User talk:Fetchcomms/Archive 26

h t u s m g

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Fetchcomms. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

RFA thanks

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No, no, it's been a long time since something's been broken beyond repair. Now would be a great time for the frosh to start brainstorming senior pranks. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Fetchcomms

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I love your talk page layout, your edit notice, and you use cool formatting on a lot of your userpages! Wishing I was in Coolopolis like you, yrtneg (talk · contribs) 17:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) /ƒETCH COMMS / 18:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hey Fetchcomms, in your comments on the discussion regarding a trial for tool apprenticeship, you made it clear that you're opposed to unbundling any of the tools for a trial run basically because you believe adminship should be "all or nothing" — in other words, if someone is trusted enough to be an admin, they get all the tools; if not, then they don't get any (I'm sorry if you feel I'm misrepresenting or misinterpreting your view points; I assure you it was not my intention). Speaking only for myself, I would love to have access to the delete button. I want to help out with maintenance work at AfD (i.e. closing debates) and CSD. However, I don't really have any interest in the block or protect buttons, at least not beyond deletion deates. In other words, I'm not so sure if I'd want to be an administrator, and even if I did, I'm too terrified of what would happen were I to apply for adminship. I know RfA quite well, and it can be brutal. People get opposed over very trivial things that they probably thought were non-issues going into the process. Personally, I'm worried that the community may not have as much confidence in my judgment as I'd like to think. But in my case, it doesn't really matter; the delete button would never be unbundled from the rest of the admin toolset (and I can certainly understand why that is; the deletion process often involves the use of other admin tools); however, I'm sure there are plenty of editors who would like to see the block button unbundled and granted to trustworthy non-admins, specifically people who have no interest in any of the other abilities that come along with sysop priviledges. In terms of benefits to Wikipedia, I think it would make AIV much more efficient.

I'm just curious what you think of allowing certain editors to attain blocking priviledges but would otherwise not request adminship — not because they aren't trusted enough, but because they're not really interested in being full-fledged administrators (or are otherwise terrified of applying at RfA). I'm sorry for posting such a long spiel, but I'm very interested in hearing what you have to say. I find you tend to have a very no bullshit perspective on things which I find interesting to read (even if I disagree entirely). Master&Expert (Talk) 06:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You underestimate the power of the block button. If someone proposed unbundling it for non-admins, there would be a shitstorm to end all shitstorms. Given that half the admins on AN/I don't know when it's not appropriate to block someone, I'd strongly suggest that anyone tempted to propose such a userright to run away.

My main argument regarding the delete rights is that if you don't also give someone the ability to undelete pages as well, the system becomes horribly inefficient. But there's so much private deleted content that didn't qualify for oversight that could still damage many people in real life.

Like the block button, the protect button tends to be misused (especially in disputes) and drama over it occurs regularly at AN/I and other places ... so giving this flag to more people is similarly insensible.

I'm curious as to how many users would qualify as absolutely competent to wield one of the three main buttons, but not the other two—if rights were unbundled, how many users would actually be able to use them with little or no controversy? I suspect that number can be counted on two hands, as most admins can't even do these things correctly.

/ƒETCH COMMS / 19:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) 'Scuse me butting in Fetch, but I just can't resist following all discussions concerning the current proposal to unbundle the tools ('Apprenticeship' is a just a euphemism).

@Master&Expert/: RfA can indeed be a brutal experience, but generally those who should pass do, and those who shouldn't don't. Being afraid of that process is not a reasonable rationale for unbundling, and if you're ' worried that the community may not have as much confidence in my judgment as I'd like to think ', that's the chance you'd have to take at RfA along with those of us who have done it, so why would the community trust you with only a few of the tools? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I just felt like if the tools were unbundled, the process for receiving one would not be so cumbersome. Cleary I was mistaken. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

AFAICS, there would still have to be some process of nomination, and I feel sure that this would attract the same kind of behaviour as RfA, so that's the main reason why I oppose this proposal. Other reasons are that as I have said many times: at RfA, those who are likely to pass do, and those who aren't, don't - the actual process is a fair one, but the trolls have turned it into a big deal. This suggestion to unbundle is really only a bandaid; It does not clearly address any serious current issues and is a solution looking for a problem. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I agree 100%. I've said it many times before — the process itself isn't broken, it's the mindset of the community. The reason I supported this proposal is because I didn't think it would be a bad idea to grant certain admin tools to trusted users, not as a means to "fix" RfA. As an aside, I'm not sure if I agree with Fetchcomms that half of the current admins don't know when a block is appropriate and when it's not. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, nobody is perfect. I've blocked a few myself but I don't think I've made any mistakes. I'm personally more worried about those who still don't understand CSD. Anyway, I think it's time to give Fetch his page back ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

consensus

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

It's well know that governments are sometimes very slow to fulfill their promises. The WMF quickly countered WP:ACTRIAL with some hurried but interesting proposals for solutions of their own. These ideas have not however received further development for several months. Good faith initiatives of members of the community to assist the WMF have also been taken out of the hands of the community and with the accompanying lack of communication. There have been serious issues of 'us vs. them' this year, and I'm wondering if a fresh attempt to get ACTRIAL implemented would be worth considering. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It is an annus horribilis for foundation-community relations --Guerillero | My Talk 15:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternative solutions, yes, but that doesn't negate the fact that consensus was clearly ignored. The WMF has plenty of ideas, but it is consistently poor at implementing or thinking them out. For example, the India Education Program that was a total flop (and if someone had asked me before spending thousands of dollars to generate copyvios, I would have immediately warned him or her of the problems that did actually emerge). /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The IEP is a classic example of a major WMF disaster, not to mention the waste of donators' funds and volunteers' time. In a normal corporate situation, I'm sure that some of those responsible would have been asked to leave. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; I've been writing N&N for the Signpost every now and then, and imho, the WMF talks about doing a whole lot of different things, but they're inefficient at implementing them. The biggest failure, in my opinion, is the utter failure of their 2009 plan to attract new editors; the population has continued to drop. I have an essay rolling through the presses on that. Sorry to talk page stalk; cheers, ResMar 05:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

--Kumioko (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Barnstarbob

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Earlier this year you blocked Barnstarbob for disruptive and tenditious editing. He is very much back up to his old tricks. I was wondering if you would consider either having a word or better still giving him another much lengthier block as clearly nothing has changed. Thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Bring it up at AN/I. I'd like another admin opinion as I've already been involved in this dispute. /ƒETCH COMMS / 22:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm off to bed but I'll ping ebikeguy. Thanks for the speedy response. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No reverts from him since my final warning. I'll keep an eye on him and, with regret and sadness, file at AN/I if it comes to that. I hope it doesn't. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Redesign?

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I saw your work on the main page of the 2012 Wikimania wiki. wikimediafoundation.org has had the same (dated) main page for quite some time. Would you be interested in putting together a better design? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I would. Is anything particular desired, or should I just come up with something first? /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've talked with Jay about this a few times. It's been on his to-do list for quite some time now. The idea is that it should look fresher/cleaner, obviously, but the larger (and more challenging) idea is that there will be some kind of unified theme for the site that can be adapted to other pages. A pretty main page is great; a pretty site is better, right? I've personally long been in favor of redoing some other pages like wmf:Benefactors (which I think is horribly ugly currently). There are dragons lying around some pages like that, though. Better to start with the main page and work out from there. There are undoubtedly all sorts of other pages on the site that could use some love.

If you have ideas for something that would work well, throw it in a sandbox somewhere. You may also want to throw a note at m:Request for an account on the Foundation wiki if you think it'd be helpful to have an account. (I would just create one for you, but then I get privately admonished. Or I used to, at least.) I'll ping Jay about this thread as well. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to have something up before the end of the weekend. /ƒETCH COMMS / 04:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Fetchcomms/s. Remind me to do something about that benefactors page. /ƒETCH COMMS / 04:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

	Happy holidays
	From one Wikipedian to another, I would like to wish you happy holidays and happy new year! -- Luke (Talk) 17:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hello, Fetchcomms. You have new messages at Swarm's talk page.
Message added 20:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Swarm ^X 20:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The new "Thank you" page

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

....for the fundraiser. Is that your doing? If so.... awesome. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. MZMcBride made it flow better than my original design, so he deserves credit, too. :) /ƒETCH COMMS / 16:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

He credits you, and you credit him... so I'll assign equal credit to both of you! Great job. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially begins at the start of 2012 (UTC) after which time you may begin to claim points. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Fetchcomms. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←