1,136
edits
User talk:Lumenos: Difference between revisions
→Please don't give in to provocations
| Line 238: | Line 238: | ||
:::::It is a big relief that you do not intend to ban me. I believe conflict can lead to changes that are in "our" mutual interests. (By "our", I mean anyone reading this.) I am not sure whether you are referring specifically to the conflict between myself and the [[RationalWiki]] bureaucrats, about including some formulation of a criticism, or if I am involved in a conflict between administrators. (Perhaps there are discussions on IRC or somewhere I am not aware of?) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 12:17, 27 September 2009 (EDT) | :::::It is a big relief that you do not intend to ban me. I believe conflict can lead to changes that are in "our" mutual interests. (By "our", I mean anyone reading this.) I am not sure whether you are referring specifically to the conflict between myself and the [[RationalWiki]] bureaucrats, about including some formulation of a criticism, or if I am involved in a conflict between administrators. (Perhaps there are discussions on IRC or somewhere I am not aware of?) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 12:17, 27 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::::Feel free to visit the IRC channel, if we could meet there it would be a great way to speed up the conversation. Can you suggest a time? I'm on UTC+3 for the next month or so, and I stay online most of the day. [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 01:18, 29 September 2009 (EDT) | ::::::Feel free to visit the IRC channel, if we could meet there it would be a great way to speed up the conversation. Can you suggest a time? I'm on UTC+3 for the next month or so, and I stay online most of the day. [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 01:18, 29 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::::::I didn't see your invitation here until I checked the diff. You, Huw Powel and I, seem to be the only editors who don't always reply at the bottom of a section. If I replied to the comment that you replied to, I would put it under the first reply to that comment. Perhaps why I missed it. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 22:16, 3 October 2009 (EDT) | |||
:::::::If you still want to chat: I got my chat software set up with sound notifications. I'll be lurking there when my computer is on. I'm on Pacific Standard Time (like Los Angeles, California). Lately I'm likely to be on 10am - 12pm, but I may be on anytime. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 22:16, 3 October 2009 (EDT) | |||
::::::'''For conflicts between non-administrators:''' I could be wrong, it seems one of the main problems we have here is that administrators are being forced to "resolve" disputes that they really have no interest in. I have had a few ideas on how to streamline dispute resolution and get debates to take place away from WikiIndex. To make this brief I will say only that my two best new ideas are: 1) that we can choose arbiters who are not administrators 2) that the arbiters will first announce how much they are willing to read before making their decision. These arbiters could also be WikiIndex administrators, and this process could take place at WikiIndex. Do these sound like manipulative or naive proposals? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 12:17, 27 September 2009 (EDT) | ::::::'''For conflicts between non-administrators:''' I could be wrong, it seems one of the main problems we have here is that administrators are being forced to "resolve" disputes that they really have no interest in. I have had a few ideas on how to streamline dispute resolution and get debates to take place away from WikiIndex. To make this brief I will say only that my two best new ideas are: 1) that we can choose arbiters who are not administrators 2) that the arbiters will first announce how much they are willing to read before making their decision. These arbiters could also be WikiIndex administrators, and this process could take place at WikiIndex. Do these sound like manipulative or naive proposals? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 12:17, 27 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::::::You're right! Can you guess why admins have no interest in disputes? Because they're counterproductive. Why should we waste a lot of time playing judge and/or debating regulations, when it would be so much easier to follow just one rule: '''be nice'''. [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 01:18, 29 September 2009 (EDT) | :::::::You're right! Can you guess why admins have no interest in disputes? Because they're counterproductive. Why should we waste a lot of time playing judge and/or debating regulations, when it would be so much easier to follow just one rule: '''be nice'''. [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 01:18, 29 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::::::We need a strategy to resolve conflicts with people who are not "nice" by your or my standard. Is criticism nice? I like to be criticized. I think you are more likely to waste time judging regulations because you will have to do that for any controversy instead of using the precedents established by one controversy, to help inform new editors. If you direct editors to talking about policy, instead of edit warring, then they are being nice. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 22:16, 3 October 2009 (EDT) | |||
::::If I am welcome to help develop policy, what I would do is make a number of proposals and send out requests to administrators and active editors, to vote on these, alter them, or write different ones. Any that have some administrative support I would move out to policy pages with the names of those editors and admins, who support them. These would still be debatable and alterable, but this would be just to get an idea of how things are being run currently. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 12:36, 25 September 2009 (EDT) | ::::If I am welcome to help develop policy, what I would do is make a number of proposals and send out requests to administrators and active editors, to vote on these, alter them, or write different ones. Any that have some administrative support I would move out to policy pages with the names of those editors and admins, who support them. These would still be debatable and alterable, but this would be just to get an idea of how things are being run currently. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 12:36, 25 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::::If you think that helps... The Policies and Guidelines page is a bit confusing right now. But again, why do we suddenly need these regulations? Wikiindex has functioned quite well without them for years. [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 01:18, 29 September 2009 (EDT) | :::::If you think that helps... The Policies and Guidelines page is a bit confusing right now. But again, why do we suddenly need these regulations? Wikiindex has functioned quite well without them for years. [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 01:18, 29 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::::Til I came, right? Soon after I arrived (to make an article on [[Lumeniki]]) there was a conflict between an admin and the RationalWikian bureaucrats. The conflict was mostly over Proxima undeleting my edits then "blocking" them or something. Both sides seemed a bit hostile to me but Proxima had no block policy to go by. There are just these "policies" that say "don't delete stuff". There are no instructions (for editors or admins) for what to do when editors delete stuff. In the beginning, both sides expressed appreciation for my "intervention". Hoovie gave me a hug (I've been teasing him mercilessly ever since ;-)) and you can see Proxima's comment at the top of this page. DavidCary also expressed some support when other RationalWikians ([[User_talk:Lumenos#Rpeh|Rpeh]], Huw Powel, etc) were making insults and demands. If you look at Dilley's talk page (do a CTRL + F on "Conservapedia"), or the RationalWiki talk page, you see there were conflicts before I was around. Tell me, what led ''you'' to say that you wished you could delete the RationalWiki article? I hope you wouldn't want to do that due to the actions of one editor (me). How would you know that was not all a part of my little plan? ;-) In my view, the content of articles should not be decided based on "favoritism", "punishments", or capitulation. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 22:16, 3 October 2009 (EDT) | |||