Talk:Requests for comment/Wikisource administration problems
(Redirected from Talk:Requests for comment/Wikisource adminstration problems)
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Hesperian
Who administers these RFC's?
editThe more I think about it the more I am disturbed by this RFC. How can anyone comment on how this situation has been handled en.WS community before that community has had a much of a chance to react to it? Currently there is a ban discussion on Longfellow pending; and one CU has two of the three needed opposes to open a Vote of Confidence on his CU rights in his annual confirmation. If someone wants to reformat this as a RFC on actions taken by en.WS crats or CUs that would be appropriate as those actions are concluded. But it is premature to call for comments on the general admin corps for how they have reacted to these events. They knew nothing of our decisions at the time and many of them have been distracted by the holidays. So this RFC either needs to be greatly reformatted or put on hold until there are some conclusions to actually comment on. Whoever is responsible, please step up here.--BirgitteSB 22:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is a general bitch about all things Wikisource administration. billinghurst sDrewth 00:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- RfCs at Meta are not "administered". They are for discussions that need a wider audience. I asked for a discussion in a neutral area. I don't see how any of that can offend you. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The discussion among the most relevant audience needs to conclude before a wider audience can usefully comment on such a discussion. It disturbs me that that people are being pulled away from focusing on concluding (and in some cases initiating) more relevant discussions in order to correct mischaracterizations being made in front of a wider audience. Put this on hold and let the local discussion conclude, or instead refocus it on pieces of crat and CU action which have already reached their natural conclusions. If you will do neither of those things yourself, then someone must be responsible and step up to stop the continued abuse of this process.--BirgitteSB 01:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- And when there is no central discussion with enough people? When that discussion is met with hostility by those who seem more caring to protect a friend than to look at something objectively? More attention is always helpful, not less. This issue this RfC is addressing is an attitude at Wikisource that makes it impossible to discuss things as the atmosphere is poisoned and chilled by multiple admin making incivil comments, baseless threats, and the rest. Those who care about a project would want to ensure that such does not get in the way of discussion and would seek to make it comfortable for all to discuss without feeling threatened or intimidated. I find it odd that you would want to stop a discussion merely because it is not in the place of your choosing. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? What you have just outlined bears no resemblance to the reality on the ground and addressed absolutely none of my concerns with this RFC. If you believe Hesperian was hostile towards you in order to protect John's from the possibility losing restricted rights, how can you account for his opposition of John's CU rights? Are you even reading any parts of these discussions that are not a direct reply to you? Why do you not address my concerns about this RFC?--BirgitteSB 02:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hesperian went from saying that people were merely taking pot shots before I held my ground on this issue to doing the right thing. However, that does not mean that his attitude and the attitude of others were proper or that things are completely handled. After all, John has not apologized for his lack of previous action or informing other CUs on other projects as he should have, and he can still get CU status back because he merely voluntarily gave it up.
- And I thought I did address your concerns by pointing out that this is merely a discussion - there is no binding action that can be taken or anything like that. There shouldn't be a concern just as if this was taking place off site. However, Meta has people of all projects and so a wider, affected audience can opine without fear of reprisal or the such. Ottava Rima (talk)
- What are you talking about? What you have just outlined bears no resemblance to the reality on the ground and addressed absolutely none of my concerns with this RFC. If you believe Hesperian was hostile towards you in order to protect John's from the possibility losing restricted rights, how can you account for his opposition of John's CU rights? Are you even reading any parts of these discussions that are not a direct reply to you? Why do you not address my concerns about this RFC?--BirgitteSB 02:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- And when there is no central discussion with enough people? When that discussion is met with hostility by those who seem more caring to protect a friend than to look at something objectively? More attention is always helpful, not less. This issue this RfC is addressing is an attitude at Wikisource that makes it impossible to discuss things as the atmosphere is poisoned and chilled by multiple admin making incivil comments, baseless threats, and the rest. Those who care about a project would want to ensure that such does not get in the way of discussion and would seek to make it comfortable for all to discuss without feeling threatened or intimidated. I find it odd that you would want to stop a discussion merely because it is not in the place of your choosing. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The discussion among the most relevant audience needs to conclude before a wider audience can usefully comment on such a discussion. It disturbs me that that people are being pulled away from focusing on concluding (and in some cases initiating) more relevant discussions in order to correct mischaracterizations being made in front of a wider audience. Put this on hold and let the local discussion conclude, or instead refocus it on pieces of crat and CU action which have already reached their natural conclusions. If you will do neither of those things yourself, then someone must be responsible and step up to stop the continued abuse of this process.--BirgitteSB 01:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- As a side note - I do not see a ban proposal on Poetlister. After talking to Billinghurst in IRC the first time, he stated that a lock would be more appropriate than just a community ban. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- (EC)This was my concern "It disturbs me that that people are being pulled away from focusing on concluding (and in some cases initiating) more relevant discussions in order to correct mischaracterizations being made in front of a wider audience." I don't know what you believe you were addressing but it isn't anything I am concerned about.--BirgitteSB 03:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- No one is forced to participate in the discussion, so how would it pull away anyone? Does Christmas disturb you for pulling away people too? Or other projects? I'm a little baffled by the statement. It would seem that open discussions would bring more people and not the opposite. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- (EC)This was my concern "It disturbs me that that people are being pulled away from focusing on concluding (and in some cases initiating) more relevant discussions in order to correct mischaracterizations being made in front of a wider audience." I don't know what you believe you were addressing but it isn't anything I am concerned about.--BirgitteSB 03:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- (EC) As a side note this is what I was referring to by "(and in some cases initiating)". A global lock would be a steward decision as far as I am aware. I am unaware of the likelihood of such a thing occurring. If they don't initiate such a lock, there will have to be a community ban discussion. I know that you should be aware that Hesparian is planning to initiate this (at least he left such a note for you in thread we were both active in). I can't believe your last reply is sincere as it is nonsensical.--BirgitteSB 03:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Global lock discussions can take place on Meta and could be formed via RfC here. And I don't see how you can say my words above are nonsensical. No one forced anyone here to post or reply, so it can't be argued that it takes away from anything. It is non-binding and discussion only. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- What alternate universe are you living in where opportunity costs do not exist and how may I get there?--BirgitteSB 03:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please provide proof of my magical powers to force you to reply. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ottava has a point. WP:DENY would indeed have been an appropriate response to this RfC. Hesperian 23:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please provide proof of my magical powers to force you to reply. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- What alternate universe are you living in where opportunity costs do not exist and how may I get there?--BirgitteSB 03:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Global lock discussions can take place on Meta and could be formed via RfC here. And I don't see how you can say my words above are nonsensical. No one forced anyone here to post or reply, so it can't be argued that it takes away from anything. It is non-binding and discussion only. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- (EC) As a side note this is what I was referring to by "(and in some cases initiating)". A global lock would be a steward decision as far as I am aware. I am unaware of the likelihood of such a thing occurring. If they don't initiate such a lock, there will have to be a community ban discussion. I know that you should be aware that Hesparian is planning to initiate this (at least he left such a note for you in thread we were both active in). I can't believe your last reply is sincere as it is nonsensical.--BirgitteSB 03:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)