Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Discussion
I've had enough of this whole business! I do not appreciate having rugs pulled out from under me without discussion. (And, no, comments made in IRC, which I do not use and should be considered outside of Wikipedia, are not discussion!) I do not appreciate the attitudes expressed by the various admins on this subject.
It's obvious that anyone who disagrees with the admins is no longer welcome here.
This is my last contribution to Wikipedia, other than editing my user page one final time and (possibly) requesting that my account be speedily deleted. --Joe Sewell 21:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's obvious that anyone who disagrees with the admins is no longer welcome here. Wait, wait... there are several admins who expressly disagree with the course of action taken by some other admins. I myself am an admin and I endorsed here; others include Nandesuka, ClockworkSoul, Sjakkalle, Radiant! etc. Although there have been some highly inappropriate wheel wars and blocks, this is not simply a case of "the admins" against "the other users". — mark ✎ 22:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think his comment would make a lot more sense if he, instead of "admins" used "elites". -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that distinction is helpful either. There is no 'elite' class of admins. I think Karmafist's assessment of the situation is most on the spot here. — mark ✎ 13:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think the issue is it has left so many people feeling so powerless and detached - and how can the average user take action against them, because it seems they just get blocked for trying... Ian13ID:540053 16:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Precisely, Ian! As I see it, any single admin can, as of this point, do whatever he or she wishes to do without regard to process, which I consider to be a "contract" between those in charge of Wikipedia and those of us who use it. Two or three admins have chosen to override this one particular area, presumably with Jim Wales' OK. As it now stands, admin A could vandalize my user page, admin B could block admin A, admin C could delete my account, admin D could erase all my contributions ... all without even any knowledge on my part! I recognize that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but I signed on with certain assumptions about how admins would handle things. This pact has been violated without any recourse from non-admins such as myself.
Even Kelly Martin's RFC has been stripped of all comments, with an inordinately rude statement that no comments would be accepted. (So why make the request? After all, it's obvious that the individuals involved don't care about correct procedure!)No, until and unless Jim Wales himself cans these admins, lays down the law on what's allowed and what's not, and apologizes for the whole stupid incident, I no longer feel welcome here at all. --Joe Sewell 21:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)- I don't think it is accurate to say that Kelly's RfC has been stripped of comments. While Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin is being edited to try to maintain some structure, some reasoned presentation of the facts and opinions in the matter, the original one Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin/original is prominently linked at the very top of the current one, and people continue to comment there. Nothing has been stripped. But the original was felt by many (including myself and many many others that feel Kelly and Phil and Tony acted in good faith but without regard to consensus or without regard to the consequences) to be turning into a pitchfork party. I think you may be making an unfair characterisation of the effort (which is a thankless task but which I nevertheless want to thank User: Philwelch and others for having tried very hard to do). While I want to express my dismay, I also want to remain WP:CIVIL and I want everyone else to want that too. IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 01:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- I guess I caught an early edit of it, or misread it; I don't recall User:Philwelch being mentioned in the version I saw. I've stricken that portion of my earlier comment, but the remainder stands. I continue to feel unwelcome because of these actions and lack of repentance over them. --Joe Sewell 18:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it is accurate to say that Kelly's RfC has been stripped of comments. While Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin is being edited to try to maintain some structure, some reasoned presentation of the facts and opinions in the matter, the original one Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin/original is prominently linked at the very top of the current one, and people continue to comment there. Nothing has been stripped. But the original was felt by many (including myself and many many others that feel Kelly and Phil and Tony acted in good faith but without regard to consensus or without regard to the consequences) to be turning into a pitchfork party. I think you may be making an unfair characterisation of the effort (which is a thankless task but which I nevertheless want to thank User: Philwelch and others for having tried very hard to do). While I want to express my dismay, I also want to remain WP:CIVIL and I want everyone else to want that too. IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 01:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Precisely, Ian! As I see it, any single admin can, as of this point, do whatever he or she wishes to do without regard to process, which I consider to be a "contract" between those in charge of Wikipedia and those of us who use it. Two or three admins have chosen to override this one particular area, presumably with Jim Wales' OK. As it now stands, admin A could vandalize my user page, admin B could block admin A, admin C could delete my account, admin D could erase all my contributions ... all without even any knowledge on my part! I recognize that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but I signed on with certain assumptions about how admins would handle things. This pact has been violated without any recourse from non-admins such as myself.
- I think the issue is it has left so many people feeling so powerless and detached - and how can the average user take action against them, because it seems they just get blocked for trying... Ian13ID:540053 16:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that distinction is helpful either. There is no 'elite' class of admins. I think Karmafist's assessment of the situation is most on the spot here. — mark ✎ 13:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think his comment would make a lot more sense if he, instead of "admins" used "elites". -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, fighting over templates is dumb. Merecat 06:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
