ says what's right and wrong even though though there is no right way. Non-criteria doesn't discourage this. Let me repeat what Non-criteria covers, The following are not by themselves sufficient to justify speedy deletion. Non-criteria would apply if the sole reason was that it was just an IP talk page. However, that is not the case and as such there is no discouragement as it would only be discouraged if the primary reason was because it was an IP talk page. Let me quote this from the policies and guidelines page, "The five pillars is a popular summary of the most pertinent principles." This does not mean that policies and guidelines are secondary and suggests quite the contrary. See right below the five pillars page how there's the
policies and guidelines. Users develop these and develop policies and guidelines on what should and should not be done. So yes then, those are things that dictate what's right and wrong. That is how English Wikipedia operates. If you are not aware of this, then I highly recommend spending more time here. Btw, I don't see how any of the comments here constitute
internet flaming.
Elockid (
Talk)
17:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
reply
|