Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:57, 5 March 2008

Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6

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)

Could we start with what FloNight actually said? I guess all of these people are part of the "we" is, I think, intended to be inclusive. I think you've misread it if you think it's intended to exclude any interested or disinterested party. --Tony Sidaway 18:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Tony, again, it's great to know what "you think" from your posts on each and every page the contentious issues are raised. Now, in response to Flo and, especially, Utgard's post. Utgard's opinion that "we" should include the IRC critics has been voiced many times before and rebuffed as many times because the IRCers themselves like to discuss things among themselves. Have any of the IRC critics ever been given access to the channel? The explanation we always receive why the channel needs to be supersikret is that the discussions include BLP issues. So, the logic goes that all IRC critics are indecent people who would publicized the BLP info they find on IRC. I remember how Badlydrawnjeff was asking for access. There can never be a doubt that he is a very decent person. But to this day, the only non-admins on the channel are its supporters or those stripped of adminship by arbcom. The loyalty to IRC is a good indicator of BLP understanding, I gather. --Irpen 18:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, I'm interested in hearing your perspective on the topic. I'm interested in hearing form all interested members of the Community. If that did not come through in my previous post, I apologize. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why not let the "IRC Discussion Workgroup" function out in the open so that "all interested members of the Community", whose opinion you are "interested in hearing", can watch and, perhaps, contribute? Are you also interested in Utgard's opinion expressed above? Anyway, he provided it and pointed out to some, what seems to him, inconsistencies in your post. If his opinion is something you are also "interested to hear", why not straighten out those inconsistencies in your post and respond to Loki? Instead of your response, there was one more post from Tony who is great at explaining what everyone else said. --Irpen 23:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I had also hoped and expected the consultation would be held in the open. Has anybody suggested that it should not? --Tony Sidaway 03:46, 14 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)

That's a funny looking "house cat"

;)

I like your dress, though. --Tony Sidaway 21:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 21:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Appeal review

Well, you told me to remind you by the middle of this week if I hadn't got any word on my appeal review, so I'm reminding. Everyking (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Highways

Hello FloNight. We were wondering if the Committee will be continuing to review our case? There has been no activity since the case was moved to voting a few weeks ago. Thanks. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 2

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 2, Issue 2 • 17 February 2008 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors Coming and going	Features Interstate 355 becomes USRD's newest Featured Article Commons refuses to delete superseded shields Michigan project breaks the 4.000 barrier USRD relative WW comes close to surpassing Misplaced Pages relative WW The newest neologism issue January 26 Meetup	State and national updates Leaderboard California Michigan New Jersey New York Utah
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 03:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

IRC Discussion Workgroup redux

Hi FloNight, I note that the community has not heard much more about the IRC Discussion Workgroup that you proposed. If the individuals selected for that workgroup are not yet finalized, I'd like to suggest another editor and former admin, who may be able to provide insights from a different perspective. I look forward to hearing more about the workgroup in the near future. Best, Risker (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A working group was my idea but evidently did not draw support from other Arbitration Committee members. Yesterday, I received an email reporting that user conduct guidelines for #wikipedia-en-admins were updated. I did not participate in the decision and have not read the guidelines yet. I'm catching up on reading my email today. I'll update you with further thoughts soon-ish. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Episodes and characters 2 Arbitration

Editors are getting impatient and there is a great deal of confusion regarding the injunction. Could you please respond to Kirill's proposals on the Proposed decision page as soon as possible. Many thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well?

As an overly frustrated user I'd like to know if arbitration committee is paying any attention at all to the evidence I presented. I'd prefer a rational explanation over senseless silence. I have had my fair share from arbcom inactivity. I am quite tired of it. -- Cat 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Help to calm down nationalism

In many articles about Dalmatia the group of fanatic Croats (user:Kubura, user:Zenanarth, etc..) is back with the usual Balkan fanatism, like in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia where you did arbitration. I have sent them messages about "Let's do Wikilove" in the hope that they could calm down and cooperate with Italian wikiusers (like user:Cherso, user:Pannonicus, user:PIO, user:Mariokempes and others) but nothing has changed. May be you can help to calm down this Balkan nationalism (that user:Dewrad has defined insane)? Thanks.--Marygiove (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)