Rick wrote:

Steve Vertigo utilitymuffinresearch@yahoo.com wrote:

I think we ought to list each of the recall
candidates, and invite their staffs to add to their
articles.

Crazy? :)

http://www.sfgate.com/gate/special/pages/2003/recall/
http://www.georgyforgov.com/index.htm ! ! go geeks!

I strongly disagree. How could they possibly give us NPOV articles?

The NPOV requirement does not make them inelligible as subjets. Obviously, if any of the 135 dodn't have a POV he or she would not be running for office. :-) NPOV editing involves fairly representing what each of these candidates is about. After saying this is whate the candidate stands for, NPOV does not required that we have to dig up the opposing point of view.

Ec

Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org wrote:At 12:48 AM 8/16/03 -0700, you wrote:

Rick wrote:

...

Steve Vertigo wrote:

I think we ought to list each of the recall candidates, and invite their staffs to add to their articles.

Crazy? :)

http://www.sfgate.com/gate/special/pages/2003/recall/ http://www.georgyforgov.com/index.htm ! ! go geeks!

I strongly disagree. How could they possibly give us NPOV articles?

The NPOV requirement does not make them inelligible as subjets. Obviously, if any of the 135 dodn't have a POV he or she would not be running for office. :-) NPOV editing involves fairly representing what each of these candidates is about. After saying this is whate the candidate stands for, NPOV does not required that we have to dig up the opposing point of view.

Also, I suspect that a lot of them would provide NPOV autobiographical information: "Jo Candidate was born in $city on $date, educated at $college, and sold ice cream door-to-door before becoming a $professional."

[[Wikipedia:Deletion policy]] seems to have sprouted the following language: "

When you list a page on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion that you think will be listed for the entire 7 days -- i.e., a page that won't be deleted immediately -- please place the following notice above the page's content:

''This page has been listed on [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]]. Please see that page for justifications and discussion.'' ". And [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]] now says:

"NOTE: Always indicate on the listed page itself that it is here. See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Listed_for_deletion_notice. If this is not done, then the page will not be deleted. "

Now, I can't say that I DISAGREE with this policy (although I think that having to put this notice on every page to be deleted is a tad excessive), but when and where was this policy discussed? Was it ONE PERSON who made the decision, UNILATERALLY, that nothing would be deleted unless his/her pet boilerplate was put onto the page in question?

Such new policies need to be discussed, not just thrown out as a fait accompli. Other sysops may just go ahead and delete pages without the boilerplate, and have the right to do so, since this "policy" is only one person's decision, and not the agreement of the users of Wikipedia as a whole.

RickK

--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

On 17 Aug 2003, Erik Moeller wrote:

I choose not to follow this policy as I consider it unnecessary extra work,

Hmm. Are you by any chance a supporter of [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules]]? I was under the impression that a prerequisite of having sysop status was agreeing to follow the policies. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. Still, even if it isn't, I don't think it sets a good example to say that you are going to ignore a policy. Perhaps it would be better if you were to argue for it to be made explicitly optional?

Oliver

+-------------------------------------------+ | Oliver Pereira | | Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science | | University of Southampton | | omp199@ecs.soton.ac.uk | +-------------------------------------------+

Steve-

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Oliver here -- not that I dont understand Eriks comment as tongue in cheek ;)-- but Erik's recent "unilateral removal" of RK from nomination was a bit too "unilateral" -- as such a philosophy of unilateralism tends to contradict the more general notions of voting, democracy, and so forth.

The only thing you will accomplish with this RK sysop nomination nonsense (which he himself never asked for) is yet another flamewar because you know exactly from the initial reaction that there is strong opposition to this nomination. I consider your actions harmful to the community and counter-productive. If RK wants to apply for sysop status, let him. But there's no reason for you to nominate specifically controversial Wikipedians. This kind of behavior reminds me very much of the troublemaking that got Lir banned. Not only do you insist on starting this flamewar, you also spammed many user talk pages to make sure that the maximum number of people get involved in the flamewar. Great thinking there! Here's a selection of your recent edits:

# 01:25, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Danny # 01:24, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Cyp (top) [rollback] # 01:24, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Cprompt # 01:23, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Camembert # 01:23, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Dante Alighieri (top) [rollback] # 01:22, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Delirium (top) [rollback] # 01:22, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:The Epopt (top) [rollback] # 01:21, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Fred Bauder (top) [rollback] # 01:20, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Goatasaur (top) [rollback] # 01:20, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Hephaestos (top) [rollback] # 01:19, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Infrogmation (top) [rollback] # 01:19, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:JeLuF (top) [rollback] # 01:19, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Karen Johnson (top) [rollback] # 01:18, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Maveric149 # 01:16, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:LittleDan (top) [rollback] # 01:16, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Evercat (top) [rollback] # 01:13, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Jtdirl # 01:11, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:AntonioMartin (top) [rollback] # 01:10, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Andre Engels # 01:09, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Anthere (top) [rollback] # 01:09, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Brion VIBBER # 01:08, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Olivier (top) [rollback] # 01:06, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:The Cunctator (top) [rollback] # 01:06, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Maveric149 # 01:05, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Deb (top) [rollback] # 01:05, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Ed Poor (top) [rollback] # 01:04, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Eloquence # 01:01, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Jtdirl # 01:00, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Lee Daniel Crocker (top) [rollback] # 00:59, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Slrubenstein # 00:59, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Tim Starling (top) [rollback] # 00:58, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Tim Starling (form letter) # 00:55, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Angela (2 messages -- gotta run) # 00:54, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Mbecker (top) [rollback] # 00:52, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:MyRedDice # 00:40, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Angela # 00:20, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Angela

Frankly, I am increasingly convinced that you are deliberately trolling. Maybe you could concentrate on writing articles for a change.

Regards,

Erik

Im checking in and out today- so ill be brief. Erik, your removal of RK from the VFA page was contradictory to the rules, principles, etc of voting. Period. I agree with it however, and I thank you for correcting me. It led to my taking the issue seriously, and making

On the issue of RK's imminent sysopdom, I dont understand how you can accuse me of trolling. I have yet to state my case clearly - I will do so now, and you can copy it or refer to it as you like. RK is not a problem user. Hes not a vandal. He occupies a particular niche of intelligent annoyance, and as such will continue to be so unless things change.

Responsibility breeds self-esteem, standards of conduct and trust between parties. I dont expect anyone to change - rather that an anti-RK sentiment (regardless that he alone is responsible for engendering it -- as you say, highly unpopular ) is not grounds alone for denial into more elevated capapilities and duties. Sysops have more to do, and their roles require a concern for their community, moderation, and quality. Do the clothes make the man or does the man make the clothes. I dunno. All I know is that Im sincere in wanting to see him be more productive, less polarized, and

I believe that he has made gradual progress toward this end and that he has earned the right to be nominated for a position of sysop. I have the right to nominate him, and to campaign on his behalf. Many others see my meaning and are supportive ( I havent seen my talk page yet, and will not answer anyone for a while ) RK has not accepted or rejected the nomination -- you should acknowledge that you have little statutory justification in removing his nomination after only two comments.

The worst thing that may happen is that he will ignore his responsibility to be civil, and that he will go back to being a plebian contributor. I dont think this will happen, and I find distasteful those opinions that prejudicially say otherwise. Give people a chance - and they will give you your due.

I dislike doing this all third person, but I felt a response your rather sharp critique was justified, Erik. By this I mean your comments have substance, but nothing that cant be dispensed with by patience and fairness.

Respectfully, SV

Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote: Steve-

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Oliver here -- not that I dont understand Eriks comment as tongue in cheek ;)-- but Erik's recent "unilateral removal" of RK from nomination was a bit too "unilateral" -- as such a philosophy of unilateralism tends to contradict the more general notions of voting, democracy, and so forth.

The only thing you will accomplish with this RK sysop nomination nonsense (which he himself never asked for) is yet another flamewar because you know exactly from the initial reaction that there is strong opposition to this nomination. I consider your actions harmful to the community and counter-productive. If RK wants to apply for sysop status, let him. But there's no reason for you to nominate specifically controversial Wikipedians. This kind of behavior reminds me very much of the troublemaking that got Lir banned. Not only do you insist on starting this flamewar, you also spammed many user talk pages to make sure that the maximum number of people get involved in the flamewar. Great thinking there! Here's a selection of your recent edits:

# 01:25, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Danny # 01:24, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Cyp (top) [rollback] # 01:24, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Cprompt # 01:23, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Camembert # 01:23, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Dante Alighieri (top) [rollback] # 01:22, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Delirium (top) [rollback] # 01:22, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:The Epopt (top) [rollback] # 01:21, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Fred Bauder (top) [rollback] # 01:20, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Goatasaur (top) [rollback] # 01:20, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Hephaestos (top) [rollback] # 01:19, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Infrogmation (top) [rollback] # 01:19, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:JeLuF (top) [rollback] # 01:19, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Karen Johnson (top) [rollback] # 01:18, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Maveric149 # 01:16, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:LittleDan (top) [rollback] # 01:16, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Evercat (top) [rollback] # 01:13, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Jtdirl # 01:11, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:AntonioMartin (top) [rollback] # 01:10, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Andre Engels # 01:09, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Anthere (top) [rollback] # 01:09, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Brion VIBBER # 01:08, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Olivier (top) [rollback] # 01:06, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:The Cunctator (top) [rollback] # 01:06, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Maveric149 # 01:05, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Deb (top) [rollback] # 01:05, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Ed Poor (top) [rollback] # 01:04, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Eloquence # 01:01, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Jtdirl # 01:00, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Lee Daniel Crocker (top) [rollback] # 00:59, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Slrubenstein # 00:59, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Tim Starling (top) [rollback] # 00:58, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Tim Starling (form letter) # 00:55, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Angela (2 messages -- gotta run) # 00:54, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Mbecker (top) [rollback] # 00:52, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:MyRedDice # 00:40, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Angela # 00:20, Aug 17, 2003 User talk:Angela

Frankly, I am increasingly convinced that you are deliberately trolling. Maybe you could concentrate on writing articles for a change.

Regards,

Erik _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

This is your theory. Regardless of your theory, it is inevitable that a nomination of RK will raise many opposing voices (including my own),

Regardless of all of that -- you state honestly that you have both a polarized opinion and claim a further "right" to act unilaterally to "avoid a flame war" -- not consistent with your usual, reasonable manner. End comment.

As for the sysop issue -- I see now that this is all academic -- that RK has rejected the nomination.

-S-

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

Erik Moeller wrote:

A sysop nomination, like a deletion, must have near unanimous support to be successful.

That's an interesting perspective, and there's some truth in it, but I'm not sure I agree. My rule has been that I hand out sysop status to pretty much anyone who asks for it, as long as they have some decent history with us. RK would fit that perfectly.

Now, as to whether his becoming a sysop would be _successful_ is of course a different question. There was some dissent over 172, and he's still more than a bit controversial at times. I think it's pretty clear that, to avoid controversy, RK would need to avoid a lot of deletions in areas that are of interest to him.

Part of the reason wiki works so well is that it isn't a process of "o.k., you've earned trust, now here's your privileges", but rather a process of "here's your privileges, now earn trust".

--Jimbo

Erik Moeller wrote:

Jimmy-

...

Part of the reason wiki works so well is that it isn't a process of "o.k., you've earned trust, now here's your privileges", but rather a process of "here's your privileges, now earn trust".

What about people who have violated the trust which they have earned before they requested sysop access? What about people who have violated our rules? Would you grant sysop status to a suspected Lir incarnation, even if dozens of people protested against doing so? I don't think we can ignore a user's track record when handing out sysop access.

As usual, you do make a very good point here.

I suppose one way to look at it is this: I've pushed for us to have more and more sysops, so as to demystify the job, and to ensure that it's treated as a merely technical matter rather than membership in an elite cabal. I want it to be uncontroversial and boring.

But to keep it uncontroversial and boring and to avoid it being used as a tool of cabal-ism, it does matter if a person has already caused controversy (whether I think they were right or wrong on the content merits, of course!).

--Jimbo

Oliver Pereira omp199@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:On 17 Aug 2003, Erik Moeller wrote:

I choose not to follow this policy as I consider it unnecessary extra work,

Hmm. Are you by any chance a supporter of [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules]]? I was under the impression that a prerequisite of having sysop status was agreeing to follow the policies. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. Still, even if it isn't, I don't think it sets a good example to say that you are going to ignore a policy. Perhaps it would be better if you were to argue for it to be made explicitly optional?

Oliver

This is not a policy. This is one person's attempt to dictate policy.

RickK

--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

I choose not to follow this policy as I consider it unnecessary extra work, but I don't mind if others add the boilerplate notice. (We already bend over backwards to inform newbies whenever they make a mistake.) Just don't remove pages I add to VfD or reset the timer because of the missing boilerplate.

Regards,

Erik

I agree. Not only is it extra work, but it makes the article show up in the article count, whereas in a blank page wouldn't. And a notice like that discourages people from replacing it with new content. When I encounter a graffiti page, I don't put a boilerplate text there and add it to votes for deletion. Instead, I replace it with a 2 or 3 sentence stub. This usually takes the same, if not less, and it makes a lot less work for others who patrol votes for deletion all the time. Every topic deserves an article, so why delete it? LDan

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:

I like the policy before you changed it better. LDan

Eh?

*I* didn't change anything?

RickK

--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:> Eh?

*I* didn't change anything?

RickK

Before you changed what was written there LDan

Please check again. I repeat. *I DID NOT* change anything.

RickK

--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:

--- Rick wrote:

Daniel Ehrenberg

wrote:>

Eh?

...

*I* didn't change anything?

RickK

Before you changed what was written there LDan

Please check again. I repeat. *I DID NOT* change anything.

RickK

You said on the list that "some text cropped up" and you changed it to what you thought the policy was. LDan

Nope. I never said that, because I never did that. I didn't change any of the wording on the policy, I didn't do anything to the policy but complain that it was put up without input or notice.

RickK

--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!