[WikiEN-l] request to Jimbo for out-of-process deletion of image

[David Alexander Russell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

So you basically want a group of admins with no experience in editing
the article concerned to vote-stack any content disputes?

RFC generates plenty of interest, the problem is that it has no 'teeth'
- - there is nothing to stop the party who 'loses' an RFC from ignoring
its conclusions.

Cynical

Katefan0 wrote:

I have for a long time felt that it
> would be wise to establish a cadre of admins that form an "NPOV brigade" who
> could be called upon to look at and weigh in on content disputes as a means
> of breaking a stalemate.  It's definitely a need on Wikipedia that isn't
> being filled, as is evidenced by the amount of content RFArs getting filed
> lately.  RFC rarely works, but only because it doesn't generate enough
> interest, IMO.
> 
> k
> 
> 
> On 4/6/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>> Katefan0 wrote:
>>> I think this is similar to what happens sometimes at pedophilia-related
>>> articles.  For the most part, we as Wikipedians are drawn to edit
>> articles
>>> in which we have a personal interest or stake.  Naturally, then, those
>> who
>>> disagree with age of consent laws will be drawn to articles such as
>>> [[NAMBLA]].  Not only do most other Wikipedians not feel drawn there,
>> they
>>> in fact would rather purposefully avoid them because they make them feel
>>> icky.  (I can certainly attest to that personally.)  But in that manner,
>> I
>>> have found that sometimes the "consensus" on these types of articles
>> gets
>>> skewed.  And this makes issues raised on the talk page very difficult to
>>> resolve.
>> I noted a while back at the pump that the article branch of requests for
>> comment wasn't serving it's purpose anymore, and that it should get
>> moved to the pump as [[Village pump (article)]].  Sadly, and a little
>> ironically, I got no discussion at the pump, and I'm starting to wonder
>> if the community is so big it is beginning to fracture.  There needs to
>> be a high profile way of grabbing editor attention and getting a
>> reflective consensus on issues.  I'm starting to agree with the idea of
>> a parliament or maybe an article arbitration commitee.  Any thoughts?
>>
>> Steve block
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/302 - Release Date: 05/04/06
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> 
> 
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFENRTwg8fvtQYQevcRAs36AJ49RcziOnQvX8qrEHrmv9tzTjBnzQCfX5VF
4kkvBq1WH66GVK26vLaNQG4=
=e919
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----