On Wed, 31 May 2006 21:26:49 +0100 "Tony Sidaway" wrote:
>this was a deletion review, with a view to restoration, of a userbox
>that said the owner was a satanist. I have canceled it on the grounds
>that such a template could only bring the project into disrepute.
>I'm confident that this is best for Wikipedia. I don't think the goal
>of producing a high quality encyclopedia can be served by encouraging,
>though the provision of templates saying "I'm a satanist" and the
>like, the use of Wikipedia's website for social networking and
>coordination of work between adherents of satanism. It could only
>bring the whole enterprise into disrepute to permit such abuse.
>Therefore it's inappropriate to hold a DRV-style debate where
>traditionally the item is restored if a certain proportion of editors
>vote to restore it. We cannot make such a decision on the basis of
>votes. Perhaps a discussion on the talk page of the template might be
>appropriate, though I think it would require a very strong case to be
>made for this particular template
This is what I was talking about. When admins consider themselves empowered to completely ignore community consensus on the ground "I know better". The userbox debate has provided the highest amount of this shit, with admins speedying templates kept the day before at TfD. Don't give me that crap about best interests of the encyclopedia, it's subjective and you have no right to overrule community by the virtue of being an administrator. This makes me sick. Thankfully someone with good sense has restored the debate.
Molu, disgusted
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
>Message: 6
>Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 11:05:09 +1000
>From: "Peter Ansell" <ansell.peter(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] cancelation of the deletion
review of the
> satanism userbox
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID:
>
<a1be7e0e0606011805x7203ed79i526f32d1ae3ef1d0(a)mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1;
format=flowed
>
>On 6/2/06, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> > On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 6/2/06, George Herbert
<george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Tony is going around pissing people off badly
enough that they RfC him
> > > over
> > > > it.
> > >
> > > George, if I breathe someone gets pissed off.
This isn't normally
> > > regarded as a cause for concern.
> > >
> >
> > No, actually, your day to day stuff only ruffles
people's feathers.
> >
> > Your attitude that it's ok to do that is annoying.
> >
> > Your attitude that it's ok to move beyond that
into actually pissing them
> > off, and doing things like rejecting RfCs out of
hand merely because they're
> > silly, is a serious problem.
> >
> > If people are actively pissed off at the way
you're behaving it is a serious
> > problem. You are the single most active visible
WP admin a lot of the time,
> > and you're going around causing disruption and
conflict throughout the
> > community, and acting proud of it. What, exactly,
do you think that sends
> > as a message to new editors?
> >
> > It is not ok to go around pissing people off. It
is important to figure out
> > how to get things done without pissing them off.
> >
>
>Well said, And to think that people are worrying
about "possible
>polemical" effects and ignoring the deeper problems
with the wikipedia
>community structure.
>
>Peter Ansell
I think one should not expect any action, in
general, from the people who are well fed by the
current structure which makes them feel superior, make
any attempt towards a bit of change. It is a
sociological principle that status quo always resists
to the reforms. The community needs to take initiative
in that direction. [[WP:OURS]] was a humble example of
such efforts waiting for the community involvement.
Resid
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>I think it would be reasonable to have some sort
>of process other than ArbCom whereby admins are
>from time to time or upon particular
>circumstances renominated for adminship.
>The danger, of course, is that such a process
>could be used by trolls as a hammer against some
>of our more active admins.
This is right in both parts. It is very easy for an
admin (I speak as one myself) to feel somewhat special
and elevated. Admins are, after all, only human like
everyone else. And human beings are an intensely
hierarchical species - I speak as a Brit, the most
hierarchical of all subgroups of Homo Sapiens in the
western hemisphere.
And, of course, that feeling of being "somewhat
special" will have its effects. We dislike WP:OWN of
articles, but admins and long-term users all suffer
from "ownership" of the project as a whole. As a
general rule, this is a Very Good Thing. Without
people feeling ownership of Wikipedia, the project
would be doomed.
But the same problems that exist in editors owning
articles exist in editors owning Wikipedia. We don't.
The public, the users, the readers - they own
Wikipedia. The person who drops in, reads a single
article and goes away better informed, or with
something to put in her high school essay or something
new to add to his mate's point of view... they own
Wikipedia. They are the customers. We - the editors
and admins - are the burger-flippers, serving the
customers what they want when they want it. We know
more about how the burgers are made and what goes into
the making of them than do the customers on the other
side of the window. But that doesn't mean we have any
authority over the customers. That's not what we're
(not) paid for.
(BTW, the Wikipedia critics forget that point more
than the real editors and admins do - as a hint to
them: that ol' interweb thing, it doesn't exist just
for you. Honestly.)
However (and there had to be one), however: the first
call for me to be desysoped was just 12 hours after I
was given the admin buttons. I deleted an article that
someone else had tagged CSD-A7; it was a recreation of
a CSD-A7, which was a recreation of a CSD-A7. Three
editors, two admins and me all agreed that this chap's
high school career didn't need to be in an
encyclopedia.
The chap in question contacted my talk page, emailed
me and even emailed someone else asking them to
contact me, all with the same message: I had been
wrongly "promoted" and should go immediately.
A day later, a similar thing happened. Since then, a
week on Wikipedia isn't complete without someone
somewhere telling me that I should be desysoped for
enforcing Wikipedia rules... or writing to a talk page
asking someone for their opinion on a rule(!)
Any method of evaluating admins needs to remove these
people from the process. They have nothing to add to
it. If they could create a de-admin process with a
single click, they would. And once created that
process would attract every nutjob, troll and person
who skim-reads a page into voting an admin out of the
extra buttons. QED: no more admins in about 12 days.
Nevertheless, there should be a way of allowing
comment on admin actions and behaviour. Writing to
admins' talk pages and email doesn't satisfy the
critics, even if they even bother. They tend to go to
Esperanza or AIV first. Or to RfA to try to become an
admin. Or even directly to the Anti-Wikipedia Forum
for Obsessive Nutters or whatever it's called.
A route where they could vent would be useful to the
complainant, the community and even the admin
themselves. We can rely on the community to spot a
malicious or ill-informed editor making a complaint,
as a rule, and thus reject them (although the critics
say *all* complaints are valid... mind you, they're
busy ringing people up at work, writing to employers
and calling the police over *interweb content
disputes*, so they've already somewhat blotted their
copybooks in the scale and sanity departments).
There's a clear, easy and unabusable "Request for
Comment on Administration Actions" system that must
exist somewhere. Soemthing that would give everyone
useful feedback, help decide policy and would be
non-judgmental unless an admin had gone mad with
her/his buttons and a 'crat hadn't spotted it.
What this system is, I don't know. But there must be
one. Simple, easy to use, hard to abuse... surely the
internet allows for that somewhere? A system that
could recognise that admins are human and therefore
are not perfect, but that there's a difference between
falability and maliciousness? Above all, a system that
ensures that mistakes are learnt from, rather than
punished (Lar, MSK, do you hear me? Enough with the
punishment fetish, please...) and thus that we grow
and develop from it.
But I'm at a loss as to what that system is. There
*must* be one. Somewhere.
-> REDVERS
___________________________________________________________
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" The Wall Street Journal
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
Hey Jay,
Welcome in. Do you think you got into the discussion
from the correct place? I think I was trying to
emphasis on the importance of discussing the proposal
itself and taking it as a first step in the
development of a better one. Anyways...
There are some people with lack of short memories. It
is OK under standard conditions at which they only
need some automated behavioral patterns. It might be
hard for them, though, when they are involved in some
sort of discussions. They, for example, can easily
forget what they said a minute ago? Can you imagine
that?
In your previous message about Salaadin, you are
complaining about conspiracy theories he has in his
mind about Jews. I do not mind your ethnic origin, so
your concerns are understandable to me. You are on the
other hand do not hesitate to construct your own
conspiracy theory here: 'new kind of abusive editors
trying to push their POV via the back door'. We have
no chance other than showing respect to your
conspiracy theory, of course, because it is yours
and not against Jews. Who wants to be blamed for being
an anti-semitist? Yours should be just fine...
Would I bother luxury and comfort of your mind if I
ask how you think these new abusive editors will abuse
something and will make their hidden agenda a policy?
Or do you know how a policy becomes a proposal in
Wikipedia?
I think, I could diagnose a problem in Wikipedia and
could suggest a fix for it. I hope it attract some
attention and works at the end. I am not able to make
a suggestion for you (a good editor working for
good of Wikipedia wihtout any doubt and in turn the
humanity like you) other than; just follow the main
policies such as 'assume good faith'.
Best,
Resid
>From: jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Time to start discussing
solutions?
>Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:27:13 -0400
>
>On 6/4/06, Resid Gulerdem <resid_gulerdem(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
> > Dear Scott,
> >
> > What is your panic for?
>
>What's worse, you
>appear to be one of the new breed of that kind of
abusive editor, the
>kind who feels that if they can't push their POV and
other policy
>abuses onto Wikipedia by force, they will do it via
the back-door,
>through policy change.
>
>Jay.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
The comments were very useful in general. The most
important ones among them are the ones addressing
possible ways to fix the problem. Writing a proposal
for it was one of them.
I was thinking on this problem for quite some time and
had already some ideas about the solution in mind. I
decided to post them here. I am a user who blocked
indefinitely (how do you think I know the
'admin abuse' issue by heart?) so, I do not have a
chance to propose it in Wikipedia at this point. I
hope that the points raised below contribute to the
efforts towards a solution. Just a quick suggestion...
I tried to express it using a semi-formal language.
Further explanations are given [in the square
brackets].
Best,
Resid
--------------------
[[WP:OURS]]
--------------------
[[WP:OURS]] (sysOp User RelationS or Wikipedia is
ours) is a policy aimed to clarify the relations
between sysops and users.
[This could be named as [[WP:AURS]] (Admin-User
RelationS) as well.]
1. '''Ethics and Standards'''
'Content disputes' are one of the main dispute type
encountered. To avoid that, users need to follow
well-established ethics and standards of Wikipedia
(e.g.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics])
[I think content disputes and the disputes around a
controversial issue are very important to address. If
the standards are applied strictly to everyone, that
would reduce the energy loss around these kind of
disputes.]
[It is easier to write an article on a purely
technical matter ''in general'' (e.g. nose, motor,
etc). If the issue is controversial, that cause some
problems because sometimes (if not all the times)
admins are also part of the disputes. Their experience
and privileges then does not constitute a base for
neutralization of the article but -let me put it this
way- rather make them a target for
accusations. 'Wikilawyering' is not a term to explain
only ordinary user behavior. It is important to
realize that there is no stronger factor to polish the
reputation of Wikipedia than a neutral account
of the controversial issues.]
[I referred to an updated version of a proposal I
started. I could not have a chance to put it to a vote
properly.]
2. '''Subject oriented study groups and committees'''
Based on the area of specialization and interest,
experienced users (more than 6 months of editing
experience) may join the study groups. Study groups
work on the controversial articles categorized
as being related to their area of specialization and
can make recommendations on particular points. If
necessary, the study groups may also supervise
controversial articles until the dispute is
resolved.
[Another way of eliminating disputes, I think, is to
form some study groups based on the area of
specialization of the users, say 'history of science',
etc. When disputes arise, the users may ask
the opinion of the related study groups. The group may
vote if necessary on the dispute and comes up with a
decision. It does not have to be a final decision
though, as usual. Many violations such as 3RR,
edit-wars, etc. can be diminished that way which may
result in a more friendly atmosphere between users and
admins who feel obligated to force the rules
consciously.]
3. '''Mentor-mentee program'''
Each user is strongly encouraged to chose only one
admin mentor when s/he create an account in Wikipedia.
The users blocked by more than 3 admins are required
to have a mentor. Users can change their
mentor anytime they like before involved in a dispute
by the approval of the new admin chosen to be a
mentor. Anonym users are out of this program and these
accounts will be managed as before.
[This will indicate the popularity of the admins and
will provide a dynamics measure of their success. This
dynamic approach might be better than reelecting them
periodically. There is almost no accountability of
admins in a practical way. They should be accountable
to the community. A periodic reaffirmation can be
added to this too, if someone thinks is of paramount
importance.]
4. '''Limited block policy'''
A user can be blocked by only the mentor. In the case
the mentor is not available, an explanation should be
posted to the mentors talk page. The mentor can
unblock the user anytime s/he thinks is appropriate.
Anonym IP's will be managed as before.
Indefinite block can only be decided by ArbCom, not by
an admin.
[Admins know the rules better. If there is a concern
about a user's edits, they can discuss and get an
agreement on a block based on the rules. It should not
be hard to convince an admin about the applicability
of a specific policy. This approach put the discussion
of the validity of a block onto the admins involved
rather than to an admin-user dialogue which, not
surprisingly, results in a block. This part also gives
the flexibility to the admins who think a block is
unnecessary but do not want to step on another admin's
toe.]
[And maybe for once, all users who are blocked so far
should be able to ask for an unblock, unconditionally,
after this policy gets approval, if it does. That may
bring some reconciliations and peace to the project.]
------------------------
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I've spotted many more organisations are sprining up; the majority either
useless or clones of the CVU or Esperanza.
I made Community Justice, which I think failed, to be honest. CJ aimed to
improve the encyclopedia through more civil (and hence faster and less
damaging) disputes.
However, four different viewpoints of the Wikipedia have emerged recently:
- It is an encyclopedia with a community
- It is a community with an encyclopedia
- It is an encyclopedia
- It is a community
I agree with the first, though many users agree with the second and some the
third and fourth.
With Web 2.0, I see the Wikipedia becoming more and more like a social
networking site, which is sad.
There needs to be some way to remind users it's an encyclopedia - perhaps a
community organisation reminding people to edit the enyclopedia
(Wikipedia:Community Encouraging the Community to Expand the Encyclopedia
over the Community, Though That Sounds Ironic). (humour :P )
--
Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
Dear Scott,
What is your panic for? My account is blocked, yes!
This is the third time you are repeating the same
thing on this list. I disclosed that at the beginning
of the proposal too. I hope people smart enough here
to see that you are trying to denounce the proposal by
mud-throwing at me. I expect you will continue doing
so to distract the attention of the community from the
proposal itself. I had issues with some admins,
blocked at the end and '''that is why I know the
admin-abuse problem by heart'''. I am trying to make
some structural suggestions so that new comers do not
live through the same difficulties I had here. Isn't
that really understandable to you? If you would like
to talk about the issue, focus on the proposal and
find some mistakes in it, that would be more
persuasive that I am doing bad and be more useful to
correct it.
I am so sorry to say that you are not an exemplary
editor in my sight from whom I can take some advise,
and maybe in the sight of a few other users you are
messing up around. I do not want to waste my time to
provide links to show what kind of editor you are.
(There are already two links in my previous message,
accidentally.)
Maybe I should just say this: It is no good to watch
each and every step of a fellow editor and try to
create a negative atmosphere around him by distorting
the facts, slandering, using your experience and
naivety of the new users in a negative manner, biting
the new users, trying to spoil any positive relation
the user may have by secretly talking to others,
organizing other users against a fellow editor etc. It
is not also good to spoil and ruin the articles and
proposals by starting edit-wars, reverting without
discussion, tag'ing the articles at which you have no
other contributions or idea about without any
explanation, etc. I cannot see the basis for your
motivation and do not like to describe it in terms of
phycology for the sake of kindness. I just want to let
you know that those are the behaviors that damage the
community spirit of Wikipedia.
I want you not answer it to me but ask this question
yourself: What will I gain from ruining another
proposal ([[WP:OURS]]) as I did in the case of
[[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]? Is mud-throwing ethical and
can considered among the behaviors of a gentleman?
Should I stop this poor behavior? If you have
difficulty to find an answer please consult your
parents for your childish behavior.
If you remember, I told you 'bye' far ago. When I say
it, I really meant that. Let me see if I can make
myself more clearer this time: Bye again...
Resid
>From: "Scott Stevenson" <wikinetscott(a)gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Time to start discussing
solutions?
>Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:15:08 +0200
>
>Resid Gulerdem you are a PERMANENTLY BLOCKED EDITOR
who has not only
>been disruptive on English Wikipedia :
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rgulerdem with
corresponding
>extensive block log:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:…
>but you've been disruptive in an entirely independent
way on the
>Turkish Wikipedia:
>http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullanýcý:Rgulerdem
>Where you have also been repeatedly blocked:
>http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Özel:Log&type=block&page=Kullanýc…
>
>For you to be discussing policy at this point is
ridiculous. You
>should STEP AWAY from the project for at minimum 1
YEAR and then come
>back to try and contribute as at this point it is
surely likely that
>you'll once again be disruptive when trying to
formulate any sort of a
>"policy" like [[WP:OURS]] through demonstrating the
same types of
>disruptive editor behaviour you've already repeatedly
demonstrated
>(involving WP:OWN, WP:3RR, WP:POINT, WP:NPA, and
WP:CIV).
>
>-Scott Stevenson [[User:Netscott]]
>
>On 6/4/06, Resid Gulerdem <resid_gulerdem(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
> > Regarding the [[WP:OURS]] proposal; there are some
> > good suggestions in it, I believe:
> >
> > 1. [[WP:OURS]] is aiming to start a discussion
about
> > the '''solution''' to the main problem: admin-user
> > relations. Isn't it time to start talking about
> > solutions? How far are we going to discuss diffent
> > versions of the same problem?
> >
> > 2. It is not complete but just a quick suggestion
from
> > my point of view. Can be and need to be modified.
> >
> > 3. Existence of some rejected proposals cannot
imply
> > that this one will follow the same path, can it?
It is
> > early to make a decision at this stage before
> > discussing the proposal.
> >
> > 3. The good thing about the proposal is, it does
not
> > devaluate Wikigods and Wikigoddess and does not
> > attempt to take their eternal status back. It does
not
> > propose radical changes but maybe a different look
and
> > acceptable variations of the current
> > infrastructure. It just provides a windshield for
> > ordinary users against strong, irresistible blows
of
> > Wikigod(des)s.
> >
> > 4. It provides a dynamic measure for popularity of
> > admins.
> >
> > 5. It aims to educate new or old users, rather
than
> > irritate them.
> >
> > 6. It diagnose and tries to prevent the system
from
> > possible problems before they arise (by
constructing
> > study groups, etc., for example).
> >
> > 7. As discussed by some users, both community and
> > encyclopedia are crucial components for Wikipedia.
The
> > problems are caused by the fact that '''the
bridges
> > between these two components are not efficient'''.
> > [[WP:OURS]] is a simple but sincere attempt to
> > strengthen, enhance and improve the efficiency of
> > these bridges. I hope it gets enough attention.
> >
> > Regarding Wikiethics discussion:
> >
> > If you participated in Wikiethics discussion and
now
> > referring to that approval poll you are,
> > unfortunately, distorting the facts. If you are
new to
> > that discussion, I would recommend you to review
the
> > comments carefully.
> >
> > Let me summarize what has happened quickly: A
user,
> > who dislike the proposal, unilaterally started the
> > approval poll at a very early stage of the
proposal. I
> > then started another poll right after that to ask
the
> > community if an approval poll is needed at that
stage.
> > I, myself as the main proposer, haven't thought
that
> > the proposal is ready for putting to a vote. Then
the
> > poll I started to ask what people think about the
> > timing of an approval poll vandalized many times:
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=ne…
> > or its place suddenly became a problem:
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=44…
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=45…
> > Nevertheless, the editors could have a chance to
vote
> > on the poll I started: 13 out of 17 said that it
is
> > not needed. So, the approval poll itself was not
valid
> > by the community consensus. Moveover if you can
check
> > the votes on the approval poll itself, some people
are
> > saying that the approval poll is not reasonable at
> > that stage. These editors did not vote on the poll
I
> > started,
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics/Archive/Do_we_need_a…
> > simply because it was not available to them. So
the
> > numbers you reported does not reflect the case as
is.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Resid
> >
> >
> > >From: "Stephen Bain" <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com>
> > >Reply-To: English Wikipedia
<wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> > >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> > >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] status qou vs reform
> > >Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:33:48 +1000
> > >
> > >On 6/3/06, Resid Gulerdem
<resid_gulerdem(a)yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think one should not expect any action,
in
> > > > general, from the people who are well fed by
the
> > > > current structure which makes them feel
superior,
> > make
> > > > any attempt towards a bit of change...
> > >
> > >There must be an awfully large number of people
who
> > are content with
> > >the current structure, given that the general
> > approval poll on your
> > >Wikiethics proposal failed 3 to 38 [1]. Polls are
> > evil, of course, and
> > >not binding, but that level of rejection is
fairly
> > comprehensive, and
> > >came from all sectors of the community. I would
> > imagine that "OURS",
> > >if it were ever formulated into a proposal, would
> > receive a similar
> > >amount of opposition for similar reasons.
> > >
> > >There are dozens of similar proposals put up
every
> > year. If any of
> > >them actually received support from the
community,
> > they would be
> > >successful. Admins are a miniscule 0.06% of
> > registered users - even if
> > >we always voted as a bloc, there is no way we
could
> > overrule a true
> > >community movement.
> > >
> > >[1]
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics/Archive/Approval_Pol…
> > >
> > >--
> > >Stephen Bain
> > >stephen.bain(a)gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Regarding the [[WP:OURS]] proposal; there are some
good suggestions in it, I believe:
1. [[WP:OURS]] is aiming to start a discussion about
the '''solution''' to the main problem: admin-user
relations. Isn't it time to start talking about
solutions? How far are we going to discuss diffent
versions of the same problem?
2. It is not complete but just a quick suggestion from
my point of view. Can be and need to be modified.
3. Existence of some rejected proposals cannot imply
that this one will follow the same path, can it? It is
early to make a decision at this stage before
discussing the proposal.
3. The good thing about the proposal is, it does not
devaluate Wikigods and Wikigoddess and does not
attempt to take their eternal status back. It does not
propose radical changes but maybe a different look and
acceptable variations of the current
infrastructure. It just provides a windshield for
ordinary users against strong, irresistible blows of
Wikigod(des)s.
4. It provides a dynamic measure for popularity of
admins.
5. It aims to educate new or old users, rather than
irritate them.
6. It diagnose and tries to prevent the system from
possible problems before they arise (by constructing
study groups, etc., for example).
7. As discussed by some users, both community and
encyclopedia are crucial components for Wikipedia. The
problems are caused by the fact that '''the bridges
between these two components are not efficient'''.
[[WP:OURS]] is a simple but sincere attempt to
strengthen, enhance and improve the efficiency of
these bridges. I hope it gets enough attention.
Regarding Wikiethics discussion:
If you participated in Wikiethics discussion and now
referring to that approval poll you are,
unfortunately, distorting the facts. If you are new to
that discussion, I would recommend you to review the
comments carefully.
Let me summarize what has happened quickly: A user,
who dislike the proposal, unilaterally started the
approval poll at a very early stage of the proposal. I
then started another poll right after that to ask the
community if an approval poll is needed at that stage.
I, myself as the main proposer, haven't thought that
the proposal is ready for putting to a vote. Then the
poll I started to ask what people think about the
timing of an approval poll vandalized many times:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=ne…
or its place suddenly became a problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=44…http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=45…
Nevertheless, the editors could have a chance to vote
on the poll I started: 13 out of 17 said that it is
not needed. So, the approval poll itself was not valid
by the community consensus. Moveover if you can check
the votes on the approval poll itself, some people are
saying that the approval poll is not reasonable at
that stage. These editors did not vote on the poll I
started,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics/Archive/Do_we_need_a…
simply because it was not available to them. So the
numbers you reported does not reflect the case as is.
Best,
Resid
>From: "Stephen Bain" <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] status qou vs reform
>Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:33:48 +1000
>
>On 6/3/06, Resid Gulerdem <resid_gulerdem(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
> >
> > I think one should not expect any action, in
> > general, from the people who are well fed by the
> > current structure which makes them feel superior,
make
> > any attempt towards a bit of change...
>
>There must be an awfully large number of people who
are content with
>the current structure, given that the general
approval poll on your
>Wikiethics proposal failed 3 to 38 [1]. Polls are
evil, of course, and
>not binding, but that level of rejection is fairly
comprehensive, and
>came from all sectors of the community. I would
imagine that "OURS",
>if it were ever formulated into a proposal, would
receive a similar
>amount of opposition for similar reasons.
>
>There are dozens of similar proposals put up every
year. If any of
>them actually received support from the community,
they would be
>successful. Admins are a miniscule 0.06% of
registered users - even if
>we always voted as a bloc, there is no way we could
overrule a true
>community movement.
>
>[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics/Archive/Approval_Pol…
>
>--
>Stephen Bain
>stephen.bain(a)gmail.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I would like to start by applauding Mr. Wales for his
wonderful idea of writing a free online encyclopedia
by the contribution of volunteers. I am hoping that it
can be improved to a reliable source of information as
time goes.
At this point, it is evident that, there are some
structural problems in Wikipedia. Ignoring these
problems doesn't lead to a reasonable solution and
doesn't help.
The main problem I can see is the unbalance between
the user rights and admin privileges. It can be
adjusted and corrected but the problem needs to be
identified first. It might not seem to be a
serious issue for one who is not effected, but it
really is. It is of paramount importance to realize
that motivation of ordinary users from any background
can be stimulated only by a fair treatment of
their edits.
It is also equally important to realize that the
conjuncture has a strong influence on the editors
without an exclusion of the admins. Some people feel
marginalized and faced to bias actions from some
admins. Isn't this important enough to address? The
answer to the question is strongly related to the
strategic call of being inclusive or exclusive.
Please note that any person leave Wikimedia is not
only a minus to the community, in general, is a plus
to the anti-Wikipedia community. I, myself, am at or
around that border line and before crossing it I
wanted to make a friendly call for a discussion of the
issue. I would be glad to discuss the issue and make
some suggestions for the solution if you are
interested.
Best,
Resid
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
On 3 Jun 2006 at 16:13, Ilmari Karonen <nospam(a)vyznev.net> wrote:
> > Even if the cartoonist would draw Mohammed a third time,
> > he wouldn't need be afraid as long as his drawings wouldn't
> > have been published before.
>
> Cartoonists generally do draw things with the expectation that they will
> be published.
And those with some sort of fanatical need to suppress offensive
cartoons won't necessarily limit themselves to opposing ones that are
published; look at the case of [[Mike Diana]], the only American to
be convicted of obscenity for drawing a cartoon (this happened in
Florida in the 1990s). As part of the court order following his
conviction, he was ordered not to draw any more obscene cartoons
whether published or not, with the authorities having the right to do
inspections of his home to make sure he hadn't drawn anything
illegal.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/