Wikipedia talk:Town sheriff/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

March thread

Unless this proposal is moving forward it should be marked as a past proposal. Just saying it's time to see some progress towards maturity and adoption.   Will Beback  talk  08:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep it current. Proposals can evolve. How about suggesting solutions rather than pointing out problems? Be 'solution-focused'. My suggestion (and it's only a suggestion): if you see a problem, be constructive about finding a solution to it.

What do you guys think about a Sherrif being able to impose a 'forced-menteeship' on a problematic editor? Could that work?

And please, guys, chill! 'Handbags at dawn' gets nobody anywhere, lol! Pesky (talk) 05:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've made a lot of suggestions, and even direct edits. However this proposal seems to have failed to attract support. At some point, that fact needs to be recognized.   Will Beback  talk  06:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think something alng the lines of this is a good proposal, and could definitely make for a happier community on those pages (or with those editors) with an unhappy atmosphere. I certainly don't think it should be ditched altogether, as it has potential. How about drawing people's attention to the suggestion in discussion areas where something like this could provide a solution?

The majority of good inventions which tail off into nothing do so not from lack of applicability, but from lack of publicity / advertising. It must surely be possible to bring this idea to the attention of a number of peace-loving, intelligent, friendly, non-combatant people who are not currently suffering from some kind of personal WikiTrauma (that needs an essay!) who can collaborate on this. Something like this will eventually happen - don't let the idea go extinct! Why re-invent the wheel later on? Pesky (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

What he said. Will, you and I both know that you're reaching for a symbolic gesture here, not anything that has any real meaning. Might I suggest that we put our efforts into different, more fruitful arenas elsewhere, and come back to this later? (I need some some short period with no one trying to beat me over the head before I can reassess this properly - I can barely remember what it feels like to edit in a relaxed atmosphere, it's been so long). --Ludwigs2 07:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It is "later" - I haven't posted here in at least five weeks, other than the above. How much later are you thinking of before completing this proposal or moving it forward?   Will Beback  talk  07:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on this, but why are you worried about it? what problem do you believe you're solving by harping on this point? I have had a lot of shit dumped in my lap over the past however many weeks, and this is not my top priority on wikipedia (much less in the rest of my life). If there's a need for RushRush on this that I am not aware of, say what it is and we'll discuss the extent to which I can re-prioritize to give this more immediate action. Otherwise give it a rest. --Ludwigs2 12:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a rush on this proposal. As a matter of fact letting something sit for awhile, and letting those who are primarily responsible for it have time to rest and come back to it fresh will probably yield a 'wiser' result in the long run.(olive (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

Sure, we can wait another month. If there's no progress one way or another by May then that's a reasonable deadline.   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That's generous, but in actual fact I don't see a reason for a deadline.Policies /guidelines /essays are always in states of change/flux/discussion. There's no reason to impose a kind of artificial end to this particular proposal. As well I suspect the person who put this proposal together and envisioned its use should have a major say in when we go to the next step. So, no I don't see a deadline as necessary or wise.(olive (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

OK, then could Ludwig2 at least propose some path to bring this proposal to a conclusion, or even say what the next step should be?   Will Beback  talk  22:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure he will, but in his time not ours. Like he said he could use of time a bit to recover. To come back to the point here, no rush and always changing. Just my thoughts not anyone else's of course.(olive (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

If Ludwigs2 wishes to maintain ownership of this proposal and prevent it from being marked as rejected an alternative would be to userfy it.   Will Beback  talk  22:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I of course didn't use the word ownership and I have no idea what Ludwigs wants but, he asked for time to recuperate. The truly civil thing to do would be to just back away for a bit. We have to remember that different editors have different amounts of time for editing, and its unfair for us to impose our notions of what needs to be done when, on somebody else. I think we have to be patient. There's lots to do on Wikipedia. No rush on this one aspect of it. (olive (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

Civil to whom? At the moment, this page belongs to the community. If one editor wishes to be responsible for its lack of progress, or wants to keep it from being presented to the community for approval or rejection, then it's appropriate and civil to userfy it. As I said, I'm happy to wait another month, but I don't think this should be left in its present state indefinitely.   Will Beback  talk  23:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, Will, do you have a reason for this hurryhurry attitude? what's the problem you're trying to sole? Why are you apparently so anxious about this matter? You are pressing this point very heavily for no discernible purpose, in a way that is not consistent with standard practice or dictated by policy, and in the face of my specific and clear requests that you allow me sufficient time to recuperate and reassess the material properly. Please explain both why this is so important to you and why you refuse to give me the certain reasonable amount of grace that I've asked for. --Ludwigs2 23:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No deadlines, surely? Let it sit on the back burner for a while, let's see if a few more people trot over this way and give any more input in the meatime, let Ludwigs have his trauma-recovery time, lol! (We all need that, sometimes, in real life or wikilife - or both) ... and chill! Do chill :o) Let's not get 'snippy' with each other, yes? Pesky (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• 'the certain reasonable amount of grace that I've asked for - Sure Ludwig. What amount of time are you asking for?   Will Beback  talk  04:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

<outdent> "Until" comes to mind, I think!

I like the idea of a badge on the talk page itself, just to let the combatants talkers know they're being watched. Out on the roads, it's amazing how the mere presence of a marked police car tends to make drivers strive for perfection , lol! Pesky (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone have any major objection if I shunt this idea across to the Idea Lab? Might get a few more ideas, suggestions, brainstorming, synergy, wossname-thingie-stuff. Can't see how could do any harm :o) Pesky (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ve haff vays off mekking you spikk! You haff tventy-four hours to voice objections ...... lol! Pesky (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the idea lab, but it seems fine. I'd like to make sure Ludwigs weighs in here though, before a decision is made to move this since he is major author of this proposal.(olive (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

@ Pesky: It was at the idea lab a while ago (search the archives - the general impression was that it was a good idea that was ready to be written up, which is why I came here).

@ Will: as I have said - at least ten times now - I need enough time to recover and reassess the material. How long that will be I cannot say with certainty, but it is not getting shorter with you constantly asking me. This feels like harassment, and it's just stressing me out, so please stop. --Ludwigs2 15:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I wrote a note on March 16, and then another 11 days later. That's hardly "harassment". If this is Ludwigs2's proposal then it should be userfied. If it's in project space then it belongs to the community. I don't know what "shit" Ludwigs2 has had "dumped in his lap", or what that has to do with this proposal. If there's been a personal tragedy then please accept my condolences. However there haven't been any significant changes in about six weeks so I don't understand what needs to be reassessed. As I proposed above, let's see what happens with this in the next month. No big deal.   Will Beback  talk  05:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you have now (as of your last point) repeated your demand at least six times without (i) responding to my question about why this is so important to you, or (ii) responding to my request to have a breather because I am stressed out, or (iii) responding to several other editors who are also all suggesting that you back off - that is harassment (or rather, harassment is the most generous explanation of that kind of behavior). IDHT does not become an admin. You are pushing a meaningless and valueless point for no discernible reason (except for the obvious fact that you have a bug up your a$$ about it), and since you refuse to give a rationale for why this is important or necessary, and refuse to stop even though I have repeatedly told you I need time for calm reflection and reassessment, I can only assume that you disrespect me and are pursuing some irrational personal agenda.

So, again: Please explain both why this is so important to you and why you refuse to give me the certain reasonable amount of grace that I've asked for. Trust that I will simply copy and paste this statement in response to any future posts you make until you answer these simple and pertinent questions. --Ludwigs2 06:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see a discussion of motives as being helpful. I've suggested giving you all the grace you've asked for, but you haven't specified any amount. Since this policy does not belong to anyone, no one can be harassed by reminders to keep it moving forward. Rather than extending this pointless discussion, I suggest that folks who've contributed here work on the proposal instead.   Will Beback  talk  07:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll direct the IdeaLab people over this way - if that's possible - and see what else they can come up with. I have a few images bookmarked on Commons which thumbnail or cropped versions of would make a very good small icon for a 'this page is being watched' template (which I could probably put together, (though I'm not any kind of expert at anything other than grab, copy, paste, edit .....). I think the idea is actually not far off being do-able, at least in some kind of embryonic form. Pesky (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be opposed to doing anything about presenting this to the community till after the ArbCom is finished and then some time for cogitation. Userfying it is not necessary, as people are currently working on it. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

What does the ArbCom have to do with this proposal?   Will Beback  talk  20:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, if folks are working on this proposal again then this thread has served its purpose. Nothing had been happening for weeks.   Will Beback  talk  20:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

'Watchdog' rather than 'sheriff'?

Like it says :o) Pesky (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That might be better than "sheriff", a term which has generated opposition on this talk page.   Will Beback  talk  06:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the best alternative idea I've seen. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

'Page Watchdog' might be better still, I think Pesky (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

How about "civility watchdog", which would make the role of the position explicit? "Page" is ambiguous since everything on Wikipedia is a "page". "Talk page watchdog" is clearer.   Will Beback  talk  21:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This covers much more than civility. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I like 'Talk Page Watchdog'. Pesky (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I prefer "Schoolmarm." The Hero of This Nation (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

How about Obergruppenführer? :) Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Lol @ Guy! And Hero, how could you?! If I were one of those 'over-touchy' 50+ females, instead of the relatively tolerant sort, I might have assumed it was personally aimed ..... but I expect you had no way of knowing that I'm both female and in that 'dangerous' age range, lol! (You are forgiven, unconditionally, btw) :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"Gropinator"?   Will Beback  talk  06:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)