[Foundation-l] Hi, Jimmy Wales, please estabish the board of inspectors to investigate admins.

Tue Sep 12 02:59:46 UTC 2006

The English Wikipedia, the one you seem to think needs it the most, already
has something like that: the Arbitration Committee. If people feel an admin
is acting bad, they'll try dispute resolution to try to improve them. If it
doesn't improve, then they get to be taken to the Arbitration Committee.
Many administrators have lost their admin status through this.

So what you've proposed for the English Wikipedia is somewhat in effect.
Although, a system like this could also be on the other, smaller Wikipedias.

On 9/11/06, Peter Rocky7 <freudianjungianp at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I only suggest that Each Wikipedia, first of all, English Wikipedia needs
> to
> have the administration of justice, this is, the board of inspectors to
> investigate whether the behaviors of admins are appropriate or not.
>
> This organization, of course, must be independent from all admins.
>
> In mature democrratic countries, as you know, the prosecutors and the
> judges
> are independent from each other.
> In Wikipedias, however, all admins have been doing the role of prosecutors
> and the role of the judges and the role of general editors at the same
> time.
> I think, this system cannot help making almost admins unreliable dictators
> and increasing various vandalisms including the admin's vandalism.
>
> So I think each Wikipedia, especially English Wikipedia, needs the board
> of
> Inspectors independent from all admins as soon as possible
> and the board of inspectors should remove inappropriate admins as soon as
> possible.
> This is the best way because it is the most possible and the most
> reasonable
> method.
> I think true Wikipedians are expected to make Wikipedias evolve to
> respective Wikipedias.
>
> Clearly English Wikipedia are holding terribly selfish admins because some
> of them rejected this suggestion to be released, read, and talked on the
> mailing list <WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org>.
>
> Please don't be afraid if you are a good admin. In order to defend good
> admins, there should be another court composed of the independent agents.
> This court would be like "the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution".
>
> Respect, and you are ordinarily respected among the mature democratic
> people.
> This principle, however, cannot be used to Chinese, Koreans, Russians,
> etc.
> If you respect them, they get arrogant forever as if they are the absolute
> authorities.
>
>
> Even on English Wikipedia, the most important official policy
> [[Wikipedia:NPOV]] is often ignored by the admins themselves
> when the article is treating the problems that the admins want a victory
> on
> their own belief.
>
> The articles involving territorial problems, political problems,
> hystorical
> problems, gender problems, etc. are quite dangerous for good admins and
> neutral superior editors
> because bad admins have been waiting to revert the articles and block
> their
> "enemies" permanently.
>
> Bad admins are supposed to become admins in order to get a virtual victory
> on their belief in Wikipedia.
>
> In other words we can know very easily whether a admin is a good admin or
> not in such cases.
>
> Even in the articles of English Wikipedia, if they are having
> international
> territorial problems,
> the invasive side wins and the invaded side loses
> as if English Wikipedia recommends all the human beings(nations) to invade
> other country
> and make the regions under their administration.
> See [[Kuril Islands dispute]], [[Dokdo]], etc. It's internationally unfair
> and quite dangerous and terribly against the international peace and other
> spirits of UN.
>
> I have thought, "The admins of English Wikipedia hope WW3 and become the
> enemy of the world?"
>
> Such a bias by the admins and other editors put the peaceful Wikipedians
> who
> respect [[Wikipedia:NPOV]] in an embarrassing position and make some of
> them
> "enemies".
>
> Since 1945 what merit is there to please the invasive peoples of invasive
> nations like Russians, Koreans, Chinese, etc?
>
> Clearly American, British, Australian,,,,, and Japanese Wikipedians have
> only demerits
> if they(we) are on invasive side
> because their(our) mature democratic countries have already denied getting
> a
> new territory by invasive selfish war.
>
> I think there is few persons in the world who have thought Americans are
> going to take Iraq as a new territory of US.
> US, UK, Americans, British, and English(the language) are so respected in
> the world!
> If not, all nations in the world already attacked US, UK and Israel
> completely.
>
> English Wikipedia has the same problems.
> The foresight of Jimmy Wales, the history of Wikipedia and
> English(language)
> are so much respected, but how about admins of English Wikipedia?
> They are respected?
> The system and its policies they made are deemed reasonable and
> comfortable?
>
> For example, the official policy of three times revert seems to be a
> wicked
> trap made by the admins.
> Admins can revert, revert, revert, revert, revert,..., permanently, but a
> Wikipedian who is not a admin is blocked for a long time just because he
> imitates the admins' behaviors only three times.
>
> Why the admins of English Wikipedia are imitating the worst part of Bush's
> America?
>
> I think everyone including German admins knows that
> English Wikipedia should show and prevail the comfortable and reasonable
> model of Wikipedia
> to other language's Wikipedians. But not yet. No sign.
>
> Probably the admins of German Wikipedia could not wait the evolution of
> English Wikipedia
> and take the worst method that insists :
> "We are (I am?) the God! We need not and cannot respect any editors any
> more
> except ourselves.
> We (can) know exactly all things in the world, so, we can release all the
> articles correctly."
>
> Probably they have been getting more and more contempt because of their
> fascism and ignorance.
>
> I have already seen this again and again in Japanese Wikipedia.
>
> In Japanese Wikipedia almost real Japanese editors have given up
> to make the administration of Japanese Wikipedia reasonable and
> comfortable
> because the admins, including their sockpuppets, are terribly crazy
> Korean(or Chinese) fascists
> who are not able to use Japanese correctly and exactly and rejecting all
> meaningful conversations
> just because such meaningful conversations are disadvantage for them. They
> call those meaningful conversations "personal attacks".
>
> Please make a clear definition of "personal attack", or abandon the policy
> of prohibiting "personal attack" because fascism admins and the admins who
> are similar to fascists cannot understand the meaning of "personal attack"
> and abuse "personal attack" in order to defend the selfish admins
> themselves
> and block innocent Wikipedians.
>
> So there is no "community", no "consensus", and no meaningful
> "conversations" in Japanese Wikipedia including its mailing list,
> though admins insist as if there are.
> It is very clear that the admins always reject meaningful conversations
> anywhere including the mailing list.
>
> The admins of English Wikipedia have the same tendency.
>
> The admins themselves make it impossible to occur real "conversation",
> real
> "community" and real "consensus".
> This is already famous truth in Japan, so,  even Jimmy Wales .
>
> I have to ask :
> Who left the first important adminship of Japanese Wikipedia to
> [[:ja:User:Suisui]](=[[:ja:User:KMT]], etc.),
> [[:ja:User:Tietew]](=[[:ja:User:Aphaia]], [[:ja:User:しるふぃ]], etc.), and
> so on?
>
> Please remove all of them from Japanese Wikipedia
> and leave "the first important adminship of Japanese Wikipedia" to
> responsible pure Japanese
> who are born and have been living in Japan from his/her ancestors, whose
> ancestors are not Koreans or Chinese.
>
> And/Or, I hope English Wikipedia show the better model of Wikipedia as
> soon
> as possible.
> It's the easiest because it is obvious that English Wikipedia has good
> admins and good Wikipedians more than any other Wikipedias.
>
> So, I think :
> First of all, English Wikipedia needs the board of inspectors to
> investigate
> and remove inappropriate admins and right the wrong made by admins.
> Second, English Wikipedia make the system where the inspector(judge)
> cannot
> be the admin(prosecutor) forever and the admin cannot be the inspector
> forever.
> Third, let other Wikipedias imitate English Wikipedia.
>
> The composition of "admins vs ordinary Wikipedians" is not good.
> The composition of "ordinary Wikipedians vs admins vs inspectors" is much
> better.
>
> The admins investigate all the editors and all the articles and
> administrate
> Wikipedia.
> The  inspectors investigate the behaviors of admins and receive all kind
> of
> criticisms of the admins even if those criticism are called "personal
> attack" by the admins themselves.
> It is very clear that blocking made by a admin(admins) is the heaviest
> "personal attack"
> and reverting made by a admin(admins) is the second heaviest "personal
> attack".
> To insist "Those admins are wrong because xxxxxx" or "He is inappropriate
> for adminship because xxxxx" is never "personal attack", just judgement or
> criticism.
> Therefore admins have no rights to accuse anyone by the term "personal
> attack".
>
>
> I hope wise Wikipedians create the independent organization to judge
> admins
> in English Wikipedia.
> That is needed by ordinary Wikipedians of other language's because they
> can't or wouldn't become a admin.
> Please show the American's and/or British superior humanity and excellent
> wisdom.
> It is because many articles of English Wikipedia, including Wikipedia's
> policies, have been translated into other languages' .
>
> Thank you. Thank you for my broken English.
>
> Rocky7
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get real-time traffic reports with Windows Live Local Search
>
> http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=42.336065~-109.392273&style=r&lvl=4&scene=3712634&trfc=1
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>