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

[Peter Rocky7]

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:‚µ‚é‚Ó‚¡]], 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