(Ignore this - test email)
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ned Scott Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 11:19 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WP:EPISODE
It's really not fair to say that such users are unable to work together. TTN, everyone, and myself, have continued to follow advice about making more time for discussion and trying to help users understand why these articles are being removed, rather than just forcing the issue. This is one reason I didn't think the case needed to be accepted. The real reason this was an arbcom case was because of the very large amount of articles that were being redirected, and that resulting in a lot of different people getting mad. That's very different than trying different means of resolving the dispute. This situation is far from hopeless, and despite the impressions you might have gotten, no one wants to be at each other's throats.
-- Ned Scott
On Dec 28, 2007, at 10:28 AM, Majdan, Nik wrote:
Just FYI for everyone, this ArbCom case has closed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes _and_characters
I don't follow ArbCom cases too much but was following this one as a frequent editor of the Scrubs TV series articles. I was surprised at the lack of an apparent decision in this one. As I stated in AN, telling the editors to "work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community" seems ridiculous to me. The case made its way to ArbCom because the editors were unable to do exactly that. Granted, ArbCom doesn't get into content disputes, but telling users to work together who obviously can't seems counterproductive to me. There was a reason it went to ArbCom in the first place.
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 6:39 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WP:EPISODE
On 12/24/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
It puts lie to the whole concept of "consensus" if a decision like
this can swing permanently one way or the other based on whether it just happens to be made during a week when not a lot of people are paying attention.
Not really. Consensus is a very loose concept. Previous "consensuses" have been struck down on the basis that not enough people were involved (notably, the merger of WP:V, WP:RS etc) It wouldn't be unreasonable to challenge the consensus later on, if indeed not many people were involved.
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, notify us immediately by telephone and (i) destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message immediately if this is an electronic communication.
Thank you.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l