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)

Could change Yes/No to Eligible/Ineligible if that's clearer. --(RT) 01:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Further update: Now modified my suggested template to say Eligible=Yes, Eligible=No or Eligible=any other status and includes the voter's name for clarity. Will this do once moved to Meta? --(RT) 13:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks great to me. Seb az86556 14:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's now on Meta and ready to use. I've tried it out on a few votes at the bottom of the Yes list. See what you think. If you would like to use it to recheck those I've struck out first that would be good. No need to use the comment field in most cases I think. Perhaps next I should check those at the top of Yes column that I've not done at all; then those that other people have struck out. --(RT) 16:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I see you've tried the new template. Any comments welcome - I'll tweak the design or documentation if necessary. I find having to mark every vote is quite slow - but I think it's probably worth it. --(RT) 01:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've replied re unified accounts on my user page. Also, you may notice that I am no longer going through adding a checked tag to each vote - only where it seems worth annotating. Every vote has nevertheless been checked at least once, so I think we are done once we've agreed on the SUL issue. --(RT) 00:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed in your last edits a comment next to the vote by Axl - there's a link to their home wiki on their Meta user page [1] - which is supposed to be OK as an alternative.

I think all the votes without an SUL account or a link should have been identified (I've certainly gone through all the Yes lot; I'm fairly certain Nemo Bis did all the No's) - though there's no harm in checking for more. Out of the original 71 identified (and notified) either by me or by Nemo 40 have now responded; I am thinking that we've nearly reached a point where the most of remainder can be struck out as they have had nearly a week. What do you think?

Also, I should complete the last few annotations I planned very soon. Would you be happy if I announced the totals on the Vote talk in the next 24 hours? Or would you prefer an opportunity to do some more checks? --(RT) 01:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I can now see you found a few more in the No column too - so clearly there is more work to be done there. Have you (or will you) notify the ones you found? We will need of course to allow response time too. --(RT) 01:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's an example of the notification I used here. Nemo used something similar too. I decided not to strike out these votes pending a response. --(RT) 01:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

...for your words of support. I'm glad that even though we've disagreed on some things, I still have your trust in this role.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Disagreeing is part of the game. I was campaigning for my view, you for yours. Seb az86556 01:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)