Message: 6 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 11:05:09 +1000 From: "Peter Ansell" ansell.peter@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] cancelation of the deletion
review of the
satanism userbox To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Message-ID:
a1be7e0e0606011805x7203ed79i526f32d1ae3ef1d0@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1;
format=flowed
On 6/2/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
wrote:
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/2/06, George Herbert
george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Tony is going around pissing people off badly
enough that they RfC him
over
it.
George, if I breathe someone gets pissed off.
This isn't normally
regarded as a cause for concern.
No, actually, your day to day stuff only ruffles
people's feathers.
Your attitude that it's ok to do that is annoying.
Your attitude that it's ok to move beyond that
into actually pissing them
off, and doing things like rejecting RfCs out of
hand merely because they're
silly, is a serious problem.
If people are actively pissed off at the way
you're behaving it is a serious
problem. You are the single most active visible
WP admin a lot of the time,
and you're going around causing disruption and
conflict throughout the
community, and acting proud of it. What, exactly,
do you think that sends
as a message to new editors?
It is not ok to go around pissing people off. It
is important to figure out
how to get things done without pissing them off.
Well said, And to think that people are worrying
about "possible
polemical" effects and ignoring the deeper problems
with the wikipedia
community structure.
Peter Ansell
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. It is a sociological principle that status quo always resists to the reforms. The community needs to take initiative in that direction. [[WP:OURS]] was a humble example of such efforts waiting for the community involvement. Resid
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
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...
On 04/06/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
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...
What if the admins all voted one way and then dismissed the result because supposedly it was non-consensus? (as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:May_Userbox_policy_poll )
Peter Ansell
G'day Peter A,
On 04/06/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
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...
What if the admins all voted one way and then dismissed the result because supposedly it was non-consensus? (as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:May_Userbox_policy_poll )
Well ...
There were at least two admins who approved of the proposed policy (Grue and Fred Bauder). So "What if the admins all voted one way" is untrue.
The result wasn't dismissed by admins. The poll simply didn't say the things that certain proponents like to believe it said. Compare with the history of other policy created By Popular Demand, such as 3RR. So "then dismissed the result" is untrue.
Neither side of the poll achieved consensus. Please consult your favourite dictionary for evidence as to why "because supposedly it was non-consensus" is untrue.
In short, there is not a single thing in your email that's actually true. You will need to hold yourself to a higher standard of research in future, so that you don't look either clueless or disingenuous.
On 04/06/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Peter A,
What if the admins all voted one way and then dismissed the result because supposedly it was non-consensus? (as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:May_Userbox_policy_poll )
Well ...
There were at least two admins who approved of the proposed policy (Grue and Fred Bauder). So "What if the admins all voted one way" is untrue.
The result wasn't dismissed by admins. The poll simply didn't say the things that certain proponents like to believe it said. Compare with the history of other policy created By Popular Demand, such as 3RR. So "then dismissed the result" is untrue.
Neither side of the poll achieved consensus. Please consult your favourite dictionary for evidence as to why "because supposedly it was non-consensus" is untrue.
In short, there is not a single thing in your email that's actually true. You will need to hold yourself to a higher standard of research in future, so that you don't look either clueless or disingenuous.
Wow, there was only one thing in my email, and its not true supposedly. You make it sound like I made more than one point. The poll itself was created by popular demand. Obviously that criterion only has meaning when it is created with popular demand of admins. The poll came very close to consensus in many views. Of course, with two admins going for it then it is a horrible generalisation, I am so sorry about that.
Userbox policies will never actually gain consensus. In the end Jimbo will actually enforce his stated view, but the example isn't as bad as you make it out to be.
Peter Ansell
On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 16:58:41 +1000, you wrote:
Userbox policies will never actually gain consensus. In the end Jimbo will actually enforce his stated view, but the example isn't as bad as you make it out to be.
I'd say the consensus was that Jimbo Is Always Right :-)
Guy (JzG)
On 6/4/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I'd say the consensus was that Jimbo Is Always Right :-)
Guy (JzG)
Umm his plan to apoint arbcom directly?
On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 22:19:45 +0100, you wrote:
Umm his plan to apoint arbcom directly?
There may have been an element of irony in my comment.
Guy (JzG)
geni wrote:
On 6/4/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I'd say the consensus was that Jimbo Is Always Right :-)
Guy (JzG)
Umm his plan to apoint arbcom directly?
What plan was that?
On 6/5/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 6/4/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I'd say the consensus was that Jimbo Is Always Right :-)
Guy (JzG)
Umm his plan to apoint arbcom directly?
What plan was that?
This one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_El...
Incerdentaly the next lot of arbcom elections are being dissucussed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Elections/...
If you want to radicaly change the process again could you comment now becuase sorting out things in the minutes leading up to midnight is kinda not fun.