User talk:Locke Cole
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Re:Retirement
The block was lifted once more information came to light. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Retirement_and_review_of_unblock_declines as to the way the block was handled. Please consider unretiring and/or commenting there. MBisanz talk 04:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I will comment there and at any arbitration which results from this incident. Special:EmailUser/Locke Cole works for contacting me if there's something else that's needed and I'm not around. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Bot policy
You're citing a poll as your reason for edit warring, but it's almost a month old and didn't have a supermassivley strong consensus anyways.
I think starting a new discussion first is a good idea. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually there was fairly strong consensus that the original method lacked consensus, and the age of the poll is irrelevant if there's no indication the community has changed their mind (which there isn't). Just because it continues to be used (which goes to show the disconnect between the BAG and the community) doesn't mean we document it as the community approved method on an official policy page. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe you're right. The thing is, some people would rather not discuss this, and would rather you silenced. I'd rather not. I'd rather we get a sustainable policy that people can agree on. So even if you think you're right (and maybe you are, I'm not saying you aren't), I think it better if you concede the point and restart the discussion. And if you're right, the consensus in the discussion will point to your version. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- We've been down that road twice now I believe, and both times discussion stalls and eventually someone (usually Betacommand, incidentally) comes along and attempts to restore the status quo hoping people will forget there was a big disagreement over that method. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe you're right. The thing is, some people would rather not discuss this, and would rather you silenced. I'd rather not. I'd rather we get a sustainable policy that people can agree on. So even if you think you're right (and maybe you are, I'm not saying you aren't), I think it better if you concede the point and restart the discussion. And if you're right, the consensus in the discussion will point to your version. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I feel it's only appropriate that I notify you, I have reported you to the 3RR noticeboard. See this section for more information. SQLQuery me! 06:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Technically I didn't violate 3RR, my last revert was over 24 hours after the first (it doesn't help that your diffs are out of order too). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Locke, I didn't exactly see you discussing this on WT:BOT. What would satisfy you other than something transcluded at WP:RFA? Gimmetrow 07:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have discussed it, and since talking to ones self gets old, I've opted to go with the last thing that had consensus (specifically that nothing has consensus). Also, just because I favor RFA-style discussions doesn't mean something else can't gain consensus (afterall, it would be fairly silly to presume that I alone control what has and doesn't have consensus; if enough people agree to something else, what choice do I have, really?). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- WP:MfD. But I'd seriously try and talk some more before going down that route, and you personally opening that debate might make some people very sore indeed. My view is that there have been changes in WP:BAG. It might not look like it from the outside, but I suspect things have changed. I think the fallout from the Betacommand stuff made some people see sense. Finally, don't make WP:BAG out to be more powerful than they are. The wider community will see if things start going wrong. Just keep an eye on things and wait and see if the actual actions of WP:BAG (the bots it approves and the actions it takes if there are problems with bots) meets your standards. Try and move on from the past, and judge BAG by its actions, not by who got elected to be in it, or who is still part of it or not. Will you try that? Be a constructive critic and not an edit warrior on the policy page? Carcharoth (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ugh... they have no consensus for their approval method. None at all. And yet they insist on continuing on like nothing has changed and the situation is as it was, which is wrong. Tell me you at least see that? Look at WT:BOT, there's a nice poll there that's pretty much SQL vs. everyone else in saying that their original method has consensus (more telling is his opinion states that it "obviously" has consensus, and yet he's the only one who seemed to think so). Ironically, the new RFA-style method had a majority of support, but not what I'd call clear consensus (not as clear as the question regarding whether the old method has consensus). So tell me, why are BAG members repeatedly ignoring this straw poll and inserting what they obviously prefer? Why is BAG continuing to use this method which clearly has no support at all? Why are 'crats promoting BAG members using this method when it clearly has no real support whatsoever? SQL and Betacommand are stonewalling this, and it needs to stop. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, but when there is a deadlock, try something else. Start another talk page discussion and suggest a different wording, a compromise. I know you are frustrated that the talk page discussions don't seem to have got anywhere, but read through them and summarise them. A solution might emerge. Regardless of that, edit warring never achieved anything. Don't let other editors bait you into edit warring. The more you edit war, the more people will lose respect for you and what you are trying to say. This has been going on for months now and it has to stop. Eventually, someone will throw the book at you, and it will be hard to defend what you have been doing. Carcharoth (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- But it'll be easy to defend what Betacommand and SQL have been doing? There's no deadlock on the talk page: one person (SQL!) says there's consensus for the old method while a rather sizable group all say there isn't. Two guys edit warring to keep their preferred method in place over the opposition of other editors only stifles discussion, it doesn't encourage it. If anyone throws the book at me, it definitely won't be because I was trying to force my point of view as it's not just my view. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is that edit warring will not make people listen to you. I can't put it any simpler than that. I wish people would listen to you more, but edit warring is not the way to do it. Carcharoth (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- But it'll be easy to defend what Betacommand and SQL have been doing? There's no deadlock on the talk page: one person (SQL!) says there's consensus for the old method while a rather sizable group all say there isn't. Two guys edit warring to keep their preferred method in place over the opposition of other editors only stifles discussion, it doesn't encourage it. If anyone throws the book at me, it definitely won't be because I was trying to force my point of view as it's not just my view. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, but when there is a deadlock, try something else. Start another talk page discussion and suggest a different wording, a compromise. I know you are frustrated that the talk page discussions don't seem to have got anywhere, but read through them and summarise them. A solution might emerge. Regardless of that, edit warring never achieved anything. Don't let other editors bait you into edit warring. The more you edit war, the more people will lose respect for you and what you are trying to say. This has been going on for months now and it has to stop. Eventually, someone will throw the book at you, and it will be hard to defend what you have been doing. Carcharoth (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ugh... they have no consensus for their approval method. None at all. And yet they insist on continuing on like nothing has changed and the situation is as it was, which is wrong. Tell me you at least see that? Look at WT:BOT, there's a nice poll there that's pretty much SQL vs. everyone else in saying that their original method has consensus (more telling is his opinion states that it "obviously" has consensus, and yet he's the only one who seemed to think so). Ironically, the new RFA-style method had a majority of support, but not what I'd call clear consensus (not as clear as the question regarding whether the old method has consensus). So tell me, why are BAG members repeatedly ignoring this straw poll and inserting what they obviously prefer? Why is BAG continuing to use this method which clearly has no support at all? Why are 'crats promoting BAG members using this method when it clearly has no real support whatsoever? SQL and Betacommand are stonewalling this, and it needs to stop. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- WP:MfD. But I'd seriously try and talk some more before going down that route, and you personally opening that debate might make some people very sore indeed. My view is that there have been changes in WP:BAG. It might not look like it from the outside, but I suspect things have changed. I think the fallout from the Betacommand stuff made some people see sense. Finally, don't make WP:BAG out to be more powerful than they are. The wider community will see if things start going wrong. Just keep an eye on things and wait and see if the actual actions of WP:BAG (the bots it approves and the actions it takes if there are problems with bots) meets your standards. Try and move on from the past, and judge BAG by its actions, not by who got elected to be in it, or who is still part of it or not. Will you try that? Be a constructive critic and not an edit warrior on the policy page? Carcharoth (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Blocked for 3RR on WP:BOTS
I've blocked both you and Betacommand for 24 hours for edit-warring on WP:BOTS. — Werdna talk 06:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] BAG again
Cut the mindless reverting or you'll be reported. You failed to address the concerns that I raised in the edit summary of my undoing of your edit. You were just unblocked, and you're already edit warring again. Can you just report yourself to ANI to save me the trouble? - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] June 2008
- It really shouldn't be possible to "edit war" with people who ignore consensus, but have it your way, the consensus ignorers win again. Thanks for letting me know it was June, BTW. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- And FYI, there was no edit war at WP:BAG, the edit war I was blocked for the first time was WP:BOT. They decided to start a new edit war at WP:BAG over a tag of all things, but again... let's ignore consensus, we don't need that on Wikipedia. Better to let the small group willing to edit war to get their way have their way. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group (3rd nomination)
There are better ways of resolving problems with the BAG, such as WP:CENT. The current looks of the MFD is a 9-0 tally (excluding the nominators), and I would just speedy keep this one per WP:BOLD and WP:SNOW, but there are multiple requests on the page to let it run longer. Please let me know if you still object to it being closed early. Useight (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- We've tried RFC and it didn't really gain any additional input from outsiders. MFD is, to me, a last ditch attempt to gain some more input (as you can see from the edit history, it had three keep votes before it was even placed on the main MFD page, indicating to me at least that many folks were following this (or my contribs) to "stack the deck"). But yes, I would object to a speedy close/keep, especially considering I'm no longer able to provide any response or input to try and convince people this needs to be deleted (or at least suspended/marked historical, as I proposed). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Bah. Too much excitement over something this trivial. Well when you get off this latest block, PLEASE do not start doing the same edits on WP:BOT and WP:BAG. To start with, why exactly do you want the method of selecting BAG members changed? Gimmetrow 08:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
