Regarding the [[WP:OURS]] proposal; there are some good suggestions in it, I believe:
1. [[WP:OURS]] is aiming to start a discussion about the '''solution''' to the main problem: admin-user relations. Isn't it time to start talking about solutions? How far are we going to discuss diffent versions of the same problem?
2. It is not complete but just a quick suggestion from my point of view. Can be and need to be modified.
3. Existence of some rejected proposals cannot imply that this one will follow the same path, can it? It is early to make a decision at this stage before discussing the proposal.
3. The good thing about the proposal is, it does not devaluate Wikigods and Wikigoddess and does not attempt to take their eternal status back. It does not propose radical changes but maybe a different look and acceptable variations of the current infrastructure. It just provides a windshield for ordinary users against strong, irresistible blows of Wikigod(des)s.
4. It provides a dynamic measure for popularity of admins.
5. It aims to educate new or old users, rather than irritate them.
6. It diagnose and tries to prevent the system from possible problems before they arise (by constructing study groups, etc., for example).
7. As discussed by some users, both community and encyclopedia are crucial components for Wikipedia. The problems are caused by the fact that '''the bridges between these two components are not efficient'''. [[WP:OURS]] is a simple but sincere attempt to strengthen, enhance and improve the efficiency of these bridges. I hope it gets enough attention.
Regarding Wikiethics discussion:
If you participated in Wikiethics discussion and now referring to that approval poll you are, unfortunately, distorting the facts. If you are new to that discussion, I would recommend you to review the comments carefully.
Let me summarize what has happened quickly: A user, who dislike the proposal, unilaterally started the approval poll at a very early stage of the proposal. I then started another poll right after that to ask the community if an approval poll is needed at that stage. I, myself as the main proposer, haven't thought that the proposal is ready for putting to a vote. Then the poll I started to ask what people think about the timing of an approval poll vandalized many times: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff... or its place suddenly became a problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff... Nevertheless, the editors could have a chance to vote on the poll I started: 13 out of 17 said that it is not needed. So, the approval poll itself was not valid by the community consensus. Moveover if you can check the votes on the approval poll itself, some people are saying that the approval poll is not reasonable at that stage. These editors did not vote on the poll I started, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics/Archive/Do_we_need_a_... simply because it was not available to them. So the numbers you reported does not reflect the case as is.
Best,
Resid
From: "Stephen Bain" stephen.bain@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] status qou vs reform Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:33:48 +1000
On 6/3/06, Resid Gulerdem resid_gulerdem@yahoo.com
wrote:
I think one should not expect any action, in general, from the people who are well fed by the current structure which makes them feel superior,
make
any attempt towards a bit of change...
There must be an awfully large number of people who
are content with
the current structure, given that the general
approval poll on your
Wikiethics proposal failed 3 to 38 [1]. Polls are
evil, of course, and
not binding, but that level of rejection is fairly
comprehensive, and
came from all sectors of the community. I would
imagine that "OURS",
if it were ever formulated into a proposal, would
receive a similar
amount of opposition for similar reasons.
There are dozens of similar proposals put up every
year. If any of
them actually received support from the community,
they would be
successful. Admins are a miniscule 0.06% of
registered users - even if
we always voted as a bloc, there is no way we could
overrule a true
community movement.
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics/Archive/Approval_Poll...
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Resid Gulerdem you are a PERMANENTLY BLOCKED EDITOR who has not only been disruptive on English Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rgulerdem with corresponding extensive block log: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pag... but you've been disruptive in an entirely independent way on the Turkish Wikipedia: http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullan%C4%B1c%C4%B1:Rgulerdem Where you have also been repeatedly blocked: http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%96zel:Log&type=block&p...
For you to be discussing policy at this point is ridiculous. You should STEP AWAY from the project for at minimum 1 YEAR and then come back to try and contribute as at this point it is surely likely that you'll once again be disruptive when trying to formulate any sort of a "policy" like [[WP:OURS]] through demonstrating the same types of disruptive editor behaviour you've already repeatedly demonstrated (involving WP:OWN, WP:3RR, WP:POINT, WP:NPA, and WP:CIV).
-Scott Stevenson [[User:Netscott]]
On 6/4/06, Resid Gulerdem resid_gulerdem@yahoo.com wrote:
Regarding the [[WP:OURS]] proposal; there are some good suggestions in it, I believe:
- [[WP:OURS]] is aiming to start a discussion about
the '''solution''' to the main problem: admin-user relations. Isn't it time to start talking about solutions? How far are we going to discuss diffent versions of the same problem?
- It is not complete but just a quick suggestion from
my point of view. Can be and need to be modified.
- Existence of some rejected proposals cannot imply
that this one will follow the same path, can it? It is early to make a decision at this stage before discussing the proposal.
- The good thing about the proposal is, it does not
devaluate Wikigods and Wikigoddess and does not attempt to take their eternal status back. It does not propose radical changes but maybe a different look and acceptable variations of the current infrastructure. It just provides a windshield for ordinary users against strong, irresistible blows of Wikigod(des)s.
- It provides a dynamic measure for popularity of
admins.
- It aims to educate new or old users, rather than
irritate them.
- It diagnose and tries to prevent the system from
possible problems before they arise (by constructing study groups, etc., for example).
- As discussed by some users, both community and
encyclopedia are crucial components for Wikipedia. The problems are caused by the fact that '''the bridges between these two components are not efficient'''. [[WP:OURS]] is a simple but sincere attempt to strengthen, enhance and improve the efficiency of these bridges. I hope it gets enough attention.
Regarding Wikiethics discussion:
If you participated in Wikiethics discussion and now referring to that approval poll you are, unfortunately, distorting the facts. If you are new to that discussion, I would recommend you to review the comments carefully.
Let me summarize what has happened quickly: A user, who dislike the proposal, unilaterally started the approval poll at a very early stage of the proposal. I then started another poll right after that to ask the community if an approval poll is needed at that stage. I, myself as the main proposer, haven't thought that the proposal is ready for putting to a vote. Then the poll I started to ask what people think about the timing of an approval poll vandalized many times: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff... or its place suddenly became a problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff... Nevertheless, the editors could have a chance to vote on the poll I started: 13 out of 17 said that it is not needed. So, the approval poll itself was not valid by the community consensus. Moveover if you can check the votes on the approval poll itself, some people are saying that the approval poll is not reasonable at that stage. These editors did not vote on the poll I started, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics/Archive/Do_we_need_a_... simply because it was not available to them. So the numbers you reported does not reflect the case as is.
Best,
Resid
From: "Stephen Bain" stephen.bain@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] status qou vs reform Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:33:48 +1000
On 6/3/06, Resid Gulerdem resid_gulerdem@yahoo.com
wrote:
I think one should not expect any action, in general, from the people who are well fed by the current structure which makes them feel superior,
make
any attempt towards a bit of change...
There must be an awfully large number of people who
are content with
the current structure, given that the general
approval poll on your
Wikiethics proposal failed 3 to 38 [1]. Polls are
evil, of course, and
not binding, but that level of rejection is fairly
comprehensive, and
came from all sectors of the community. I would
imagine that "OURS",
if it were ever formulated into a proposal, would
receive a similar
amount of opposition for similar reasons.
There are dozens of similar proposals put up every
year. If any of
them actually received support from the community,
they would be
successful. Admins are a miniscule 0.06% of
registered users - even if
we always voted as a bloc, there is no way we could
overrule a true
community movement.
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics/Archive/Approval_Poll...
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l