From: Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for
admin-user relations
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 16:48:40 +0200
Resid Gulerdem wrote:
After my message ([[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for admin-user relations - below) the link to the
updated
version of another proposal
[[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]
under my old user page is deleted for ''the good
of
Wikipedia''. I thought I should provide the ones
who
would like to see that proposal with the correct
link.
Earlier version can be found at [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]. It is tag'ed as
'rejected'
but the truth is, I could never find an
opportunity to
put it to a vote properly. I also copy pasted the updated version below this message for the sake of completeness and for your convenience.
Fortunately I've made a backup of your last version
here
[[User:Raphael1/Wikiethics]] though I am not sure whether some administrator will
censor
this too.
-- Raphael
Dear Raphael, That is very kind of you. I do appreciate for it. It will be a humble contribution of mine to the Wiki community if it has a chance to be discussed fairly in the future. On the other hand you take a high risk by posting that proposal to your user page. A lynch chorus may start 'ringing the bells' for you. I am pretty sure you know that, by doing so, you will also be a target of 'The' Troublemaker [[User:TT]] (It may be read as The Troll, but not a problem, both apply to the case). Since he will continuously be trying to create a negative atmosphere around you by any means possible, you should be really careful about his actions. My suggestions would be just ignore him and do not let him force you to into a negative, unfruitful cycle which is hard to escape from. You already seem to be smart enough (more than enough :) maybe) to be able to see what is happening though. I would appreciate if you could let me know what you think about the proposals [[WP:OURS]] (and [[WP:Wikiethics]] about which you made some suggestions before) if possible. Realizing that there is a problem and identifying it is one thing, trying to find a reasonable solution to the problem is another thing. I think only talking about the problem does not lead the project to a better place and will not do any good other than increase frustration. Best, Resid
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Resid Gulerdem wrote:
After my message ([[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for admin-user relations - below) the link to the updated version of another proposal [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] under my old user page is deleted for ''the good of Wikipedia''. I thought I should provide the ones who would like to see that proposal with the correct link. Earlier version can be found at [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]. It is tag'ed as 'rejected' but the truth is, I could never find an opportunity to put it to a vote properly. I also copy pasted the updated version below this message for the sake of completeness and for your convenience.
Raphael wrote:
Fortunately I've made a backup of your last version here [[User:Raphael1/Wikiethics]] though I am not sure whether some administrator will censor this too.
Resid Gulerdem wrote:
Dear Raphael, That is very kind of you. I do appreciate for it. It will be a humble contribution of mine to the Wiki community if it has a chance to be discussed fairly in the future.
<snip/>
I would appreciate if you could let me know what you think about the proposals [[WP:OURS]] (and [[WP:Wikiethics]] about which you made some suggestions before) if possible. Realizing that there is a problem and identifying it is one thing, trying to find a reasonable solution to the problem is another thing. I think only talking about the problem does not lead the project to a better place and will not do any good other than increase frustration. Best, Resid
Dear Resid,
unfortunately now even my copy of your latest version of Wikiethics got deleted. I've filed a Deletion review, but it seems like some admins are already at a point, where they completely disregard any policy and act as one thinks best.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#User:Raphael1.2FWikie...
I truely appreciate your efforts to try to find a reasonable solution to the problem. But I doubt, that those in power, who would have to allow such a proposal to be discussed and passed, are already too detached from the consequences of their "might makes right" mentality to even realize the problem, and will use all possible means to make it fail.
Beside those addressed in [[WP:OURS]] I see multiple problems:
RfCs seem to be some kind of sympathy contests, where admins get the possibility to defend each other. It seems to be an important place for admins to improve their social standing. Allegations are not taken seriously, instead the accused party can simply claim to follow policies "in spirit" and accuse the nominating editor of Wikilaywering.
The way Wikipedia implements voting generally increases peer pressure. Even though it would include some technical work, Wikipedia desperately needs _anonymous_ voting. Editors with weak personalities tend to use the possibility of a vote to express their support to a "higher ranking" individual.
There is no separation of powers: Admins are judges and hangmen in one person and have plenty of possibilities to cover up their action behind weakly worded policies.
Generally speaking - we must not forget, that Wikipedia is a social community, where all (good and bad) associated mechanisms play along.
best regards
On 6/5/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Dear Resid,
unfortunately now even my copy of your latest version of Wikiethics got deleted. I've filed a Deletion review, but it seems like some admins are already at a point, where they completely disregard any policy and act as one thinks best.
I deleted it because copy and paste moves of pages are unacceptable normally, and especially unacceptable when the original page is deleted, because of the GFDL requirement that the history of all pages be kept. If you want the content, you need to post to DRV about the original page, since there is no possibility that the copy will be restored.
Stephen Bain wrote:
On 6/5/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Dear Resid,
unfortunately now even my copy of your latest version of Wikiethics got deleted. I've filed a Deletion review, but it seems like some admins are already at a point, where they completely disregard any policy and act as one thinks best.
I deleted it because copy and paste moves of pages are unacceptable normally, and especially unacceptable when the original page is deleted, because of the GFDL requirement that the history of all pages be kept. If you want the content, you need to post to DRV about the original page, since there is no possibility that the copy will be restored.
Done. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#User:Rgulerdem.2FWiki...
On 6/5/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
I deleted it because copy and paste moves of pages are unacceptable normally, and especially unacceptable when the original page is deleted, because of the GFDL requirement that the history of all pages be kept. If you want the content, you need to post to DRV about the original page, since there is no possibility that the copy will be restored.
Um, slow down a little bit.
User A posts some content Admin B deletes the content, erasing its history User C reposts the content as a service to user A Admin D (or B?) redeletes the content, citing the lack of history preservation!
Did user A complain about the lack of history?
I haven't seen the deletion reviews or whatever, but what is so bad about this content that it has been (speedy? unilaterally?) deleted like this? Sure, it's probably a bad proposal, but we've seen millions of those. What's going on here?
Steve
The highly disruptive (on both Wiki-En and Wiki-Tr) and now permanently blocked editor [[User:Rgulerdem]] (Resid Gulerdem) started a policy called [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] that was soundly rejected by the community. A month or two later due to his highly repetitive disruptiveness Resid Gulerdem became permanently blocked (with much of his disruptions stemming from his demonstration of ownership relative to Wikiethics). Resid Gulerdem's permanent block was lifted under the mentoship of [[User:Johntex]] who recommended that Gulerdem proceed with developing the formerly rejected policy proposal he founded in his own user space where he could exercise the kind of ownership control upon it that he needed. Resid Gulerdem became permanently blocked again after Check User evidence proved he'd returned to his disruptive ways while editing on [[Fethullah Gülen]] due to his not following his mentor's advice to refrain from such behavior. After Resid Gulerdem's permanent block he returned to editing his user page policy using anoymous IP addresses (in the 216.xxx.xx.xx range - From University of Indiana) (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/Rgulerdem ). Admin [[User:Cyde]] became aware of a banned editor editing in his user space and deleted this user space copy of the Wikiethics policy to discourage the return of the banned editor. Just prior to the deletion of Resid Gulerdem's user page version of Wikiethics [[User:Raphael1]] (Raphael Wegmann) saved a copy sensing that Resid Gulerdem's copy was about to be rightly deleted. Raphael Wegmann mentioned having saved a copy of Resid's user page in his own user space here on the Wiki-En-I mail list though which admin [[User:Thebainer]] became aware of this additional copy and deleted it "because of the GFDL requirement that the history of all pages be kept". Now Raphael Wegmann wants Resid Gulerdem's original user space copy of Wikiethics to be undeleted so that he can get his own user space copy undeleted. Essentially this whole thing has been a rather large waste of time as an extension of Resid Gulerdem's disruptive ways and Raphael Wegmann appears to fail to realize this.
Hope that helps you understand the situation.
Sincerely,
-Scott Stevenson [[User:Netscott]]
On 6/5/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
I deleted it because copy and paste moves of pages are unacceptable normally, and especially unacceptable when the original page is deleted, because of the GFDL requirement that the history of all pages be kept. If you want the content, you need to post to DRV about the original page, since there is no possibility that the copy will be restored.
Um, slow down a little bit.
User A posts some content Admin B deletes the content, erasing its history User C reposts the content as a service to user A Admin D (or B?) redeletes the content, citing the lack of history preservation!
Did user A complain about the lack of history?
I haven't seen the deletion reviews or whatever, but what is so bad about this content that it has been (speedy? unilaterally?) deleted like this? Sure, it's probably a bad proposal, but we've seen millions of those. What's going on here?
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/6/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Um, slow down a little bit.
User A posts some content Admin B deletes the content, erasing its history User C reposts the content as a service to user A Admin D (or B?) redeletes the content, citing the lack of history preservation!
Did user A complain about the lack of history?
There were 31 edits to the page, not all made by user A. I don't really care why B deleted it, my issue was with C copy and pasting it, which should never be done.
On 6/6/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Did user A complain about the lack of history?
There were 31 edits to the page, not all made by user A. I don't really care why B deleted it, my issue was with C copy and pasting it, which should never be done.
Ok, I'm really not getting this at all. Lots of people contribute to proposal, presumably because they wanted that proposal to exist. Someone deletes it. Someone else recreates it but fails to properly acknowledge the original creators. You re-delete it, citing the interests of the unacknowledged? Surely common sense dictates that the original creators would prefer the proposal be recreated - acknowledge or not - than that it be deleted? It's a real stretch to assume that they would rather it be deleted than that it exist without their name on it. Also bear in mind that the recreator didn't have access to the history...but you did, and could have copied it to the new article's talk page, if it bothered you.
Maybe there were good reasons for deleting it, but that's a pretty strange justification for re-deleting something.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/6/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Did user A complain about the lack of history?
There were 31 edits to the page, not all made by user A. I don't really care why B deleted it, my issue was with C copy and pasting it, which should never be done.
Ok, I'm really not getting this at all. Lots of people contribute to proposal, presumably because they wanted that proposal to exist. Someone deletes it. Someone else recreates it but fails to properly acknowledge the original creators. You re-delete it, citing the interests of the unacknowledged? Surely common sense dictates that the original creators would prefer the proposal be recreated - acknowledge or not - than that it be deleted? It's a real stretch to assume that they would rather it be deleted than that it exist without their name on it. Also bear in mind that the recreator didn't have access to the history...but you did, and could have copied it to the new article's talk page, if it bothered you.
Maybe there were good reasons for deleting it, but that's a pretty strange justification for re-deleting something.
I have even sent an email to User:Thebainer and asked him to restore the history for me, but unfortunately I've got no reply.