Content deleted Content added
El Sandifer (talk | contribs) |
Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) →Kelly Martin's RFA: More bullying and wankery. Removed. |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
==Proposal== |
==Proposal== |
||
'''Published claims by experts on claims they are recognized as experts on are citable by Wikipedia regardless of the otherwise unreliable nature of the publication (eg blog, Usenet) so long as there is no serious question as to expertise (eg bias) or authorship (eg site is a wiki).''' is proposed at [[Wikipedia talk:No original research#Proposal : Recognized expertise trumps other claims]]. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] 04:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
'''Published claims by experts on claims they are recognized as experts on are citable by Wikipedia regardless of the otherwise unreliable nature of the publication (eg blog, Usenet) so long as there is no serious question as to expertise (eg bias) or authorship (eg site is a wiki).''' is proposed at [[Wikipedia talk:No original research#Proposal : Recognized expertise trumps other claims]]. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] 04:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Kelly Martin's RFA == |
|||
Phil, I had requested you to explain [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APhil_Sandifer&diff=161722355&oldid=161721019] and your response was to simply remove the content [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APhil_Sandifer&diff=161725572&oldid=161722506] why you reverted a bureaucrat's closure of an RFA, (a procedure which has the community's mandate as being final). Please keep in mind that this is considered to be a disruption to the RFA process and can fetch a strong reprimand if repeated again. Regards, [[user:Nichalp|<font color="#0082B8">=Nichalp</font>]] [[User Talk:Nichalp|<font color="#0082B8">«Talk»=</font>]] 14:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I thought my explanation when I did it was clear enough. What part of it was unclear to you? [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 16:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::You've explained your disagreement with the closure quite clearly. You haven't explained what (you believed) gave you the authority to overrule it. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 16:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well, there was this link at the bottom of the RFA that said "edit this page..." [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 16:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Sarcasm is not helpful. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 16:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Nor is it present. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 16:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::What label would you prefer? "Evasion"? —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 16:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I'm not evading. What gave me the authority to re-open ("overrule" is, I think, a misleading word in that it suggests that my re-opening was in some sense intended as a ruling) was the fact that it was an unprotected page on a wiki, and I was acting in good faith and with a sincere belief that my edits to the page helped the project. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 16:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::So it's okay for anyone who sincerely disagrees with a bureaucrat's RfA closure to unilaterally toss out the result? —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::You do have my basic sense of things summarized, yes. I wouldn't use the same phrasing, but yes. Note, in particular, that this is not equivalent to the claim "it's okay for anyone who sincerely disagrees with a bureaucrat's RfA closure to edit war." Nor is it OK to misuse powers - whether admin, bureaucrat, steward, or developer - in the course of that disagreement. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 16:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::You'll find little support for such a philosophy. Even the bureaucrats aren't supposed to undo each other's RfA closures without first conferring with other bureaucrats (the users entrusted with this responsibility by the community). |
|||
::::::::::Under your preferred system, how would an RfA's outcome ever be regarded as binding? —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 16:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::We have a number of systems by which continuing disputes can be resolved. In this case, since the RFA remained closed, it appears to be the case that few were on my side of the debate, and, not being one to edit war on something like this, I yielded to apparent consensus. Had others also reverted the closure, I imagine the first thing to do would have been to wait for the standard amount of time to pass, which would have, at least, addressed the bulk of objections to closure. In the event of continued dispute, a wider discussion among bureaucrats or, in the most extreme case, an arbcom ruling might have been necessary. All of which seem to me, in the event of a closure that actually is so contenious that multiple editors attempt to overturn it, appropriate recourses. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 17:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::That doesn't really address the principles involved. If, for example, this were to reach the ArbCom, what would make ''their'' decision binding? What if you (or another editor acting in good faith) sincerely disagreed with it? Would it be okay to disregard it? —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 17:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::At the end of the day, nothing protects us from complete community revolt. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 17:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::That doesn't answer my question. Is it okay to disregard an ArbCom ruling? Do you advocate anarchy? —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 17:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Did it occur to you to discuss the situation (and establish consensus) ''before'' undoing a bureaucrat's RfA closure? —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 17:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::I thought about it, but decided, on the whole, that the mildly more forceful action was appropriate. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 17:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::I'm fairly certain that the community views the unilateral reversion of a bureaucrat's RfA closure as quite a bit more than "mildly more forceful," and I have difficulty believing that you weren't aware of this at the time (let alone now). —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 17:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Also, why did you refer to Nichalp's closure as an application of [[WP:SNOW]]? And what led you to believe that your action would in any way benefit the community? —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 16:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Because otherwise it was a premature closure that went beyond what is customary for bureaucrats. As for how it benefited the community, Kelly is a former arbitrator and a long-standing community member. She was nominated by three users in good standing, one of whom is a former Foundation employee. Seeing no bad faith in her acceptance or in any of the nominees nomination, I felt that courteous deference to Kelly's stated wish for the RFA to continue was in the interests of a respectful and civil community. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 16:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::The "[[Wikipedia:Snowball clause|snowball clause]]" refers to instances of [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules|ignoring rules]]. Quoth [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]]: ''"Bureaucrats may also use their discretion to close nominations early, if a promotion is unlikely and they see no further benefit in leaving the application open."'' |
|||
::::::::::I'm not here to debate the wisdom of Nichalp's closure (and I'm not certain that I agree with it). Whether it was correct or incorrect, there was absolutely no realistic possibility of your reversion accomplishing anything beneficial. Furthermore, for someone seeking to uphold respect for a longstanding community member, you demonstrated remarkably little for Nichalp. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 16:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::I disagreed with his actions, said so, and used a single revert to undo them. That is not remarkable disrespect - it's business as usual. I do not dispute his right to close the nomination either - he was within his rights to close. I was within my rights to click "edit this page" and make a good faith edit. Everybody wins. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 17:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::: The bureaucrats are users explicitly entrusted with this responsibility by the community. You and I are not. While not your intention, undoing Nichalp's closure conveyed disrespect to Nichalp and the community. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 17:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::I do not read it that way. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 17:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::That's what troubles me. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 17:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Again, why did you refer to Nichalp's closure as an application of [[WP:SNOW]] (which meant that it contradicted policy)? —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 17:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::Because, in basic principle, it was? [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 17:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::How did Nichalp's closure contradict policy? —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 17:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::How respectful was it to Nichalp to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Phil_Sandifer&diff=161725572&oldid=161722506 blank his query] in this matter? ([[User:Until(1 == 2)|(<font color="blue">1 <font color="maroon">==</font> 2</font>)]] ? ([[User talk:Until(1 == 2)|('<font color="maroon">Stop</font>') : ('<font color="Green">Go</font>')]]) 17:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::I continue to think my initial explanation covered everything. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 17:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::Your initial explanation covered your disagreement with Nichalp's closure. It did ''not'' cover your belief that you possessed the authority to unilaterally overrule it (or however you wish to label your action). —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 17:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Done here, btw, unless somebody actually finds some new aspect of the situation they want me to explain. At this point, I think I've explained myself fully. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 17:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:That's the problem! Who do you think you are? You have not explained yourself fully at all. I don't know how you got the powers you have, but they should be taken from you. Your poor judgement, arrogance, powertripping and dismissive attitudes hurts this project. [[User:Jeeny|Jeeny]] 22:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I wouldn't go so far as that, and I'm not trying to be offensive or uncivil. But I agree with David Levy above that you should not have reverted Nichalp's closure. Not that I think bureaucrats are somehow "special" or that they can't be "overruled"; indeed I've spent much of my recent time at WT:RFA opposing exactly that notion. However, it was basic common sense to close Kelly Martin's RfA early. It was never going to pass (if it had, I would certainly have left the project). And there's nothing in policy or precedent that suggests a "right" for a user to keep an RfA open as long as they wish; indeed, we regularly speedy-close nominations which have no chance of passing. Leaving aside the question of the privileges of bureaucrats, I don't think you did the right thing (and I hope we can discuss this civilly and calmly). [[User:Walton One|Walton]]<sup>[[User talk:Walton One|One]]</sup> 22:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Sure. And, I mean, I don't take my action to have been immutable and irreversable. I do think that Kelly is... overly condemned. And that people who are otherwise reasonable stop being so when it comes to her. I hoped that the RFA would provide an opportunity for people to budge a bit. And I thought, in particular, that it genuinely seemed like Kelly was looking for that. So I thought the good faith effort of leaving it open per her wishes was worth it. Enough to state thjat opinion forcefully. Not enough to edit war. I think my actions were provocative, bold, and I expected controversial. But I do not think they were inappropriate. I think they were something a reasonable person could disagree with, but I am honestly shocked to see so many people condemn them as completely unacceptable on the face of it. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 01:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:38, 3 October 2007
Talk page is semi-protected for a bit due to repeated vandalism by an IP. Sorry to any IPs with, you know, legitimate concerns.
Proposal
Published claims by experts on claims they are recognized as experts on are citable by Wikipedia regardless of the otherwise unreliable nature of the publication (eg blog, Usenet) so long as there is no serious question as to expertise (eg bias) or authorship (eg site is a wiki). is proposed at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Proposal : Recognized expertise trumps other claims. WAS 4.250 04:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)