[WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for admin-user relations

Sat Jun 10 18:32:46 UTC 2006

>From: Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for
admin-user relations
>Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 11:26:02 +0100
>
>On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 02:49:39 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
>
> >I was wondering if you could review the proposals.
If
> >you think that the concerns are valid and that the
> >suggestions made in the proposals has some merit, I
> >would be glad to discuss the issue (not the
problems
> >but the possible solutions which I think are
> >reasonable) further. I have a couple of similar
> >suggestions that I believe are critical and can be
> >useful to gently modify the structure of the
project
> >and prepare it for the future if it will be
expanding
> >in the years to come.
>
>Don't tell me: one of them calls for the removal of
images which a
>small minority of editors find offensive from
articles on important
>events, and another one calls for administrators to
be prevented from
>blocking users who unilaterally remove content they
find offensive
>despite overwhelming consensus to keep it?  Am I
close?
>
>Guy (JzG)

Hey this guy I know a little,

I realized that when you are civil you express
yourself better :) No, you are far from being close to
the core of the proposals. How would I rephrase your
statement:

One of them [[WP:ETH]] calls for better consideration
of the controversial issues by taking good care of
ideas from minorities (which can be cartoon removal in
JP case and user box issue in Satanism case).
Nevertheless the proposal put excessive emphasis on
the consensus. So in JP case no change can be done
based on the proposal if it is a major concern for
you. You know that in the civil societies the level of
respect to the minorities encircle the limits
of their civility. The proposal also tries to show the
distinction between 'no censorship' and 'having no
editorial standards'. I hope that, that may eliminate
the hypocrisy around 'no censorship'. And I
have to say that this is just one minor point among
~20 more important suggestions in that proposal.

The other one [[WP:OURS]] calls for a balance between
user right and admin privileges, tries to set up more
and efficient bridges between 'community' and
'encyclopedia' components of Wikipedia, and aims the
enhancement of the community spirit of Wikipedia. It
states that users can be blocked by their mentors
which may know them better and have likely good
relations with. If another admin believes in the
necessity of a block s/he should talk to the mentor
first who may know the rules and their applicability
better. It only restricts indefinite ban which should
be considered analogous to the death penalty in real
life. Needless to say that most civil societies ban
'the death penalty' itself from their judiciary
system.

It is not surprising to me that you -like a few
others- are interpreting the proposals around some
specific discussions you have in mind. That even
ironically block yourself from considering the
proposals as a whole: more dangerous situation from
blocking another user unjustly. Am I close?

Resid

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 