If you believe that you no longer enjoy the support of the community that elected you to your position, don't you think it would be only proper for you to voluntarily lay down your mops?
Molu
On Tue, 30 May 2006 21:13:51 -0500 "Kelly Martin" wrote:
>I doubt I'd survive any sort of reconfirmation vote. Then again, that
>might work out well in the long run, since I think the owners of
>Wikipedia would rather that I were an admin.....
>Kellyt
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I think I can safely say you didn't bother to take a look at my WP acount before you decided to hit the send button. I think the non-editor me has contributed more t Wikipedia articles than this 'potentially good editor' who by some curious coincidence also manages to be a banned user. I'm a strong fighter for NPOV and I always remove the slightest POV wherever I come upon them. NPOV is the most important policy in Wikipedia and it needs to be upheld strictly.
I also don't remember ever advocating getting rid of admins (in fact I said admins were a necessary evil). The only thing that irks me is when a certain class of admins decide that they as editors form a class superior to other editors who are not admins and their special abilities give them the right to ignore community consensus and impose their own POV on issues. I'm sure this is only a small fraction of all admins, but they tend to be a highly visible one.
Molu
On Tue, 30 May 2006 12:07:48 -0400 jayjg wrote:
>Nonsense; the two aren't even remotely comparable. A potentially good
>editor who has been hard done by over an article is nothing like a
>non-editor who feels they need to get rid of Wikipedia admins because
>they can't POV the project to their own liking.
>Jay.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Apology accepted.
Molu
On Tue, 30 May 2006 23:28:28 +1000 Mark Gallagher wrote:
>"a bit rich" implies inconsistency. I assure you both emails are quite
>consistent. They're both a case of someone posting something silly to
>this list and me getting snappy about it.
>If you'd called me on civility alone, well, you'd have been 100% right.
>While everything I said to Molu was true, it did not, perhaps, need
>to be said, and *definitely* did not need to be said in such a tone.
>Molu: I am sorry, my post was rude and insulting. I always aim to be
>straightforward, but there is a line between "being straightforward" and
>"being a dick" and I crossed it.
>--
>Mark Gallagher
>"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
>- Danger Mouse
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
A reminder to everyone about speedy deletions...
It has come to my attention lately that the speedy deletion criteria are
being applied rather loosely in some cases. Especially unfortunate are
articles that are nominated for being "non-notable"; there is no such speedy
criterion, there is only the criterion that articles about people/groups may
be deleted if they have "no assertion of notability" whatsoever. This is
not just process wonkery--it is fundamendal to WP:CSD that the reason for
deletion be totally uncontroversial, as the process is almost entirely
without review.
I have encountered many speedy-tagged articles that, upon a careful look,
were either good articles or worthy of further consideration (e.g. through
PROD). It is incumbent on administrators who do speedy deletions to take
such careful looks at every article; there are enough of us to take the time
to do it right. It would also be helpful if those tagging pages would take
some care in what they tag, although I do understand that new pages patrol
(for example) is a thankless and rushed job which is very important.
In cases I've seen where I think mistakes were made, I have tried to start
discussions with the individual editors involved. My intention in sending
this email is not to single them out, but just to bring this issue to
everyone's attention. In many cases where an article is clearly unsuitable,
but doesn't clearly fit the speedy criteria, using the WP:PROD process is a
good substitute for speedy deletion, and I urge everyone to use it more
often.
Thanks,
SCZenz
From: Molu <loom91(a)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales - Admin-driven
death of Wikipedia
> If you are unpopular, then you are doing something
> wrong.
People who whine on about admins and admin abuse
broadly seem to fall into two categories. Either
they're people with an agenda (or a model for the
'pedia that the majority don't support) to push or
they're admin-wannabies who see the post as some sort
of reward and want it for themselves and are
frustrated they don't think they'll get it.
Interestingly, people who criticise Jimbo fall into
similar categories - either they have an agenda to
push or they think they can do a better job of being
figurehead and are frustrated they won't get it.
It's interesting to watch these people in action.
Again, they split into two categories. They're either
the ones demanding someone be de-sysoped for using
her/his judgement, or they're quoting (or misquoting)
rules back to admins and demanding someone be
de-sysoped for not using her/his judgement.
They can be found complaining about articles being
deleted and articles not being deleted. About what
admins said and what admins didn't say. About admins
WP:IARing and admins not WP:IARing. About how admins
are inconsistent and how we all act as a hive.
They can be found picking over every letter of an
admin's post looking for a tiny violation of a rule
and screaming that an admin has dinged them for
breaking a rule that suddenly doesn't apply to them.
You can find them, begging your pardon, MSK, screaming
about userboxen rights and unilaterally changing the
graphic in a userbox because they don't agree it
represents certain users, of which they are not one,
correctly (cf {{User Socialist}}).
They are likely to be found nominating themselves for
admin after 50 edits and being appalled when they are
(usually quite nicely) told to come back later and
carrying userboxen that say "this user doesn't want to
be an admin". They are to be found demanding higher
quality admins but voting "oppose" to all candidates
regardless and to be ignoring RfA completely and then
feeling affronted that they weren't personally
consulted before someone was given extra buttons. They
are to be found demanding penalties for admins'
miniscule transgressing of rules and forgiveness for
their (minor, non-, not really, it doesn't count)
vandalism and POV pushing. They say a wheel war means
a permanent ban for admins, but a revert war between
them and others means that admins have abandoned them
and they were right anyway.
They are to be found spending all evening watching one
admin's edits and crying "stalker" if an admin
nominates two articles by the same person for deletion
in the same month. They are to be found demanding
complete anonymity and trying to tear the shreds of
anonymity away from others. They want every admin
action to be reviewed but their own actions ignored or
buried. They want others to do all the work and want
articles reserved for them only to edit.
What amazes me is how these people can represent
either or both of these views depending on what they
feel will get them an advantage that moment. How they
can dismiss Wikipedia as meaningless, then spend hours
on a bloody forum devoted to how meaningless Wikipedia
is. How they can demand perfection at all times from
admins whilst demanding everyone ignore their own
failings.
How they are completely unable to get the hint that
their complete inability to fit into a community that
celebrates diversity and eccentricity is indicative of
a problem /they/ have, not a problem that Wikipedia
has. How they had the choice of contributing to an
open free encyclopedia or a UBB forum for nutjobs with
an agenda, and they chose the latter *because they
didn't fit in to the open encyclopedia*.
Above all, I remain gobsmacked how these people can
fail to get anywhere in a community, fail to make
friends, fail to write articles that prosper, fail to
be trusted by the community with two extra buttons,
fail to make anything of their freely-given time on
Wikipedia other than to be banned, bemoaned or
generally be wished away by their fellow editors, how
they can go through all of this and *still* use
sockpuppets to try to contribute, subscribe to the
mailing lists, visit IRC and generally hang about like
a bad smell rather than doing what rational people
would do and find another bloody hobby! One day,
Wikipedia may eclipse the internet. Until then, there
are some 3 billion other places to waste others' time
that they could be checking out.
If nothing else, don't they realise that they're
driving admins to cabal, that they're creating more
people who agree with the status quo, that they are
having *exactly* the opposite affect to the one they
seem to want?
And don't get me started on the actions of
[[User:WR-Recruiter]] and the like, busy writing to
the total mentalists, the tiny unstable minority who
detonate when asked their opinion or find themselves
disagreed with on an obscure talk page. If they're
actively recruiting from that particular gene pool,
it's no wonder they attract stalkers, shitbags and
specials.
The company you keep often tells more about you than
you do yourself, I find.
-> REDVERS
___________________________________________________________
The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
Jimbo wrote:
>Be glad, if my proposal worries you, that I am not proposing that we
>automatically semi-protect all living bios. :)
Can I propose it then?
1. Category:Living people can be added to an article by anyone; the
software prevents anyone not an admin from removing it.
2. Being in that cat makes an article semi-protected.
This is a [[SMOP]], of course.
(We had a Wikimedia UK meeting on Saturday. A few of us came up with
this precise policy independently. Great cabals think alike and all
that.)
- d.
So you are saying Guerdlam's accusations are actually true? In that case it is a cause for concern! If a certain admin will not pass a RfA today, he has no business whatsoever being an admin. An admin is a person who has been entrusted with some additional abilities by the community because he is trusted to make good use of them and entrusting those abilities to all users has too much potential for disruption.
If however an admin ceases to be popular within the community, that means he has overstayed his welcome and immediately needs to be kicked out, call it a lynchmob if you will. An admin is a janitor, not the member of some elite aristocracy and if they perform actions unpopular to the majority of the community then they are abusing their powers.
Molu
On Mon, 29 May 2006 12:36:51 +0100 Nick Boalch wrote:
>I don't think that is a particularly fair test. As is obvious, admins
>are occasionally called upon to perform actions that upset people -- I
>don't think admins should shrink from making those hard choices.
>I can think of several thoroughgoingly solid admins, people who temper a
>good knowledge of policy with a healthy dose of knowing that what we're
>here to do is write an encyclopaedia, who I doubt would pass an RfA
>because they've done things that have made them controversial or
>unpopular in certain sectors of the community.
>The community giveth, and the community taketh away -- but it taketh
>away under the auspices of proper consideration by the arbitration
>committee, not by having unpopular admins strung up by a baying lynchmob.
>Cheers,
>N.
---------------------------------
Feel free to call! Free PC-to-PC calls. Low rates on PC-to-Phone. Get Yahoo! Messenger with Voice
As a recent contributor to Wikipedia, I'd like to give you some feedbacks.
I edited a few pages, some of them about Mathematics or Science (my username is
Lerichard). In a very short time most of my contributions disappeared, removed
by users with privileges, or users that were very active on wikipedia. However
I contributed a few pages about comics that stayed.
Someone claimed we reached the death of Wikipedia. I think that's exagerated and
provocative, but there could be a dangerous shift.
My impression is that many popular articles are not made of the best
contributions, rather they are made by people who are willing to spend a lot of
time on wikipedia, and contribute a lot, editing and removing others
contributions, knowing exactly what are the rules, making the rules and so on.
It makes less room for the ones who are not willing to spend hours each day on
wikipedia, but would be able to contribute a bit sometimes. But when I see my
contributions being removed shortly after, I just do not want to contribute
anymore, just use it.
This is not bad per se, but it makes things indeed slightly less democratic, and
creates a difference between those who are wikipedians, and casual users.
Rather than restricting editing of pages, I would rather restrict the number of
contributions that an individual can do. That would be much more democratic.
Rich
> Funny that fiction about stalking someone raises alarm bells on WR, given that they welcome amorrow and similar editors.
> I suspect Snowspinner could collect a lot of valuable advice on what it's like to be a creepy psychopath from some of WR's more respected contributors.
Tolerate =\= respected. ;)
http://wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=1386&st=20#entry7870http://wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=1298#entry7257http://wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=1298#entry7218
I'm not sure how you got that conclusion, but posting a lot does not
equal "respected" either :) You can't really attack the site for
allowing a few wackos to post, there's plenty of crazies (from all
kind of POVs, religions and ideologies) on Wikipedia too.
If you're wondering why I haven't banned him, I seriously thought
about it but I don't think it would achieve much. If he wasn't ranting
on there he'd probably be sending creepy emails or something anyway,
banning him from WR wouldn't actually achieve much, certainly ain't
gonna change his behavior.
One thing a lot of Wikipedia users seem to do is group everyone at WR
as though they're one person with some single goal or whatever.
Totally untrue. For all the nuts there are reasonable conversations
too, General Discussion is usually pretty clean
Anyway, as it's my first post I just thought I'd say hi. :) I am, of
course, WR user #1 ( http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1 )
otherwise known as Mistress Selina Kyle :) I expect loads will
probably want to flame me and all but whatever, I know a lot tend to
ignore NPA when it suits them. ;) (if you don't think that applies
here, read this: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ,
I did - hint, it's at the very bottom)
-Selina ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mistress_Selina_Kyle?oldid=41845454
/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle?oldid=47363392
(an archive as you can see by going to current version of talk, just
not a proper archive ~shrug~ I didn't do it, not my fault it's a
weirdly done "archive"))
(p.s. "Bob" wasn't me, first I heard about it was on WR)