[WikiEN-l] Re: From RK about a contested article, and the responses

[Anthere]

Robert wrote:
> Mav wrote:
> 
>>Blah, blah, blah Robert. You cry wolf so often that
>>I just delete your messages without ever reading 
>>them anymore. I'm sure many other people do the same. 
> 
> 
> Your taunting is out of place, Mav. Please refrain from
> using this list in that way; this list is only for
> discussion of Wikipedia policy.
> 
> Further, Wikipedia users should be aware that Mav's claims
> are incorrect. Just check the edit history of the article I
> named. 
> 
> [[Palestinian views of the peace process ]] 
> 
> Its not a matter of opinion whether or not Anthere did such
> editing and protection; the only opinion can be on if this
> was wise.
> 
> 
> Danny writes:
> 
>>As of today, Anthere has quite a bit more authority
>>than you care to imagine. Pick your enemies wisely, 
>>Robert. I wouldn't go launching attacks on the Board
>>if I were you. 
> 
> 
> Danny, from where I stand, those with the most power are
> the ones who are most obligated to be careful in using this
> power, and in making sure that Wikipedia rules are followed
> in a fair manner. In fact, that is what others on this list
> hae always said as well. Your letter basically implies that
> we must do what the new powers that be say, "or else". 
> Even Anthere isn't saying this. Maybe I was a bit hot in
> how I expressed my disagreement with her actions, but I was
> very specific about what I considered wrong, and why.
> 
> I offered several paragraphs stating what my points were
> (even if these paragraphs were written by a better writer
> than myself.) People had the opportunity to read them, and
> consider them on their merits. That's what this list is for
> - when we think an issue isn't about an article, but about
> Wikipeida policy itself. I see no reason to refrain from
> doing this.
> 
> Ironically, only Anthere has actually responded to the
> points in my letter to this list. And she has replied in a
> modest and impartial way which gives me much hope. She
> focused on the content and on the issues I raised, a lesson
> for all of us. However, others have made polemical
> statements or personal remarks. Thus:
> 
> (A) It looks like mediation can be made on this article,
> between Anthere, Mav, Danny, myself, and others.
> (B) But it depresses me that many people here refuse to
> focus on the specific issues, and focus instead on personal
> issues.
> 
> This is not what I expected at all, but it's interesting.
> 
> RK (Robert)

Hello Robert

I thank you for these positive thoughts and for the invitation to 
discuss the article with all the other editors concerned and interested 
in the topic :-)

But I must respectfully refuse the invitation, as, I already said, I 
have little knowledge on these matters, so would be more a burden than help.
I will however think of reading this article from time to time, to learn 
a bit more the various perspectives, as you are all working to improve 
it together.