From: Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for

admin-user relations

Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 11:26:02 +0100

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 02:49:39 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

...

I was wondering if you could review the proposals.

If

...

you think that the concerns are valid and that the suggestions made in the proposals has some merit, I would be glad to discuss the issue (not the

problems

...

but the possible solutions which I think are reasonable) further. I have a couple of similar suggestions that I believe are critical and can be useful to gently modify the structure of the

project

...

and prepare it for the future if it will be

expanding

...

in the years to come.

Don't tell me: one of them calls for the removal of

images which a

small minority of editors find offensive from

articles on important

events, and another one calls for administrators to

be prevented from

blocking users who unilaterally remove content they

find offensive

despite overwhelming consensus to keep it? Am I

close?

Guy (JzG)

Hey this guy I know a little,

I realized that when you are civil you express yourself better :) No, you are far from being close to the core of the proposals. How would I rephrase your statement:

One of them [[WP:ETH]] calls for better consideration of the controversial issues by taking good care of ideas from minorities (which can be cartoon removal in JP case and user box issue in Satanism case). Nevertheless the proposal put excessive emphasis on the consensus. So in JP case no change can be done based on the proposal if it is a major concern for you. You know that in the civil societies the level of respect to the minorities encircle the limits of their civility. The proposal also tries to show the distinction between 'no censorship' and 'having no editorial standards'. I hope that, that may eliminate the hypocrisy around 'no censorship'. And I have to say that this is just one minor point among ~20 more important suggestions in that proposal.

The other one [[WP:OURS]] calls for a balance between user right and admin privileges, tries to set up more and efficient bridges between 'community' and 'encyclopedia' components of Wikipedia, and aims the enhancement of the community spirit of Wikipedia. It states that users can be blocked by their mentors which may know them better and have likely good relations with. If another admin believes in the necessity of a block s/he should talk to the mentor first who may know the rules and their applicability better. It only restricts indefinite ban which should be considered analogous to the death penalty in real life. Needless to say that most civil societies ban 'the death penalty' itself from their judiciary system.

It is not surprising to me that you -like a few others- are interpreting the proposals around some specific discussions you have in mind. That even ironically block yourself from considering the proposals as a whole: more dangerous situation from blocking another user unjustly. Am I close?

Resid

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com