User talk:Seb az86556
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)
RE: deleting my comments/arguments in the sysops proposal
Hi. You removed my comments stating that I had edited projects that would be affected by the sysop proposal and that my opinion/argument should be considered better as a result. Please explain why you did this. I would appreciate you not changing what I've written, as the reasoning is my own, not yours. Please confine your thoughts to your own comments, ones that don't bear my signerature after them. If there is some rule/authority that allows/encourages you to remove comments like you did could you please provide it so that I may become familiar with it? I'm also curious why you deleted my statement when it was in the middle of so many other people saying the same thing? In the future, if you have an issue with my edits, I would appreciate it if you would simply speak to me when possible, so that I know what's going on- especially so that if I'm in error we can prevent the same mistakes happening over and over again. Thanks.--Δζ 04:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)