Greetings
I am [[User:Rocky7]].
Is there inspectors to investigate the behaviors of all admins in English Wikipedia?
In Japanese Wikipedia there is no inspectors to investigate whether the behaviors of admins are right or not, so almost Japanese Wikipedians cannot trust admins at all. And it seems very clear that admins abuse sockpuppets terribly unfairly. They have been blocking superior Wikipedians one after another. They would have done out of jealousy, inferiority complex, and/or anti-Japanese hate.
In Japanese Wikipedia all admins seemes to be anti-Japanese cruel Korean fascists. They cannot be Japanese characteristically. It is the fact that in Korea anti-Japanese cruel Korean fascists have been oppressing pro-Japanese people since 2000.
Japanese are peaceful and generous, but Koreans are aggressive and sly (at least since 1945).
Why have the server of Japanese Wikipedia been set on Korea? Very heavy and terribly unfair!
Who have left the adminships of Japanese Wikipedia to sly anti-Japanese Koreans who pretend to be Japanese?
The relation between Japanese and Koreans is the same as that between Israeli Jews and (Palestinian) Arabs.
Is there the board of inspectors to investigate the behaviours of all admins in English Wikipedia? If not, please create it. Now! As far as admin's vandalism abusing ordinary Wikipedians is left, it is extremely obvious that there is no use preventing anons from creating new pages. The prank like that of [[Siegenthaler Sr]] cannot be settled unless admins be re-elected and trusted.
As long as general Wikipedians cannot respect admins, it's the worst method to set a limit to releasing the newest version of the article. I don't know why the admins of Deutche Wikipedia can take such a silly countermeasure.
After all, The Problem of Wikipedia is evidently the Problem of Admins.
Do you understand?
I hope that there would be wise admins here who can think and act logically and help build the ideal of Jimmy Wales.
Thank you.
Rocky7
_________________________________________________________________ Get the new Windows Live Messenger! http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&sour...
[...]
Why have the server of Japanese Wikipedia been set on Korea? Very heavy and terribly unfair!
This is where I started laughing ;-)
From: "Domas Mituzas" midom.lists@gmail.com
[...]
Why have the server of Japanese Wikipedia been set on Korea? Very heavy and terribly unfair!
This is where I started laughing ;-)
I was already concinced it was a joke at that point. It was a joke, wasn't it?
Bradipus
On 9/10/06, Peter Rocky7 freudianjungianp@hotmail.com wrote:
In Japanese Wikipedia all admins seemes to be anti-Japanese cruel Korean fascists. They cannot be Japanese characteristically. It is the fact that in Korea anti-Japanese cruel Korean fascists have been oppressing pro-Japanese people since 2000.
Japanese are peaceful and generous, but Koreans are aggressive and sly (at least since 1945).
Time to apply Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law ) here?
Too early.
The idea that we have certain Wikipedias with highly rouge admins is indicative that we need to start getting focussed on an international, interlingual community of responsible people to infiltrate these bad Wikipedias and teach them right from wrong!
On 9/10/06, Ragib Hasan ragibhasan@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/10/06, Peter Rocky7 freudianjungianp@hotmail.com wrote:
In Japanese Wikipedia all admins seemes to be anti-Japanese cruel Korean fascists. They cannot be Japanese characteristically. It is the fact
that in
Korea anti-Japanese cruel Korean fascists have been oppressing
pro-Japanese
people since 2000.
Japanese are peaceful and generous, but Koreans are aggressive and sly
(at
least since 1945).
Time to apply Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law ) here? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
If your question can be shortened to "are the admins controlled" the answer is YES! To be exact, by the comunity. The community can appoint and send away admins, and can control them.
further there is at the dutch wikipedia (and we are somehow weird, fyi) a community reprepresentative that has access to the sysop-mailinglist and could shout alarm if the admins were plotting something bad. Afaik he has never had to use his access to shout alarm, although he reads almost everything on-list.
@domas: I started earlier, here: "In Japanese Wikipedia all admins seemes to be anti-Japanese cruel Korean fascists." ;-)
Lodewijk
2006/9/10, Peter Rocky7 freudianjungianp@hotmail.com:
Greetings
I am [[User:Rocky7]].
Is there inspectors to investigate the behaviors of all admins in English Wikipedia?
In Japanese Wikipedia there is no inspectors to investigate whether the behaviors of admins are right or not, so almost Japanese Wikipedians cannot trust admins at all. And it seems very clear that admins abuse sockpuppets terribly unfairly. They have been blocking superior Wikipedians one after another. They would have done out of jealousy, inferiority complex, and/or anti-Japanese hate.
In Japanese Wikipedia all admins seemes to be anti-Japanese cruel Korean fascists. They cannot be Japanese characteristically. It is the fact that in Korea anti-Japanese cruel Korean fascists have been oppressing pro-Japanese people since 2000.
Japanese are peaceful and generous, but Koreans are aggressive and sly (at least since 1945).
Why have the server of Japanese Wikipedia been set on Korea? Very heavy and terribly unfair!
Who have left the adminships of Japanese Wikipedia to sly anti-Japanese Koreans who pretend to be Japanese?
The relation between Japanese and Koreans is the same as that between Israeli Jews and (Palestinian) Arabs.
Is there the board of inspectors to investigate the behaviours of all admins in English Wikipedia? If not, please create it. Now! As far as admin's vandalism abusing ordinary Wikipedians is left, it is extremely obvious that there is no use preventing anons from creating new pages. The prank like that of [[Siegenthaler Sr]] cannot be settled unless admins be re-elected and trusted.
As long as general Wikipedians cannot respect admins, it's the worst method to set a limit to releasing the newest version of the article. I don't know why the admins of Deutche Wikipedia can take such a silly countermeasure.
After all, The Problem of Wikipedia is evidently the Problem of Admins.
Do you understand?
I hope that there would be wise admins here who can think and act logically and help build the ideal of Jimmy Wales.
Thank you.
Rocky7
Get the new Windows Live Messenger! http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&sour...
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Just like Eloquence stated in his platform, we need to make a big list of these Best Practices so we can figure out what's best, so we "don't have to re-invent the wheel" over and over again.
Let's get started on that. Effeietsanders here started it off by telling us the doubleplusgood practice of the Dutch Wikipedia.
Perhaps this page of best practices can be a series of pages on Meta.
On 9/10/06, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
If your question can be shortened to "are the admins controlled" the answer is YES! To be exact, by the comunity. The community can appoint and send away admins, and can control them.
further there is at the dutch wikipedia (and we are somehow weird, fyi) a community reprepresentative that has access to the sysop-mailinglist and could shout alarm if the admins were plotting something bad. Afaik he has never had to use his access to shout alarm, although he reads almost everything on-list.
@domas: I started earlier, here: "In Japanese Wikipedia all admins seemes to be anti-Japanese cruel Korean fascists." ;-)
Lodewijk
2006/9/10, Peter Rocky7 freudianjungianp@hotmail.com:
Greetings
I am [[User:Rocky7]].
Is there inspectors to investigate the behaviors of all admins in
English
Wikipedia?
In Japanese Wikipedia there is no inspectors to investigate whether the behaviors of admins are right or not, so almost Japanese Wikipedians
cannot
trust admins at all. And it seems very clear that admins abuse
sockpuppets
terribly unfairly. They have been blocking superior Wikipedians one
after
another. They would have done out of jealousy, inferiority complex,
and/or
anti-Japanese hate.
In Japanese Wikipedia all admins seemes to be anti-Japanese cruel Korean fascists. They cannot be Japanese characteristically. It is the fact
that in
Korea anti-Japanese cruel Korean fascists have been oppressing
pro-Japanese
people since 2000.
Japanese are peaceful and generous, but Koreans are aggressive and sly
(at
least since 1945).
Why have the server of Japanese Wikipedia been set on Korea? Very heavy
and
terribly unfair!
Who have left the adminships of Japanese Wikipedia to sly anti-Japanese Koreans who pretend to be Japanese?
The relation between Japanese and Koreans is the same as that between Israeli Jews and (Palestinian) Arabs.
Is there the board of inspectors to investigate the behaviours of all
admins
in English Wikipedia? If not, please create it. Now! As far as admin's vandalism abusing ordinary Wikipedians is left, it is extremely obvious that there is no use preventing anons from creating
new
pages. The prank like that of [[Siegenthaler Sr]] cannot be settled
unless
admins be re-elected and trusted.
As long as general Wikipedians cannot respect admins, it's the worst
method
to set a limit to releasing the newest version of the article. I don't
know
why the admins of Deutche Wikipedia can take such a silly
countermeasure.
After all, The Problem of Wikipedia is evidently the Problem of Admins.
Do you understand?
I hope that there would be wise admins here who can think and act
logically
and help build the ideal of Jimmy Wales.
Thank you.
Rocky7
Get the new Windows Live Messenger!
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&sour...
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, Admins are not controlled on the Dutch Wikipedia. At best there is room for censuring them. Control means that the community enforces behaviour of admins. When people insist that people do things in a certain way, they have to appreciate that admins are volunteers. When this urge of control becomes too much people can and do decide not to be an admin anymore and consequently all the control the community thought it had is lost.
There is little that cannot be done without having the "buttons" that are essentially everything that an admin has over a non-admin. When an admin goes overboard and starts to BAN people for no obvious reason, the admin has lost his control and is likely to get censured. When a community is fractured to the extend where opinion is divided in power blocks, we have a situation where it is questionable to what extend the objectives of having a WMF project are still primary. This is the situation in several projects where the main issues are political and/or the dogmatic imposition of rules that have little to do with the aim of the project.
Thanks, GerardM
On 9/10/06, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
If your question can be shortened to "are the admins controlled" the answer is YES! To be exact, by the comunity. The community can appoint and send away admins, and can control them.
further there is at the dutch wikipedia (and we are somehow weird, fyi) a community reprepresentative that has access to the sysop-mailinglist and could shout alarm if the admins were plotting something bad. Afaik he has never had to use his access to shout alarm, although he reads almost everything on-list.
@domas: I started earlier, here: "In Japanese Wikipedia all admins seemes to be anti-Japanese cruel Korean fascists." ;-)
Lodewijk
2006/9/10, Peter Rocky7 freudianjungianp@hotmail.com:
Greetings
I am [[User:Rocky7]].
Is there inspectors to investigate the behaviors of all admins in
English
Wikipedia?
In Japanese Wikipedia there is no inspectors to investigate whether the behaviors of admins are right or not, so almost Japanese Wikipedians
cannot
trust admins at all. And it seems very clear that admins abuse
sockpuppets
terribly unfairly. They have been blocking superior Wikipedians one
after
another. They would have done out of jealousy, inferiority complex,
and/or
anti-Japanese hate.
In Japanese Wikipedia all admins seemes to be anti-Japanese cruel Korean fascists. They cannot be Japanese characteristically. It is the fact
that in
Korea anti-Japanese cruel Korean fascists have been oppressing
pro-Japanese
people since 2000.
Japanese are peaceful and generous, but Koreans are aggressive and sly
(at
least since 1945).
Why have the server of Japanese Wikipedia been set on Korea? Very heavy
and
terribly unfair!
Who have left the adminships of Japanese Wikipedia to sly anti-Japanese Koreans who pretend to be Japanese?
The relation between Japanese and Koreans is the same as that between Israeli Jews and (Palestinian) Arabs.
Is there the board of inspectors to investigate the behaviours of all
admins
in English Wikipedia? If not, please create it. Now! As far as admin's vandalism abusing ordinary Wikipedians is left, it is extremely obvious that there is no use preventing anons from creating
new
pages. The prank like that of [[Siegenthaler Sr]] cannot be settled
unless
admins be re-elected and trusted.
As long as general Wikipedians cannot respect admins, it's the worst
method
to set a limit to releasing the newest version of the article. I don't
know
why the admins of Deutche Wikipedia can take such a silly
countermeasure.
After all, The Problem of Wikipedia is evidently the Problem of Admins.
Do you understand?
I hope that there would be wise admins here who can think and act
logically
and help build the ideal of Jimmy Wales.
Thank you.
Rocky7
Get the new Windows Live Messenger!
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&sour...
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/09/06, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Admins are not controlled on the Dutch Wikipedia. At best there is room for censuring them. Control means that the community enforces behaviour of admins. When people insist that people do things in a certain way, they have to appreciate that admins are volunteers. When this urge of control becomes too much people can and do decide not to be an admin anymore and consequently all the control the community thought it had is lost.
For comparison, on en:wp -
On en:wp, there was a perception for a long time that admins were impossible to remove even if they were widely thought to have gone off the rails. Then in early 2006 a bunch of admins got de-adminned by the Arbitration Committee after Jimbo asked the AC to look into the matter in question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_u...
So on en:wp, you can get de-adminned if the Arbitration Committee considers you have gone off the rails in a way that will be damaging to the encyclopedia project (encyclopedia or community).
The most recent case was someone who'd been in lots of trouble but had kept their sysop bit because they'd never abused their admin powers as such; but when they said elsewhere they would, their admin status was taken away immediately. So upsetting people and being a [[m:dick]] won't get your sysop powers taken away; abusing the powers is the only likely cause.
This may change later if it needs to. But it seems workable for now.
- d.
On 9/10/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
For comparison, on en:wp -
On en:wp, there was a perception for a long time that admins were impossible to remove even if they were widely thought to have gone off the rails. Then in early 2006 a bunch of admins got de-adminned by the Arbitration Committee after Jimbo asked the AC to look into the matter in question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_u...
There were previous simular cases.
Day to day admins are regulated by other admins. I don't think en has a sysop-mailinglist.
On 10/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/10/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
For comparison, on en:wp - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_u...
There were previous simular cases.
Thinking back, I know 172 lost his sysop bit before then, but I do think that was the big one in establishing that you could lose your sysop bit for egregious bad behaviour.
Day to day admins are regulated by other admins. I don't think en has a sysop-mailinglist.
Most detailed discussion happens on the admin noticeboards ([[WP:AN]] and subpages). There's some discussion on the lists, and IRC #wikipedia-en-admins was set up specifically as an admin matters discussion space (and a place Danny or Jimbo could go when they needed quick admin action on sensitive matters).
- d.
On 9/10/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/10/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
For comparison, on en:wp -
On en:wp, there was a perception for a long time that admins were impossible to remove even if they were widely thought to have gone off the rails. Then in early 2006 a bunch of admins got de-adminned by the Arbitration Committee after Jimbo asked the AC to look into the matter in question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_u...
There were previous simular cases.
Day to day admins are regulated by other admins. I don't think en has a sysop-mailinglist.
Not only is there not an en:wp admin mailing list, the lack of one speaks directly to what role admins play in en:wp. I believe both Dutch and German have mailing lists for sysops, where admins deliberate on decisions. At least in the case of de: the weight of all admins is behind the action of anything endorsed by consensus on that mailing list. This is quite a bit different than the "janitor" role that en:wp tries to keep admins to. (But even in en: it's certainly grown to be more than a janitor's role.)
I think it would be great to document community "norms" for each of the 10-15 largest Wikipedias just to get a feel for what best practices are out there.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On 11/09/06, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
Not only is there not an en:wp admin mailing list, the lack of one speaks directly to what role admins play in en:wp. I believe both Dutch and German have mailing lists for sysops, where admins deliberate on decisions. At least in the case of de: the weight of all admins is behind the action of anything endorsed by consensus on that mailing list. This is quite a bit different than the "janitor" role that en:wp tries to keep admins to. (But even in en: it's certainly grown to be more than a janitor's role.)
As an idle footnote, I ran some numbers last night - en.wp has about twice as many admins per article as the average among its peers (average is 2500-3000 articles/admin, lowest in peer group is ~2000, en.wp was something like 1300)
The reason this statistic is somewhat surprising is that when you graph admin numbers against other factors (number of active users, number of edits, etc)... then the admin-to-article ratio on en.wp is the one that stays roughly constant, and you'd have expected it to be comparable elsewhere. Interesting.
I think it would be great to document community "norms" for each of the 10-15 largest Wikipedias just to get a feel for what best practices are out there.
There's a brief set of articles on en.wp about the largest individual wikis... perhaps using these, and their other-language counterparts, as the nucleus for something on meta would work?
On 9/11/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/09/06, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
I think it would be great to document community "norms" for each of the 10-15 largest Wikipedias just to get a feel for what best practices are out there.
There's a brief set of articles on en.wp about the largest individual wikis... perhaps using these, and their other-language counterparts, as the nucleus for something on meta would work?
On Japanese Wikiquote, there is an admin norm document. Once some Wikipedians including Tomos and me discussed to have an equivalent on Japanese Wikipedias too, but this attempt seems to be on a deadlock. Lacking such document though, I observe the spirit of once drafted document is shared by most active Japanese sysops both on all projects, including Wikipedia, of course.
I think proposals in this thread are thoughtful and helpful, including * Create "good customs on my Wikipedia" page * Page(s) of comparison of core value documents
Probably it will be a good candidate of "collaboration of this week"? Cheers,
2006/9/11, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com:
On 9/11/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/09/06, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
I think it would be great to document community "norms" for each of the 10-15 largest Wikipedias just to get a feel for what best practices are out there.
There's a brief set of articles on en.wp about the largest individual wikis... perhaps using these, and their other-language counterparts, as the nucleus for something on meta would work?
On Japanese Wikiquote, there is an admin norm document. Once some Wikipedians including Tomos and me discussed to have an equivalent on Japanese Wikipedias too, but this attempt seems to be on a deadlock. Lacking such document though, I observe the spirit of once drafted document is shared by most active Japanese sysops both on all projects, including Wikipedia, of course.
I think proposals in this thread are thoughtful and helpful, including
- Create "good customs on my Wikipedia" page
- Page(s) of comparison of core value documents
On Polish Wikipedia there is a page collecting all rules, which admins should follow:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sprawy_administracyjne
I think that forcing new customs or rules which comes from the "top" might create a natural opposision. I think the best place to put such a general "good customs" translations would be rather meta. Then it might be a good starting point how to slowly apply it to the all projects after duscussion within project's communities which should individally decide how to "customize" them to the nature and current rules of their projects.
On 11/09/06, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
I think that forcing new customs or rules which comes from the "top" might create a natural opposision. I think the best place to put such a general "good customs" translations would be rather meta. Then it might be a good starting point how to slowly apply it to the all projects after duscussion within project's communities which should individally decide how to "customize" them to the nature and current rules of their projects.
I'm working on an essay about process in my en: userspace:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard/Process_is_Dangerous
Process is there to help write an encyclopedia. Beyond that, it must stay completely malleable. Important considerations are NPOV, verifiability and no original research. For community maintenance, assume good faith and no personal attacks; and don't bite the newbies, since they seem to write most of the actual content, on en: at least.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 11/09/06, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
I think that forcing new customs or rules which comes from the "top" might create a natural opposision. I think the best place to put such a general "good customs" translations would be rather meta. Then it might be a good starting point how to slowly apply it to the all projects after duscussion within project's communities which should individally decide how to "customize" them to the nature and current rules of their projects.
I'm working on an essay about process in my en: userspace:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard/Process_is_Dangerous
Process is there to help write an encyclopedia. Beyond that, it must stay completely malleable. Important considerations are NPOV, verifiability and no original research. For community maintenance, assume good faith and no personal attacks; and don't bite the newbies, since they seem to write most of the actual content, on en: at least.
- d.
Hoi, Given that this is Foundation, no original research should be less of a criteria. It is very much what you want in an encyclopaedia, but for other projects it is not necessarily that great. Thanks, GerardM
On 11/09/06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard/Process_is_Dangerous Process is there to help write an encyclopedia. Beyond that, it must stay completely malleable. Important considerations are NPOV, verifiability and no original research. For community maintenance, assume good faith and no personal attacks; and don't bite the newbies, since they seem to write most of the actual content, on en: at least.
Given that this is Foundation, no original research should be less of a criteria. It is very much what you want in an encyclopaedia, but for other projects it is not necessarily that great.
Oh, definitely - it talks mostly about the en:wp experience and certainly isn't about all Wikimedia wikis. Though the ad-hoc nature of most process is important to keep in mind for everywhere, I think ;-)
- d.
On 9/11/06, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
2006/9/11, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com:
On Polish Wikipedia there is a page collecting all rules, which admins should follow:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sprawy_administracyjne
(Sorry, for me Polish is more than Greek ...) Good organized page! I think most of major projects have a similar one, mainly for the sysops and candidates. "Admin norm" is not only helpful for them, but also for the entire community, and also avoiding misunderstanding - what sysops are not.
I think that forcing new customs or rules which comes from the "top" might create a natural opposision. I think the best place to put such a general "good customs" translations would be rather meta.
Sorry for confusion, I intended that we have such on meta, just as references. It will be helpful in some cases, in some cases, not. What are good customs is somehow different from culture to culture.
Then it might be a good starting point how to slowly apply it to the all projects after duscussion within project's communities which should individally decide how to "customize" them to the nature and current rules of their projects.
Agreed. I expect no one is happy to be forced what they should follow completely. Though we have some must (NPOV, licence etc), but custom and behavior are highly expected to reflect the community value. Each community are better running as autonomous a/o self-determinative as possible, or at least when they think so, in my observation.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org