On 30 May 2010 11:36, WereSpielChequers
wrote:
> As for the idea that we should move to "Hi, I noticed that you
> speedy-deleted some files that do not appear to meet the CSD criteria;
> your SysOp staus has been removed _while we discuss it_". I've done
> over 4,000 speedy deletions, and very pr
The reasonable people here who discuss this are not the admins about
whom there is a problem. There are many admins who make errors and
refuse to discuss them, and a few who deliberately and intentionally
ignore the restrictions of deletion policy. I have so far not even
attempted the various ways
On 30 May 2010 11:43, David Gerard wrote:
> Indeed. The first - and, I would have thought, jawdroppingly obvious -
> result would be that no-one at all would go near such work in any
> circumstances.
Exactly. The big problem with community desysoppings is that any admin
doing their job properly w
At 01:58 PM 5/30/2010, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>On 30 May 2010 11:43, David Gerard wrote:
> > Indeed. The first - and, I would have thought, jawdroppingly obvious -
> > result would be that no-one at all would go near such work in any
> > circumstances.
>
>Exactly. The big problem with community desy
On 31/05/2010, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> As to regular deletion, an admin is assessing
> arguments and consensus at an AfD, and, if doing this well, doesn't
> delete unless there is consensus for it, or, alternatively, the
> arguments are clear and evidenced.
Actually it's not supposed to be a
At 06:43 AM 5/30/2010, David Gerard wrote:
>On 30 May 2010 11:36, WereSpielChequers
> wrote: > As
>for the idea that we should move to "Hi, I
>noticed that you > speedy-deleted some files
>that do not appear to meet the CSD criteria; >
>your SysOp staus has been removed _while we discuss it_".
At 08:14 PM 5/30/2010, Ian Woollard wrote:
>On 31/05/2010, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> > As to regular deletion, an admin is assessing
> > arguments and consensus at an AfD, and, if doing this well, doesn't
> > delete unless there is consensus for it, or, alternatively, the
> > arguments are clea
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> The Wikipedia community
> painted itself into a corner, and it's entirely unclear to me if it
> can find the exits, the paths to fix it.
As this discussion illustrates rather well, the argument "if you want to
fix A, you'd have to start by fixing B (my pet gripe) fir
> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>> The Wikipedia community
>> painted itself into a corner, and it's entirely unclear to me if it
>> can find the exits, the paths to fix it.
on 5/31/10 2:43 AM, Charles Matthews at charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
wrote:
> As this discussion illustrates rather well,
On 31 May 2010, at 00:39, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
> (1) most legitimate admin work is not controversial to any degree
> that would affect an admin's status in the active community, which is
> what counts. Blocking an IP vandal isn't going to harm that, and it
> will only help it. If the I
On 31 May 2010 13:42, Marc Riddell wrote:
> Yes. And thank you, Charles. Once again this points out the fact that, with
> the Foundation, we are dealing with a group of persons who don't have a clue
> how to deal with people who they see as being out of their universe-of-one.
> In fact, they appe
David Gerard wrote:
> On 31 May 2010 13:42, Marc Riddell wrote:
>
>
>> Yes. And thank you, Charles. Once again this points out the fact that, with
>> the Foundation, we are dealing with a group of persons who don't have a clue
>> how to deal with people who they see as being out of their univer
At 02:43 AM 5/31/2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
>Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> > The Wikipedia community
> > painted itself into a corner, and it's entirely unclear to me if it
> > can find the exits, the paths to fix it.
>As this discussion illustrates rather well, the argument "if you want to
>fix
At 10:34 AM 5/31/2010, AGK wrote:
>On 31 May 2010, at 00:39, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
>wrote:
> > (1) most legitimate admin work is not controversial to any degree
> > that would affect an admin's status in the active community, which is
> > what counts. Blocking an IP vandal isn't going to harm that,
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> At 02:43 AM 5/31/2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
>> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>> > The Wikipedia community
>> > painted itself into a corner, and it's entirely unclear to me if it
>> > can find the exits, the paths to fix it.
>> As this discussion illustrates rather well
On 31 May 2010, at 18:21, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
> But AGK is
> an administrator, and if he expects that "police" work will "almost
> always cause the administrator to gain enemies," I rather suspect
> that some of his work is less than optimal.
Irrelevant and incorrect. Shame, because
On 31 May 2010 18:49, AGK wrote:
> On 31 May 2010, at 18:21, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
> wrote:
>> But AGK is
>> an administrator, and if he expects that "police" work will "almost
>> always cause the administrator to gain enemies," I rather suspect
>> that some of his work is less than optimal.
> Ir
These are issues that I've been thinking about for almost thirty
years, and with Wikipedia, intensively, for almost three years
specifically (and as to on-line process, for over twenty years). So
my comments get long. If that's a problem for you, don't read it.
At 01:35 PM 5/31/2010, Charles Ma
At 01:49 PM 5/31/2010, AGK wrote:
>On 31 May 2010, at 18:21, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
>wrote:
> > But AGK is
> > an administrator, and if he expects that "police" work will "almost
> > always cause the administrator to gain enemies," I rather suspect
> > that some of his work is less than optimal.
>
>
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> At 01:35 PM 5/31/2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
>
>> Actually, most people who don't apply as an admin just don't apply.
>
> With ten million registered editors and a handful of RfAs, that's
> obvious.
>
>> They
>> don't generate "evidence" one way or another. It is a
On 31 May 2010 19:46, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> These are issues that I've been thinking about for almost thirty
> years, and with Wikipedia, intensively, for almost three years
> specifically (and as to on-line process, for over twenty years). So
> my comments get long. If that's a problem fo
The key is not making it easier to remove adminship. This proposal gets us
closer to the real problem, but fails to fully perceive it as does the
common call to separate the functions of adminship.
The real solution to the current (and relatively long-standing) problems
with RfA and adminship in
Administrators differ in competence, and perhaps even in
trustworthiness, but I think experience has shown that not even the
most experienced and trusted of all will always correctly interpret
the view of the community, and that nobody whomsoever can really trust
himself or be trusted by others to
At 03:28 PM 5/31/2010, David Gerard wrote:
>On 31 May 2010 19:46, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>
> > These are issues that I've been thinking about for almost thirty
> > years, and with Wikipedia, intensively, for almost three years
> > specifically (and as to on-line process, for over twenty years)
At 11:19 AM 5/31/2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
>[...] remedies - for a bigger picture
>- have the disadvantages of requiring a great deal of investment of
>time. I believe I have tried a number of those, without yet getting a
>complete view of the elephant.
Right. Sensible. There is a solution to
At 02:17 PM 5/31/2010, David Gerard wrote:
>Abd has been beaten around the head by the arbcom on several
>occasions, and so has an understandably negative view of power
>structures on Wikipedia in general - since it couldn't possibly be the
>case that he was ever actually wrong or anything.
My vie
I'm not quite sure if this responding to what I wrote or to other bits
above, but it seems in part to apply to what I said, so I will respond
accordingly. First of all, my proposal was not meant, in any sense, to
suggest supplanting consensus with the arbitrary judgement of bureaucrats.
To the con
> At 03:28 PM 5/31/2010, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 31 May 2010 19:46, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>>
>>> These are issues that I've been thinking about for almost thirty
>>> years, and with Wikipedia, intensively, for almost three years
>>> specifically (and as to on-line process, for over twenty
On 31 May 2010 23:17, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> You are not that important, and your influence is rapidly fading.
No indeed I'm not, and I am most pleased that it is, because I get
annoyed a lot less. However, I hope I can tell the obvious, e.g. that
bringing interesting ideas to wikien-l is
At 05:51 PM 5/31/2010, David Lindsey wrote:
>The key is not making it easier to remove adminship. This proposal gets us
>closer to the real problem, but fails to fully perceive it as does the
>common call to separate the functions of adminship.
Generally, Mr. Lindsey has written a cogent examinat
At 06:11 PM 5/31/2010, David Goodman wrote:
>The assumption in closing is that after discarding non-arguments, the
>consensus view will be the correct one, and that any neutral admin
>would agree. Thus there is in theory no difference between closing per
>the majority and closing per the strongest
At 07:34 PM 5/31/2010, you wrote:
>On 31 May 2010 23:17, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>
> > You are not that important, and your influence is rapidly fading.
>
>No indeed I'm not, and I am most pleased that it is, because I get
>annoyed a lot less. However, I hope I can tell the obvious, e.g. that
>
Neither they nor anyone else knows how to do this at our scale in as
open a structure as ours. Most ideas tend to retreat towards one form
or another of centralized control over content or to division of the
project to reduce the scale. That it is possible to organize well
enough to do what we'v
David Lindsey wrote:
> What we need, then, is not a way to desysop more easily, but rather a way to
> delineate highly-charged and controversial administrator actions, and the
> administrators qualified to perform them, from uncontroversial administrator
> actions, and the administrators qualified
On 31 May 2010 20:00, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> Interesting, AGK. Are the ideas important, or the personalities?
> Here, you just demonstrated my concern even further.
Now I understand why you are able to write at such length. Rather than
make your arguments based on facts, you run with guessw
Again, this gets long. If allergic to Abd Thought, or to lengthy
comments, please don't read. Nobody is required to read this, it's
voluntary, and you won't hear a complaint from me if you don't read it.
Actually, the mail triggered moderation, the list is set to 20 KB
max, which is low in my e
(continuation from Part 1, preceding.)
I never sought the desysopping of JzG, as an example, and didn't
argue for it for WMC. I argued for *suspension* until the admin
assured ArbComm that he would not repeat the use of tools while
involved. JzG's actions had been egregious, and still ArbComm
Procedural note to moderators: Perhaps it is time to consider a length
limit on posting?
Risker
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1 June 2010 14:30, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> Therefore, instead of only needing to skip one mail, you'll need to
> skip two. This is part one.
Abd, have you ever considered opening a blog? :)
You could write the lengthy version of your comments on various topics
in a post there, and post a
At 12:45 AM 6/1/2010, David Goodman wrote:
>Neither they nor anyone else knows how to do this at our scale in as
>open a structure as ours.
While I understand the opinion, how do you know that? Isn't it a tad
limiting to believe that nobody knows how to deal with our problem?
Perhaps the exper
At 05:21 AM 6/1/2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
>I think this is something to untangle. We need to get to the bottom of
>the community's fears about "overpowerful" admins, by talking through
>and delineating what a single admin can expect to face in awkward
>situations.
Yes.
>I've never been in fav
Risker wrote:
> Procedural note to moderators: Perhaps it is time to consider a length
> limit on posting?
>
While I understand where you are coming from, it bears noting
that some people would like a limit of length both on the short
and the long side, and you would in the eyes of some, fail o
On 1 June 2010 15:45, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> I don't actually agree with Sue on that particular summary being
> all that insightful. (Sorry Greg!) But a lengthy summary did in
> fact please Sue in that particular instance. So making the moderators
> bar posts like the one by Greg, I think
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Risker wrote:
> Procedural note to moderators: Perhaps it is time to consider a length
> limit on posting?
I'm not a moderator, but I've just been skipping those long posts.
They are annoying, but I may one day read those posts if I have
nothing better to do, and
On 1 June 2010 16:17, Carcharoth wrote:
> I'm not a moderator, but I've just been skipping those long posts.
> They are annoying, but I may one day read those posts if I have
> nothing better to do, and sometimes there is something interesting in
> there.
Now you know how we feel with your posts,
At 09:38 AM 6/1/2010, AGK wrote:
>Derailing meta-discussion with criticism of specific users stinks of
>axe-grinding.
I criticized an argument with an expression of concern about how an
administrator might apply that argument. That remains within
metadiscussion. I specicifically disclaimed any c
At 09:57 AM 6/1/2010, Risker wrote:
>Procedural note to moderators: Perhaps it is time to consider a length
>limit on posting?
There is a 20K limit. That's lower than usual, my experience. I think
it's silly, since it is easier to ignore one 30K post than to ignore
two 15 K posts. But, hey, I h
At 10:01 AM 6/1/2010, you wrote:
>On 1 June 2010 14:30, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> > Therefore, instead of only needing to skip one mail, you'll need to
> > skip two. This is part one.
>
>Abd, have you ever considered opening a blog? :)
>
>You could write the lengthy version of your comments on
At 11:17 AM 6/1/2010, Carcharoth wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Risker wrote:
> > Procedural note to moderators: Perhaps it is time to consider a length
> > limit on posting?
>
>I'm not a moderator, but I've just been skipping those long posts.
>They are annoying, but I may one day read
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
> At 11:17 AM 6/1/2010, Carcharoth wrote:
>>On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Risker wrote:
>> > Procedural note to moderators: Perhaps it is time to consider a length
>> > limit on posting?
>>
>>I'm not a moderator, but I've just been sk
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 5:47 PM, AGK wrote:
> On 1 June 2010 16:17, Carcharoth wrote:
>> I'm not a moderator, but I've just been skipping those long posts.
>> They are annoying, but I may one day read those posts if I have
>> nothing better to do, and sometimes there is something interesting in
>>
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> I'm not a moderator, but I've just been skipping those long posts.
> They are annoying, but I may one day read those posts if I have
> nothing better to do, and sometimes there is something interesting in
> there.
>
"I apologize that this letter
On 2 June 2010 20:46, quiddity wrote:
> So /That's/ why we're so busy, and feel so alone sometimes!! :P
> The busy policy talkpages, really (really) need regular input from the
> old guard.
> Watch[list]ful vigilance, is the still the best way to understand, and
> influence, the undercurrents of
53 matches
Mail list logo
