[Wikipedia-l] Mav and policy

[Anthere]

I encourage editors to consider the three articles I
have been restoring. These three have any right to be
on meta. The content of these is uncontroversial. It
could be edited by anyone, and I am ready to put any
effort necessary in those to modify them, as I
indicated to Mav, provided that they are not deleted
again, even when I recreate them under my name. I do
not feel ready to put some work on articles that are
being deleted immediately after. I fear that instant
deletion of these articles as now practiced, under any
editors name, even trusted ones, is likely to slow
down discussion and evolution of meta.

It is not a good idea that any topic touched by a
banned user, becomes de facto a topic which must not
be mentionned any more.

I entirely recognise and accept the decision over the
banning of 142. But the fact is that unfortunately,
142 is writing on many topics, two of them being my
favorite topics.

One is meta and cooperation between people, in
particular in the intent of having cooperation between
internationals and english users. I am also interested
by in everything that turns around people management
and systems. And of course banning, because it may not
have escaped some of you, the french wikipedia had to
ban someone about 2 weeks ago, our editors had to take
the decision to ban someone with no set rules or
recommandations; and then we had to fight (with the
great help of Tim Starling) to have this ban inforced
one way or another. So, naturally, all these topics,
about how someone is excluded from a place (and
whether it a community decision, or a single person
dream) interest me.
Unfortunately, 142 is also meddling in these topics as
well.

The second is ecology, because I am an agronom, and it
is just my job ! And not so many people are writting
on agricultural and ecological sciences topics,
neither on fr nor on en. Unfortunately 142 is also
interested in ecology. So I keep meeting him or rather
his articles on the topic. Participation on ecological
matters is sometimes biaised, but it is an interesting
approach, and participate to the global scheme. Given
that rather few people participate on these topics, I
1)feel it bad that good articles are just deleted
because of their author, just to leave instead a hole
and 2)feel that I am not gonna stop participate on my
favorite topics just because a banned user has put a
black hand on it.

If this goes to this, preventing regular users to edit
topics because of their smell, where is Wikipedia
going ?

The second point is this one : 
Meta is for everyone who is interested in wikipedia
wide building. It is not only the english meta, it is
also everyone meta. And all those involved in the
matter, should feel concerned about how meta is
growing, and in particular how rules are currently
being made on meta. The rules should not be decided by
Mav, the rules should not be automatically the english
rules that suit him. The rules should be done by
everyone making meta, by the community. And perhaps,
these rules will be slightly different from en.

When I try to discuss this with you Mav, all I get is
"this is the way it is and this is final" or rather
"End of story".

Just like the english main page, not editable by most
users. Just like the wikimedia guide, just you editing
it, and calling other attempts forks.

Mav, I recognise you are doing a great job, and you
have been hurt by that user, and that 142 is indeed
banned;

what I have troubles accepting is that you decide the
way we should enforce the ban, you remove my comments
on talk pages, you delete articles I created under my
name, assuming if need there is their authorship, and
finally, that you try to break the only opposition to
your decisions on meta by calling for unsysoping
people.
 
So Mav, there is a point there. I explained in length
on meta why I was restoring these three articles. And
Dori made good comments about that. You just do not
consider my explanations. I also remind you that other
users on en are also doing this, and that it has
suggested that in case this is done, the articles
should be recreated under another person name. Which I
did (and I repeat I am ready to change the content as
well). So how what I do is different from what other
people do ? And why should I be unsysoped, when other
people are not for precisely the same actions than me?
And why would you not be unsysop yourself for deleting
my articles without other people opinion ?

In any place, there should be balance. The fact you
delete them is fine with me; the fact you refuse to
accept that other people have different opinions on
how meta should work is just plain not wiki.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree