User:Anthere/Cave

Contents

1 Energie 2 Jerusalem and more complaints 3 Mediation / Arbitration 4 Don't go 5 Go if you must, but i/We definitely will miss you 6 I believe in you, ant 7 Please stay (2nd attempt)

Energie

Merci beaucoup pour votre comment sur ma energie! -- BCorr -- Брайен из Детройте 00:30, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Jerusalem and more complaints

I'd like to include some of my words in the Jerusalem and Tel Aviv pages. Your reversion (and subsequent protection) didn't do credit to my words. Rickyrab 21:40, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

which words ?

The ones about the Old City and the New City. I believe they were victims of the stupid clash over whether Jerusalem or Tel Aviv was the Israeli capital. Rickyrab 21:46, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Protection is one thing, but you should not have reverted. You removed numerous corrections and clarifications, all for the sake of inserting the sentence "but this status is not internationally recognized".

it is common practice to revert to last stable version. Once you all agree, you may use the before-last version to change just what you agreed to change. If another sysop want to revert to a more recent version, fine, but as far as I am concern, reverting to the last stable version is good practice.

Mediation / Arbitration

Ant, I'd be happy to draft a page about the sketchy outlines of a mediation/aribtration program for banning issues. I am kind of busy so I don't know when I'll get to it, but I will try and start it this week. It will just go straight to Wikipedia:Mediation and Arbitration (proposal)? Alex756 05:26, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ant - did you see my response to Looxix's comments on his page? Have you had any contact with the Mediator? It does fit into the idea somewhat and could develop into something useful, but I think problem users need people to stick up for them so I am thinking about User advocate to add some balance to what the mediator does and to provide a voice for those who oppressed.

Regarding the TM issue, it is really a question of quality control, soon Wikimedia will have a board of directors, and other Wikipedia support organizations can pop up. I don't see it as a institutional hierarchy so much as community of associations. Did you ever see my rantings on meta:Association of Wikipedians? Yes, start a European Wikipedia Foundation. I think that is a great idea. Eventually there could be a mirror site in Europe for various European languages and some support could be sent to the US, there may even be a day when we have Wikipedia conferences or a Wikipedia Convention of all the international Wikipedia associations, organizations and activities. IT should be like the GFDL, self replicating, decentralized control. Of course there will have to be certain standards if we all want to cooperate, use the same name and act as a truely international cooperative collaborative community, but imagine the possibilities!

User talk:Anthere/mediator

---

Good morning. I'm not sure the title does sound right but I'm not quite sure why and I can't think of anything better. I think it's ok to have it at that title until someone suggests something else. I will try to think of something better when I am more awake. :) Angela 10:53, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

---

Je te prie de m'excuser, anthère; je croyais avoir repondu à ton bonjour d'il y a quelques semaines, mais maintenant je m'en doute. Je n'ai pas beaucoup fait en Wikipedia pendant ce temps pour des raisons évidentes (lentesse extrême). En tout cas, merci et salut. J'aimerais bien savoir plus de toi et tes interêts. NuclearWinner 18:24, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi, concerning the mediator page -- I am flattered by the nomination, but I am very concerned about the proposal. I know I am not alone in being confused as to the history of the proposal. I want to assure you that any doubts I have about it are not in any way criticisms of you, or meant to question your role in making the proposal, Slrubenstein

Don't go

Hi, just read an appeal from Ed asking you not to go. Let me add my voice to it.

You are a useful, thought-provoking, honest and sincere contributor. Wikipedia needs people like you. Sometimes we disagree but I always take your points seriously because I view you as a credible wikipedian. I didn't follow much of the debate about the 'mediator'. From past experience my gut reaction to suggestions from banned users is to ignore their suggestions, no matter how good. I cannot think of any user (well maybe one) who when they offered such ideas under false names were motivated by anything but malicious intent. Such ideas never were genuine, but were simply mind games. (I know from having been stung by one when I came onto wiki first. I found myself being used as a pawn in a game by them.)

So I don't think EoT's motivation was genuine for an instant. In such circumstances the best stance normally is to keep well clear, let the idea drop until they have gone, and then maybe in a month or so re-approach it to see is it usable. I understand your motivation entirely in wanting to take over the page but my advice would simply be to let the issue settle and return to it afresh in the future. But people who know you know that you genuinely sought to explore the idea and weren't supporting EoT. People often get very angry with the likes of EoT, like DW et al, and when they come back to do something say things in haste they bitterly regret afterwards. You (as happened to me once) were caught in the crossfire. So please don't go. And don't be too hurt by what happened. Wiki needs you, and it knows it. lol FearÉIREANN 22:26, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Go if you must, but i/We definitely will miss you

Personally, since I did not follow what happened closely, and believe am not in the minority in that regard, feel strongly INSULTED by your abrupt decision to lose faith in Wikipedia and its institutions.

It is not so bad, and it is certainly not abrupt. How can you call abrupt the fact I have been saying so loud and so often what I thought of the way banned users were treated ? Or the way RK issue was managed ? Or the fact Kat left in despair of seeing no collective decision could be reached over Daniel issue ? Or the fact I precisely proposed to rework on that issue and that roughly no one cared except for 2 people ? Or the fact I have expressed so much my concern over donation system not working, tried to talk to Jimbo about that and perhaps the setting of a foundation, and got *no* answer altogether ? Abrupt ? Ah, no. Perhaps you feel it abrupt. I just feel I deeply need holidays. I certainly do not lose faith in Wikipedia concept, or I would stop editing the french wikipedia, but it is just my nature to question institutions.

I did not lose faith, I just feel very weary and sad, that is all.

I find it quite savory that we talk about mediation, about solving conflict, about communication, and that when I raise a point, try to discuss it, I am blocked and that when I explain my actions, I only have a very deep silence from the one who precisely made an uninformed decision. I am all for understanding it was a mistake, but I do not think I hold the responsibility for it. I made my actions clear.

And my apology for you feeling insulted. i feel equally myself.

If what happened caused such a strong reaction in you as to cause you to go into such strong MELODRAMATICS as you have evinced just now, I think very profoundly that you need to examine very closely how much you genuinely trust us all wikipedians as a whole.

Ah ! I trust you as a whole. But this is precisely the point : as a whole. I would even say I trust the whole more than the individual. Because the individual can easily make a mistake, but one can hope a whole would correct the mistake (it did). Just need to give the power to the whole, not to the individual. I hope some people will make suggestions over the blocking option, and I hope there will be somehow a procedure to follow to make it nicer to the blocked one.

As for me being melodramatic, yes :-), this is just the way I am, and just as I will respect your feeling of being insulted, please bring me equal respect for the way my mind is working, even with flaws.

Incidentally, it might be interesting to reflect how people feel when they are blocked, whether for a good or for a bad reason (or say a justifiable or an unjustifiable reason). It seems the general pattern is really one intensely emotional. Remember RK reaction, I am sure he did not really thought what he said, but at that moment, that is perhaps how he fell. It might be worth considering this, for any person feeling like pushing the button

What you just did is a slap on the face of every wikipedian, not just myself. We need you, and will miss you, but if you have such low faith in wikipedia (including myself) as to go because of a misunderstanding,

Usually, when I am responsible of a misunderstanding, I try to apologize and to recognise my mistake. You know me a bit Cimon, I like putting my head in the mud. I tend to sometimes say things people do not appreciate. I tend to support people that most wikipedians do not like. I tend to pick up some ideas where some think I should not. I even help to change the french policy on image to "help" User:DW (and as a result was insulted by him :-)). Now, if I know that when I say things people do not like, I can be blocked, just like that, how do you think I am gonna feel like saying them ? :-)

I cannot but think that the "role" of Mediator is/was inherently unsuitable for you.

He ! I never intended to hold that role here ! Let's be serious please ! How could I ever participate in something relying on anonymity ? :-)

Yesterday, I did not sign anything I wrote, and when I gave my opinion, I used "turns of sentence" such as "the user editing that page", not "the mediator". I am not. Okay ?

This place needs you, will miss you, and has not said one word to suggest any other way...

Not said a word yes. I was very silently blocked for a few hours. In case you don't know, only the mailing list is left;

But please understand that this place does not revolve around you,

unfortunately...no, just kidding :-)

and mistakes will happen even in situations where you personally are involved. Many people have had traumatic experiences here, and many more will have them. We all need to realize that traumatic experiences go with the territory. When you abruptly stop defending your own actions,

Stop defending my own action ? Sorry, I do not understand you here. And no, I am not accusing Wikipedia to unjustly condemn me

and decide to instead accuse wikipedia of unjustly condemning you, when an honest mistake was made; You Insult Me Personally, And Every Wikipedian Who Regularly Has To Deal With The Changing Processes And Actions Therein. I, like many other wikipedians feel strong amity towards you, but what you have done today has made me very angry. I have to say this, just to be honest to myself. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 12:38, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

I feel personally very distressed by the fact blocking can be done without even checking who is being blocked. I am not favorable to blocking, unless there is to protect wikipedia from an immediate threat. What I did "yesterday" (not today) was no threat, even if some people did not like it. I will not lie in saying your comment is raising my spirit, but I thank you for saying your opinion.

I believe in you, ant

•  :-) 62.39.226.119 13:23, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

merci Es.

De rien ant, quand je te disais : l'ingratitude est la pire des choses, prémonitoire n'est-ce pas ?

When I told you : ingratitude is worst thing: premonitory isn'it ? 62.39.210.31 20:12, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Au vu des méthodes employées contre toi, l'irresponsablité et la légéreté, je ne participerai plus dorénavent à www.wikipedia.org et je m'interroge profondémment sur la pertinence de la pérennité de ma contribution à fr.wikipédia.org . Solidarité. Thanks a lot, ant.

Considering the methods : irresponsibility and "légéreté" against you, I will not take part any more in www.wikipedia.org and I question myself for my contribution to fr.wikipedia. Solidarity. 62.39.206.69 09:35, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Es, ne dis donc pas de bétises. N'empire pas ma sensation de gène personnelle ;-) voui ? Sinon, je te pourris ta boite de mail et je protege la page du raelisme en signe de protestation. Allez, peace and love

Please stay (2nd attempt)

Anthere, I certainly do want you to stay. It's just that I didn't read your mailing list post properly and I got the idea that it was all Ed's fault.

absolutely not! It is not Ed fault. He should come back anyway. Thanks.

Angela pointed out on my user talk page (right above the comment you made) that in fact it partly Jimbo's fault too. Well, I like to get my facts straight before I slander people, so I removed my comment from your talk page straight away. Now it took me a couple of hours of pondering to work out where to lay the blame and hence what to say to you the first time around, so I thought I'd better take a few hours more pondering time before I tried again since I was completely off the mark.

I now think user bans are a big problem, especially for the non-English Wikipedias. I've already made a patch to create a blocking/unblocking log -- it's in the works and should be operational within a week or two. I've also proposed a method for mitigating sysop power, on wikien-l under the title "destructive short term unilateral bans". I think it could provide a realistic long-term solution. I'd welcome any comments you have. Obviously you have a much better understanding of the politics of the non-English wikis than I do. -- Tim Starling 14:11, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

I think the first decent thing to do, is to not just block a loggued in user, without any warning, without any comment. Maybe could it be a rule that before clicking on the button, the blocker will leave a message to the user in question, telling him why he is gonna block him. If the loggued in user does not answer in t time (if around), the block may be done; But it should be a policy to always tell the user before doing so, leaving him the time to perhaps justify his behavior. Also, banning a user for the motive he is a long banned user require that proof is given that indeed he is the banned user (a quick look on the log should show that, or perhaps asking to the user to make an anonymous edit as I said I would if asked yesterday). I left justifications of my actions, but they were not read, perhaps would it be worth to remind in policy, that people should check their facts first. and finally, yes, especially given the number of sysops on en, it would be good that at least 2 hands press the nuclear bomb button. It won't work so well on non english wikipedia where the number of sysop is limited. I will ask to the french if they have suggestions.

As for telling a person that they are about to be blocked: it's a nice idea, and it may well make its way into official policy if someone pushes it. But I'm very pessimistic about the ability of policy to change people's behaviour. Inevitably someone will decide that the policy wasn't meant to apply to their particular case. The current power structure provides no good way to punish someone for going against policy -- only flagrant vandalism will get a person banned. Calls for desysopping have never got off the ground.

My scheme is not a minimum number of sysops to "press the nuclear bomb button". Instead it effectively gives every sysop veto power. Hence it would be harder to ban someone on en: than on fr:. It would be easy to instantly block a vandal such as Michael, but I hope it would have been near-impossible to block RK. In this case, assuming you or Martin registered your support for Mediator, Jimbo probably wouldn't have been able to block it. I say "probably", because if I do this right, it will require quite a bit of time and technical expertise for even a developer to institute a block against the wishes of a sysop. -- Tim Starling 00:43, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks so much for not disappearing. Paullusmagnus 19:06, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I hope your vacation from En:Wikipedia is good, and I look forward to your return when it feels right for you. à tout à l'heure, ma amie! BCorr ¤ Брайен 18:03, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)