User talk:Seb az86556: Difference between revisions
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Seb az86556 in topic GS
Content deleted Content added
mNo edit summary |
Seb az86556 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==[[GS]]== |
==[[GS]]== |
||
Why are you [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_sysops/Vote&diff=prev&oldid=1799010 lying] to people? — [[User:Mike.lifeguard|<b style="color:#309;">Mike</b>]].[[User talk:Mike.lifeguard|<b style="color:#309;">lifeguard</b>]] | <sup>[[:b:en:User talk:Mike.lifeguard|<span style="color:#309;">@en.wb</span>]]</sup> 15:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC) |
Why are you [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_sysops/Vote&diff=prev&oldid=1799010 lying] to people? — [[User:Mike.lifeguard|<b style="color:#309;">Mike</b>]].[[User talk:Mike.lifeguard|<b style="color:#309;">lifeguard</b>]] | <sup>[[:b:en:User talk:Mike.lifeguard|<span style="color:#309;">@en.wb</span>]]</sup> 15:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
:I am not "lying". I am making the point that small project will not have the option to opt out -- we have been informed that the opt-out will be along the same lines as electing local sysops. These decisions are frequently overruled by stewards on procedural grounds. Therefore, very small wikis will have this option in theory, but never in practice. If the proposal was for those small wikis that have <u>no</u> active admins, it would be reasonable. The threshold for inclusion by default is less than 10 local admins; in practice, it means most of these 10 will have been absent for years, the remaining ones will not be able to fulfill procedural requirements. As for my "lying" -- I am trying to a) counter the fact that no-votes are frequently "questioned", whereas "yes"-votes are given blank cheque, and b) get a response to valid concerns that have thus far been ignored. I hope that helps. (And thank you for your asking) [[User:Seb az86556|Seb az86556]] 23:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 23:14, 9 January 2010
Why are you lying to people? — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am not "lying". I am making the point that small project will not have the option to opt out -- we have been informed that the opt-out will be along the same lines as electing local sysops. These decisions are frequently overruled by stewards on procedural grounds. Therefore, very small wikis will have this option in theory, but never in practice. If the proposal was for those small wikis that have no active admins, it would be reasonable. The threshold for inclusion by default is less than 10 local admins; in practice, it means most of these 10 will have been absent for years, the remaining ones will not be able to fulfill procedural requirements. As for my "lying" -- I am trying to a) counter the fact that no-votes are frequently "questioned", whereas "yes"-votes are given blank cheque, and b) get a response to valid concerns that have thus far been ignored. I hope that helps. (And thank you for your asking) Seb az86556 23:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)