On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com 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
On 2 June 2010 20:46, quiddity pandiculat...@gmail.com 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,
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 to
On 31 May 2010 20:00, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com 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,
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
(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 a...@lomaxdesign.com 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
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 on
On 1 June 2010 15:45, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com 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
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com 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
On 1 June 2010 16:17, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com 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
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
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
At 10:01 AM 6/1/2010, you wrote:
On 1 June 2010 14:30, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com 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
At 11:17 AM 6/1/2010, Carcharoth wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com 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
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
wrote:
At 11:17 AM 6/1/2010, Carcharoth wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Procedural note to moderators: Perhaps it is time to consider a length
limit on posting?
I'm not a
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 5:47 PM, AGK wiki...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 June 2010 16:17, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com 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
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) first
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, the
On 31 May 2010, at 00:39, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
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
On 31 May 2010 13:42, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net 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
David Gerard wrote:
On 31 May 2010 13:42, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net 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
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 A, you'd
At 10:34 AM 5/31/2010, AGK wrote:
On 31 May 2010, at 00:39, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
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
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, the
On 31 May 2010 18:49, AGK wiki...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 May 2010, at 18:21, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
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
At 01:49 PM 5/31/2010, AGK wrote:
On 31 May 2010, at 18:21, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
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
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 perfectly
On 31 May 2010 19:46, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com 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
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
At 03:28 PM 5/31/2010, David Gerard wrote:
On 31 May 2010 19:46, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com 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
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 views
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
At 03:28 PM 5/31/2010, David Gerard wrote:
On 31 May 2010 19:46, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com 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
On 31 May 2010 23:17, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com 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
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
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 a...@lomaxdesign.com 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
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
Re the theory that making it easier to get rid of admins could be a
solution to the decline in their active numbers. This is one of those
perennial theories that often sidetracks any attempt at WT:RFA to
reform the process; But has at least once failed to get consensus for
change - not least
On 30 May 2010 11:36, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@googlemail.com 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
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
On 30 May 2010 11:43, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com 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
At 01:58 PM 5/30/2010, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 30 May 2010 11:43, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com 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
On 31/05/2010, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com 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
At 06:43 AM 5/30/2010, David Gerard wrote:
On 30 May 2010 11:36, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@googlemail.com 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
At 08:14 PM 5/30/2010, Ian Woollard wrote:
On 31/05/2010, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com 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
49 matches
Mail list logo
