Talk:Meta-Wikimedia:Requests for deletion

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Request for immediate deletion:

I disagree Cimon. Deleting perfectly reasonable articles that have their place on meta, just because of their author is not a good idea. After at least 2 years, it is also perfectly clear that deleting these articles will not change anything to the fact this user is posting them anyway. I certainly support deleting articles when they are vandalism, bad, or offensive; but these ones are not. At the same time, I will also add that I sort of resent that no one is taking care of people who are just posting inappropriate content to meta, just because these are not hard banned. Anthere
You can disagree all you want Anthere but the fact remains that 142.177 is hard banned and everything he writes here is going to get either reverted or deleted. If you have a problem with that then take it to the person who authorized this - Jimbo. But before that read my responses to GrahamN on the undeletions page.[1] --Maveric149

The fact remained that hard bans are not enforced wikipedia wide, that a banned user here is not banned there (we have some en banned editing fr, while fr banned edit en).

The fact also is that apart from the english wikipedia, other wikipedias decide their bans themselves, not by Jimbo decisions (though I try to have Jimbo becomes the neutral last chance for the banned user).

The fact is as well that some en users also support keeping banned users articles when they are good, and "kidnapp" them to give them another author, and that is tolerated.

The fact is that the custom to revert and delete on sight is practice to get rid of the banned user, and after 2 years, it should be pretty clear that such a technique is not always efficient.

I promote keeping good articles and rejecting bad ones as a way to show what is "ok" and what is "not ok". That is a classical way to teach kids as well.

I also say that you had accepted for his ban to be managed in such a way that relevant stuff could be kept and that the ban was enforced again just because of his attack on such a distateful person as RK. The fact remains that I have difficulties to recognise that such a person is banned when RK is not, and feel it is offensive to all those who have been insulted by RK.

And I will also add that Jimbo is willing to try other ways to ban people than you all only waiting on his decision as you do.

And will also ask why are you all accepting that things that are irrelevant to the place are pasted here. I have spent many hours cleaning up the place even in languages I do not manage because no one is doing it. Is that the most efficient thing to do to run after "meaningful" article, while letting inappropriate things accumulate ?

I will also end up saying that meta is meant (was meant perhaps ?) to receive all wikipedias, not english only. And that to my opinion, english stuff here is not necessary for english wikipedia only, but is international. And I think it wrong that the pages in international english are only meant to follow english rules while other wikipedias have developped other rules. There is a point where the space shared should be managed commonly, not by one pedia only. It is not because we use your language for more easy discussion that we must necessarily follow your rules. I fear the last discussions I have seen around are just going in that way. The discussion started by Erik here is just typical. The "that is not the way we do on en" or the "we must do this way to avoid surprising people" is not nice; Please Mav, I would like that some consideration is given to that point, and that discussions occur if we do not agree. Because if we consider that here everything written in english is under english wikipedia minion, we should have to differenciate english articles from international articles. The other way is to discuss it together, and to admit that perhaps all rules on english wikipedia do not necessarily apply here, but rather depends on which people work here, and give energy here. - Ant

The main banable offenses were done here, on meta (just look at the history of my talk page!). The ban is effective here as well. Just ask Jimbo. End of story (please read my second response on the link I provided). --Maveric149
Is "End of the story" all what I will get for the points I raise ? I suppose that is what you call discussing. I do not. Non discussed and solved points will come over and over.
He is hard banned for stuff done on meta as well as en.wikipedia meaning he is banned at least in those two places. What is there to discuss besides that that pertains to this thread? Your other points have little to do with the subject of this thread (which is the reverting of material placed in by a hard-banned user). Just because there is other stuff to delete does not mean that we should just let this slip by. --mav
So, for now, I will only ask you a question Mav. Where was it ever discussed on meta, that all edits by a banned user had to be absolutely deleted on sight, whatever their contents, even on talk pages of users accepting these edits, and that everyone agreed with that ? --Ant
It was discused on the mailing list. Like it or not, that is where real policy is decided. If you want the above listed items to be restored then take it to Jimbo. --mav
The banning was discussed on the mailing list. The policy to apply here never was. I put all this in the discussion page, because it is messy; but I will hold to what I wrote, no deletion policy was ever discussed by other than Walter, Erik and I here. Clearly not by you, ever. Clearly not on the mailing list either.
Simple. Ask Jimbo. He will confirm. --mav
Jimbo has banned 142. I do not deny this. But Jimbo does not create policy (aside from npov, copyright and other important policy), wikimedians do. And wikimedians is not just *you*. Wikimedians are any trusted users currently working in this place. Not only you but me, and any other editor, whatever his origin and language.
Just look at any policy pages on en, most policies were not created by Jimbo. There were created by the collective. And that was Jimbo's wish that we did so, create our own rules, to have wikipedia progress harmoniously.
And even on en, it is written that what you are currently doing is not the widely recognised policy. Several people do support restoring articles with good content, in particular provided that a new author name is given. Which is what I have been doing today, removing all previous authorship. You, on the other hand, are not only refusing to recognise that other people do not follow the policy you wish to be on wikipedia, but are also currently deleting articles that I created. You are also removing my comments. I do not think Jimbo would support you deleting my comments and deleting my articles.