Note to Abe Sokolov (aka 172)
I'm sorry you think that me expressing my opinion automatically makes you a pariah (I'm not the Pope nor any special authority). You, on average, have been a good to great contributor but I have seen too many instances where you have, IMO, caused more harm than good and have steadfastly refused to budge or admit you were wrong (let alone apologize). IMO, this is not the type of person that would make a good Admin. You also often seem to be rather selective in what you write about when inputting large amounts of text into an article (creating a one-sided article). And I also found it odd that you wanted to be an Admin so badly even though, in my experience, you haven't done much Wikipedia Weeding or had a desire to edit protected pages.
In retrospect, I should have not have went on to state my opinion that such a person would be likely to leverage their sysop powers over others (impling that you would use sysop powers to make sure your POV dominates articles). You do seem to be tolerant of other people adding-in balancing POV into articles you've worked on (even when, such as in the Saddam article, you were the one who unbalanced the article to begin with by adding masses of text about all the good he did for Iraq while not stating the more negative aspects of his regime). So, simply stating my observations and avoiding the particular conclusion should have been enough to block your Admin application. I'm sorry that I elaborated to such an extent.
I do hope that you will return after a much-needed break (maybe even with a real user name next time - it is hard to be sympathetic to a number).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote: Note to Abe Sokolov (aka 172)
And I also found it odd that you wanted to be an Admin so badly even though, in my experience, you haven't done much Wikipedia Weeding or had a desire to edit protected pages.
------------------
It is interesting (hum...who said what about that expression ?) you give (among other arguments of course :-)) as a poor justification for asking to be a sysop the fact 172 did not commonly ask to edit protected pages. I think it is a bad argument for not granting sysophood. Reading your comment, I reflected I long gave up the idea of having any impacts on the content of protected pages. I just avoir looking at them (I never look at the main page now), I consider I have no real right to edit them for each time the process required is to beg and convince someone to do it for me. Which I consider bad for a wiki.
Curious, but I miss Ed here.
Some time ago, he led a nice description of the different levels held by users in wikipedia.
I think these descriptions are changing or will change soon.
Imho, before, a sysop was a super user. Ie, someone who had super powers. The "normal" state (the regular user) being enough to work without much trouble, to give his opinion, and to generally participate in the decision making process. Usually super powers are restricted to a small class of people.
Now, I think that if most people are upgraded to the sysop status, the regular (standard) status will becomes the sysop status.
Ultimately, the only ones left in the simple user status will be a couple of weird people, questionables editors (per sysops estimate), newbies, trolls and vandals. Which probably means there will be more "bad" or "said bad" edits by simple users. Further instoring in every one mind that simple users have a low-trust status.
On one hand, it is quite good there are more sysops, for it could mean more balance ("could").
On the other hand, the simple user really get a lower-status, and I fear it will very soon have a very strong smell of "not to be trusted" by default.
I think a simple user will little by little see his own abilities to participate in the decision process shrink (potential e.g. very annoying users pages and talk pages being protected).
But right, some could argue that someone willing to participate in the decision process could ask to be a sysop.
Going back to what is basically the role of an simple user : editing then...
I also think the editing moves of a simple user are also slowly being restricted and misconsidered, because of a growing bureaucracy on the english wiki.
"Trust me", french people are very accutely aware of bureaucracy when it begins to plague a process :-))))
More often than not, when I have a problem on the english wikipedia, either I just drop it by anticipated tiredness, or I feel like entering a french social security administration building (incidently, my whole country is on strike today on retirement issues...well, except me of course :-))
For so many barely interesting issues, a simple user needs to find the proper page, read all the rules and guidelines beforehand (not knowing the rules is an offense), check if the page is protected (if so, head for someone to unprotect it, justify your request for unprotection), head for the talk page, check if the talk page is not too long (if so, head for someone to clean it), add your request, wait, justify, wait, justify, wait, justify, wait...head for the pump (ask someone to clean it before), try to raise someone interest to make the sysop act for you, wait, justify again, head for the mailing list..., maybe propose a wikismile for the action (what ! bribing !)
At this point, either you are labelled "heavy" or you drop the topic.
And each time I am heading for one of these processes, when I see a sysop just do it in a couple of seconds without having to justify anything to anyone, I am accutely aware a simple user is a lower-user, with less editing rights than others and with less trust, even if it just relies on a little flag somewhere. And I wonder over little flag importance over just common sense.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
While we're nominating people for sysop-hood I'd like to nominate Anthere, from what I've seen she has been an excellent contributor. In light of the below I'm not sure if she'd accept but I think it would be polite to ask.
Andrew (Ams80) ----- Original Message ----- From: Anthere To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 11:22 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] 172's sysop request and some random thoughts
Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote: Note to Abe Sokolov (aka 172)
And I also found it odd that you wanted to be an Admin so badly even though, in my experience, you haven't done much Wikipedia Weeding or had a desire to edit protected pages.
------------------
It is interesting (hum...who said what about that expression ?) you give (among other arguments of course :-)) as a poor justification for asking to be a sysop the fact 172 did not commonly ask to edit protected pages. I think it is a bad argument for not granting sysophood. Reading your comment, I reflected I long gave up the idea of having any impacts on the content of protected pages. I just avoir looking at them (I never look at the main page now), I consider I have no real right to edit them for each time the process required is to beg and convince someone to do it for me. Which I consider bad for a wiki.
Curious, but I miss Ed here.
Some time ago, he led a nice description of the different levels held by users in wikipedia.
I think these descriptions are changing or will change soon.
Imho, before, a sysop was a super user. Ie, someone who had super powers. The "normal" state (the regular user) being enough to work without much trouble, to give his opinion, and to generally participate in the decision making process. Usually super powers are restricted to a small class of people.
Now, I think that if most people are upgraded to the sysop status, the regular (standard) status will becomes the sysop status.
Ultimately, the only ones left in the simple user status will be a couple of weird people, questionables editors (per sysops estimate), newbies, trolls and vandals. Which probably means there will be more "bad" or "said bad" edits by simple users. Further instoring in every one mind that simple users have a low-trust status.
On one hand, it is quite good there are more sysops, for it could mean more balance ("could").
On the other hand, the simple user really get a lower-status, and I fear it will very soon have a very strong smell of "not to be trusted" by default.
I think a simple user will little by little see his own abilities to participate in the decision process shrink (potential e.g. very annoying users pages and talk pages being protected).
But right, some could argue that someone willing to participate in the decision process could ask to be a sysop.
Going back to what is basically the role of an simple user : editing then...
I also think the editing moves of a simple user are also slowly being restricted and misconsidered, because of a growing bureaucracy on the english wiki.
"Trust me", french people are very accutely aware of bureaucracy when it begins to plague a process :-))))
More often than not, when I have a problem on the english wikipedia, either I just drop it by anticipated tiredness, or I feel like entering a french social security administration building (incidently, my whole country is on strike today on retirement issues...well, except me of course :-))
For so many barely interesting issues, a simple user needs to find the proper page, read all the rules and guidelines beforehand (not knowing the rules is an offense), check if the page is protected (if so, head for someone to unprotect it, justify your request for unprotection), head for the talk page, check if the talk page is not too long (if so, head for someone to clean it), add your request, wait, justify, wait, justify, wait, justify, wait...head for the pump (ask someone to clean it before), try to raise someone interest to make the sysop act for you, wait, justify again, head for the mailing list..., maybe propose a wikismile for the action (what ! bribing !)
At this point, either you are labelled "heavy" or you drop the topic.
And each time I am heading for one of these processes, when I see a sysop just do it in a couple of seconds without having to justify anything to anyone, I am accutely aware a simple user is a lower-user, with less editing rights than others and with less trust, even if it just relies on a little flag somewhere. And I wonder over little flag importance over just common sense.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
--- Andrew Smith ams80@cam.ac.uk wrote:
While we're nominating people for sysop-hood I'd like to nominate Anthere, from what I've seen she has been an excellent contributor. In light of the below I'm not sure if she'd accept but I think it would be polite to ask.
I thank you Andrew for that kindness. TC also suggested that I asked 3 weeks ago. It was definitly *not* something I wanted to be 3 weeks ago. For I already have to help keeping clean two places. But three weeks ago, a sysop was not was it is heading to be in the near future. So, I dunno.
Meanwhile, I thank *JohnOwens* very much for having deleted my images, one of which was copyrighted. I suggest the ''Wikipedia:Personal subpages to be deleted'' to be rethought for it seems to have low usability.
I am still hoping to have the last of the *very* interesting redirections of Fat Budda made 3 weeks ago deleted in time.
I must confess, this afternoon, I have been thinking the deletion could be sped up if I added some obscenities in these blank pages. It seems vandalised pages are deleted within a day, to compare with weeks in due process and unknown time for blanked pages. Similarly, when I mess a redirect, and have to ask for the old location to be deleted to make the move back, it might be more efficient to vandalize the page to be deleted rather than putting it in the vote for deletion page perhaps ?
Of course, this was just a wild thought :-) I would not do such a thing, would I ???? I am an extremely reasonable woman :-)
I think it could be interesting to read again
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worst_cases
I think there is an interesting item "Wiki Community Size Inherently Limited"
When non-sysop users begins to dream to be sysop "just for usability" for the processes are too heavy, too slow, there is maybe need to think the processes again
just my two wiki smiles :-))))
-----
? is the plural of process processes ? maybe not ...?!?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
On Tue, 13 May 2003, Anthere wrote:
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 11:22:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Anthere anthere6@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] 172's sysop request and some random thoughts
--- Andrew Smith ams80@cam.ac.uk wrote:
While we're nominating people for sysop-hood I'd like to nominate Anthere, from what I've seen she has been an excellent contributor. In light of the below I'm not sure if she'd accept but I think it would be polite to ask.
I thank you Andrew for that kindness. TC also suggested that I asked 3 weeks ago. It was definitly *not* something I wanted to be 3 weeks ago. For I already have to help keeping clean two places. But three weeks ago, a sysop was not was it is heading to be in the near future. So, I dunno.
If still needed, I'll second *her* (I'm not going to forget that anytime soon!).
Meanwhile, I thank *JohnOwens* very much for having deleted my images, one of which was copyrighted. I suggest the ''Wikipedia:Personal subpages to be deleted'' to be rethought for it seems to have low usability.
I am still hoping to have the last of the *very* interesting redirections of Fat Budda made 3 weeks ago deleted in time.
I must confess, this afternoon, I have been thinking the deletion could be sped up if I added some obscenities in these blank pages. It seems vandalised pages are deleted within a day, to compare with weeks in due process and unknown time for blanked pages. Similarly, when I mess a redirect, and have to ask for the old location to be deleted to make the move back, it might be more efficient to vandalize the page to be deleted rather than putting it in the vote for deletion page perhaps ?
Of course, this was just a wild thought :-) I would not do such a thing, would I ???? I am an extremely reasonable woman :-)
Might work with some, but not on me; anything which isn't just-created, I check its history, to make sure there's nothing that isn't clearly "patent nonsense" in there either. If it isn't entirely patent nonsense, I'd rather wait the week on VFD. So keep the cuss words to yourself. ;)
? is the plural of process processes ? maybe not ...?!?
Yes, it is.
I third.
--- "John R. Owens" jowens.wiki@ghiapet.homeip.net
If still needed, I'll second *her* [Anthere] (I'm
not going to
forget that anytime soon!).
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
Ams80 wrote:
While we're nominating people for sysop-hood I'd like to nominate Anthere, from what I've seen she has been an excellent contributor. In light of the below I'm not sure if she'd accept but I think it would be polite to ask.
I second the nomination.
-- Toby