[WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for admin-user relations

[Resid Gulerdem]

>From: Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for
admin-user relations
>Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 04:55:42 +0200
>
> >> Resid Gulerdem wrote:
> >>> After my message ([[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for
> >>> admin-user relations - below) the link to the
> >>> updated version of another proposal
> >>> [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]
> >>> under my old user page is deleted for ''the good
of
> >>> Wikipedia''. 
>  >
>  > Raphael wrote:
> >> Fortunately I've made a backup of your last
version
> >> here [[User:Raphael1/Wikiethics]]
> >> though I am not sure whether some administrator
will
> >> censor this too.
> >>
>Resid Gulerdem wrote:
> >
> >    Dear Raphael,
> >    That is very kind of you. I do appreciate for
it.
>
>Dear Resid,
>
>unfortunately now even my copy of your latest version
>of Wikiethics got deleted. I've filed a Deletion
review,
>but it seems like some admins are already at a point,
>where they completely disregard any policy and act as
>one thinks best.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#User:Raphael1.2FWikiethics
>
>I truely appreciate your efforts to try to find a
>reasonable solution to the problem. But I doubt,
>that those in power, who would have to allow such
>a proposal to be discussed and passed, are already
>too detached from the consequences of their
>"might makes right" mentality to even realize the
>problem, and will use all possible means to make
>it fail.
>
>Beside those addressed in [[WP:OURS]] I see multiple
>problems:
>
>RfCs seem to be some kind of sympathy contests,
>where admins get the possibility to defend each
other.
>It seems to be an important place for admins to
improve
>their social standing. Allegations are not taken
seriously,
>instead the accused party can simply claim to follow
>policies "in spirit" and accuse the nominating editor
of
>Wikilaywering.
>
>The way Wikipedia implements voting generally
>increases peer pressure. Even though it would
>include some technical work, Wikipedia desperately
>needs _anonymous_ voting. Editors with weak
personalities
>tend to use the possibility of a vote to express
>their support to a "higher ranking" individual.
>
>There is no separation of powers: Admins are judges
>and hangmen in one person and have plenty of
possibilities
>to cover up their action behind weakly worded
policies.
>
>Generally speaking - we must not forget, that
Wikipedia
>is a social community, where all (good and bad)
associated
>mechanisms play along.
>
>best regards
>--
>Raphael

   Hi Raphael,
   Nice try, thanks a ton. What they are doing does
not surprise me anymore. Do not bother yourself with
their poor behaviour either. If you are right, you are
strong! People who do wrong deliberately cannot find a
standpoint in their spirit and their soul always
suffer, feel week and are in fear.
   Best,
   Resid


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com