| Revision as of 22:47, 21 September 2006 editRadiant! (talk | contribs)36,918 edits resp on my talk← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:33, 22 September 2006 edit undoJohn Reid (talk | contribs)4,087 edits deleting oldNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| {{divbox|blue|If you talk here, I'll reply here. If I talk ''there'', please reply ''there''.|}} | {{divbox|blue|If you talk here, I'll reply here. If I talk ''there'', please reply ''there''.|}} | ||
| {{User:John Reid/archive}} | {{User:John Reid/archive}} | ||
| There is a time to archive; and then there is a ''time'' to archive. | |||
| == This section has no title == | == This section has no title == | ||
| {{divbox|blue|]|}} | {{divbox|blue|]|}} | ||
| == Wikibox Discussion == | |||
| Hi John, | |||
| I'd firstly like to apologize for the very unprompt reply to your question to me on the ] ''']''', when I suggested that multi-coloured Wikiboxes should be thoroughly regulated. Please note that I've now replied to your comment, as you can see ]. | |||
| Secondly, I invite you to reply if you have even the slightest disagreement with my reply or if any new ideas concerning my suggestion to the Wikibox proposed policy. Also, drop me a message on my ] or drop by my ] which I'm quite proud of if I do say so myself! | |||
| Once again, sorry for the unusually (for me) unpuntual reply and please don't think less of me for it. | |||
| Cheers, and reply soon, | |||
| ] 16:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (]). | |||
| : I've replied where appropriate. ]] 11:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I have nominated this category and its subcategories for deletion (]). You are invited to participate in the discussion. --] 11:48, 12 September 2006 (]]]) | |||
| : I've replied, thank you. No big deal either way. ]] 23:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Posts to WP:BN == | |||
| I think your latest posts ] were execellent. --] 14:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Thank you. I'm glad you found them constructive. ]] 01:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hmm, having read those two statements, I'm going to have to think harder about how to reply. | |||
| ::The description of our project has become rather byzantine, it needs tidying. I don't think we should take it out on the bureaucrats, who really have no direction to turn. If they all decide to lay down their jobs because it has become impossible, I wouldn't be surprised. | |||
| ::Note that the most important thing on wikipedia is the ]. | |||
| ::The community is a very important ''means'' for making that encyclopedia... maybe. I've seen arguments that the community in its current form might in fact be more of a hinderance than a help. And that means that we're all failing in our mission. | |||
| ::Especially in such a situation, it would not be fair to demand respect from the bureaucrats. Let's get the community back on its feet, so that we can ''earn'' their respect instead. ] 14:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : '''Disagree.''' The only ''purpose'' of our community is to make this encyclopedia. Our community is the '''only''' ''means'' of making this encyclopedia. B'crats and admins who don't think this is so, need to '''go'''. ]] 18:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Well, I'm not entirely sure anymore. Doesn't the internet community at large contribute a lot to the encyclopedia? According to statistics, most pages have not been written by the core community. ] 19:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I do not personally believe "our community" is limited to "the core community"; I feel it includes all editors ''and'' readers. This is ''another'' issue, though. ]] 10:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I'd like you to please consider ceasing your unproductive and uncivil badgering of bureaucrats. --] 19:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I join Tony in this request. Your recent posts to the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard are really quite unacceptable and must stop. ] (]) 19:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Then let them answer directly. It's not unreasonable. I have used no harsh language, unlike -- well, no need to name names. "Badgering" means harassment and implies that not only should b'crats ignore the will of the community but that we do not even have a right to ''ask'' if they think they should. I just want to know; I am not demanding anything from anyone except a direct answer. | |||
| : Your ''request'' and the hasty removal of my comments are unacceptable. If you have nothing to fear, let the question stand. Don't kick dirt over it or attempt to discredit me. Let's just ''assume'' that I'm a fat, ugly, rude fool. Okay? Now, let me hear the opinions of my betters. ]] 10:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: John, I would not call your posts uncivil or unacceptable, but they are tending to bear hallmarks of a stripey-nosed nocturnal ground-dwelling mammal from the family ] (no, not a ]; no, not a ] either). Pretty please consider that your current approach may be counter-productive. -- ] ] 20:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : What a windy way to say "troll"! I do not want to stir up a debate on this subject. I only want straight answers. My question was not unprovoked; I am neither the only nor the first editor to raise this concern. I merely put it in concrete language and asked for civil replies. So far, I've gotten few of the latter, much obfuscation, and a basket of hate mail. That's nice. | |||
| : Now, let's just leave this thread be and see what the ''b'crats'' say. Not to insult anybody, but until the b'crats speak, I really don't want to hear from anyone else on the topic. Doesn't that seem reasonable? ]] 10:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have not called you a troll. I do not think you are trolling. However, I think you are unlikely to obtain the thing you are seeking by going about it the way you are. That is all I am saying. -- ] ] 11:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: No, it is not in the least reasonable. ] (]) 11:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This has gone too far. Quit trolling on the noticeboard. — ] | ] 15:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : What are you all afraid of? ]] 15:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: No idea, what are you afraid of? ] 09:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : If you fear nothing, let the question stand and wait for b'crats to answer. Our community has a right to know. ''My'' only concern is a class of editors who answer to no authority. ]] 20:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: ''"Have you stopped beating your wife?"''. I think the way you phrased your question, even the purest of heart have no choice but to plead the 5th. :-) Perhaps you could rephrase it, so that the people you are questioning can give a meaningful answer? ] 18:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : You are not a b'crat, so I really have no ''immediate'' interest in your opinion on this issue; sorry. Nor is your position on the metaissue important, since a b'crat has decided not to allow the question to stand. My opinion is that refusal to speak to the question is answer enough. I'll be content if I can get a similar statement from each b'crat. Meantime, I'd appreciate it if you, Kim, recognize that this question was not directed to you, personally. Thank you. ]] 04:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: My interpretation of your words is that you do not recognise consensus on the appropriatesness of your action or motion. As a matter of process, the people you are questioning ''may'' (and ''should'', if they're wise.) therefore '''''decline''''' to answer. And they have done just that. I think that concludes this episode. ] 09:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Well then, you're not doing a good job of reading between my lines. Why not stop? I like to be explicit; no need to guess. | |||
| : I do indeed recognize that this question is too important to be stuffed into BN. I also heed criticism that my wording and method may have been poorly chosen. None of this takes away from the importance of the question itself. The exact wording can be quibbled over endlessly but the issue won't go away. | |||
| : B'crats are answerable to editors; so I assert. Therefore, yes, they are ''required'' to answer; it is a duty. You don't need to explain your actions as an editor; you can just edit and if I don't like it, I can revert or edit after. Your edits do not need to reflect consensus; you ''participate'' in the process of forming that consensus as you edit. Of course, the same goes for me -- I don't have to explain my edits nor do I get to insist they stand. But b'crats ''must'' be ready to explain themselves because they are ''not'' free agents -- so I assert. | |||
| : But ''this is the very question:'' '''Are b'crats free agents? Are they responsible to community consensus?''' To Jimbo and the Board? Or to nobody at all? | |||
| : Obviously, refusing to answer ''is'' an answer. You, Kim, demonstrate how unacceptable that answer is to the community ''because'' you feel the need to shield b'crats from making it directly. If it is right, just, proper, and okay for b'crats to follow the dictates of their own consciences, disregarding community consensus at need, then why should they be afraid so to state? I think the answer to ''that'' question is obvious: The community will not stand for it. | |||
| : No, this "episode" has not concluded. This discussion has only just opened. ]] 09:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: You're misreading my comments. Any person making any edit on any page on wikipedia can be challenged on that edit, no matter which page, no matter how small the edit, and no matter what other responsibilities they may happen to have. | |||
| :: I am challenging you on ''your'' edits, and you're ignoring me, thereby doing the very thing you're accusing others of. Oops. You yourself are not above consensus, you are not above the wikipedia guidelines. | |||
| :: We could certainly negotiate some kind of consensus with all parties involved, but apparently you're not interested in that? If at any time you'd like to actually have some influence on wikipedia process, please contact me, and I'll show you how. :-) | |||
| :: --] 09:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Misplaced Pages runs on a system called consensus, it's not a democracy. | |||
| :: I really should teach more people. This offer goes to anyone else reading this page too. :-) | |||
| : Bullshit. ]] 09:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: *sigh*. ] 10:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Sidebar redesign final vote! == | |||
| It's that special, special time! No, grandma's not coming over. No, not time to clean out the fridge. It's ] time! Yes, the community has narrowed it down to 3 different options, and a vote for the same old original sidebar is a choice one could vote for as well. Voting for multiple options is allowed, and discussion on the whole shebang is right there on the vote page itself. | |||
| You're probably getting this message because the sidebar fairy (] for now) noticed you commented on the project at some time over on at ]. Lovely. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Radiant == | |||
| Hi, it looks as if you're having a problem with Radiant. My personal opinion is that he tends to abuse his sysop powers. Tell me if you need my help. ] 06:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I have not formed an opinion about ]. He blanked the obtusely Byzantine ], an action I endorsed -- and so I said at the time. But now I see he seems to be rather strongly opposed to polls in general and taking rather '''bold''' action. Well, I kinda ''agree'' -- I think a poll is usually a very bad idea. But at the same time, I worry that blanking, deleting, and otherwise opposing-with-force is not a good way to build consensus. You may see me at the bottom of a poll page with a blanket comment opposing the entire poll -- but that's as far as I feel free to go. So you see, my book is still quite open on the subject of this editor. It would be better if he didn't have such a clever, colorful ]. | |||
| : Radiant was the original driver behind {{tl|cent}}. I think his original intent was different and the community has taken the template in a new direction since his abrupt departure; perhaps now that he's returned, there will be a period of readjustment. I'm sure he'll adapt to this and many other changes "around town". | |||
| : I do take very seriously the question of "loose cannon" admins, reserving judgement on this particular editor. It does seem as if a great many admins -- and some b'crats -- do not feel they answer to any authority, certainly not to community consensus. Others seem to be beholden only to Jimbo and the Board. I hope we have not gotten to the point where most of our community's trusted servants are -- well, no longer ''our'' trusted servants. If this rot cannot be reversed, hey, I'm '''''so''''' gone. ]] 06:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: They serve community consensus, that's not the same thing as your personal opinion ;-) ] 09:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Kim, I think it's obvious that you don't even believe admins ''should'' serve our community, per your comments above and elsewhere. You belong to the camp asserting that admins and b'crats serve the project itself directly and may disregard consensus. So ''this'' comment of yours is disingenuous. | |||
| : In any case, I've surfaced very few specific instances in which I believe that an admin has exceeded his latitude. I'm sure there are many more but -- perhaps oddly enough -- I'm not too interested in second-guessing admins. I'm much more concerned that our community retains the ''right'' to second-guess our trusted servants. My personal opinion on any particular issue is of no importance. | |||
| : Fresheneesz, not me, started this thread with a concern about Radiant's use of admin powers. This is not my concern at the moment; I think my comment makes this clear. | |||
| : Please don't stir the pot just to see what you can drag up from the bottom. Thank you. ]] 09:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I should point out that I did not delete that poll; that is a mistaken assumption on Freshy's part. Regarding adminship trust, you may be interested to hear that there are several proposals under discussion about the subject; ] has a thread on the topic, and ] (itself inactive) has some links. Regarding {{tl|cent}}, it's bigger than I recall (it used to be four lines) and I've been meaning to look over it and prune inactive discussions, but otherwise I don't have a problem with it, and I'm happy to see it succesful. Note that its initial bias was mergist, rather than deletionist; indeed, its first success story was ]. ] 15:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Radiant is correct; he ''blanked'' the page in question, an action within the range of any editor. {{admin|Centrx}} ''deleted'' the page, an admin action. Again, I left a comment on Radiant's talk '''endorsing''' the blanking; I also endorsed the blanking on the poll's page itself. The poll -- like most polls in this project -- was a festering sore. | |||
| : Let me make it clear: The last paragraph of my comment above was not a sneaky way of criticizing Radiant as an admin. I wrote ''a great many admins'', not ''Radiant''. As I said, my book is still open on this editor (and on this admin); and he is helping to write it, right now. ]] 09:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: John, please don't put words in my mouth re community and consensus. ] 10:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Kim, please don't put words on my user talk page. You've said all you have to say. Move on, nothing to see here. ]] 10:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Well, I tried. Have a nice day! ] 11:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : No thank you. ]] 11:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===(note)=== | |||
| Responded on my talk page. TTYL. ] 22:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:33, 22 September 2006
Admin candidates please read this | All stakeholders in discussions please read this If you talk here, I'll reply here. If I talk there, please reply there. • Archives:There is a time to archive; and then there is a time to archive.