User talk:Richwales/Archives/2016-01
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Richwales in topic Q
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Guild of Copy Editors 2015 End of Year Report
Guild of Copy Editors 2015 End of Year Report
 Our 2015 End of Year Report is now ready for review.
Highlights:
– Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by Jonesey95 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
|
Regarding this SPI
Hello Richwales,
Can I ask why you closed this SPI even though no moderator has evaluated its extensively provided evidence yet? Bbb23 himself told it still needs to be looked at, for no one has done so as of yet. I didn't need to comment on it anymore as I think did my job; I provided 50 compelling diffs and linked the users clearly. I was merely just waiting all the time for some SPI staff to at last evaluate it all, yet nothing regarding that has been done yet unfortunately, through the entire period. Upon recommendation, is there any possibility that you could evaluate it? :-) I know it's some effort, but I can guarantee for 110% that those accounts are linked, based on that material. Or if you happen not to be able to, could you at least please leave it open until it gets evaluated? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 09:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Q
Hey Rich, happy new year to you!
I am interested if the discussion platform we agreed still stands? Would we have it any time soon? Thanks. Jaqeli 00:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Jaqeli. May I assume here that you are referring to the discussion now archived at User talk:Richwales/Archives/2015-07? I basically left it in your hands (and FactStraight's hands) to agree on a mutually acceptable article or project talk page where a discussion could involve a lot of people and lead to an informed consensus. Did this ever happen? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- No it didn't. We are waiting for you to organize this discussion. You've told me to be patient and that you would organize it so I am waiting for this discussion to be organized by you. Jaqeli 17:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think we may have a misunderstanding here. I said I would "see if there is anything I can do", and what I came up with was a recommendation that you and FactStraight was that you start discussing your concerns at Talk:Georgian monarchs family tree of Bagrationi dynasty. You counter-proposed Talk:Georgian monarchs family tree of Bagrationi dynasty of Kartli. I asked FactStraight what he thought; he didn't directly address the question of which talk page would be the best forum to host a discussion, but he seemed concerned that you were expecting any new process to be a punitive measure which would impose your version of the article and marginalize or suppress his views. I didn't see any further comments from either of you, so I assumed the two of you (Jaqeli and FactStraight) had reached an impasse and were not willing to try working together to reach any sort of agreement. If the two of you really do want to get somewhere, I would recommend you pick a reasonably relevant talk page, start discussing, and get other editors with background on this subject to participate too — while being sure to remain civil, discuss the issues rather than personalities or motives, and aim for a resolution that honours WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, and other core Wikipedia values. I am not going to try to play judge, and in fact I will probably not get involved in the discussion at all; as I said last July, it's not the job of administrators to intervene in a content dispute and enforce some particular version of text for an article. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- No I didn't misunderstand. You've said you would organize a platform for us to discuss and you've told me to be patient and all this time I was. All I asked you for was this type of discussion platform. This problem needs someone who would moderate the discussions and please do what you've said or involve some other admin who will do so. Jaqeli 13:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- On 2015-07-27 @ 14:43 UTC, I said "I'll do some investigating and find what seems to be the best place to move the discussion. Please be patient with me". Twenty-four hours later (2015-07-28 @ 14:44 UTC), I followed up by proposing an article talk page (Talk:Georgian monarchs family tree of Bagrationi dynasty) on which I thought you, FactStraight, and other interested editors might be able to hash out your concerns. I didn't ask you to be patient indefinitely; I only asked you to be patient while I came up with a proposal on where you could talk — something which I did the next day. I'm sorry if you misunderstood all this time what I had really meant to say or do.
- After I made my proposal of a suitable discussion forum, you counter-proposed a different article's talk page (Talk:Georgian monarchs family tree of Bagrationi dynasty of Kartli). I asked FactStraight for his input, and he expressed a bunch of concerns about process, fairness, and whether all this was going to result in his views just being buried. Neither of you said anything more after this, so I assumed my efforts to get you working together were unsuccessful, and after keeping the discussion open on my talk page for about three months (just in case), I finally allowed it to be archived.
- If you and/or FactStraight want to start a wider discussion about your concerns on a mutually agreeable talk page (similarly to what happened at Talk:Georgian Orthodox Church in April 2012), please just go ahead and do it. You don't need me or another admin to bless, oversee, or direct your efforts. And as I'm pretty sure I've said before, administrators on the English Wikipedia are not supposed to be acting as judges to decide on content disputes — that kind of decision making needs to be done by collaboration and consensus amongst lots of editors. The only time when an admin, like myself, can step in and start dealing out sanctions is when one or more editors are breaking the rules by waging an edit war, being grossly uncivil to one another, and the like. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- No I didn't misunderstand. You've said you would organize a platform for us to discuss and you've told me to be patient and all this time I was. All I asked you for was this type of discussion platform. This problem needs someone who would moderate the discussions and please do what you've said or involve some other admin who will do so. Jaqeli 13:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think we may have a misunderstanding here. I said I would "see if there is anything I can do", and what I came up with was a recommendation that you and FactStraight was that you start discussing your concerns at Talk:Georgian monarchs family tree of Bagrationi dynasty. You counter-proposed Talk:Georgian monarchs family tree of Bagrationi dynasty of Kartli. I asked FactStraight what he thought; he didn't directly address the question of which talk page would be the best forum to host a discussion, but he seemed concerned that you were expecting any new process to be a punitive measure which would impose your version of the article and marginalize or suppress his views. I didn't see any further comments from either of you, so I assumed the two of you (Jaqeli and FactStraight) had reached an impasse and were not willing to try working together to reach any sort of agreement. If the two of you really do want to get somewhere, I would recommend you pick a reasonably relevant talk page, start discussing, and get other editors with background on this subject to participate too — while being sure to remain civil, discuss the issues rather than personalities or motives, and aim for a resolution that honours WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, and other core Wikipedia values. I am not going to try to play judge, and in fact I will probably not get involved in the discussion at all; as I said last July, it's not the job of administrators to intervene in a content dispute and enforce some particular version of text for an article. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- No it didn't. We are waiting for you to organize this discussion. You've told me to be patient and that you would organize it so I am waiting for this discussion to be organized by you. Jaqeli 17:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)