| Revision as of 07:41, 2 October 2007 editTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 editsm →From User talk:Phil Sandifer← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:43, 2 October 2007 edit undoTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →From User talk:Phil Sandifer: Pure wankeryNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| : I had a look and made what I think is a usable suggestion. --] 22:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC) | : I had a look and made what I think is a usable suggestion. --] 22:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==From ]== | |||
| :'' Removed stuff that was until Phil ran out of patience. It might likewise be assumed that my willingness to suffer idiocy is being tasked here.'' | |||
| ::::That's so silly I find it offensive. It isn't just anybody applying for adminship, it's Kelly Martin. If there are serious objections to Kelly Martin's adminship, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would want to see them. To see bureaucrats running scared before the disgusting rabble is not fun, but it should not be used as an excuse to stop the discussion. --] 04:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You claimed that the snowball clause was invoked, which was false. A bureaucrat exercised his discretion (as entrusted by the community) to end the debate early. Whether this decision was correct is ''not'' the issue. The issue is that rather than discussing this, Phil unilaterally attempted to overrule the bureaucrat (which couldn't possibly have accomplished anything beneficial). He now refuses to explain why he believed that this was appropriate (and removed my request and that of the bureaucrat). | |||
| :::::I'm offended by your reference to "disgusting rabble." Certainly, some nasty comments were made, but a vast majority of opponents cited legitimate concerns in a reasonable manner. | |||
| :::::I'm also troubled by your implication that Kelly Martin is entitled to special treatment. I realize that she wanted the RfA to run the normal length (and I wouldn't have objected to such an occurrence), but she was fully aware of the fact that such debates can be closed early at a bureaucrat's discretion. —] 05:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| You falsely claim that the Snowball clause was not invoked, I show you . | |||
| Kelly Martin is obviously not entitled to special treatment, which is precisely ''why'' this close was utterly incorrect. Any bureacrats who might have been involved should be, and I have no doubt ''are'', bloody well ashamed of themselves. --] 05:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :There is nothing in that edit summary saying it was a snowball close. The earlier one was, I think. The funny thing is, as I read through the closed RfA, I was thinking of supporting, then I was thinking of opposing, then I thought neutral would have been best. I wonder if !voting in all three sections would raise a few eyebrows? (Or if anyone would even notice...) ] 05:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: It was a snowball close. --] 05:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Does it really matter whether it was snowed or not? ]] 06:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: It obviously matters that the loonies closed it. --] 06:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The loonies being...? ]] 06:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::How do you figure? What policy was ignored? —] 06:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Again, I'm not debating the wisdom of the bureaucrat's closure. That's something that could have been discussed within the community (and still could be). I'm saying that unilaterally attempting to overrule it was improper and entirely without benefit. | |||
| :Please explain how Nichalp (who was permitted by policy to close the debate) invoked the snowball clause. —] 06:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I know this has nothing to do with me, but I just gotta butt in here and support Tony and Phil. How is the community supposed to decide anything if they're not allowed to discuss it in the first place. The close was undone with good reason, snowballs or not. You don't have to agree with the reason, but have a little respect for it. It is not the end of the world to revert a discussion closure, and that too is apart of how we work. Discussion is a fundamental right, in a way, of Wikipedians, and unless there is some tangible evidence of disruption, we shouldn't be closing discussions. -- ] 06:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's part of the bureaucrats' ''job'' to close RfAs! Unilaterally undoing this most certainly is ''not'' a part of how we work. | |||
| :::And again, this has nothing to do with the wisdom behind the closure (or lack thereof). I'm not even certain that this was the correct decision. I just know that Phil's response (however well-meaning) was ill-advised and unhelpful. —] 07:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::From what I saw it was a non-crat who did the close. ''Specifically'' because discussion is so important on Misplaced Pages, I think there is a certain amount of extra weight that tips the balance in these kinds of situations. We have a right to discuss things as a community. Judgement of a bureaucrat, just as judgement of an admin over an AfD, doesn't override the process without good reason. If you close a discussion without good reason, don't be surprised if someone reverts them, regardless of who they are, because we are very defensive about our right to discuss. It's not something to do often, for a number of reasons, but it certainly is understandable in this situation. -- ] 07:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: You're absolutely right to state that "It's part of the bureaucrats' ''job'' to close RfAs". Having witnessed the rabble in RFA attempting to dictate how the bureaucrats will do exactly that informs my comments. | |||
| :: You say "Unilaterally undoing this most certainly is ''not'' a part of how we work." That's pure bullshit. Every single edit on Misplaced Pages is unilateral. This is how we work because it is technically impossible for one single edit to be made by more than one person. | |||
| :: If Phil Sandifer could not challenge the action of another editor, then nobody could. We'd just have to give up and go home. --] 07:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Bullshit. There is a difference between a crat closing an RfA and someone making a simple edit and you know it. ]] 07:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: What is this word "crat"? Could you please explain what ''editing'' privileges you believe a bureaucrat possesses that another trusted editor does not? | |||
| :: By your comment above, it's evident that you think I ''know'' this, but I openly confess that I do not. ---] 07:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::By "crat" I refer to their ability - entrusted in them by the community to make the decision to close RfAs. Which is not an editing privelage, its an administrative one. ]] 07:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : If you cannot be bothered to write the word, don't bother to argue about the powers you have mistakenly vested the "crats" with. --] 07:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:43, 2 October 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| This is Tony Sidaway's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
 Archives |
|
no archives yet (create) |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Could you comment about a WP:BLP issue?
Tony, would you consider commenting at or about this issue I posted at WP:BLP/N? The article is most certainly not a biography, despite the rather awful title (referring to Mr Wallace as a "plaintiff" in the disambiguation, even when no disambig is needed...). The article should be moved, but I am at a loss as to an appropriate title. Thanks, Iamunknown 17:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- I had a look and made what I think is a usable suggestion. --Tony Sidaway 22:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)