From: Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales -
Admin-driven death of Wikipedia
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 15:00:13 -0500
This is why there is a perception that at times there
have been
conflicts between "admins" and "the community". In
the past, there was
no question at all that "the community" and "the
admins" were just about
exactly the same people.
--Jimbo
The admins are only part of the community now and will stay like that in the future, as far as I can see. Are some modifications needed in your opinion? I believe the answer is yes. I do not know if you could see the proposal [[WP:OURS]] I posted on this list recently. I think it can be useful and can be developed further. I tried to outline some important points which may reduce the conflicts between the admins and the users. If you saw it, do you think it is feasible? Best, Resid
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Resid Gulerdem wrote:
The admins are only part of the community now and will stay like that in the future, as far as I can see. Are some modifications needed in your opinion? I believe the answer is yes. I do not know if you could see the proposal [[WP:OURS]] I posted on this list recently. I think it can be useful and can be developed further. I tried to outline some important points which may reduce the conflicts between the admins and the users. If you saw it, do you think it is feasible?
I see no reference to WP:OURS in google, so I am unable to comment. Can you send it to me?
On 6/5/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I see no reference to WP:OURS in google, so I am unable to comment. Can you send it to me?
It was sent to this list under the heading "[WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for admin-user relations" (apparently deleted twice off en).
Steve
On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 18:07:18 -0500, you wrote:
I see no reference to WP:OURS in google, so I am unable to comment. Can you send it to me?
As noted, it's in here as a thread. It starts with this:
'Content disputes' are one of the main dispute type encountered. To avoid that, users need to follow well-established ethics and standards of Wikipedia (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics])
That "well-established standard" is the soundly rejected [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] proposal, which was essentially a proposal to allow censorship, and the "problem" to be fixed is that admins block tendentious and incivil users.
Guy (JzG)
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Resid Gulerdem wrote:
The admins are only part of the community now and will stay like that in the future, as far as I can see. Are some modifications needed in your opinion? I believe the answer is yes. I do not know if you could see the proposal [[WP:OURS]] I posted on this list recently. I think it can be useful and can be developed further. I tried to outline some important points which may reduce the conflicts between the admins and the users. If you saw it, do you think it is feasible?
I see no reference to WP:OURS in google, so I am unable to comment. Can you send it to me?
I've just created the proposed policy on [[Wikipedia:OURS]].
Permanently blocked editors formulating policy on Wikipedia is BAD. I've submitted this policy for deletion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:OUR...
-Scott Stevenson [[User:Netscott]]
On 6/5/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Resid Gulerdem wrote:
The admins are only part of the community now and will stay like that in the future, as far as I can see. Are some modifications needed in your opinion? I believe the answer is yes. I do not know if you could see the proposal [[WP:OURS]] I posted on this list recently. I think it can be useful and can be developed further. I tried to outline some important points which may reduce the conflicts between the admins and the users. If you saw it, do you think it is feasible?
I see no reference to WP:OURS in google, so I am unable to comment. Can you send it to me?
I've just created the proposed policy on [[Wikipedia:OURS]].
-- Raphael _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Scott Stevenson wrote:
On 6/5/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Resid Gulerdem wrote:
The admins are only part of the community now and will stay like that in the future, as far as I can see. Are some modifications needed in your opinion? I believe the answer is yes. I do not know if you could see the proposal [[WP:OURS]] I posted on this list recently. I think it can be useful and can be developed further. I tried to outline some important points which may reduce the conflicts between the admins and the users. If you saw it, do you think it is feasible?
I see no reference to WP:OURS in google, so I am unable to comment. Can you send it to me?
I've just created the proposed policy on [[Wikipedia:OURS]].
Permanently blocked editors formulating policy on Wikipedia is BAD. I've submitted this policy for deletion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:OUR...
Congratulations Netscott!
You've successfully killed this proposal on the first day merely for personal reasons rather than its own merits. Did you even bother to read the proposal?
You are really good in your smear campaigning. Why don't you write a guide so everybody can learn how to do that? If you continue, you'll probably get me indef-banned for being another meat-puppet of Resid.
Just one thing: As you might know, I have to read your texts as well, so would you please refrain from repeating yourself so many times. It really gets boring to read the same words over and over again. Please try to be a little bit more creative. I.e. you could try to use words like "disruption" or "proxy" only once in your messages.
Raphael Wegmann,
There's a reason that speedy deletion general criteria #5 exists. [[WP:CSD#General_criteria]] You can be sure that such a rule is equally applicable even when such a page is created by a proxy for a banned user.
<snip>
Please try to be a little bit more creative. I.e. you could try to use
words like "disruption" or "proxy" only once in your messages. </snip>
I understand why you are resorting to [[ad hominem]] attacks as it is evident that you haven't got much else to argue with.
<snip>
If you continue, you'll probably get me indef-banned for being another
meat-puppet of Resid. </snip>
There's only one individual who'll get themselves indef-banned here Raphael... and that's yourself.
Sincerely,
-Scott Stevenson [[User:Netscott]]
Congratulations Netscott!
You've successfully killed this proposal on the first day merely for personal reasons rather than its own merits. Did you even bother to read the proposal?
You are really good in your smear campaigning. Why don't you write a guide so everybody can learn how to do that? If you continue, you'll probably get me indef-banned for being another meat-puppet of Resid.
Just one thing: As you might know, I have to read your texts as well, so would you please refrain from repeating yourself so many times. It really gets boring to read the same words over and over again. Please try to be a little bit more creative. I.e. you could try to use words like "disruption" or "proxy" only once in your messages.
-- Raphael _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Scott Stevenson wrote:
Raphael Wegmann,
There's a reason that speedy deletion general criteria #5 exists. [[WP:CSD#General_criteria]] You can be sure that such a rule is equally applicable even when such a page is created by a proxy for a banned user.
<snip> > Please try to be a little bit more creative. I.e. you could try to use words like "disruption" or "proxy" only once in your messages. </snip>
I understand why you are resorting to [[ad hominem]] attacks as it is evident that you haven't got much else to argue with.
Quid pro quo.
Let me make a suggestion: I apologize for this personal attack and you stop calling me a proxy.
Raphael,
I didn't consider what you wrote as a personal attack but was just illustrating that rather than try to argue in support of what you were saying relative to this entire series of discussions you chose to try and argue about myself and how I have supported my own arguments. Nevertheless your good faith gesture is appreciated. You should know as well that my referring to you as a proxy in these discussions is not a personal attack but is a descriptive noun relative to your actions. The defintion of proxy that is most applicable to my utilization of the word from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=proxy is: n.
1. A person authorized to act for another; an agent or substitute.
In effect through discussions here, Resid Gulerdem authorized you to act on his behalf and create his policy proposal [[WP:OURS]]. Therefore, when you created [[WP:OURS]] you became his proxy. Do you see how that isn't a personal attack?
Sincerely, Scott Stevenson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Netscott
On 6/6/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Scott Stevenson wrote:
Raphael Wegmann,
There's a reason that speedy deletion general criteria #5 exists. [[WP:CSD#General_criteria]] You can be sure that such a rule is equally applicable even when such a page is created by a proxy for a banned
user.
<snip> > Please try to be a little bit more creative. I.e. you could try to use words like "disruption" or "proxy" only once in your messages. </snip>
I understand why you are resorting to [[ad hominem]] attacks as it is evident that you haven't got much else to argue with.
Quid pro quo.
Let me make a suggestion: I apologize for this personal attack and you stop calling me a proxy.
-- Raphael _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Scott Stevenson wrote:
Raphael,
I didn't consider what you wrote as a personal attack but was just illustrating that rather than try to argue in support of what you were saying relative to this entire series of discussions you chose to try and argue about myself and how I have supported my own arguments. Nevertheless your good faith gesture is appreciated. You should know as well that my referring to you as a proxy in these discussions is not a personal attack but is a descriptive noun relative to your actions. The defintion of proxy that is most applicable to my utilization of the word from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=proxy is: n.
- A person authorized to act for another; an agent or substitute.
In effect through discussions here, Resid Gulerdem authorized you to act on his behalf and create his policy proposal [[WP:OURS]]. Therefore, when you created [[WP:OURS]] you became his proxy. Do you see how that isn't a personal attack?
I consider it a defamation to suggest, that I'd need anybodies authorization to create a policy proposal.
Raphael, This discussion is now beyond the scope of this mailing list. If you want to continue this I suggest you write me on my talk page.
Sincerely,
-Scott Stevenson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netscott
On 6/6/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Scott Stevenson wrote:
Raphael,
I didn't consider what you wrote as a personal attack but was just illustrating that rather than try to argue in support of what you were saying relative to this entire series of discussions you chose to try
and
argue about myself and how I have supported my own arguments.
Nevertheless
your good faith gesture is appreciated. You should know as well that my referring to you as a proxy in these discussions is not a personal
attack
but is a descriptive noun relative to your actions. The defintion of proxy that is most applicable to my utilization of the
word
from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=proxy is: n.
- A person authorized to act for another; an agent or substitute.
In effect through discussions here, Resid Gulerdem authorized you to act
on
his behalf and create his policy proposal [[WP:OURS]]. Therefore, when
you
created [[WP:OURS]] you became his proxy. Do you see how that isn't a personal attack?
I consider it a defamation to suggest, that I'd need anybodies authorization to create a policy proposal.
-- Raphael _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l