Please view my Talk page at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zoe, where information has been moved from the Votes for Deletion page. Once again, GrahamN (who is on record as saying "I don't like you"), MyRedDice (who never met a vandal he didn't like) and anthere (who seems to have problems with users on every Wiki she works on) are attacking me for making a sysop decision, and they are demanding my syspo status be taken away.
Hey, it seems like whatever I do is wrong. If something gets done by any other sysop, it's perfectly fine, but if it's me, I'm being considered a vandal and someone who's plotting a coup to take over Wikipedia (I'm not exagerrating--that's what's being said on my talk page.)
Well, so, if you want to remove my sysop status, please do. Apparently I'm not a trustworthy person who gives nothing of use to the Wikipedia. It seems like all I do is go around making these outrageous decisions. We might want to question some of the people making these accusations, but then, why should I do that, since I'm so untrustworthy.
Well, you know what, Martin, Graham, and anthere? I don't like you, either. And if anyone proposes you for sysophood, I will vote no.
Zoe
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Zoe-
Please view my Talk page at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zoe, where information has been moved from the Votes for Deletion page. Once again, GrahamN (who is on record as saying "I don't like you"), MyRedDice (who never met a vandal he didn't like) and anthere (who seems to have problems with users on every Wiki she works on) are attacking me for making a sysop decision, and they are demanding my syspo status be taken away.
You are mischaracterizing what has been said.
Anthere: "I will not support removing sysop status to Zoe, because she is making very good work and I globally trust us, and certainly trust to do what she thinks is the best for Wikipedia. But to be honest, I don't trust very much her on the spot decision of deletions."
Martin: "Personally, I'd have just reinstated the copyvio notice, and possibly left a note on Gorged's page, rather than deleting the article. Others here have suggested additionally protecting the page. I hope that Zoe will follow one of those suggested approaches in the future."
GrahamN: "So Zoe deleted it off her own bat without nominating it to be deleted, and without even discussing it with anybody? Isn't that a blatant abuse of her sysop status? What's going on? Has she been given some special dispensation to ignore all the rules she doesn't like, or what?"
I think Graham's comments can be characterized as attacks, but Anthere & Martin seem to be trying to understand what happened. Graham seems to have some personal problems with you, which is unfortunate. I suggest ignoring him.
I think that it was a mistake to delete the page and that it should have been protected instead, and/or that the user should have been warned. I do not think that your sysop status should be revoked because of a single mistake. I do believe that you are overreacting.
Regards,
Erik
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Zoe-
Please view my Talk page at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zoe, where information has been moved from the Votes for
Deletion
page. Once again, GrahamN (who is on record as
saying
"I don't like you"), MyRedDice (who never met a
vandal
he didn't like) and anthere (who seems to have problems with users on every Wiki she works on)
are
attacking me for making a sysop decision, and they
are
demanding my syspo status be taken away.
You are mischaracterizing what has been said.
Anthere: "I will not support removing sysop status to Zoe, because she is making very good work and I globally trust us, and certainly trust to do what she thinks is the best for Wikipedia. But to be honest, I don't trust very much her on the spot decision of deletions."
Martin: "Personally, I'd have just reinstated the copyvio notice, and possibly left a note on Gorged's page, rather than deleting the article. Others here have suggested additionally protecting the page. I hope that Zoe will follow one of those suggested approaches in the future."
GrahamN: "So Zoe deleted it off her own bat without nominating it to be deleted, and without even discussing it with anybody? Isn't that a blatant abuse of her sysop status? What's going on? Has she been given some special dispensation to ignore all the rules she doesn't like, or what?"
I think Graham's comments can be characterized as attacks, but Anthere & Martin seem to be trying to understand what happened. Graham seems to have some personal problems with you, which is unfortunate. I suggest ignoring him.
I think that it was a mistake to delete the page and that it should have been protected instead, and/or that the user should have been warned. I do not think that your sysop status should be revoked because of a single mistake. I do believe that you are overreacting.
Regards,
Erik
GrahamN: Yeah, we trust them to follow the rules. And to be honest, open and straightforward in what they are doing. If they demonstrate they can't be trusted act like that, they should lose their sysop status
GrahamN: I am astounded at the casual attitude that is displayed in so many of the comments that have been posted in this discussion. If this place is to remain truly free and democratic then it is vital that all sysops are accountable to the rest of us, and that real consensus is always demonstrated before any deletion or ban is enacted. If there were a Wikipedia Constitution, these two principles should be in big capital letters in first paragraph. This is a very serious matter indeed. Why are so many people trying to play it down? If I was prone to paranoia I would point out that if a group of people wanted to stage a coup and gain complete control of Wikipedia, then a good way to start would be to spread exactly the kind of complacency that so many users are demonstrating here.
GrahamN: What you are telling me is that there is some terrible external threat to us, and the only way to protect ourselves from it is to suspend democracy and give absolute power to an unnacountable clique. This argument seems curiously familiar from somewhere
Yep, I'm overreacting, all right.
Zoe
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Zoe-
I wrote this:
I think Graham's comments can be characterized as attacks, but Anthere & Martin seem to be trying to understand what happened. Graham seems to have some personal problems with you, which is unfortunate. I suggest ignoring him.
Then you wrote that:
GrahamN: Yeah, we trust them to follow the rules. And to be honest, open and straightforward in what they are doing. If they demonstrate they can't be trusted act like that, they should lose their sysop status
GrahamN: I am astounded at the casual attitude that is displayed in so many of the comments that have been posted in this discussion. If this place is to remain truly free and democratic then it is vital that all sysops are accountable to the rest of us, and that real consensus is always demonstrated before any deletion or ban is enacted. If there were a Wikipedia Constitution, these two principles should be in big capital letters in first paragraph. This is a very serious matter indeed. Why are so many people trying to play it down? If I was prone to paranoia I would point out that if a group of people wanted to stage a coup and gain complete control of Wikipedia, then a good way to start would be to spread exactly the kind of complacency that so many users are demonstrating here.
GrahamN: What you are telling me is that there is some terrible external threat to us, and the only way to protect ourselves from it is to suspend democracy and give absolute power to an unnacountable clique. This argument seems curiously familiar from somewhere
Yep, I'm overreacting, all right.
I can just repeat what I already said: Ignore GrahamN.
Regards,
Erik
I'd just like to say that I am extremely surprised by some of the harsh tone and language used by a number of users on the mailing list in the past 24 hours. I will not name names, but a number of people, on different topics, have been being downright rude. I understand that everyone get's a bit huffy now and again, but I don't think that it serves anyone's best interest if we start insulting each other. Let's reserve invective for vandals and trolls, not for people who care about the Wikipedia and Wikipedians. Anyone see any great problem with that?
Also, before I take it with both barrels about how people are just responding to what OTHERS have done, blah, blah, blah... Bullshit. I've done that too, in the past. It still doesn't make it right, or a good idea. Let's all take a deep breath, shall we?
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
--- Zoe zoecomnena@yahoo.com wrote:
Please view my Talk page at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zoe, where information has been moved from the Votes for Deletion page. Once again, GrahamN (who is on record as saying "I don't like you"), MyRedDice (who never met a vandal he didn't like) and anthere (who seems to have problems with users on every Wiki she works on)
Ah ? Where did you pick that please ? Could you give Names when you offer such a comment ?
are
attacking me for making a sysop decision, and they are demanding my syspo status be taken away.
I certainly demanded *no* such thing. See Erik comment. I said on the contrary I would *not* support removing your sysophood as I am convinced you do what you think is best for Wikipedia. Just said you were quite often in a grey area, that's all.
Hey, it seems like whatever I do is wrong. If something gets done by any other sysop, it's perfectly fine, but if it's me, I'm being considered a vandal and someone who's plotting a coup to take over Wikipedia (I'm not exagerrating--that's what's being said on my talk page.)
Well, so, if you want to remove my sysop status, please do. Apparently I'm not a trustworthy person who gives nothing of use to the Wikipedia. It seems like all I do is go around making these outrageous decisions. We might want to question some of the people making these accusations, but then, why should I do that, since I'm so untrustworthy.
Well, you know what, Martin, Graham, and anthere? I don't like you, either. And if anyone proposes you for sysophood, I will vote no.
???
I think an old sysop like you should know what is going on around herself. And should know when people are already sysops or not. If you want me to be removed from the sysop list, please start a page [[Wikipedia:Votes for unsysoping]]. Then list me there and provide arguments to justify I did "bad" things.
That would be really "unWikiLove" though. Sysops are not supposed to love or like each other. But to work together in respect for the best. Hence to discuss together little issues spoiling the mood. To discuss them honestly. Nothing wrong there.
Now, not to be a pain, but...you removed an explanation to Mav I put on your talk page. He misunderstood something I said yesterday. Unfortunately, your talk page is too long, so I apparently cut the bottom of it, and once I realised it, it was too late, and I can't clean the mess myself.
You chose to revert the page, but so doing you removed my comment to Mav. This is embarassing me, I would prefer that my comment is restored, rather than my yesterday comment staying unclear in the discussion. Could you do that for me please ?
Cheers
Anthere
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
--- Zoe zoecomnena@yahoo.com wrote:
Please view my Talk page at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zoe, where information has been moved from the Votes for Deletion page. Once again, GrahamN (who is on record as saying "I don't like you"), MyRedDice (who never met a vandal he didn't like) and anthere (who seems to have problems with users on every Wiki she works on)
Ah ? Where did you pick that please ? Could you give Names when you offer such a comment ?
are
attacking me for making a sysop decision, and they are demanding my syspo status be taken away.
I certainly demanded *no* such thing. See Erik comment. I said on the contrary I would *not* support removing your sysophood as I am convinced you do what you think is best for Wikipedia. Just said you were quite often in a grey area, that's all.
Hey, it seems like whatever I do is wrong. If something gets done by any other sysop, it's perfectly fine, but if it's me, I'm being considered a vandal and someone who's plotting a coup to take over Wikipedia (I'm not exagerrating--that's what's being said on my talk page.)
Well, so, if you want to remove my sysop status, please do. Apparently I'm not a trustworthy person who gives nothing of use to the Wikipedia. It seems like all I do is go around making these outrageous decisions. We might want to question some of the people making these accusations, but then, why should I do that, since I'm so untrustworthy.
Well, you know what, Martin, Graham, and anthere? I don't like you, either. And if anyone proposes you for sysophood, I will vote no.
???
I think an old sysop like you should know what is going on around herself. And should know when people are already sysops or not. If you want me to be removed from the sysop list, please start a page [[Wikipedia:Votes for unsysoping]]. Then list me there and provide arguments to justify I did "bad" things.
That would be really "unWikiLove" though. Sysops are not supposed to love or like each other. But to work together in respect for the best. Hence to discuss together little issues spoiling the mood. To discuss them honestly. Nothing wrong there.
Now, not to be a pain, but...you removed an explanation to Mav I put on your talk page. He misunderstood something I said yesterday. Unfortunately, your talk page is too long, so I apparently cut the bottom of it, and once I realised it, it was too late, and I can't clean the mess myself.
You chose to revert the page, but so doing you removed my comment to Mav. This is embarassing me, I would prefer that my comment is restored, rather than my yesterday comment staying unclear in the discussion. Could you do that for me please ?
Cheers
Anthere
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
It's also entirely possible Zoe - that youre overreacting (It sure is hot here in California) and that you may have made a decision that was poor, not-well thought out, and hasty --- while still having no bearing on your qualifications to be sysop, which I think are fantastic, generally.
I say all of the above knowing no specifics about the case in question - only knowing some of the people in question - and that its inappropriate for you to characterize them the way you did. If I may comment - you DO get defensive sometimes about your judgements and views. But then again, who doesnt? Were all human here.
-Stevertigo
P.S. Dont mess with Ayn Rand.
--- Stevertigo stevertigo@attbi.com wrote:
-Stevertigo
P.S. Dont mess with Ayn Rand.
It seems like a lot of us here believe strongly in objectivism (or atleast parts of it, like me). Is there something about it that pertains to Wikipedia? --LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
It seems like a lot of us here believe strongly in objectivism (or atleast parts of it, like me). Is there something about it that pertains to Wikipedia? --LDan
Maybe you mean "objectivity." Or "Scientology"... I'm not entirely sure this is the place to discuss "objectivism" -- its merits, or its nonsense. -Stevertigo
--- Stevertigo stevertigo@attbi.com wrote:
It seems like a lot of us here believe strongly in objectivism (or atleast parts of it, like me). Is there something about it that pertains to
Wikipedia?
--LDan
Maybe you mean "objectivity." Or "Scientology"... I'm not entirely sure this is the place to discuss "objectivism" -- its merits, or its nonsense. -Stevertigo
See [[Objectivist philosophy]], and let's go to [[m:objectivism]]
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Yes, love of excellence.
Fred
From: Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:59:26 -0700 (PDT) To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Ayn Rand
--- Stevertigo stevertigo@attbi.com wrote:
-Stevertigo
P.S. Dont mess with Ayn Rand.
It seems like a lot of us here believe strongly in objectivism (or atleast parts of it, like me). Is there something about it that pertains to Wikipedia? --LDan
Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Zoe,
Missing here is what you did that excited them so.
Fred
From: Zoe zoecomnena@yahoo.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:21:23 -0700 (PDT) To: WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Here I am, under attack again.
Please view my Talk page at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zoe, where information has been moved from the Votes for Deletion page. Once again, GrahamN (who is on record as saying "I don't like you"), MyRedDice (who never met a vandal he didn't like) and anthere (who seems to have problems with users on every Wiki she works on) are attacking me for making a sysop decision, and they are demanding my syspo status be taken away.
Hey, it seems like whatever I do is wrong. If something gets done by any other sysop, it's perfectly fine, but if it's me, I'm being considered a vandal and someone who's plotting a coup to take over Wikipedia (I'm not exagerrating--that's what's being said on my talk page.)
Well, so, if you want to remove my sysop status, please do. Apparently I'm not a trustworthy person who gives nothing of use to the Wikipedia. It seems like all I do is go around making these outrageous decisions. We might want to question some of the people making these accusations, but then, why should I do that, since I'm so untrustworthy.
Well, you know what, Martin, Graham, and anthere? I don't like you, either. And if anyone proposes you for sysophood, I will vote no.
Zoe
Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Zoe wrote:
I'm being considered a vandal
Then by my new policy, I automatically agree with you. Except that I can't find where anybody did this! (I'm referring only to the conflict over [[New River Gorge Bridge]].)
Well, you know what, Martin, Graham, and anthere? I don't like you, either. And if anyone proposes you for sysophood, I will vote no.
That's a good idea! Both Martin and anthere are longtime good contributors to Wikipedia. I hereby nominate them -- but they're already admins!
-- Toby
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
Zoe wrote:
I'm being considered a vandal
Then by my new policy, I automatically agree with you. Except that I can't find where anybody did this! (I'm referring only to the conflict over [[New River Gorge Bridge]].)
Well, you know what, Martin, Graham, and anthere?
I
don't like you, either. And if anyone proposes you for sysophood, I will vote no.
That's a good idea! Both Martin and anthere are longtime good contributors to Wikipedia. I hereby nominate them -- but they're already admins!
That was very nice of you ! Let's have good ideas ! Quercus has been a longtime good contributor to Wikip�dia. I nominate him also -- but he already is !
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Somebody wrote: Boy, this textbook idea is opening up a whole ugly >kettle
of fish. We even already have new poorly >conceived >acronyms.
Yes - and nobody ( I think ) mentioned that most basic of contradictions -- making a static textbook out of a dynamic website. And think of all the trees....
Jimbo:At that point, it *might* be convenient to consolidate our claims in a single entity. But, lawyers at that time would >advise us
the best course of action.
Yes, "give us your money."
Andre Engels, 3Dan : Maybe there simply is no solution. I don't >know. What
I do >know is that I find working on Wikipedia a >rather irritating thing to do lately. And irritation is not what >one expects to get from a hobby.
At WikipediaNL they have asked me why I suddenly left. >There you have it.
Nice job on my super nakade problem BTW. It does seem that there is a conflict (related to the textbook issue) of professionals and other institutionalized people - being trained to standards, and convention.. (lets face it...before the web, a lot of this culture was bound by mere convention) and then all of a sudden finding some sort of finite and solid foundation - in an environment more infinitely open than any other. Its hard to reconcile these two things, especially since the progeny of each school both treat their conventions like a tradition.
Steve, 2k
Axel: Maybe we should be less unhappy to delete material on >pages, or >
even start pages all over at times. I don't think we >should be unhappy at all about deleting, radically rewriting and >refactoring material. Cancerous growth is nice and all,
but every once in a while a surgeon's knife is needed.
Ah, I see. Why does the above remind me of this?:
"Waiting to cut out the deadwood. Waiting to clean up the city. Waiting to follow the worms. Waiting to put on a black shirt. Waiting to weed out the weaklings.
Would you like to see Britannia Rule again, my friend? All you have to do is follow the worms."
ANON: Your idea is one of the worst and most poorly thought >out that >I
have yet encountered in wikipedia discussions.
Well, like I said, It was food for the lions. If there wasnt any meat on it, y'all wouldnt have jumped on it. The discussion served its purpose, which was to activate some latent idea. I have that idea now, and Im processing it now. I keeping with the above critique, however - I have reconsidered my naive strategy of free speech and will submit it to the class only when I know for a fact that the class will find it agreeable. Go figure that one out.
-Stevertigo-
--- Stevertigo stevertigo@attbi.com wrote:
Nice job on my super nakade problem BTW. It does seem that there is a conflict (related to the textbook issue) of professionals and other institutionalized people - being trained to standards, and convention.. (lets face it...before the web, a lot of this culture was bound by mere convention) and then all of a sudden finding some sort of finite and solid foundation - in an environment more infinitely open than any other. Its hard to reconcile these two things, especially since the progeny of each school both treat their conventions like a tradition.
I agree. Like the encyclopedia, we should concentrate on creating a good textbook, rather than making it in a way that everyone will accept. (In previous posts, I may have said something contradictory to this, but have since changed my mind.) Which idea would make the best textbook? -LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com