(Ignore this - test email)
-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ned Scott
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 11:19 PM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WP:EPISODE
It's really not fair to say that such users are unable to work
together. TTN, everyone, and myself, have continued to follow advice
about making more time for discussion and trying to help users
understand why these articles are being removed, rather than just
forcing the issue. This is one reason I didn't think the case needed
to be accepted. The real reason this was an arbcom case was because of
the very large amount of articles that were being redirected, and that
resulting in a lot of different people getting mad. That's very
different than trying different means of resolving the dispute. This
situation is far from hopeless, and despite the impressions you might
have gotten, no one wants to be at each other's throats.
-- Ned Scott
On Dec 28, 2007, at 10:28 AM, Majdan, Nik wrote:
Just FYI for everyone, this ArbCom case has closed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes
_and_characters
I don't follow ArbCom cases too much but was following this one as a
frequent editor of the Scrubs TV series articles. I was surprised at
the
lack of an apparent decision in this one. As I stated in AN, telling
the
editors to "work collaboratively and constructively with the broader
community" seems ridiculous to me. The case made its way to ArbCom
because the editors were unable to do exactly that. Granted, ArbCom
doesn't get into content disputes, but telling users to work together
who obviously can't seems counterproductive to me. There was a
reason it
went to ArbCom in the first place.
-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve
Bennett
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 6:39 AM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WP:EPISODE
On 12/24/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
It puts lie to the whole concept of
"consensus" if a decision like
this can swing permanently one way or the
other based on whether it
just
happens to be made during a week when not a lot of people are paying
attention.
Not really. Consensus is a very loose concept. Previous "consensuses"
have been struck down on the basis that not enough people were
involved (notably, the merger of WP:V, WP:RS etc) It wouldn't be
unreasonable to challenge the consensus later on, if indeed not many
people were involved.
Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
This message (including any attachments) is intended only for
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and
may contain information that is non-public, proprietary,
privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under
applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, notify us immediately by telephone and
(i) destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message
immediately if this is an electronic communication.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l