Jimbo wrote:
I think a few people have gotten quite confused about the role of admins due to the excessive rules lawyering. Maybe they are the ones who need to rethink it.
See [[WP:ANI]] - a lynchmob of process-obsessives attempting to discuss the process for a lynching. It's almost amusing.
(Apparently referring to discussion on wikien-l means I'm purporting to speak for the Foundation. Huh?)
- d.
It looks like WP's in danger of letting the lunatics run the asylum. Time for some commonsense intervention from Jimbo?
Jon (jguk)
David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote: Jimbo wrote:
I think a few people have gotten quite confused about the role of admins due to the excessive rules lawyering. Maybe they are the ones who need to rethink it.
See [[WP:ANI]] - a lynchmob of process-obsessives attempting to discuss the process for a lynching. It's almost amusing.
(Apparently referring to discussion on wikien-l means I'm purporting to speak for the Foundation. Huh?)
- d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jon stated for the record:
It looks like WP's in danger of letting the lunatics run the asylum. Time for some commonsense intervention from Jimbo?
Jon (jguk)
Can't hurt, but may not help. These process fetishists see nothing odd about claiming that Jimbo has no idea what Wikipedia is all about ... which almost makes sense when you wrap your mind around the fact that they think Wikipedia is entirely an exercise in Holy Process, regardless of result, and that those of us who are here to build an encyclopedia are at best weirdos and at worse blasphemers and schismatics (with maybe an apostate or two throw in for leavening).
David understates the case, by the way: It is hilarious to watch them arguing over the correct procedure to "get" Tony, when it's obvious that they haven't even begun the process for developing the plan to generate a schedule to outline [[Wikipedia:Requests for Lynching]] ([[WP:RfL]]).
- -- Sean Barrett | Nanotechnology can do *anything*, just sean@epoptic.org | like atomic power could in the 1950s.
On 2/1/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
David understates the case, by the way: It is hilarious to watch them arguing over the correct procedure to "get" Tony, when it's obvious that they haven't even begun the process for developing the plan to generate a schedule to outline [[Wikipedia:Requests for Lynching]] ([[WP:RfL]]).
I suspect there would be three schools of thoughts on this:
The first would argue that, to follow proper process, Tony should be listed on [[Wikipedia:Users for lynching]] and lynched after consensus is achieved over a period of seven days.
The second will point out that, as Tony qualifies as a Rouge Admin (see [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy lynching]]), he can be lynched immediately without the need for a full discussion.
The third will argue that, while Tony may not meet the criteria for speedy lynching per se, IAR allows lynching him immediately and listing him on [[Wikipedia:Lynching review]] to see if anyone disagrees.
Kirill Lokshin
I would ask, where does writing material for the encyclopaedia come in all of this, but I guess I already know the answer :(
Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote: On 2/1/06, Sean Barrett wrote:
David understates the case, by the way: It is hilarious to watch them arguing over the correct procedure to "get" Tony, when it's obvious that they haven't even begun the process for developing the plan to generate a schedule to outline [[Wikipedia:Requests for Lynching]] ([[WP:RfL]]).
I suspect there would be three schools of thoughts on this:
The first would argue that, to follow proper process, Tony should be listed on [[Wikipedia:Users for lynching]] and lynched after consensus is achieved over a period of seven days.
The second will point out that, as Tony qualifies as a Rouge Admin (see [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy lynching]]), he can be lynched immediately without the need for a full discussion.
The third will argue that, while Tony may not meet the criteria for speedy lynching per se, IAR allows lynching him immediately and listing him on [[Wikipedia:Lynching review]] to see if anyone disagrees.
Kirill Lokshin _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Photos NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo.
On 2/1/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jon stated for the record:
It looks like WP's in danger of letting the lunatics run the asylum. Time for some commonsense intervention from Jimbo?
Jon (jguk)
Can't hurt, but may not help. These process fetishists see nothing odd about claiming that Jimbo has no idea what Wikipedia is all about ... which almost makes sense when you wrap your mind around the fact that they think Wikipedia is entirely an exercise in Holy Process, regardless of result, and that those of us who are here to build an encyclopedia are at best weirdos and at worse blasphemers and schismatics (with maybe an apostate or two throw in for leavening).
1890 edits at a very low edit rate. Little evidence of vandle fighting and has failed to create any featured articles. The distibution of edits is pretty good although a little low on article space. Would probably get through RFA but would not be completely clear cut.
-- geni
On 2/1/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
I think a few people have gotten quite confused about the role of admins due to the excessive rules lawyering. Maybe they are the ones who need to rethink it.
See [[WP:ANI]] - a lynchmob of process-obsessives attempting to discuss the process for a lynching. It's almost amusing.
It's okay. I just told them I would stay away from DRV for a bit, and wouldn't do any article undeletions or template deletions for a while. They may a tree, but I just took away their rope.
On 2/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/1/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
I think a few people have gotten quite confused about the role of admins due to the excessive rules lawyering. Maybe they are the ones who need to rethink it.
See [[WP:ANI]] - a lynchmob of process-obsessives attempting to discuss the process for a lynching. It's almost amusing.
It's okay. I just told them I would stay away from DRV for a bit, and wouldn't do any article undeletions or template deletions for a while. They may a tree, but I just took away their rope.
Well you were given the rope in the first place so it is a bit hard to complain. Still remember that due to elephant syndrome the tree will always be waiting for you.
-- geni
On 01/02/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
(Apparently referring to discussion on wikien-l means I'm purporting to speak for the Foundation. Huh?)
Clearly you didn't get the memo.
[[Wikipedia:Off-Wiki policy discussion considered harmful]]
(Next up: someone to argue speeding laws don't count because they were passed by people who were stationary at the time.)
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk