Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Radiant! (talk | contribs) at 22:47, 21 September 2006 (resp on my talk). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This section has no title

Wikibox Discussion

Hi John,

I'd firstly like to apologize for the very unprompt reply to your question to me on the Wikibox Proposed Policy discussion, 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 here.

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 Talk Page or drop by my User Page 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,

Anthony 16:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (Talk to Me).

I've replied where appropriate. John Reid 11:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:WP System

I have nominated this category and its subcategories for deletion (Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 12#Category:WP System). You are invited to participate in the discussion. --ais523 11:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've replied, thank you. No big deal either way. John Reid 23:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Posts to WP:BN

I think your latest posts

Thank you. I'm glad you found them constructive. John Reid 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 encyclopedia.

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. Kim Bruning 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. John Reid 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. Kim Bruning 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. John Reid 10:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like you to please consider ceasing your unproductive and uncivil badgering of bureaucrats. --Tony Sidaway 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. Kelly Martin (talk) 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. John Reid 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 Mustelidae (no, not a ratel; no, not a zorilla either). Pretty please consider that your current approach may be counter-productive. -- ALoan (Talk) 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? John Reid 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. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not in the least reasonable. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This has gone too far. Quit trolling on the noticeboard. — Dan | talk 15:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you all afraid of? John Reid 15:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No idea, what are you afraid of? Kim Bruning 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. John Reid 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? Kim Bruning 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. John Reid 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. Kim Bruning 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. John Reid 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. :-)

--Kim Bruning 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. John Reid 09:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

*sigh*. Kim Bruning 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 sidebar redesign voting 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 (JoeSmack for now) noticed you commented on the project at some time over on at Misplaced Pages talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign. Lovely. JoeSmack 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. Fresheneesz 06:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have not formed an opinion about this editor. He blanked the obtusely Byzantine Misplaced Pages talk:Temporary Deadminship/Quickpoll, 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 sig.

Radiant was the original driver behind {{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. John Reid 06:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

They serve community consensus, that's not the same thing as your personal opinion ;-) Kim Bruning 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. John Reid 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; WP:ANI has a thread on the topic, and WP:RFDA (itself inactive) has some links. Regarding {{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 WP:FICT. >Radiant< 15:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Radiant is correct; he blanked the page in question, an action within the range of any editor. Centrx (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 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. John Reid 09:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

John, please don't put words in my mouth re community and consensus. Kim Bruning 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. John Reid 10:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tried. Have a nice day! Kim Bruning 11:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No thank you. John Reid 11:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

(note)

Responded on my talk page. TTYL. >Radiant< 22:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)