Jimmy Wales wrote:

Anthere wrote:
>>Ha. I honestly can't answer for at least 4 people
>>tried. Me included. Let's say we collectively hit the
>>button. For we didnot know how to do it and had to ask
>>around. It was to have a break from a discussion that
>>was leading nowhere. All the people there agreed at
>>that time (that is, except Mulot of course). But if I
>>decided to do it, it was for everybody to have a
>>break. I am not entirely sure why other people did it.

>O.k., well, in a situation like that I would not agree, unless the
>banned person was doing something destructive. Simply disagreeing
>with the majority is not good cause for banning.

OK. My belief is she was not destroying. But the others believed she was destroying. Along that belief, their action was justifiable. Mine was probably not.

>Another way to take a break from an argument is to just: take a break.

True. That's why I sometimes move my "home" to the en.wiki. I recommend moving to another wiki to any person needing a break. Especially one in which they don't feel very confortable with (another langage :-)). That's a good way to learn patience and humility.

>>t wasnot a good reason. I disagreed with that
>>anning. Does it never happen on the en.wiki that a
>>sysop ban somebody and another disagree with the
>>decision ? What happens then ?

>Typically, the 2nd sysop would unban the person, and as a courtesy the
>1st sysop would go along with it. Usually this is all accompanied
>with consultations with others. There's a very strong presumption
>against banning people.

The others played dead. And the 1st stick to his conviction. But I'll remember that


>There are basic reasons that we have sysops. First,
>historically there have been some useful features that are
>"destructive" -- deleting. Second, there are sometimes true vandals,
>and it's nice for people to be able to ban them right away instead of
>waiting for me to do something about it. And finally, there are some
>commands (direct SQL queries) that might be really slow and should
>therefore be used only rarely.

I entirely trust Aoineko and Shaihulud for not willingly doing any permanent damage on articles or software.


>I fear that current tensions in the world (United States, 9/11, Iraq,
>Europe, etc.) may lead to tensions in our little world. This is not
>necessary and it is something we should all be careful about. We have
>a peaceful humanitarian mission here that is bigger than the current
>world political scene.

I agree. Otherwise I would not spend time on this list.

As a matter of interest, one of the recurrent idea used by Mulot/6 was we didnot know how to discuss and accept different views as people did on the en.wiki, and that for that very reason the fr.wiki would never ever reach the en.quality. I mean, differences between us was used to infuriate people.

>>And I can't figure how you would extensively discuss
>>the matter with the user being the problem if this one
>>is not able to manage *your* langage.

>that's right. I can't do that. So I have to trust the judgment of
>those who speak French, to a very large degree.

Believe me, I am sorry you can't explain that directly to fr people, I'd be happy if they said what they thought here. I am also sorry most don't even read some of the discussions here. It would help a lot.



Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos, & more
faith.yahoo.com