| Revision as of 18:48, 18 August 2012 view sourceKevin Gorman (talk | contribs)12,000 edits →Re: Men's rights: an uninvolved editor to judge consensus is needed; an uninvolved editor to make content decisions isn't (and isn't an uninvolved editor if they do.)← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:41, 19 August 2012 view source Noetica (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,370 edits →ArbCom request: Men's rights, WP:TITLE, User:KillerChihuahua: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
| :You're confusing RM procedures, which are outlined in detail, with other moves, which are not. Secondly, I was asked to judge the Rfc, not move the article - they are two different things outside RMland, so I "lived up to" my responsibility just fine, thank you. Thirdly, the deletion process is '''admin only''' so the procedures are necessarily more formal and structured than moves, which any editor can do. Trying to apply deletion standards to moves is simply not appropriate. They are fundamentally different. And lastly, no one objected to the snowball move decision except ] which you insist does not even exist; there was one very weak oppose in which the lone opposer actually agreed with the rationale for the move; the discussion ran for over a month, so the editors of that page had absolutely no reason to think the move would be controversial at all. The previous RM was during a time when we had a mass influx of Reddit/men's rights meatpuppets, here specifically to edit war. As they are all gone, most of them indef'd, there was no reason to think there would be any issue at all with this rename. In short, they would have gone RM if they'd thought there would be any issues. An issue arrived ''ex post facto'', and you're treating it as though it is their fault their crystal balls didn't work. I find this badgering of good faith editors disturbing. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC) | :You're confusing RM procedures, which are outlined in detail, with other moves, which are not. Secondly, I was asked to judge the Rfc, not move the article - they are two different things outside RMland, so I "lived up to" my responsibility just fine, thank you. Thirdly, the deletion process is '''admin only''' so the procedures are necessarily more formal and structured than moves, which any editor can do. Trying to apply deletion standards to moves is simply not appropriate. They are fundamentally different. And lastly, no one objected to the snowball move decision except ] which you insist does not even exist; there was one very weak oppose in which the lone opposer actually agreed with the rationale for the move; the discussion ran for over a month, so the editors of that page had absolutely no reason to think the move would be controversial at all. The previous RM was during a time when we had a mass influx of Reddit/men's rights meatpuppets, here specifically to edit war. As they are all gone, most of them indef'd, there was no reason to think there would be any issue at all with this rename. In short, they would have gone RM if they'd thought there would be any issues. An issue arrived ''ex post facto'', and you're treating it as though it is their fault their crystal balls didn't work. I find this badgering of good faith editors disturbing. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
| There's a strong reason to have an uninvolved editor find the balance of consensus of a controversial discussion. There's not an equally strong reason to require that uninvolved closer to handle the mechanics of moving a page immediately upon closing a discussion. And there's a strong reason not to do so in any situation where implementing the close in a way that makes sense requires making decisions about content, as in this case. In pretty much any other situation it would be considered strongly inappropriate for someone who just closed a contentious discussion as an uninvolved editor to jump in and start making content decisions immediately after, and I see no reason for this type of situation to be different. ] (]) 18:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC) | There's a strong reason to have an uninvolved editor find the balance of consensus of a controversial discussion. There's not an equally strong reason to require that uninvolved closer to handle the mechanics of moving a page immediately upon closing a discussion. And there's a strong reason not to do so in any situation where implementing the close in a way that makes sense requires making decisions about content, as in this case. In pretty much any other situation it would be considered strongly inappropriate for someone who just closed a contentious discussion as an uninvolved editor to jump in and start making content decisions immediately after, and I see no reason for this type of situation to be different. ] (]) 18:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == ArbCom request: Men's rights, WP:TITLE, User:KillerChihuahua == | |||
| You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— | |||
| * ]; | |||
| * ]. | |||
| Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> | |||
| <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:41, 19 August 2012
San Francisco Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon
| San Francisco Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon! Who should come? You should. Really. | |
|---|---|
|
We look forward to seeing you there! |
Saturday - and we need your help!
| San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2! See you there | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
EduWiki Conference 5-6 September in Leicester, UK
I am writing to you as you have signed up to the Education Meetup at Wikimania 2012 and perhaps are interested in how Misplaced Pages links to education. Wikimedia UK is now running a education related event that may be of interest to you: the EduWiki Conference on 5-6 September in Leicester. This event will be looking at Misplaced Pages and related charitable projects in terms of educational practice, including good faith collaboration, open review, and global participation. It's a chance to talk about innovative work in your institution or online community, and shape the future of Wikimedia UK's work in this area!
The conference will be of interest to educators, scholarly societies members, contributors to Misplaced Pages and other open education projects, and students.
For details please visit the UK Chapter Wiki.
Please feel welcome to register or promote within your network.
Thank you, Daria Cybulska (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The Tea Leaf - Issue Five
Hi! Welcome to the fifth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
- Guest activity increased in July. Questions are up from an average of 36 per week in June to 43 per week in July, and guest profile creation has also increased. This is likely a result of the automatic invite experiments we started near the end of month, which seeks to lessen the burden on hosts and other volunteers who manually invite editors. During the last week of July, questions doubled in the Teahouse! (But don't let that deter you from inviting editors to the Teahouse, please, there are still lots of new editors who haven't found Teahouse yet.)
- More Teahouse hosts than ever. We had 12 new hosts sign up to participate at the Teahouse! We now have 35 hosts volunteering at the Teahouse. Feel free to stop by and see them all here.
- Phase two update: Host sprint. In August, the Teahouse team plans to improve the host experience by developing a simpler new-host creation process, a better way of surfacing active hosts, and a host lounge renovation. Take a look at the plan and weigh in here.
- New Teahouse guest barnstar is awarded to first recipient: Charlie Inks. Using the Teahouse barnstar designed by Heatherawalls, hosts hajatvrc and Ryan Vesey created the new Teahouse Guest Barnstar. The first recipient is Charlie Inks, for her boldness in asking questions at the Teahouse. Check out the award in action here.
- Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania! The Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania this past month, where editor retention and interface design was heavily discussed. Sarah and Jonathan presented the Teahouse during the Wikimedia Fellowships panel. Slides can be viewed here. A lunch was also held at Wikimania for Teahouse hosts.
As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Action at WP:ANI
Hi Kevin. Please note this action at WP:ANI, in which you have been named.
Best wishes,
Noetica 12:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Kevin. As you know, the action was completed at WP:ANI. (I have updated the link above, since the section is now archived.) I am grateful to you for advertising a deadline after which you would take things forward; but 24 hours (in particular, that 24 hour period) was very difficult for me to meet. May I ask: having pushed for the matter to go quickly to ANI, why did you not make a contribution there? I laid everything out from my point of view, hoping for your response and for an opportunity to respond in turn. I stayed with the thread till well after midnight (in Eastern Australia), but could then wait no longer.
- Best wishes,
- Noetica 01:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- I looked at it a few hours after it was posted intending to reply later, but by the time I was free to respond it had already been closed by Bushranger.
- I'm sorry if you felt pressured by me trying to set a deadline. There was nothing particularly special about 24 hours to me, I just didn't want forward progress on the page to be indefinitely held up by a threatened ANI action in the wake of a thirty four day long RfC. I probably should have just said "please proceed to ANI at your earliest convenience if you intend to do so, otherwise, please just drop the issue," and will do so if somehow I'm in a similar situation in the future.
- If I had replied to it before it had been closed, I wouldn't have said anything that hadn't been said in it already. I don't think I would've brought up any novel points, the other posters in the thread summed up how I felt nicely: KC accurately judged that consensus to move the page existed after an adequate process. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
This Month in Education: August 2012
update your subscription · Distributed via Global message delivery, 18:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)My new project - WWC
Hi Kevin! I hope all is well. I wanted to stop by to share a new project with you that I am developing, called the WikiWomen's Collaborative. I would love your input about the project.
- You can find the project page here.
- On the talk page, you'll find a number of questions I'm seeking input on. I'm especially seeking thoughts about hosting the space off of Misplaced Pages (in the WordPress section). I hope you will join in on the conversation.
- Finally, this project will be developed with volunteers from around the world who want to engage and support bringing new women to Misplaced Pages. If you think you'd like to be involved in some capacity, that'd be awesome. We're still working on developing roles, but, you can learn more about volunteer opportunities here.
Thank you for the consideration and I hope you'll participate in developing this exciting new project to bring more women to Misplaced Pages! SarahStierch (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Re: Men's rights
Kevin, thanks for the explanations but in fact they highlight my biggest concern about making controversial title changes outside the RM process. The biggest concern is that outside RM and more specifically WP:RMCI we run the risk of poorly made moves that screw things up and cause a lot of unneccessary work after the fact, not only technically, but from a title policy standpoint as well. WP:RMCI has pretty clear guidance on the balance of consensus and title policy, the responsibilities of the closer assess that balance, make a decision and to do all the cleanup after the move. Additionally, this section of RMCI Conflicts of interest is clear on the need for uninvolved Admins to make the close and do the clean-up work. In your explanation, you're suggesting that involved admins help make the move. I was never suggesting that KC did anything wrong, however if you applied the standards in WP:RMCI to the close, she didn't live up to the closer's responsibility. We don't make deletion decisions outside the established 3 tier deletion process--CSD, PROD and AfD. Why should we make controversial title decisions outside a long-standing RM process? No body has yet to explain that rationally. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- You're confusing RM procedures, which are outlined in detail, with other moves, which are not. Secondly, I was asked to judge the Rfc, not move the article - they are two different things outside RMland, so I "lived up to" my responsibility just fine, thank you. Thirdly, the deletion process is admin only so the procedures are necessarily more formal and structured than moves, which any editor can do. Trying to apply deletion standards to moves is simply not appropriate. They are fundamentally different. And lastly, no one objected to the snowball move decision except on a fine technicality which you insist does not even exist; there was one very weak oppose in which the lone opposer actually agreed with the rationale for the move; the discussion ran for over a month, so the editors of that page had absolutely no reason to think the move would be controversial at all. The previous RM was during a time when we had a mass influx of Reddit/men's rights meatpuppets, here specifically to edit war. As they are all gone, most of them indef'd, there was no reason to think there would be any issue at all with this rename. In short, they would have gone RM if they'd thought there would be any issues. An issue arrived ex post facto, and you're treating it as though it is their fault their crystal balls didn't work. I find this badgering of good faith editors disturbing. KillerChihuahua 17:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
There's a strong reason to have an uninvolved editor find the balance of consensus of a controversial discussion. There's not an equally strong reason to require that uninvolved closer to handle the mechanics of moving a page immediately upon closing a discussion. And there's a strong reason not to do so in any situation where implementing the close in a way that makes sense requires making decisions about content, as in this case. In pretty much any other situation it would be considered strongly inappropriate for someone who just closed a contentious discussion as an uninvolved editor to jump in and start making content decisions immediately after, and I see no reason for this type of situation to be different. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
ArbCom request: Men's rights, WP:TITLE, User:KillerChihuahua
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Men's rights, WP:TITLE, User:KillerChihuahua and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,
Noetica 03:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)