Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Hey man. I was just reverting vandalism, and this guy attacked me for inserting hidden text. I inserted it in an effort to stall the relentless acts on ]. The ] said he was an admin/sysop. View the attack on my ] page. Help if you can. Thanks. Oh, and could you watch ]? --'''] 02:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Personal and business commitments leave me little time to contribute, but I try my best. Bovlb 08:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thoughts
Personal Attack Pages
I've been watching some of the cases on RfC and RfAr (and, to a lesser extent, VfD). The thing that leaps out at me is that these pages seem to be taken as general exceptions (and possibly reversals) of the usual rules of no personal attacks and assume good faith. People suddenly feel free to provide negative characterizations of each others' behaviour. I can see the argument that this is necessary for these pages to operate, and I guess I can see the argument that people need some outlet for this sort of thing, but I'm left with a sense of disquiet.
Typically, the bad feelings, flipping the bozo bit, and slanging matches will gradually escalate on article talk pages, and boil over into RfC's and RfAr's. However, unless they end up with one party disappearing (say by being banned), then the disfunctional editor relationships remain, possibly worse than before.
No, I don't have a magic answer.
Improving history and fighting vandalism
A couple of thoughts about what might make the various types of history page better, and help in fighting vandalism:
At save time, scan previous entries to determine if the new version is identical to a previous one, and indicate the latest such previous version.
Somehow(!), on a user's contributions, indicate whether they have been reverted. This is either some function of the previous point, or involved recognizing revert actions as special.
Quorum for admin action
I notice a lot of whinging about admin actions, and I suspect that admins get made to feel very alone when they try to do the right thing. I made a brief proposal for how to fix this here, but it couldn't have been a very good proposal as nobody bothered to comment on it.
Fine-grained description of fictional works
I do a lot of New Page patrol, and I see many pages appear that describe characters or places in some fictional genre. A very common phenomenon is that they start with an assumption of context, and hence fail to mention the fictional work, or even that it is fictional. I realise that this is often because the page creator followed a red link and thus assumed that the new page appeared in some specific context.
When I see such things, I usually slap on a {{cleanup-context}}, but I can't shake the feeling that they would often be better consolidated into a single article on the work, with appropriate redirects. After all, if it's too much effort to explain the context for each place or character, wouldn't it be better to just do it once?
Hey man. I was just reverting vandalism, and this guy attacked me for inserting hidden text. I inserted it in an effort to stall the relentless acts on Pythagoras. The User said he was an admin/sysop. View the attack on my user talk page. Help if you can. Thanks. Oh, and could you watch Pythagoras? --InvisibleDiplomat66 02:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
_shield.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg)
