"Risker" wrote in message
news:eb45e7c0907290700i150fc36bnc445c01210ad7...@mail.gmail.com...
> Not to engage anyone further in this topic, I would appreciate it if the
> moderators consider whether this has gone on quite long enough, and some
> moderation is needed here.
>
> I know several people
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:27 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> "Nobody's actively trying to kill the idea!" works okay in wiki
> editing (where bad edits are reversible), but probably isn't enough to
> bother with an unconvincing structural change. Until anyone else cares
> enough to actually push it hard
2009/7/31 stevertigo :
> * "Nobody else cares much" is perhaps accurate, perhaps not. Only the
> supporters and opponents count - not the abstentions - and IMHO I've
> been fairly successful at defeating the opposition's arguments anyway
> - too often by simply pointing out the lack of any substan
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:54 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> As far as I can tell, this is the state of consensus on the idea of a
> resolution-l:
> * one strong proponent (Stevertigo)
> * a couple of mild supporters (Fred Bauder, W. Johnson)
> * nobody else cares much
> * several people have suggested
As far as I can tell, this is the state of consensus on the idea of a
resolution-l:
* one strong proponent (Stevertigo)
* a couple of mild supporters (Fred Bauder, W. Johnson)
* nobody else cares much
* several people have suggested it would need consensus on the wiki to
be a happener - no info on
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:36 PM, stevertigo wrote:
> Sorry - my natural recursive rewriting pattern sometimes produces
> redundancies.
Er, I should say "recursive rewriting without re-reading pattern" actually. :-)
-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing l
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:34 PM, stevertigo wrote:
> If I drop a *concept like "Karellen," everyone should get the *concept
> immediately.
Sorry - my natural recursive rewriting pattern sometimes produces redundancies.
-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailin
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Charles
Matthews wrote:
> Right, strictly Doris Lessing, C.J. Cherryh and the less pulpy parts of
> Jack Vance in future.
Who?
> People will generally not know what we're talking
> about, but the high ground will be ours.
Hrmph. Well, we can experiment a little
stevertigo wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:06 PM, stevertigo wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Charles
>> Matthews wrote:
>>
>
>
>>> Given your announced intentions for it, I think it is reasonable to
>>> assume that it is ground of your own choosing for a battle with the
stevertigo wrote:
>> horse-trading and straw polls which are part of the proper work of a
>> committee. In fact Arbitration cases generate acres of material showing
>> how decisions are made; and in most cases (not all) what appears on the
>> wiki is at least a fair record of how a decision was rea
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:06 PM, stevertigo wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Charles
> Matthews wrote:
>> Given your announced intentions for it, I think it is reasonable to
>> assume that it is ground of your own choosing for a battle with the Sith
>> Lords of Arbitration.
>
> Ha. If t
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Charles
Matthews wrote:
> Hmm, it might save time if you sent an email to Jimbo, so you could get
> his straight and insightful "no" to the idea of resolution-l. Or even
> his very direct and trenchany "yes".
Hm. I don't email retired people. Interferes with their
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Gwern Branwen wrote:
> Yes, the best way forward is probably to improve talk pages. They've
> already proven that they can go the distance; so 'all' that's needed
Well, i think we still have a long way to go before we've successfully
copied that oldest of wiki for
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:53 PM, stevertigo wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Gwern Branwen wrote:
>
>> Email lists have the attention span of ferrets on crack; if we're
>> looking for long-term discussions, MLs are the worst model we could
>> pick, which is another strike against this pro
> Is there a suitable place on-wiki to put a summary of some of the
> points in this thread?
>
> Carcharoth
If you don't mind the recursion, I've posted some of the discussion so far to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Issues/Long-term_discussions
which is part of the still-conceptual Commu
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:48 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Carcharoth
> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ironically, wikis are so far the online medium which have done best at
>>> long-term conversations: I routinely see talk page conversations where
>>> the gaps between one message an
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
>>
>> Ironically, wikis are so far the online medium which have done best at
>> long-term conversations: I routinely see talk page conversations where
>> the gaps between one message and another may be a year or three. This
>> is not something I've
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 6:53 AM, stevertigo wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Luna wrote:
>
> > It's almost as if the vast bulk of discussion takes place on the wiki, or
> > something.
>
> So, anyway, no. High level dispute resolution deliberations don't seem
> to happen on the wiki, and
<>
What a comic! I mean seriously. The good old days, weren't that good.
Will
**Hot Deals at Dell on Popular Laptops perfect for Back to
School
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1223106546x1201717234/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Faltfarm.mediaplex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D8193
<>
On the contrary, the guy standing on the corner with the sign that reads
"Bush is an idiot" doesn't affect me at all.
No one is forcing anyone to read anything. The title of this thread is
clear, anyone who doesn't want to read more of it, can simply
delete-upon-sight.
Will Johnson
*
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:03 AM, stevertigo wrote:
> Yes,
> its not ideal to separate discussions or to move on-wiki matters to
> the mailing list... but what is ideal, and what works for wikien-l and
> others could at least work for us.
I should repeat though that the resolution-l list will not
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Well, there is something in the original proposal that makes sense to me --
> devoting specific attention to long-term facilitation of discussion and
> resolution of difficult issues. There is something about wiki-time (to
> borrow a term) th
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Gwern Branwen wrote:
> Email lists have the attention span of ferrets on crack; if we're
> looking for long-term discussions, MLs are the worst model we could
> pick, which is another strike against this proposal.
And yet you write to one or more regularly, and w
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> New articles hardly anyone returns to. Here, the encyclopedia pages are
> (in theory) kept up-to-date.
That should have said "news articles".
Carcharoth
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wiki
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>> Well, there is something in the original proposal that makes sense to me --
>> devoting specific attention to long-term facilitation of discussion and
>> resolution of difficult issues.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Well, there is something in the original proposal that makes sense to me --
> devoting specific attention to long-term facilitation of discussion and
> resolution of difficult issues. There is something about wiki-time (to
> borrow a term) th
Well, there is something in the original proposal that makes sense to me --
devoting specific attention to long-term facilitation of discussion and
resolution of difficult issues. There is something about wiki-time (to
borrow a term) that discourages measured discussion over time - if you miss
the
stevertigo wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Charles
> Matthews wrote:
>
>> Oh, have it your own way, then. It just looked, superficially, as if you
>> were dead set on alienating large numbers of people, spamming lists,
>> creating personal frictions and all that.
>>
>
> I underst
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 7:00 AM, Risker wrote:
> Not to engage anyone further in this topic, I would appreciate it if the
> moderators consider this has gone on quite long enough, and some
> moderation is needed here.
People are commenting, and I am responding. What is your problem?
> I know seve
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Charles
Matthews wrote:
> Oh, have it your own way, then. It just looked, superficially, as if you
> were dead set on alienating large numbers of people, spamming lists,
> creating personal frictions and all that.
I understand that I have a created a special niche
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Risker wrote:
> Not to engage anyone further in this topic, I would appreciate it if the
> moderators consider whether this has gone on quite long enough, and some
> moderation is needed here.
>
> I know several people have already switched to "nomail" for this list
Not to engage anyone further in this topic, I would appreciate it if the
moderators consider whether this has gone on quite long enough, and some
moderation is needed here.
I know several people have already switched to "nomail" for this list.
Risker
__
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Luna wrote:
> It's almost as if the vast bulk of discussion takes place on the wiki, or
> something.
So, anyway, no. High level dispute resolution deliberations don't seem
to happen on the wiki, and this has brought about a general lack of
responsiveness, and has
stevertigo wrote:
> And I am not really "forcing" the issue - just getting
> the road cleared is all.
Oh, have it your own way, then. It just looked, superficially, as if you
were dead set on alienating large numbers of people, spamming lists,
creating personal frictions and all that.
The thin
s Dalton
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Tue, Jul 28, 2009 4:56 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l
2009/7/28 Luna :
> That, specifically, is something I find missing from your proposal: an
> earnest explanation of what this gives us that on-wiki discussio
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:37:16 -0700, stevertigo wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Cary Bass
wrote:
>
> > although you could not find anyone to agree with you
>
> Actually not true. Fred and George I can think of off-hand.
You mean these guys?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumbledore%27s
2009/7/28 Luna :
> That, specifically, is something I find missing from your proposal: an
> earnest explanation of what this gives us that on-wiki discussion cannot.
Oh, that bit is actually very simple. It allows people that have been
banned on-wiki to continue arguing.
_
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:21 PM, stevertigo wrote:
> Ah. Just looking through the list of current mailing lists:
> Checkuser-l, functionaries-l, arbitration-l (sic), mediation-l (sic),
> accounts-en-l, OTRS-en-l (also de, fr, etc.) - quite a few private
> lists, actually, for such an open project
2009/7/28 stevertigo :
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> You have to demonstrate that it has been achieved, usually be giving a
>> link to the discussion where (almost) everyone was in agreement. All
>> you had was a mailing list thread where not many people agreed and
>>
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> You have to demonstrate that it has been achieved, usually be giving a
> link to the discussion where (almost) everyone was in agreement. All
> you had was a mailing list thread where not many people agreed and
> very few people participated
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Charles
Matthews wrote:
> Considering that Arbitrators regularly get hounded on their talk pages,
> and are subject to pile-ons in just about any forum, this is not my
> particular concern. The heat in the kitchen probably deters a fair
> number of likely candidat
2009/7/28 stevertigo :
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> It is the job of the proposer to demonstrate consensus. That has been
>> how it has worked for as long as I've been around.
>
> Hm. Is it then the job then of the officials to decree "there is no
> consensus?"
>
>
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> It is the job of the proposer to demonstrate consensus. That has been
> how it has worked for as long as I've been around.
Hm. Is it then the job then of the officials to decree "there is no consensus?"
Strange, and anyways untrue: Consensu
2009/7/28 stevertigo :
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Cary Bass wrote:
>
>> I did give it proper consideration.
>
> Um, no. You didn't. 'Proper consideration' requires sending signals
> out to people and getting some signals back - responsiveness.
It is the job of the proposer to demonstrate
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Cary Bass wrote:
> I did give it proper consideration.
Um, no. You didn't. 'Proper consideration' requires sending signals
out to people and getting some signals back - responsiveness.
> I apologize for treating you special and not having responded to you
> d
stevertigo wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Charles
> Matthews wrote:
>
>
>
>> Can you not do this thing of bad-mouthing people who disagree with you?
>> (See your attitude to Cary Bass.)
>>
>
> How have I bad-mouthed anyone?
*Splutter.*
>> You had very definite opposition fro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
stevertigo wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Charles
> Matthews wrote:
>> stevertigo wrote:
>
>> Can you not do this thing of bad-mouthing people who disagree
>> with you? (See your attitude to Cary Bass.)
>
> How have I bad-mouthed anyone? My
2009/7/28 stevertigo :
> The real truth is that we have been waiting for Cary to fulfill one of
> his many duties and create the list. That having failed, we have been
> waiting on Cary to tell us why he has not. [snip]
Who is this "we"? While a small number of people (I would estimate a
minority,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
stevertigo wrote:
> I'm proposing that we start a resolution-l mailing list.
>
> Yes, I know we talked about it a month ago, to the tune of about
> 100 posts, and it seemed that it wasn't going anywhere. But that
> was just appearances. The reality is
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:44 AM, stevertigo wrote:
> Keep in mind you are making the same misconceptions that Thomas did.
> The resolution-l forum is not for getting into details about how to
> handle
Should be "how to handle.. specific on-wiki disputes/conflicts."
-Stevertigo
_
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:52 AM, stevertigo wrote:
Previous post correction diff:
- its issues that are best discussed openly.
+ its issues are best discussed openly.
-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe fr
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Charles
Matthews wrote:
> stevertigo wrote:
> Can you not do this thing of bad-mouthing people who disagree with you?
> (See your attitude to Cary Bass.)
How have I bad-mouthed anyone? My "attitude" toward Cary has actually
been quite positive - before I ever trie
Bod Notbod wrote:
> I like transparency too.
> It makes me pause to wonder whether a dispute resolution mailing list
> is actually against the grain of that.
I understand this point, and I have made it myself in the past - both
with regard to mailing lists, and with regard to the use of IRC. My
stevertigo wrote:
> I'm proposing that we start a resolution-l mailing list.
>
> Yes, I know we talked about it a month ago, to the tune of about 100
> posts, and it seemed that it wasn't going anywhere. But that was just
> appearances. The reality is that the support was substantial, the
> opposit
al Message-
From: stevertigo
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Tue, Jul 28, 2009 1:44 am
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:10 AM,
Carcharoth wrote:
> That's funny.
What's funny?
> You may not want my advice, a
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> That's funny.
What's funny?
> You may not want my advice, and I probably shouldn't be giving it..
Eh. True.
I'm looking for either support or dissent. Support I can deal with.
Dissent I can deal with too. :-)
And we can't trust people to tit
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:01 AM, stevertigo wrote:
> Architect of WP:CIVIL,
> creator of Arbcom,
> Inventor of those WP:Shortcuts
That's funny.
You may not want my advice, and I probably shouldn't be giving it, but
why not start small on this? New mailing lists don't come along all
that often.
I'm proposing that we start a resolution-l mailing list.
Yes, I know we talked about it a month ago, to the tune of about 100
posts, and it seemed that it wasn't going anywhere. But that was just
appearances. The reality is that the support was substantial, the
opposition was sub-articulate, and w
58 matches
Mail list logo
