Erik,
I'm a little confused here. The mediation committee has indicated that they would like to be the sole administrators and moderators of the mediation message board. You appear to have taken this request as personal criticism of your good self, and as a result have robustly defended yourself. I think you have certainly made your point of view on the matter clear enough, and I'm sure it is clear to all readers that your actions are without defect. Having established that, let us now move forwards.
It appears that the mediation committee would *still* like to be the sole administrators and moderators of the mediation message board, *despite* your actions being entirely error-free. I think this is an entirely reasonable request. By agreeing to this request, you would be in no way bringing disrepute on yourself, or casting any doubt on the validity of your prior actions as moderator. Indeed, the ability to gracefully hand over the levers of power, where appropriate, is a highly prized ability amongst leaders.
If there are some important reasons, that we are unaware of, why it would be dangerous for you to allow the mediators to administer the mediation message board unaided, I'm sure we would all like to know. Otherwise, I hope you will shortly make all the mediators admins, as they have suggested, and thus free up your valuable time for other things.
Cheers, -Martin
Martin-
It appears that the mediation committee would *still* like to be the sole administrators and moderators of the mediation message board
Admin status on phpBB is different from moderator status; it allows the creation and deletion of entire boards, the management of permissions on all boards, changing the languages, styles etc. and other far-reaching settings. It inevitably comes with the ability to moderate any discussion board.
This status has to be limited, and it has to be limited to users who are technically able and willing to administrate the board. I volunteered for that job when the board was created, because I am personally interested in phpBB and familiar with it.
Of course the ability to moderate forums does not have to be *exercised* if there are actual moderators to do the job. So I'm all for the mediation team moderating their own board and have in fact immediately made sannse a moderator.
After her repeated personal attacks against me, I must admit that I have strong reservations about Anthere as a moderator and a mediator, but if Jimbo explicitly asks me to I will certainly make her a moderator as well.
Regards,
Erik
Combining bits of various posts:
Erik wrote:
you are now a moderator.
Thanks. That's helpful.
Erik wrote:
I deleted a bunch of useless messages.
No, you deleted a bunch of messages that were still useful to me. I understand that this was an inadvertent mistake on your part, and that you believed them to be useless.
Erik wrote:
Your [Anthere's] behavior here is increasingly bordering on trolling.
I don't think that's a fair comment. Anthere is annoyed at the lack of communication - which could have prevented this mistake. This is not a big issue in the sense of the particular thread deleted. It was inconvenient to me that it was deleted before I was finished with it - no biggie. But I think her concern is that similar situations are likely unless this is discussed.
Erik wrote:
Admin status on phpBB is different from moderator status; it allows the creation and deletion of entire boards, the management of permissions on all boards, changing the languages, styles etc. and other far-reaching settings. It inevitably comes with the ability to moderate any discussion board.
This status has to be limited, and it has to be limited to users who are technically able and willing to administrate the board. I volunteered for that job when the board was created, because I am personally interested in phpBB and familiar with it.
Is it possible to have more than one admin? If so I'm willing to learn how to administrate the board and become admin for the mediation board. I realise that this would give me access to admin abilities for all parts of the boards - but in the same way you have agreed not to moderate on the mediation board, I would agree not to on the other boards. Only if the rest of the mediation committee agrees of course.
--sannse
sannse-
I deleted a bunch of useless messages.
No, you deleted a bunch of messages that were still useful to me.
I do not remember seeing any messages which I considered of possible value. It seemed like a dead thread intended for immediate deletion. Maybe there was something in the thread which I overlooked. In that case, the deletion was a mistake. But there's no way to find out now, so trusting my own judgment, I do not consider it a mistake.
Anthere is annoyed at the lack of communication
I disagree with you about your characterization of Anthere's behavior here and elsewhere, but this will get us nowhere. Unless Anthere apologizes to me I have no desire to resume interaction with or discussion about her.
Is it possible to have more than one admin?
Yes. If there is general agreement, I can make you a global forum administrator.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
I do not remember seeing any messages which I considered of possible value.
Please consider rethinking this philosophy, Erik, and consider the possibility that (a) your view of what is "of possible value" may not coincide with everyone else's, and (b) your action *may* have been wrong *from the point of view of others*. Even if nothing in the thread had been "of possible value" indeed, it can nevertheless be viewed as wrong of you to intervene with the operation of a board that you are not even participating in. Please realise that this *can* be a cause for grief and annoyance, and if so, that you are responsible for it.
Unless Anthere apologizes to me
Other than the inappropriate reference to the de-sysopping of 168, which has nothing to do with this issue, I do not see anything in this thread that Anthère should be required to apologise for. Quite to the contrary, if I followed this all correctly, you were the one who deleted that thread. It seems more appropriate that you should apologise for that, and consider not doing it again in the future.
It seems that you feel that your ability to administer the board is being questioned. I understand that it can be taken that way. But, as has been said, even the greatest leaders make mistakes, and they are not great leaders if they cannot admit their mistakes and learn from them.
Timwi
Timwi-
Please consider rethinking this philosophy, Erik, and consider the possibility that (a) your view of what is "of possible value" may not coincide with everyone else's
Indeed. That's why I apply very low standards in moderation. A thread which only contains "deleted", "yesterday", "deleted", yesterday", "deleted", "yesterday" certainly falls into a category where, with common sense, one can assume that it is a dead discussion that can be removed.
As only administrator of the board at the time, it fell into my *responsibility* to do such housekeeping operations. And as it is with housekeepers, if you don't want them to throw away something that looks like crap, make it not look like crap. Alternatively, keep your own house. That is now the solution which we have agreed upon, and it is certainly one which I can happily accept.
It is, however, beyond the pale that I was attacked publicly (in a discussion that will be archived and indexed, with my real name in it, for years to come), on a personal level, for doing what I volunteered to do, was appointed to do, and did in completely good faith, using common sense. For that, I expect an apology.
Erik
Erik Moeller a écrit:
Timwi-
Please consider rethinking this philosophy, Erik, and consider the possibility that (a) your view of what is "of possible value" may not coincide with everyone else's
Indeed. That's why I apply very low standards in moderation. A thread which only contains "deleted", "yesterday", "deleted", yesterday", "deleted", "yesterday" certainly falls into a category where, with common sense, one can assume that it is a dead discussion that can be removed.
As only administrator of the board at the time, it fell into my *responsibility* to do such housekeeping operations. And as it is with housekeepers, if you don't want them to throw away something that looks like crap, make it not look like crap. Alternatively, keep your own house. That is now the solution which we have agreed upon, and it is certainly one which I can happily accept.
This is a message Bird posted today on Sannse page, on Wikipedia, not on a volatil board.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sannse&curid=172724...
He wrote
The message you missed on the board was one in which I replied in kind to your appreciation for my time and thanked you for helping clean up after the party. [[User:Bird|Bird]] 03:43, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The incentive for spending most of your free time as a mediator is very very very low. Mediation is a solitary activity. It is not very rewarding. Few mediations have succeeded till now. No one sees what you do. Few wikipedians think of thanking you. Even among the disputants themselves. On top of it, not only do you get little reward for trying to help bringing a little bit of peace in the committee, but some people also tell us you are not doing well, that mediation/arbitration is crap, even refuse to even try because they set up their minds we are wortless, and sometimes even some say you did not put enough effort in the mediation and that with more discussions, it would have succeeded.
There are few things that can help you going on. One of these things is that a disputant thanks you for the time you spent. A thank you note is not "crap". It is something important for the well-being of a mediator. It is worthwhile, at least for a second, the second you spend reading the note.
I recognise your hard work Erik, and I recognise your dedication. I never said you did this deletion ill-meaning, not even that it was an error, because I know you did so thinking well. But this post was important, and it was not your to decide it was crap. All we ask is that housekeeping responsabilities are in the hands of those taking care of the matter.
Anthere-
The message you missed on the board was one in which I replied in kind to your appreciation for my time and thanked you for helping clean up after the party. [[User:Bird|Bird]] 03:43, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I remember that message. The comment "thank you for helping clean up" made me think that this thread was dead and could be safely removed, given that the other messages were blanked.
I recognise your hard work Erik, and I recognise your dedication. I never said you did this deletion ill-meaning, not even that it was an error, because I know you did so thinking well. But this post was important, and it was not your to decide it was crap.
Yes, it was. At the time I was the only administrator of the board and I did exactly what I was supposed to do. As a matter of fact, I remember actively *offering* moderator status on the board. So far, nobody had applied to me for moderator status, so I was the only moderator as well. The message board was my idea, I configured it, I volunteered to maintain it. It is completely unfair to attack me for doing what I was supposed to do at the time.
What I question is the way you brought this issue to the fore, the public message, the "we are being oppressed!" tone, the "this is none of your business!" type comments, the "just like with 168" insinuation. The next time you have an issue with something I do, I would very much appreciate it if you would tell me so in private so we can seek a resolution, instead of screaming bloody murder without just cause.
As should be obvious by now, I am just as interested in making the board "run itself" as you are. But as a mediator, I really expect more from you in terms of interpersonal communication. This whole thread was completely avoidable and took us all away from doing more useful things. This is not the first time you have brought up matters in public that could have been resolved in private. I hope it is the last time.
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
Yes, I remember that message.
Ah, so you even knew that there was something other than "deleted"/"yesterday" in the thread.
I recognise your hard work Erik, and I recognise your dedication. I never said you did this deletion ill-meaning, not even that it was an error, because I know you did so thinking well. But this post was important, and it was not your to decide it was crap.
Yes, it was.
The more you insist on this, the more I'm worried you might do it again, which in turn diminuates my trust in you as a moderator. Not that I care much, since I'm not using the board either, nor am I a mediator, but I feel that Anthère and the other mediators deserve better treatment for their work for Wikipedia.
The message board was my idea, I configured it, I volunteered to maintain it. It is completely unfair to attack me for doing what I was supposed to do at the time.
I'm pretty sure that I could set up several more of those boards each day, configure them and even delete a few threads here and there. I believe it is a much greater step to volunteer to mediate. It's much more delicate and much less rewarding business.
What I question is the way you brought this issue to the fore, the public message, the "we are being oppressed!" tone, the "this is none of your business!" type comments, the "just like with 168" insinuation.
I agree with you that the latter insinuation was inappropriate, but I already said that. I don't remember seeing the first, and the second one is entirely correct.
The next time you have an issue with something I do, I would very much appreciate it if you would tell me so in private so we can seek a resolution, instead of screaming bloody murder without just cause.
As far as I understood this, nobody knew who actually deleted the thread. It was therefore perfectly justified to post to the mailing list. Given the frustration and annoyance caused by the thread deletion, the tone of the posting was perfectly understandable.
But as a mediator, I really expect more from you in terms of interpersonal communication
says the "administrator" of the board who deleted a thread without a trace of interpersonal communication...
Timwi
Timwi-
Yes, I remember that message.
Ah, so you even knew that there was something other than "deleted"/"yesterday" in the thread.
Read again what I said above.
I agree with you that the latter insinuation was inappropriate, but I already said that. I don't remember seeing the first, and the second one is entirely correct.
Asserting it does not make it so.
As far as I understood this, nobody knew who actually deleted the thread.
Then how about "We need to know who the administrator of the board is because there is a matter that we would like to discuss with them?" Is that so much to ask?
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
Then how about "We need to know who the administrator of the board is because there is a matter that we would like to discuss with them?" Is that so much to ask?
How about: Don't delete threads in boards you don't participate in? Is that so much to ask?
Why is it so difficult for you to appreciate that your deletion caused annoyance?
Timwi a écrit:
Erik Moeller wrote:
The next time you have an issue with something I do, I would very much appreciate it if you would tell me so in private so we can seek a resolution, instead of screaming bloody murder without just cause.
As far as I understood this, nobody knew who actually deleted the thread. It was therefore perfectly justified to post to the mailing list. Given the frustration and annoyance caused by the thread deletion, the tone of the posting was perfectly understandable.
When I receive a private mail from the board, from the administrator of the board...(the one called admin), to notify me I got a private message, the name given is Brion Vibber one and the email adress is brion@pobox.com
check here
http://boards.wikimedia.org/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2&sid=672...
I remember well that Erik nicely set the board for us; but frequently receiving mails from admin-brion, well, you wonder who the admin is.
I was following that thread closely. When I could not find it, I first thought I had lost synapses. I looked again and again. Then I thought Sannse had asked deletion. I asked her on irc. She had not. I then thought perhaps I had never noticed that the author of a thread could delete it (in this case, Bird I think), I went back, but no. I consequently understood that neither Sannse, nor Bird had deleted it, but who was the admin was not obvious. But clearly, an admin had deleted it, without asking nor reporting.
If Erik had been on irc, I would have asked him directly. Not being there, the most obvious step was the mailing list. I do not see this issue as being only private. The whole mediation board is concerned.
Anthere wrote:
The incentive for spending most of your free time as a mediator is very very very low. [...] There are few things that can help you going on. One of these things is that a disputant thanks you for the time you spent. A thank you note is not "crap". It is something important for the well-being of a mediator. It is worthwhile, at least for a second, the second you spend reading the note.
Oh my gosh, I so totally completely know what you are talking about. I can sympathise with this so much, it's almost scary. Yes, I know, I'm not a mediator... but I'm a LiveJournal Support volunteer, and the situation you describe is almost the same there.
Timwi
[[User:Nunh-huh]] insists on including three pizza places and a restaurant on the New Haven page. I've been trying to delete them but he won't let me. When I suggested that if he's going to list them he should add several others, he said that I needed to add them if I thought they should be included. Isn't it POV to list only a very few of the hundreds of stores in a city's list? Isn't this free advertising?
RickK
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
Rick wrote:
[[User:Nunh-huh]] insists on including three pizza places and a restaurant on the New Haven page. I've been trying to delete them but he won't let me. When I suggested that if he's going to list them he should add several others, he said that I needed to add them if I thought they should be included. Isn't it POV to list only a very few of the hundreds of stores in a city's list? Isn't this free advertising?
I'd say that it depends on the entire context. It can certainly be valid to mention some restaurants or establishments of any type in an article, if they are actually of some cultural importance in that city.
It seems that on the last revision, Nunh-huh is agreeing to leave out the pizza joints, but wants to leave in the refernece to Louis' Lunch. If the description is true _and verifiable_, then it should stay, because a restaurant that claims to have invented the hamburger and which has "queues ten deep at lunchtime" does sound like a useful bit of local color/culture for the article.
http://www.louislunch.com/ has several links to newspaper articles and the Library of Congress which appear to confirm the cultural importance of this place.
By and large, we can do away with disputes of this type by simply citing confirmability. In this case, the info about Louis' Lunch appears to meet that test. For the others, I didn't check.
--Jimbo
Yeah, I had no problem with leaving Louis' Lunch in there, but it was the three other pizza places that he kept trying to re-insert. I haven't checked the latest version yet, if he's willing to leave those out then I'm satisfied.
But what do we do in the future if an editor insists on adding two or three stores or restaurants and won't let the ads be removed?
RickK
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Rick wrote:
[[User:Nunh-huh]] insists on including three pizza places and a restaurant on the New Haven page. I've been trying to delete them but he won't let me. When I suggested that if he's going to list them he should add several others, he said that I needed to add them if I thought they should be included. Isn't it POV to list only a very few of the hundreds of stores in a city's list? Isn't this free advertising?
I'd say that it depends on the entire context. It can certainly be valid to mention some restaurants or establishments of any type in an article, if they are actually of some cultural importance in that city.
It seems that on the last revision, Nunh-huh is agreeing to leave out the pizza joints, but wants to leave in the refernece to Louis' Lunch. If the description is true _and verifiable_, then it should stay, because a restaurant that claims to have invented the hamburger and which has "queues ten deep at lunchtime" does sound like a useful bit of local color/culture for the article.
http://www.louislunch.com/ has several links to newspaper articles and the Library of Congress which appear to confirm the cultural importance of this place.
By and large, we can do away with disputes of this type by simply citing confirmability. In this case, the info about Louis' Lunch appears to meet that test. For the others, I didn't check.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
Rick wrote:
But what do we do in the future if an editor insists on adding two or three stores or restaurants and won't let the ads be removed?
Is it really an 'ad'? I'd say it's only an 'ad' if the person inserting it is trying to promote her or her own business, or the business of a client, and that there's no reason for the information to be there otherwise.
Of course even if it isn't an ad, that doesn't mean that it necessarily should go in the article, but depending on the entire context of the situation, perhaps it should.
I think it will only rarely ever be the case that there's an actual irreconcilable difference between reasonable parties to a discussion. Usually there will be a way to improve the article generally in a way that is satisfactory to both sides.
If one party is actually being completely unreasonable, and will not compromise, then of course it ends up eventually in mediation and arbitration, right?
--Jimbo
Yeah, right.
RickK
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote: If one party is actually being completely unreasonable, and will not compromise, then of course it ends up eventually in mediation and arbitration, right?
--Jimbo
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
Be nice to get our backlog of serious problems so cleared up that we could deal with something as light and fun as this. I think whoever wants the three pizza places should let us test em out. Fly us in, put us up, etc.
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:07:54 -0800 (PST) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [[New Haven, Connecticut]]
Yeah, right.
RickK
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote: If one party is actually being completely unreasonable, and will not compromise, then of course it ends up eventually in mediation and arbitration, right?
--Jimbo
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mailtag_us/*http://mail.yahoo.com - More reliable, more storage, less spam _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Rick wrote:
But what do we do in the future if an editor insists on adding two or three stores or restaurants and won't let the ads be removed?
Is it really an 'ad'? I'd say it's only an 'ad' if the person inserting it is trying to promote her or her own business, or the business of a client, and that there's no reason for the information to be there otherwise.
Of course even if it isn't an ad, that doesn't mean that it necessarily should go in the article, but depending on the entire context of the situation, perhaps it should.
I think it will only rarely ever be the case that there's an actual irreconcilable difference between reasonable parties to a discussion. Usually there will be a way to improve the article generally in a way that is satisfactory to both sides.
If one party is actually being completely unreasonable, and will not compromise, then of course it ends up eventually in mediation and arbitration, right?
The problem in this kind of situation arises when an editor sees no solution but to remove what he views to be offending material. The person whose material is being removed understandably sees that removal as an offensive act.
Some people tend to view some of this local information as non-encyclopedic, but sometimes it is exactly what gives flavour to a place. Even those of us who condemn the excesses of capitalism can recognize that certain commercial enterprises play an important social and cultural role in their respective communities. If one were to extrapolate Rick's argument that the mention of the pizza restaurants constitutes advertising, then we should also delete the Disneyland article because it is effectively advertising for the theme park. Imagine the arguments if someone tried to delete that article.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
The problem in this kind of situation arises when an editor sees no solution but to remove what he views to be offending material. The person whose material is being removed understandably sees that removal as an offensive act.
I think that's right. It's best, whenever possible, to think creatively about what sort of olive branch might be offered to the other person. In this particular case, the joyful compromise seems to have been to leave in "Louis' Lunch" which is undeniably of encyclopedia importance, and to remove the others.
Some people tend to view some of this local information as non-encyclopedic, but sometimes it is exactly what gives flavour to a place. Even those of us who condemn the excesses of capitalism can recognize that certain commercial enterprises play an important social and cultural role in their respective communities. If one were to extrapolate Rick's argument that the mention of the pizza restaurants constitutes advertising, then we should also delete the Disneyland article because it is effectively advertising for the theme park. Imagine the arguments if someone tried to delete that article.
Outside of one person who screamed at us in all caps and got booted from the mailing list for it, I'm not sure that there's really a lot of tension between "those who condemn the excesses of capitalism" and "those who praise the freedom of the marketplace" (or whatever we might call each side) _on this issue_.
I'd say that the real tension in this area might come from people with a slightly different 'stylistic vision' of what sort of information goes into an encyclopedia.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Even those of us who condemn the excesses of capitalism can recognize that certain commercial enterprises play an important social and cultural role in their respective communities. If one were to extrapolate Rick's argument that the mention of the pizza restaurants constitutes advertising, then we should also delete the Disneyland article because it is effectively advertising for the theme park. Imagine the arguments if someone tried to delete that article.
Outside of one person who screamed at us in all caps and got booted from the mailing list for it, I'm not sure that there's really a lot of tension between "those who condemn the excesses of capitalism" and "those who praise the freedom of the marketplace" (or whatever we might call each side) _on this issue_.
Hmmm. My point was more to the effect that there are many issues that transcend the traditional left/right spectrum. Whatever a person's political beliefs, if he happens to spend enough time visiting New Haven to promote his views, he will sooner or later need to find something to eat.
I'd say that the real tension in this area might come from people with a slightly different 'stylistic vision' of what sort of information goes into an encyclopedia.
One of the great things about life in the Wiki lane is that there are things about which left and right can find agreement.
Ec
Yeah, I had no problem with leaving Louis' Lunch in there, but it was the three other pizza places that he kept trying to re-insert. I haven't checked the latest version yet, if he's willing to leave those out then I'm satisfied.
But what do we do in the future if an editor insists on adding two or three stores or restaurants and won't let the ads be removed?
RickK
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Rick wrote:
[[User:Nunh-huh]] insists on including three pizza places and a restaurant on the New Haven page. I've been trying to delete them but he won't let me. When I suggested that if he's going to list them he should add several others, he said that I needed to add them if I thought they should be included. Isn't it POV to list only a very few of the hundreds of stores in a city's list? Isn't this free advertising?
I'd say that it depends on the entire context. It can certainly be valid to mention some restaurants or establishments of any type in an article, if they are actually of some cultural importance in that city.
It seems that on the last revision, Nunh-huh is agreeing to leave out the pizza joints, but wants to leave in the refernece to Louis' Lunch. If the description is true _and verifiable_, then it should stay, because a restaurant that claims to have invented the hamburger and which has "queues ten deep at lunchtime" does sound like a useful bit of local color/culture for the article.
http://www.louislunch.com/ has several links to newspaper articles and the Library of Congress which appear to confirm the cultural importance of this place.
By and large, we can do away with disputes of this type by simply citing confirmability. In this case, the info about Louis' Lunch appears to meet that test. For the others, I didn't check.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Rick wrote:
[[User:Nunh-huh]] insists on including three pizza places and a restaurant on the New Haven page. I've been trying to delete them but he won't let me. When I suggested that if he's going to list them he should add several others, he said that I needed to add them if I thought they should be included. Isn't it POV to list only a very few of the hundreds of stores in a city's list? Isn't this free advertising?
I think so.
It's one thing to have an article about a company, which provides factual information about said company: it's chief executive officers, what it makes, why it is of interest. Much like a profile you might find in one of the Business references like S & P. There's an article about [[Powell's Books]] here in Portland, which is defensible because it considered a local landmark; I've been considering writing one on [[Tom Petersen]], a local electronics retailer, who not noly is a local pop culture icon, but has cameo roles in a number of Gus Van Sant movies (e.g., he plays the chief of police in "My Private Idaho").
It's another thing to have a link or entry that does nothing more than promote the business. I removed an external link to a listing of a local chain of restaurants for that reason. From your description, Nunh-huh is doing nothing more than providing free advertising.
Geoff
Erik wrote:
sannse-
I deleted a bunch of useless messages.
No, you deleted a bunch of messages that were still useful to me.
I do not remember seeing any messages which I considered of possible value. It seemed like a dead thread intended for immediate deletion. Maybe there was something in the thread which I overlooked. In that case, the deletion was a mistake. But there's no way to find out now, so trusting my own judgment, I do not consider it a mistake.
So my judgement, as the mediator involved, has no value? My annoyance level has just gone up from "slightly grumpy" to "seriously miffed".
But I'm going to drop this now. I have great respect for you and for all you do for the 'pedia. And I think the solution we have come up with is a good one - not because I have any doubts as to your ability or integrity, simply because it makes sense for the mediators to maintain the mediation board.
Is it possible to have more than one admin?
Yes. If there is general agreement, I can make you a global forum administrator.
Thank you. I'm waiting for the other mediator's opinion on this.
Regards,
sannse
sannse-
I do not remember seeing any messages which I considered of possible value. It seemed like a dead thread intended for immediate deletion. Maybe there was something in the thread which I overlooked. In that case, the deletion was a mistake. But there's no way to find out now, so trusting my own judgment, I do not consider it a mistake.
So my judgement, as the mediator involved, has no value? My annoyance level has just gone up from "slightly grumpy" to "seriously miffed".
I never said nor wrote nor implied nor thought such a thing. Stop putting words into my mouth.
Erik
Erik wrote:
I do not remember seeing any messages which I considered of possible value. It seemed like a dead thread intended for immediate deletion.
Maybe
there was something in the thread which I overlooked. In that case, the deletion was a mistake. But there's no way to find out now, so trusting
my
own judgment, I do not consider it a mistake.
sannse-
So my judgement, as the mediator involved, has no value? My annoyance
level
has just gone up from "slightly grumpy" to "seriously miffed".
I never said nor wrote nor implied nor thought such a thing. Stop putting words into my mouth.
That's what I felt your words implied, I'm glad it was not the case. I apologise for my misunderstanding.
--sannse
p.s. everyone else - it's sorted. Drop it eh?
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/18/1079199302793.html
"John Dalton recommends kuro5hin for on the ground insights into what�s happening in Spain. He also recommends wikipedia on Madrid attacks: �The quality of this article is really opening my eyes to the power of collaborative media.�"
RickK
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Rick wrote:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/18/1079199302793.html
"John Dalton recommends kuro5hin for on the ground insights into what's happening in Spain. He also recommends wikipedia on Madrid attacks: "The quality of this article is really opening my eyes to the power of collaborative media."
On a related note, there was an AP wire story this morning about the death of print encyclopedias. Even the CD-ROM encyclopedias are falling on hard times, according to this article by May Wong.
The article mentions two reasons why the Web is considered a better resource: 1. Google's usefulness, & 2. Multimedia -- this article concludes with a quote from the president of the Associatino for Library Service to Children: "Kids can hear and see Martin Luther King deliver his 'I have a Dream' speech, and there's nothing in a book that can do that."
I guess my lack of skills with Multimedia make me the 21st cnetury equivalent of a buggy whip manufacturer. ;-)
Geoff