Hosta

by | Mar 16, 2018 | Hosta

How Can We Help?
You are here:
< Back
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Bot clerking: prerequisite data updated (2 open requests remaining)
Line 60: Line 60:
* {{rfplinks|1=Mdann52}}
* {{rfplinks|1=Mdann52}}
:Recently, I've been asked to make edits to several protected templates, leading to successful edit requests. I feel I know the syntax well enough to be trusted with this tool, and have experience answering edit requests (eg. SPER).[[User:Mdann52|Mdann52]] ([[User talk:Mdann52|talk]]) 13:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
:Recently, I've been asked to make edits to several protected templates, leading to successful edit requests. I feel I know the syntax well enough to be trusted with this tool, and have experience answering edit requests (eg. SPER).[[User:Mdann52|Mdann52]] ([[User talk:Mdann52|talk]]) 13:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
::{{done}} — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr.&nbsp;Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪&nbsp;talk&nbsp;♪]]</sup> 01:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:42, 6 September 2015

Template editor

Shortcuts
( • view requests)

See Wikipedia:Template editor for granting guidelines. Applicants should show some evidence that they generally meet the guidelines outlined there, however administrators may use their discretion in determining which editors meet the general standard. Consider posting {{subst:template editor granted}} to the user talk page of approved users.

User:Alakzi

So that I can blow up the project, as has been prophesied. Alakzi (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Automated comment This user has had an account for 308 days — MusikBot talk 00:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
{{notdone}} - I personally want to, but since it has been stripped from your account, I am not comfortable restoring it without either: MSGJ's assent, the greenlight from three current template-editors/admins, or general community consensus (such as at WP:AN). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And who's gonna approach admins and TEs to vouch for me? I'd be rapidly accused of canvassing if I did. No, I'm not going to post on WP:AN. Alakzi (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is sensible, and hopefully there are sufficient admins who watch this page to develop consensus here so that a visit to WP:AN is unnecessary. My position is that I will not stand in the way if a consensus develops but I am not yet able to support it. Without a doubt Alakzi is a keen, helpful and skilled editor who would be more productive with the extra tool kit. However the "meltdown" that occurred last month is still rather recent in my opinion and I would like more time to see evidence of level-headed editing, an absence of battleground behaviour and more willingness to collaborate even when he/she "knows" that they are right. I have offered to restore the user right after 1-2 months of drama-free constructive editing and this offer still stands. However I am still seeing some problematic behaviour quite recently, documented for example here and here. In my opinion the potential damage and subsequent drama that Alakzi could do would be a exacerbated by the extra tools at this stage and are likely to counteract the positive effects. So I would regretfully oppose. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"This" editor has a fucking name. "This editor" is nothing less but a tactic to objectify me to make your extremely offensive wikijargon-littered ramblings sound reasonable. And I'm done. Alakzi (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced once instance of "this editor" with "Alakzi" as it seems to upset you. (One reason I use it is I don't like to assume your gender and all the he/she stuff sounds awkward.) I can't comment on your second sentence because I don't understand it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am also regretfully opposed. There's no question that Alakzi has the technical ability and the need for this user right. However, if we were to give it back right now, I worry that Alakzi would start edit-warring on template-protected pages again, or making edits to template-protected pages against consensus. I assume that Alakzi's request reason, "So that I can blow up the project, as has been prophesied", is meant as a joke, but unfortunately it is one that hits a little too close to home. For me to be persuaded to change my mind, I think I would need to see a more sincere request, or perhaps just a couple of months of problem-free template editing. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pray tell, which are these template-protected pages where I've edit warred? I reverted once a couple of times (at Template:Infobox person and Template:Composition bar); but no more. And which might these template-protected pages I've edited against consensus be?
The insinuation that I'd attempt to compromise the encyclopaedia makes my blood boil. No, indeed, my sincerity is apparent in the hundreds of hours I've invested in the keeping of the template and module namespaces. But there's no use arguing with you, or any other admin - none of whom I trust in the slightest. (And hence my resignation of all of my admin-bestowed privileges.) The feeling, it would seem, is mutual. Alakzi (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of Template:Infobox television season - the one that got you the template-editor bit removed in the first place. I forgot that it was only semi-protected when you were edit-warring there (sorry for not checking that before commenting). However, the fact it was semi-protected and not template-protected is not making the thought of giving you the template-editor bit back much more comfortable. I have no doubt that you are sincere, and I never said that I thought you would attempt to compromise the encyclopaedia, by the way. I'm saying that I am worried that you will edit war again. I am perfectly willing to reconsider my position on this, but I think you are right that argument is not going to work. I need to trust you not to edit war, and trust isn't built through argument. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, trust is built through not dragging people to SPI on utterly spurious grounds (and refusing to apologise); not blocking established editors indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE (and apologising half-asssedly); not conducting checks on my account 'cause you've got a hunch (and refusing to apologise); and not publicly accusing me of being a sockpuppet of a banned editor (and refusing to budge for days). My having stopped short of 3RR on a semi-protected template, the accessibility of which had been seriously compromised, pales in comparison. Of course, when I criticise the community, it must be that I'm unduly generalising; but when my detractors criticise me, they speak on behalf of each and every Wikipedian who's ever lived and ever will live, and are welcome to scribble such nonsense as "no longer holds the trust required [by the community]" on my user rights log, without actually having consulted with anybody. That MSGJ would think it his duty to unilaterally revoke my TE because he'd originally granted me the right would also betray a sense of entitlement. Alakzi (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand your frustration with the blocks and the SPI case. That is going to be stressful for any editor at the best of times. But we're not talking about the trustworthiness of the editors that were involved with those things - we're talking about whether you should be trusted to have the template-editor bit. If I gave you back the template-editor bit now, then sooner or later you would be bound to find yourself in a situation that is similarly stressful to the one you found yourself in at Infobox television season. I need to be confident that when you find yourself in a situation like that again, you won't lose your cool and start edit warring, and you won't use the template-editor right to gain an advantage in the dispute. So, if you did find yourself in such a situation in the future, how would you handle it? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether I can be trusted is rather a question of whether I trust the community. I do not. I now operate according to my own principles, with little regard for community norms. If reparations are made, I might reconsider. But I can assure that I would never run checks on unsuspecting folk or block folk on a whim, or abuse my power in any way, if I had any power. Alakzi (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the question of whether you can be trusted the same question as whether you trust the community? I'm not quite understanding that part of your reasoning. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a mutual arrangement. If I receive no respect, it is somewhat unlikely that I will show any respect, for instance. Alakzi (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Alakzi has never abused TE status, you could always AGF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a point of clarification, Mr. Stradivarius wrote above I was thinking of Template:Infobox television season - the one that got you the template-editor bit removed in the first place, but that's not consistent with the chronology. The summer has turned into a blur in my brain too (how the hell is it September already??), so:
The user rights change was almost a month after the TV template discussion and barely two hours after the Jack accusations surfaced in public. While MSGJ says that he made his decision based on behavior and not because he believed the various sock accusations, it's unlikely the matter would have come up in their absence; the immediately prior events were not a user-rights issue.
The broader question of whether using "admin discretion" carries a responsibility to continue to monitor the outcome into the indefinite future (or confers an entitlement to do so, depending on your perspective) doesn't need to be settled here, IMO. It's sufficient to say that it would have been inappropriate to revoke TE on the basis of events prior to the sock accusations; therefore that decision is part of the product of those issues, even if not intended as a direct reaction to them, and should be undone. That doesn't require a position on these meditations on the nature of community trust, either; only a recognition that damage was done and not yet repaired. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I am too late for this (stupid time zones), but for the record I would have supported this request. I am familiar with the background here and while I do not watchlist WP:PERM, I did get dragged into closing TfDs a few months ago and as a result have been generally following template-related matters.
I had followed up with MSGJ here about the original removal, which IMO should have been reverted to status quo ante after the resolution of the sockpuppet thing. I do not think it is reasonable for "the community" to collectively step on someone's foot, even if by accident, and then fuss about their behavior when they yell. The "problematic behavior" cited above is one case of routine heated disagreement and one case of sockpuppet fallout, neither being the sort of thing we revoke TE for. The single instance I am aware of that actually involved problematic template editing is the discussion here, which was a) productively resolved, b) over a month ago, and c) not a reason to revoke TE at the time. If making jokes while participating in Serious Wikipedia Business is now evidence of behavior problems, you're all going to have to kick me out. In short I find the objections presented here insufficient to counterbalance the technical benefits to the project that granting this request would have produced. Opabinia regalis (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This bit should never have been removed. The removal was done in relation to an incident which did not involve use of TE status, for a reason outwith the TE policy's list of reasons for doing so, and without community discussion. This happened at tie when Alakzi was subject to unacceptable hounding. Alakzi is both one of our most capable, and most active, template editors. [Since Salvidrim! solicits discussion above, I have disabled the 'not done' template, to prevent the bot from prematurely archiving this section.]Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. TE policy does not require "greenlight from three current template-editors/admins" nor "general community consensus... at WP:AN". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, but WP:WHEEL prevents any lone admin to undo MSGJ removal of the TE permission from Alakzi. That would require some form of consensus. If you feel MSJG's removal of the TE user-right from Alakzi was done in violation of policy, WP:RFAR would be your venue to report such misuse of administrator tools. At least two other experienced admins/TEs have voiced opposition to the undoing of the permission removal. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I only see one other. Alakzi (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • MSGJ + Mr. Stradivarius = 2. I struck my mention of "other" above since MSGJ was also the one to remove the permission (and, incidentally, to initially add it). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • You've also forgotten to strike "at least". Alakzi (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Admins have no more voice in this than any other editor. And MSJG invited Alakzi to reapply ("of course you are welcome to... reapply at the usual page where it will be looked at by other administrators"), so WHEEL does not apply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • While I'm loathe to actually recommend the pomp and circumstance of ArbCom in what should be a fairly trivial matter, there is an important issue that apparently needs clarification here: Can an admin who unilaterally applies permissions against typical requirements unilaterally take them away? MSGJ appears to think the answer is yes, but that's not a trivial question, and it's one that there should be a clear answer to. ~ RobTalk 18:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • If permissions were more difficult to remove than they were to add then admins would be less inclinded to add them and this would have the effect of making getting the template editor rights more labourious. -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • The granting of permissions is in effect the lifting of certain restrictions on knowledgable and established editors in the community. Therefore, though the granting of permissions may appear unilateral, it is not; permissions are granted on the assumption that it is the will of the community that they be granted, and their revocation requires broader discussion and examination of the new circumstances. If we were to allow admins to unilaterally grant and revoke user rights, we'd be establishing bosses over the community. Alakzi (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as if we needed any more proof that Wikipedia is - in fact - a clique, who disregard non-members and continually test their patience, there's now this. Clearly, the clique have got no interest in regaining my trust or showing me even a semblance of respect. And the gullible ask for "assurances" that I wouldn't edit war on TE-protected pages, which I've never done. This is a shitshow. Alakzi (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are several reasons why it may have been inconclusive as opposed to unrelated - similar IP range, same ISP prehaps. I don't think cases where this happens are closed as "unrelated". Of course, telling you the exact reason might reveal methods or need non-public data to fully explain, which is why CU's are evasive. Mdann52 (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, as I have been gracious to reveal, me and Webdrone live in different countries and use different ISPs. We even use different browsers. Alakzi (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, is there any purpose to keeping this open, other than to find new ways to annoy me? Either give me the right back, or show me the door and be done with it. Alakzi (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mdann52

Recently, I've been asked to make edits to several protected templates, leading to successful edit requests. I feel I know the syntax well enough to be trusted with this tool, and have experience answering edit requests (eg. SPER).Mdann52 (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Categories
Table of Contents