User talk:MarcoAurelio
Latest comment: 10 months ago by MathXplore in topic Question about your self-revert at GR (special:diff/18799605)
 | MarcoAurelio is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Meta soon. |
Please write your messages at the bottom of the page, use descriptive section titles and don't forget to sign your posts adding
--~~~~ at the end of your comment. I will answer all messages left to me in this talk page so the conversations are not fragmented. Some additional notes:
- I am a human and I can make mistakes. If you think I did something wrong, please tell me and we will discuss and review the situation.
- That said, communication is a two-way street, and good communication requires civility.
- As such, I reserve the right to remove, archive, ignore or leave unreplied messages addressed to me or left on this talk page which are insulting, provocative, disruptive or otherwise not helpful, at my own discretion.
- Requests to add or remove domains to the spam blacklist should be addressed at Talk:Spam blacklist.
- Requests for help from an administrator or bureaucrat should be addressed to Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat for wider attention.
- Requests for CheckUser information for Meta-Wiki should be posted at Meta:Requests for CheckUser information.
- Please see Meta:Oversighters for how to request permanent removal of content from this project. Please do not make your request in public. Use this form instead.
- Requests for CentralNotice banners and campaigns are only addressed at CentralNotice/Requests.
- I do not do dispute resolution. Please do not ask me to mediate between editors or resolve conflicts between them.
- Older discussions on this page are kept in the archive.
| Cross-wiki requests |
|---|
| Meta-Wiki requests |
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} and sections whose most recent comment is older than 15 days.
|
Withdraw your "Amendment proposal (April 2023)" or not?
This section:
- isn't located within Meta:RFC which doesn't look like formal, so that many people don't know what you proposed
- Currently got 5 support and 5 oppose votes, they don't seem to have any consensus reached
- Affects only one small part of the currently look-bad policy section (as far as I know, I was proposed a larger modification, but you opposed and hence "no consensus")
In any cases, discussing modification to a policy only at talk page is realllll(65535*l)ly a bad idea, and such actions shall be dropped in the future. From my view, it's recommend to start a new Meta:RFC to discuss larger-and-larger modifications of that policy section. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, but where is the need to write such a condescending comment? Policy changes have always been discussed on policy talk pages. There is no need to always exaggerate things by saying "there needs to be a formal RFC". The proposed change is indeed a minor modification, and not about completely changing the way we choose administrators. Also, why should MA withdraw his proposal just because it didn't get overwhelming support? This seems to be somewhat of a fashion nowadays (to open a big RFC, get some opposes and then retract everything just to make even more proposals), but it doesn't mean that it's a good practice. --MF-W 08:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- +1, relatively minor policy changes don't need a RFC. Some examples for successful talk page proposals [1][2]. Johannnes89 (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you @MF-Warburg and @Johannnes89 for your input. I must say, I am sadly not surprised by this misguided provocation from @Liuxinyu970226, given his most recent actions and behaviour. See e.g. his comments and later replies at that very proposal, or Meta:Babel § Template:Proposed logo (permalink) where he's making random, unhepful comments about the matter. Or Meta:Requests for CheckUser information/Archives/2023 where he goes on accusing a number of users of violating a WMF Ban. It's absolutely ludicrous that he affirms that "many people don't know what [I] proposed" when he seems to be the one clearly not understanding. I've been trying to assume good faith, but this is starting to wear thin.
- To answer the above:
- Proposal: No, I am not withdrawing my proposal. I remain convinced that giving 7 days of notice is too few and leads to unfair removals. This is a serious, valid and legitimate reason, specially since as a bureaucrat myself I am tasked with enforcing said policy. If the community feels otherwise, that's absolutely fine. People is free to propose any period they feel appropriate if they want a change, or oppose if they want to keep 7 days.
- RFC: Meta-Wiki policies have been amended through talk page discussions for as long as I remember (see one of the latest proposals), so long they are duly advertised, as has been the case here. In addition:
- i) This is not either an "issue of wider significance", as stated on that very page
- ii) I am very well aware of Meta:Requests for comment considering that I did create the local process myself.
- iii) The proposal is all the serious it can be. People seem to be very well aware of what's being discussed there, and has been duly advertised (archived notice, active notice).
- Votes: consensus is not a matter of simply counting votes, and it's not up to me to close the proposal anyway.
- Your third point makes no sense and fully invalidates your "complaint". If you say my proposal "affects only one small part" of the policy, then it's not an issue of wider significance what would require an RFC.
- As others have told you already, please try to familiarise yourself with Meta-Wiki policy and governance before trying to lecture others about it. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- The above has resulted in more nonsense posted to my Commons talk page: a deletion notification for a file which I did not uploaded or authored, but simply moved 2 years ago. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- +1, relatively minor policy changes don't need a RFC. Some examples for successful talk page proposals [1][2]. Johannnes89 (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Question about your self-revert at GR (special:diff/18799605)
Hello, I found that you once changed GR as a disambiguation page, but then reverted your own edit. If possible, may I ask the reason for this self-revert decision? I think GR should be a disambiguation page. There is not only global rollback/rename, but also global replace from Wikimedia Commons (c:Commons:GlobalReplace), and I also found Global Reach. What would you think about this? I'm sorry to bother you, but I'm looking forward to hear from you. MathXplore (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)