| Revision as of 17:02, 13 February 2008 editFloNight (talk | contribs)Administrators20,015 edits move to archive← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:34, 13 February 2008 edit undoUtgard Loki (talk | contribs)2,260 edits →re Proposed IRC Discussion WorkgroupNext edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| :My thoughts only...I'm only one person...not we. :) | :My thoughts only...I'm only one person...not we. :) | ||
| :Jimbo asked ArbCom to become more involved in sorting out the issues related to #admins. ArbCom does not have control of the channel since we do not own it, others do. Some members of the community that do not use the channel have stated that they want to have a have a chance to help draw up the guidelines for the channel. Of course, the people that use the channel also have an opinions. I guess all of these people are part of the "we". ]] 16:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC) |
:Jimbo asked ArbCom to become more involved in sorting out the issues related to #admins. ArbCom does not have control of the channel since we do not own it, others do. Some members of the community that do not use the channel have stated that they want to have a have a chance to help draw up the guidelines for the channel. Of course, the people that use the channel also have an opinions. I guess all of these people are part of the "we". ]] 16:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::Every bit of that seems wrong to me. I thought Jimbo simply said that IRC '''is''' under the control of ArbCom, not asked them to maybe think about somehow thinking about maybe getting involved. Also, there are people who do not use it because they're ignorant (a reason for exclusion), people who don't use it because they do not agree with it in principle (a reason for inclusion, if a goal is to make it more acceptable to the community), and people who ''used to'' use it and left out of disgust (a reason to demand their presence, as they will be the ones who know what's wrong). The idea that only the present users should have input is backwards. The present users ''like it'' as it is, so of course they are going to dismiss everything else. If there is a great problem with it, seek those who know the problems, not the ones who say, "Everything is fine: ignore those whiners." This is assuming that ArbCom is interested in reason, logic, fairness, and getting this thing approved. That may not be the case. ] (]) 17:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Apologies== | == Apologies== | ||
| My apologies for not notifying you when raising the discussion at ]. That'll teach me not to do things I'm not familiar with after midnight when I'm tired, but the concern about university networks seemed both reasonable and urgent. If Lara had noted that checkuser had confirmed sockpuppetry on the user notification I'd probably have taken this no further, but there does seem to be a need for clarification of the alleged wrongdoing. Thanks, . .. ], ] 09:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | My apologies for not notifying you when raising the discussion at ]. That'll teach me not to do things I'm not familiar with after midnight when I'm tired, but the concern about university networks seemed both reasonable and urgent. If Lara had noted that checkuser had confirmed sockpuppetry on the user notification I'd probably have taken this no further, but there does seem to be a need for clarification of the alleged wrongdoing. Thanks, . .. ], ] 09:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 17:34, 13 February 2008
| This is FloNight's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments. |
|
re Proposed IRC Discussion Workgroup
- ;~) Tell me where it is, and I will be there. I'll be the one carrying the sledgehammer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am also interested in participating, although I have no tools (only my words and thoughts) to bring along. Risker (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am also interested, though I have less tools to work with than Risker. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Flo, sorry for persistence, but can you answer this question? Because this is a little ambiguous. --Irpen 23:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is not my decision to make...first we need to decide how the guideline will be established...a work group is one option but there are others. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- "We" means who? --Irpen 00:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- The Arbitration Committee has said that it has been requested to take on extra duties and has opted to consult the community concerning the manner in which it is to do so. I presume that FloNight refers to her fellow arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway 19:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Tony, you have this annoying habit of putting words in other people's mouthes demonstrated avidly just one section above.
- No matter how much I am interested in your opinions on any and all matters, I asked Flo and please let her reply herself what she meant referring to "we". Thank you. --Irpen 20:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, but I notice that you had posed a couple of easily answered questions and appeared to be impatient for answers. --Tony Sidaway 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Flo, any chance to hear the answer to the question? --Irpen 23:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- My thoughts only...I'm only one person...not we. :)
- Jimbo asked ArbCom to become more involved in sorting out the issues related to #admins. ArbCom does not have control of the channel since we do not own it, others do. Some members of the community that do not use the channel have stated that they want to have a have a chance to help draw up the guidelines for the channel. Of course, the people that use the channel also have an opinions. I guess all of these people are part of the "we". FloNight♥♥♥ 16:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Every bit of that seems wrong to me. I thought Jimbo simply said that IRC is under the control of ArbCom, not asked them to maybe think about somehow thinking about maybe getting involved. Also, there are people who do not use it because they're ignorant (a reason for exclusion), people who don't use it because they do not agree with it in principle (a reason for inclusion, if a goal is to make it more acceptable to the community), and people who used to use it and left out of disgust (a reason to demand their presence, as they will be the ones who know what's wrong). The idea that only the present users should have input is backwards. The present users like it as it is, so of course they are going to dismiss everything else. If there is a great problem with it, seek those who know the problems, not the ones who say, "Everything is fine: ignore those whiners." This is assuming that ArbCom is interested in reason, logic, fairness, and getting this thing approved. That may not be the case. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Apologies
My apologies for not notifying you when raising the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:RDOlivaw, User:Unprovoked and User:DrEightyEight. That'll teach me not to do things I'm not familiar with after midnight when I'm tired, but the concern about university networks seemed both reasonable and urgent. If Lara had noted that checkuser had confirmed sockpuppetry on the user notification I'd probably have taken this no further, but there does seem to be a need for clarification of the alleged wrongdoing. Thanks, . .. dave souza, talk 09:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice on my user page, there has indeed been great care taken over this issue and the result looks incontrovertible. It's just unfortunate that it was so difficult to get information on the blocks, and as more points were raised my confidence in cu was shaken – glad to be reassured. For what it's worth I've suggested some procedural improvements at AN/I, these may already be normal practice. Thanks again, .. dave souza, talk 22:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)