On 5/13/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/12/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I think you're wrong that Jimbo has any ultimate power over Wikipedia. Sure, if he wanted to ban someone he'd probably get away with it, but only if the community accepted it.
You might want to reread the banning policy and some recent Arbcom cases. The view that Jimbo cannot ban people by fiat or dictate Wikipedia policy is a minority one. Those who disagree can fork.
All that you say is true, but being written on a Wikipedia page does not make it fact.
Maybe I come off as a Jimbo defender or that I enjoy the situation. In fact, I don't have any feelings on it either way. He doesn't interfere with me writing the encyclopedia, which is what I'm here to do.
And if it's such a pointless issue, then why does it have to be
addressed in the first place?
Because people take it so seriously that they edit war, wheel war, and leave the project over it, as incomprehenible to me as that is.
And now that userboxes are banned, there's no more edit warring, wheel warring, or people leaving the project?
It's as if the result of this battle over userboxes will have any direct impact on the quality of the articles. It won't. Whether userboxes stay or not, I really wish we would all just let it go and write the fucking encyclopedia already. The fact that some people spend so much time on the mailing list trying to ensure that they get their way in this shitheap of an "issue" makes me wonder what you are all really here to do.
Ryan
I really don't see anyone doing that. I'm more concerned with people claiming that Jimbo is unilaterally passing CSD criteria despite a lack of consensus than I am with what the CSD criteria are.
Anthony