User talk:Grace Note: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:18, 1 January 2007

Err ....

Come now, this really doesn't seem appropriate. As far as I can tell this is an honest nomination with the intent of improving Wikipedia, and not made just to try to cause any drama (or "stir the shit" as you call it). Can you elaborate on your stance so that I might understand better? --Cyde Weys 02:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It won't make you very many friends, especially not with the several hundred administrators reading the MFD as we speak.--WaltCip 02:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I am an administrator and I'm not going to block for it, and I suspect no one will either. I just want to know where this opinion comes from. It is very strong and comes seemingly out of nowhere. Maybe there is some part of the issue that I have missed altogether, that would utterly change my opinion? But if Grace Note doesn't expand on his views, then I cannot know. --Cyde Weys 02:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde, I can just about believe you genuinely feel that nominating a social club with many, many members (lots of whom are so into it they include it in their sigs) is not an attempt to cause drama if I squint, but I tend to believe you are indulging yourself. I don't have any more time than you do for the likes of "Esperanza" (I don't disagree with you fundamentally over the vandalism page thing either). I just don't feel there's any purpose in giving a shit. WaltCip, I don't care much about having friends among those sections of the community who think it's a valuable use of their time to search out ways to upset other editors, and I'll say so regardless who is watching. I've expressed my opinions on why I think it's a bad thing to stir up broad conflicts many times. Cyde, if you're that interested, I'll give you a diff. Just let me know and I'll put it on your talkpage when next it's unprotected. Grace Note 02:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well just list the diff here. I like to keep conversations unfragmented. --Cyde Weys 02:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom section of reform on this page. Our views differ on playgrounds, Cyde, but only in so far as I think pissing on them is in general worse than playing in them. Feel free to share your views though, but perhaps a quick look through the contribs of WaltCip and the nominator in question might be useful, because I feel that you probably will end up agreeing with me that what is worse than playing in playgrounds, and pissing in playgrounds, is players in playgrounds' pissing in other playgrounds. Grace Note 02:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble understanding your rhetoric, and I don't see what you're trying to justify by my contributions. And as for the MFD, did you read the nom and its reasoning, by any chance? Esperanza has degenerated from a social club (which is a vio of WP:NOT) into a bureaucracy (which is also a vio of WP:NOT). You can't say that's harmless.--WaltCip 03:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't understand me, I guess I'm wasting my time talking to you. I was pretty clear. Grace Note 03:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about pissing in playgrounds doesn't seem very clear to me, I'm afraid. And you haven't answered my question.--WaltCip 03:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking to Cyde. Maybe he'll explain to you. I'm not interested in discussing your question any further. Happy editing. Grace Note 04:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recall

How to recall me? If my behaviour warrants it, start an RFC, or take it to arbitration. Or even ask me. Do you think I should stand again? Jimmy's recalled a few admin's before now, as have arb-com. I will always be recallable, but if it only takes two people to start an RFC on my adminship. I don't see why I should require six people to do the same. I have to say, though, I don't really see any admins who need to be recalled. I'm also not sure admins should perhaps stand and re-stand, but then I'm a supporter of the House of Lords. I kind of like the idea that us admins represent the consensus of our approval, that is the ideals that existed during our run at adminship are somehow embodied by us. It's all a little twee, I know, but I see it as a check against the change of Wikipedia as more people join and become admins, we all have different ideas. A culture shift in Wikipedia could see people ousted through mob rule. I guess Wikipedia is a complicated place of checks and balances. I don't see the system as hugely broken at the moment, so I don't feel a need to fix it. Still, that's me. And thank you for the compliment. Steve block Talk 15:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I disagree with you entirely, it's just that I have been around this argument and visited all sides. Like I say, I was in the category for almost all of its existence to date. I just feel that a lot of problems are subjective: I'm not convinced every admin who has had an RFC started against them is overly hostile. I do think there are issues on Wikipedia that make admins appear hostile. It's not nice constantly having people asking you to mediate disputes, something adminship was never really meant to be. I agree that RFC's aren't going to change bad admins, but are bad admins really going to list themselves in a voluntary category either? That's not the solution. And a recall process is seriously going to be unmanageable. RFA is almost unworkable, although it is improving. I mean, what % of the community do you think an admin needs to remain an admin? We reqwuire 80% to pass for adminship, but there are very few admins who could get that at a second bite, if the recent arbitration elections are anything to go by. Being an admin means getting into disputes and annoying people. Having to re-stand is going to draw all the people will ill feeling out to vote against, whilst not necessarily drawing all the people who would support you out. I grant there are problems with the current process, I think the arbitration committee is a little too lenient on serving admins, perhaps for fear of seeing admins quit. But however yo do it there will always be flaws. Politics will always be messy, and Wikipedia is about an encyclopedia, not politics. Somewhat.
Anyway, I note you aren't an admin. Is there any reason why not? I would have thought running has been proposed before, but I'll ask again as I can find no mention in the archives to your talk page. Your call, I don't mind nominating you. Steve block Talk 17:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 How to recall me?  If my behaviour warrants it, start an RFC, or take it to arbitration.  Or even ask me.  Do you think I should stand again?  Jimmy's recalled a few admin's before now, as have arb-com.  I will always be recallable, but if it only takes two people to start an RFC on my adminship. I don't see why I should require six people to do the same.  I have to say, though, I don't really see any admins who need to be recalled.  I'm also not sure admins should perhaps stand and re-stand, but then I'm a supporter of the House of Lords.  I kind of like the idea that us admins represent the consensus of our approval, that is the ideals that existed during our run at adminship are somehow embodied by us.  It's all a little twee, I know, but I see it as a check against the change of Wikipedia as more people join and become admins, we all have different ideas.  A culture shift in Wikipedia could see people ousted through mob rule.  I guess Wikipedia is a complicated place of checks and balances.  I don't see the system as hugely broken at the moment, so I don't feel a need to fix it.  Still, that's me.  And thank you for the compliment. [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] <small>[[User talk:Steve block|Talk]]</small> 15:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
+*It's not that I disagree with you entirely, it's just that I have been around this argument and visited all sides.  Like I say, I was in the category for almost all of its existence to date.  I just feel that a lot of problems are subjective:  I'm not convinced every admin who has had an RFC started against them is overly hostile.  I do think there are issues on Wikipedia that make admins appear hostile.  It's not nice constantly having people asking you to mediate disputes, something adminship was never really meant to be.  I agree that RFC's aren't going to change bad admins, but are bad admins really going to list themselves in a voluntary category either?  That's not the solution.  And a recall process is seriously going to be unmanageable.  RFA is almost unworkable, although it is improving.  I mean, what % of the community do you think an admin needs to remain an admin?  We reqwuire 80% to pass for adminship, but there are very few admins who could get that at a second bite, if the recent arbitration elections are anything to go by.  Being an admin means getting into disputes and annoying people.  Having to re-stand is going to draw all the people will ill feeling out to vote against, whilst not necessarily drawing all the people who would support you out.  I grant there are problems with the current process, I think the arbitration committee is a little too lenient on serving admins, perhaps for fear of seeing admins quit.  But however yo do it there will always be flaws.  Politics will always be messy, and Wikipedia is about an encyclopedia, not politics.  Somewhat.
+*Anyway, I note you aren't an admin.  Is there any reason why not? I would have thought running has been proposed before, but I'll ask again as I can find no mention in the archives to your talk page. Your call, I don't mind nominating you. [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] <small>[[User talk:Steve block|Talk]]</small> 17:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)