This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Townlake (talk | contribs) at 20:06, 1 December 2012 (→RfA move: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:06, 1 December 2012 by Townlake (talk | contribs) (→RfA move: r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)I believe the 18 January 2012 "blackout" of Misplaced Pages was a completely inappropriate hijacking of this Web site and its information-dispensing mission.
I hope Misplaced Pages will never again hold the work I've done on this site hostage to advance any political point of view.
Greetings
Greetings Townlake. I admire the principled resolve reflected above. I agree with the statements made therein. I came here to comment on your suggestion made on Jimbo's talk page. I agree with your comment's there as well. Do you think an RfC could gain a clear consensus that we prefer Jimbo and his top staff to develop this "RfA fix"? Do you think we should develop an RfC to answer that singular question? I'm intrigued. 76Strat da Broke da (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. I appreciate your suggestion, but I don't think an RFC would be appropriate. Starting an RFC would mean asking the community to admit its own unproductive efforts for reform didn't work, and that RFC would surely fail. An RFC would be confusing, and would detract from that underlying message that this one decision actually shouldn't be made by the community. Townlake (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- You are undoubtedly correct. I appreciate your efforts and acknowledge that you have given this thoughtful consideration. I am glad you have decided to resume editing, albeit limited. Personally I feel an apology, or acknowledgement of error is due. And the whole blackout is proof that consensus is not appropriate in all manner of governance. Best regards. - 76Strat da Broke da (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
A follow up on Bwilkins
Please see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#A_follow_up_on_Bwilkins. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Questions?
Any further updates to this thread will be promptly deleted.
I've removed this thread from my talk page in accordance with WP:TALK: "Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted." You can view Gerda's comments in this page's history if you like. I deleted them because I did not believe they served a constructive purpose, and they were not actually intended to answer any questions. Townlake (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Note
This is merely a suggestion from another Wikipedian. But I think at this point, disengaging from User talk:PumpkinSky might not be a bad idea for now.
Should other situations arise in the future, this can always be revisited. - jc37 17:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Your point's well taken. I've left a note saying I'm done there for now. Townlake (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Will you revisit and support me here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
RfA move
Since you asked, I felt I should explain but do so here where it is more appropriate. The only reason I moved was to keep it from getting overly threaded, and it was likely to. I moved everything except the original vote for the purpose of not diminishing the vote, the only part that the Bureaucrats are really going to take count of. Lately, all admin have gotten to moving longer threads to the talk page, so it was only within that seemingly established consensus that I did so, again, as to not distract from the vote and allow a freer discussion than might be had on the RfA. In other words, to truly keep the primary page neutral while allowing for maximum freedom of expression. You are always free to just come to my talk page and ask why I do any edit or action, I will always explain. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- One quick note: normally I wouldn't move a single comment, but once it hits 2 or 3 or more, or is obviously going to, then it makes sense to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily have a problem with the move, but as a nominator, you shouldn't have been the one to do it. Makes me wonder what else the nominator would do to hide stuff on behalf of the candidate. (No offense to you, I have no pre-existing reason to distrust you.) Townlake (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is why I was painfully obvious in how I did it, with clear summaries. Fortunately, we have edit summaries and histories we can look at, and I assure you that they are looked at painfully close. I do myself on other RfAs and know I'm not the only one. RfAs, even busy ones, have few enough edits in the history that this is easily done. In this case, I removed my own comment and signed that it was me that did the move, so there wouldn't be any confusion. This wasn't "as nom", it was really as an admin. Since Bbb23 was asking a question, it was obvious that it was going to get extended, so the best thing to do what leave only Silvios vote, move everything else, and if Silvio wants to move it back, I wouldn't have balked. If he leaves his vote, or strikes it, or whatever, the talk below his vote isn't meaningful for the Bureaucrat anyway. Ideally, someone else should have done it, that is true, but since my comment is what started the thread, I thought it would be ok to move as long as I took those clear, documented steps. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I imagine you meant well, but I don't think you fully appreciate the potential issue here. You can't take off your nominator hat and put on your admin hat to refactor the oppose section; you're wearing your nom hat the whole time in that RFA. It's a bit troubling to see you believe otherwise. Townlake (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- To be fair, I didn't refactor anything, I simply moved and documented in as obvious a manner as I possibly could have, including the original statement (which I italicized, Bbb23 changed, so I boxed, as to be clear it was copied). I respect your opinion, and thinking about it, I should have just asked someone to do the move, but there is no way I could have been more obvious or clear in what I did. And it was consistent with other recent RfAs. I expect I will just ask someone else in the future if I feel it should be moved, but I do think there was a very obvious effort to do so in full daylight. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- We certainly agree that you attempted to do this in full daylight, and I don't believe you hid anything of actual concern. Thank you for the dialogue. Townlake (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- To be fair, I didn't refactor anything, I simply moved and documented in as obvious a manner as I possibly could have, including the original statement (which I italicized, Bbb23 changed, so I boxed, as to be clear it was copied). I respect your opinion, and thinking about it, I should have just asked someone to do the move, but there is no way I could have been more obvious or clear in what I did. And it was consistent with other recent RfAs. I expect I will just ask someone else in the future if I feel it should be moved, but I do think there was a very obvious effort to do so in full daylight. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I imagine you meant well, but I don't think you fully appreciate the potential issue here. You can't take off your nominator hat and put on your admin hat to refactor the oppose section; you're wearing your nom hat the whole time in that RFA. It's a bit troubling to see you believe otherwise. Townlake (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is why I was painfully obvious in how I did it, with clear summaries. Fortunately, we have edit summaries and histories we can look at, and I assure you that they are looked at painfully close. I do myself on other RfAs and know I'm not the only one. RfAs, even busy ones, have few enough edits in the history that this is easily done. In this case, I removed my own comment and signed that it was me that did the move, so there wouldn't be any confusion. This wasn't "as nom", it was really as an admin. Since Bbb23 was asking a question, it was obvious that it was going to get extended, so the best thing to do what leave only Silvios vote, move everything else, and if Silvio wants to move it back, I wouldn't have balked. If he leaves his vote, or strikes it, or whatever, the talk below his vote isn't meaningful for the Bureaucrat anyway. Ideally, someone else should have done it, that is true, but since my comment is what started the thread, I thought it would be ok to move as long as I took those clear, documented steps. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily have a problem with the move, but as a nominator, you shouldn't have been the one to do it. Makes me wonder what else the nominator would do to hide stuff on behalf of the candidate. (No offense to you, I have no pre-existing reason to distrust you.) Townlake (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)