User talk:Seb az86556

GS

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)

I have revised the wording to make clearer what I mean. As for offensive, I find it offensive that I (and others) are being accused of "lying" and valid concerns are still not being addressed. (Keep up the conversation.) Seb az86556 01:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have taken out some of your comments. I have done so with mine as well. Again -- I hope that helps. Seb az86556 01:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Global Sysops vote validation

Seb, if you want to start adding checkmarks to the ones you've done in the No section - I'd say go for it unless someone objects. Is there a suitable small checkmark template?

Also, for your information I've checked from bottom to top in both lists:

• Yes votes - from PierreAbbat (currently #1402) to Angela (currently #92), excepting previously struck out votes in certain sections which I intend to go back to.
• No votes - from SignorX to Martin Morard (after #118)

I won't be checking for a few hours now, but I'm happy to adopt the checkmark system too. --(RT) 03:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: I note that new eligible and ineligible templates have been designed and applied to a few records. But I'm not happy with these at present - I don't want to see existing explanations and links regarding eligibility removed as they are an important record. I shall look into what can be done either to improve them or find an alternative. --(RT) 12:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The new templates do contain room for one link - but I have been using a second link as a double check as I don't believe the main checker is 100% reliable; plus the existing explanations are useful, particularly in one or two more complex cases. Also, I want something to indicate that I've rechecked a previously checked record without tampering with original checker's comments or signature.

Actually I was going to suggest that you went through all the records that I've struck out or reinstated to double check those - but you need some way of indicating that you've done that without removing my original comments and signature (striking it out if it's wrong). Does that make sense? --(RT) 14:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It does. Seb az86556 14:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Good. I'll be out of action for a few hours now - if you can come up with something suitable before I do, please feel free to make a start. --(RT) 14:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What about a very simple template to be placed after the vote just indicating the check something like this? Explanations and links can placed after it where they're needed. Will put something similar on Meta if You think it's OK. Any suggestions welcome. --(RT) 01:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)