Trout this user

User talk:Ivanvector

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

How to close[edit]

Reagrding your comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Close? Not close? I looked at the discussion to see if it was ready to close. I've formed an opinion, but I wonder about 'the result looks fairly clear to me.' There were two different proposals for the revised text in the GA guideline. Do you believe that one of the two has consensus, or neither? It appears that people are ready for a change, but which change they want is not so clear. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I purposely didn't express an opinion or my conclusion in the ANI thread because I don't think that would be the right venue in either case. If I had an opinion it should go in the discussion, and if I had a conclusion then I could attempt to close myself, though I would prefer not to as a non-admin in an area I have no experience in.
From the discussion, I see that there is unanimous consensus that reviewers should not fail a review simply because of rigid enforcement of a deadline, but I take your point about there being two proposals and the desired wording being unclear. There were two "oppose as written" comments, both observing that the phrase "The ultimate goal of a good article nomination is a good article—the reviewer should allow whatever time they believe necessary to allow this to happen." opened the door to reviews being extended indefinitely while the nominator tinkers with the article. There was discussion about removing one sentence which did not satisfy either of the dissenters, then one made a counterproposal which attracted no debate. There were only two comments timestamped after that proposal, both seemingly in support of the original proposal.
I would have to say the consensus is very strong to change the language (even among those who dissented to the wording), and quite (though less) strong in support of the original proposal. Does that line up with your evaluation? Ivanvector (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply about the GA proposal. It's good to see that three more comments came in with dates of March 26 and 27, which widens the base for any conclusion that may be reached. I might conceivably close now, but I would have to do my own wordsmithing to come up with a change to the guideline, which is something better left to editors in the discussion. I wish that some discussion participant (perhaps yourself?) would try to draft up a compromise and propose it in the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I see you've done it already, and I think you're taking a good approach. Like I said, I don't have any experience at GAN so I think it would be out of place for me to comment one way or the other on the wording proposals. It looks like it's going to work itself out anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm at fault there, not you (and not Twinkle)[edit]

Hi Ivanvector,
"April 2015.. Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject... This probably unnecessarily harsh warning left by Twinkle" and so on.
You are right, and I was wrong. Please don't give this a second thought. It was probably conduct unbecoming of an admin, and I'll "cop it sweet" if anything further happens.
Your friendly neighborhood admin gone rogue aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fremantle Prison[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fremantle Prison. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)