User talk:Seb az86556: Difference between revisions
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Seb az86556 in topic GS
Content deleted Content added
m →GS |
Seb az86556 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
::Supporters of the proposal implicitly accept the reasoning the proposal presents. |
::Supporters of the proposal implicitly accept the reasoning the proposal presents. |
||
::If your fear is that stewards will override local consensus to opt-out then say so. Currently, those statements are rather repugnant lies. I find it offensive that you would believe stewards have so little concern for the voice of the community which elected them. Nonetheless, if you have evidence to support that, then present it. — [[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> 00:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC) |
::If your fear is that stewards will override local consensus to opt-out then say so. Currently, those statements are rather repugnant lies. I find it offensive that you would believe stewards have so little concern for the voice of the community which elected them. Nonetheless, if you have evidence to support that, then present it. — [[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> 00:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&diff=prev&oldid=1767690 This] was overruled on procedural grounds. Opt-out will be no different. [[User:Seb az86556|Seb az86556]] 00:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 00:52, 10 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 projects 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. If you would like to continue this discussion in the comments-section, I'd be very interested in that. I have hardly been given any feedback with regards to my questions; I have only been told "wrong, wrong, wrong" like everybody else who voted "no". I'm assuming that in those cases where silence/no response followed, my concerns are valid.) Seb az86556 23:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Supporters of the proposal implicitly accept the reasoning the proposal presents.
- If your fear is that stewards will override local consensus to opt-out then say so. Currently, those statements are rather repugnant lies. I find it offensive that you would believe stewards have so little concern for the voice of the community which elected them. Nonetheless, if you have evidence to support that, then present it. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- This was overruled on procedural grounds. Opt-out will be no different. Seb az86556 00:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)