Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/172

Please stop blanking this page. Historical archives of other votes are preserved without the need to dig through article history. This should not be an exception. --Improv 09:40, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

from the pump:

User:172 keeps blanking the content of this page. This is the archive of a validly-performed Wikipedia vote, and its content should not be tampered with. I unblanked it and protected it, and User:Mirv unprotected it and re-blanked it, with a link to the article's history. He then attacked me for protecting a page I was edit warring, which I was NOT doing, I was merely restoring the contents. It seems to me that histories such as this should not be tampered with. What is the consensus of the community? RickK 21:26, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Surely openness is part and parcel of the system being used here, and blanking that page goes against that. People have a right to know, in my opinion. Shane King 23:21, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Users should not need to dig through history to find this kind of thing. I have reverted Mirv's edits, and expect him to enter a discussion somewhere to avoid breaking the three-revert rule. --Improv 15:59, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

its content should not be tampered with—A: Show me the policy that says no such page may ever be altered. I don't believe any such policy exists, but if it does, I'll quarrel no further. B: the content is still there in the older revisions, locked in by technical means that none of us can circumvent. I unblanked it and protected it—you reverted it twice and then protected it, clearly against protection policy. People have a right to know—Their right was never abrogated; everything was still available in the older revisions. Users should not need to dig through history to find this kind of thing—Why not? This was an unusually acrimonious and heated debate, with mudslinging aplenty; do you really think fighting and bickering ought to be kept on prominent display, always and forever? Anyone who wanted to know what had happened could find out with two mouse clicks. —No-One Jones ^(m) 08:55, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So why not leave it available without the mouse clicks? Filiocht 08:57, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Because I do not believe that prominently displaying flamewars does any good, and I do believe that it does harm. That's why. —No-One Jones ^(m) 09:19, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fine if that is your belief, I respect it. But I believe that the action you are taking needs a bit more community consensus. What you see as flame wars, I see as a frank exchange of views and I suspect that trying to hide such frankness may be counterproductive. Filiocht 09:34, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

If he requests bureaucratship or a similar position of responsibility again, it's simple to point out the old vote and say, "Look, 14 out of 26 didn't think 172 should be a bureaucrat last time around, for reasons X, Y, and Z; has anything changed since then?"; in the mean time, I don't see why one shouldn't make some attempt at cleaning up the mud—and despite 172's complaints of "stupid mudslinging", he made just as much mess as everyone else. —No-One Jones ^(m) 09:47, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is tradition to keep archives visible, without the need to dig through history. I have restored the page again. Most requests of this kind that fail are at least a bit harsh. I see no reason this particular case's records should be buried in history. --Improv 09:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is tradition to keep archives visible—has anyone ever expressed a desire for something else? What was done in that case? Archives can be refactored like any other page. I see no reason this particular case's records should be buried in history—Perhaps because the user requested it? Do his wishes count for nothing? —No-One Jones ^(m) 09:47, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On this matter, the better openness achieved by preventing the need to dig through the archives, plus the tradition, are more important, I think, than bending to the user's wishes. The events happened, and they should be visible. There's a big difference, anyhow, between refactoring and this, as refactoring is done with a very different aim and in a very different way than this. --Improv 15:16, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the better openness achieved by preventing the need to dig through the archives—my latest attempt had the original vote exactly one mouse click away. Anyone who wanted to look could look, but nobody was forced to see the flamewar. they should be visible—Why? What's wrong with indicating the results of a vote in a short summary with a pointer to the full debate? There's a big difference . . . between refactoring and this—Explain how my latest attempt was not refactoring, because I'm not convinced it was anything else. —No-One Jones ^(m) 19:33, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Refactoring should not cut important detail -- it's not so much a trimming process as it is an organizing one. Your edit eliminated the entire discussion, leaving only a form of the results. That's a bad thing. I understand you respect 172, and are bothered by what was said on the RfA. That's understandable, but I don't think this is an appropriate way to show your support. Why exactly do you want to censor/eliminate the discussion? --Improv 20:52, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Refactoring should not cut important detail—Ahah, well, the way you could have fixed that is by adding back only the important details, rather than the whole mess, but instead you chose a blanket revert. Why? Why exactly do you want to censor/eliminate the discussion?—Choose your words more carefully. I might well ask why you have such an interest in making everyone who took part in this flamewar look bad, but I won't. I'm interested in putting out the flames while keeping the important details; are you? As to why I'm acting on this RfA and no other, well, nobody else has indicated a desire to remove the results of their request from prominent display; had someone else done the same (for example if Netoholic wanted his acrimonious self-nomination refactored) I would probably do what I've been doing here. —No-One Jones ^(m) 21:21, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I chose my words quite carefully, and mean exactly what I said. People who took part in the RfA did so of their own volition, and this is part of public discourse. If they look bad because of it, it's by their own doing. I care about preserving the discourse, and do not feel that it is acceptible to comprimise that for the sake of making 172 feel better. This is all public record, and it should not be obscured in any way. If, for some reason, I ever am nominated to be a sysop, and the request goes down in flames, it would be just as improper for me or anyone else involved in that to request the whole thing be obscured. It is not proper for you to cut details from a RfA. Leave it be. --Improv 22:14, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is not proper for you to cut details from a RfA.—You have yet to provide any reason, other than your own belief that this is the case, for why it is improper. There is not a single policy page that supports your assertion, and there is no community consensus that archives may never be altered in the slightest. Unless you can provide some rationale beyond unsupported categorical statements—"Users should not need. . ." "That's a bad thing. . .", "it should not be obscured. . .", "it is not proper. . ."—I'm afraid I won't be convinced. —No-One Jones ^(m) 01:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find an explicit statement to that effect in policy. However, I do feel that it is inproper, and have seen no other historical records of Wikipedia that have been gutted as you have done. Pending a policy discussion somewhere, or a poll, I don't think the page should be edited as you have into such a small summary. Should we take this to the village pump policy area? I have nothing against you personally, I suspect we just have a friendly disagreement here on how this should be handled. --Improv 16:44, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have nothing personal against you either, and this issue obviously extends beyond just this page, so I've worked up a summary at Wikipedia talk:Refactoring/Refactoring of archives, where I suggest we continue this discussion. —No-One Jones ^(m) 17:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See you there then. Others, please take this discussion there. I'm taking this page off my watchlist, so I at least know I won't be keeping track of the conversation here. --Improv 17:13, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)