On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
Another issue that admins are quite prone to (along with many seasoned
editors) is that they tend to get *really* overprotective of articles.
Very true, and I suspect most people will get all protective of an
article
Matthew Brown wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Ian Woollard
ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
Another issue that admins are quite prone to (along with many
seasoned editors) is that they tend to get *really* overprotective
of articles.
Very true, and I suspect most people will get all
Matthew Brown wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
Another issue that admins are quite prone to (along with many seasoned
editors) is that they tend to get *really* overprotective of articles.
Very true, and I suspect most people will
Charles Matthews wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
Would it be useful at this point to have some idea of how other
projects do it? I know some have a normal deadminning process, but
I'm not sure how this works - do some have a request-based system,
some have regular reconfirmation, what?
Look again at those messages. The succeed in sounded cold, formal, and
sent by a computer without human intervention--which is just what
twinkle etc. make it so easy to do. They talk too much about
complicated rules, and they sound more defensive than helpful.
I almost never use them, except
Agree 100% with David (DGG) here. On the other hand, a careful
combination of templates with personalised messages can also work. See
this essay here for more on this type of approach:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ArielGold/Etiquette2
Carcharoth
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 7:47 PM, David
Carcharoth wrote:
Agree 100% with David (DGG) here. On the other hand, a careful
combination of templates with personalised messages can also work.
See
this essay here for more on this type of approach:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ArielGold/Etiquette2
I totally agree with this; it's
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
snip
Well, active admins are the only ones likely to be the subject of an
Arbitration case, no?
It's not common, but there are also the cases of admins (and editors)
who take a very long break, and then
geni wrote:
2009/2/12 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
Indeed. As I suggested, a small amount of enforcement of good
behaviour amongst the admins by the ArbCom will go a long way to
getting all admins to behave in a more fitting manner. As Lar pointed
out, the admin bit is so much of no
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
geni wrote:
2009/2/12 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
Indeed. As I suggested, a small amount of enforcement of good
behaviour amongst the admins by the ArbCom will go a long way to
getting all
On 14/02/2009, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
For what it's worth on the wider question - I've been jumping on civility
problems that surface on ANI for the last few days - they're all responding
to calm down warnings (and one block), and I haven't gotten any nasty
pushback or
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/2/12 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
The
ArbCom culls around 1% of the admin body annually
Is less than that, surely? 1% of the *active* admin body, maybe.
Ok, I've done the sums:
Special:Statistics says we have 1623 admins, 1% of that
2009/2/12 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
In other words if you're worried about the admin body as a whole, you
wouldn't ask the question about how can I get rid of X? but is there
any control of the admins as a whole? We currrently have desysopping
that goes on a worst-case
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Patton 123 patton...@gmail.com wrote:
I know a de-admining process is proposed practically every other day, but this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EVula/opining/RfA_overhauldoesn't appear
to have had much discussion. What do you think about it? Personally I
2009/2/11 Charlotte Webb charlottethew...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Patton 123 patton...@gmail.com wrote:
I know a de-admining process is proposed practically every other day, but
this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EVula/opining/RfA_overhauldoesn't appear
to have had
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
That doesn't work for admins that have been around a while - most of
the people that contributed to their RFA will have left the project.
I wasn't entirely serious and I know it won't be tried, but it would
at least
It might be reasonable for all active admins for whom there is not an
AfD to be reconfirmed.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/2/11 Charlotte Webb
2009/2/11 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
It might be reasonable for all active admins for whom there is not an
AfD to be reconfirmed.
You mean RfA, yes? I think it's perfectly reasonable to invoke the
principle of time immemorial and not worry about it.
2009/2/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/2/11 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
It might be reasonable for all active admins for whom there is not an
AfD to be reconfirmed.
You mean RfA, yes? I think it's perfectly reasonable to invoke the
principle of time immemorial and not
2009/2/11 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/2/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/2/11 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
It might be reasonable for all active admins for whom there is not an
AfD to be reconfirmed.
You mean RfA, yes? I think it's perfectly reasonable to
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/2/11 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/2/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/2/11 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
It might be reasonable for all active admins for whom there is not an
as I remember
they do not seem to have done anything that would violate the community's trust.
bibliomaniac15
--- On Wed, 2/11/09, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Desysopping
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l
2009/2/11 Scientia Potentia est bibliomaniac...@yahoo.com:
Carcharoth: In fact we do have quite a few mailing list admins around. These
include: Pierre Abbat, Brion VIBBER, Robert Merkel, Manning Bartlett, Vicki
Rosenzweig, Bryan Derksen, Taw, AxelBoldt, The Cunctator, Magnus Manske, Tim
2009/2/11 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
I have occasionally referred to some of our more common-sense disabled
editors as Turing Test failures ...
Which is a bit of a problem if you want to have credibility addressing
a civility issues.
--
geni
2009/2/11 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2009/2/11 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
I have occasionally referred to some of our more common-sense disabled
editors as Turing Test failures ...
Which is a bit of a problem if you want to have credibility addressing
a civility issues.
Well, I don't
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/11 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
It might be reasonable for all active admins for whom there is not an
AfD to be reconfirmed.
You mean RfA, yes? I think it's perfectly reasonable to invoke the
26 matches
Mail list logo
