Nonvocal's blog, Here you go... Options

[NVS]

Linky

[thekohser]

Linky

Worst Blog of 2008 nominee.

[NVS]

Worst Blog of 2008 nominee.

You attitude in this post reflects that of crankiness. Have you no joy?

edit: Alter characterization.

This post has been edited by NVS: Sun 27th July 2008, 8:10pm

[thekohser]

Worst Blog of 2008 nominee.

You attitude in this post reflects that of crankiness. Have you no joy?

edit: Alter characterization.

Sorry, but when I looked at it, the sum total of the contents of your blog was:

The current picture…
July 27th, 2008 | Posted in English Wikipedia, Wiki, Wikimedia

[NVS]

Worst Blog of 2008 nominee.

You attitude in this post reflects that of crankiness. Have you no joy?

edit: Alter characterization.

Sorry, but when I looked at it, the sum total of the contents of your blog was:

The current picture…
July 27th, 2008 | Posted in English Wikipedia, Wiki, Wikimedia

What browser are you using? This may indicate an issue. I'm using firefox, I see it fine.

[NVS]

Fixed. There was a coding error. I found it and subverted a new version of the php on my production site. Thank you for finding the bug! The blog should work on your browser now.

[Proabivouac]

The folks at Wikipedia Review found it very needed to (GASP!).. identify me.

I'm a little hurt that you didn't credit me directly.

The only thing I was asking for was the ability to block/unblock protect/unprotect move delete/undelete basically. Since when did these tools become a power play, a game?

Since you indef blocked PrivateMusings for using socks in "discussions internal to the project", when your co-prosecutor JzG was doing the exact same thing?

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Mon 28th July 2008, 2:35am

[LaraLove]

The only thing I was asking for was the ability to block/unblock protect/unprotect move delete/undelete basically.

Part of your problem is that, despite having been an admin previously, you don't appear to understand what adminship is. Your RFA wasn't a turning point in anything. It was actually rather predictable.

Since when did these tools become a power play, a game?

Adminship was not a big deal when the project was small, but it certainly is now.

Since when did initiative become a power hunger issue?

This makes no sense coming from someone who clearly knows Kmweber. The answer to this question is a simple one, and is easily found in the contributions of the aforementioned editor.

All that said, I find it amusing how many people take to analyzing RFA after theirs fails. RFA is broken, that is not in question by those grounded in reality, but not every failed RFA is evidence of it. A full blown analysis by a professional (volunteering his services, of course) is in progress. Gazimoff's project was initiated after RFA/DHMO 3. His RFA was clearly a turning point in the ongoing discussions about RFA. Not in that it failed, but in the shameful, pathetic behavior of some of those who participated in it and the affect it had. Individual analysis is pointless, particularly when it's your own RFA, because your opinion and perception are not neutral. If you want to participate in a genuine review, Gazimoff's page is the place to be.

The folks at Wikipedia Review found it very needed to (GASP!).. identify me.

I'm a little hurt that you didn't credit me directly.

The only thing I was asking for was the ability to block/unblock protect/unprotect move delete/undelete basically. Since when did these tools become a power play, a game?

Since you indef blocked PrivateMusings for using socks in "discussions internal to the project", when your co-prosecutor JzG was doing the exact same thing?

You want to discuss that? Take it to my talk page on project, or to the blog. I won't discuss it here. Incidentally, it is a little off topic for this thread. Respectfully.

I don't see how that's off-topic. You posted a link to your blog here. You blog is about your RFA. You're analyzing RFA as if it's broken, using yours as an example of all these new things. All you want, as you said, was the buttons to block, delete, protect, and un-all the previous. Adminship is about trust, and for the reasons noted by Proabivouac, there's a lack of trust regarding you and the block button. By your own blog, you also aren't trusted with the delete button and your judgment, which is important for adminship, is in question over your support of Durova and her block of !!. Clearly it seems relevant to the topic of this thread.

[NVS]

I don't see how that's off-topic. You posted a link to your blog here. You blog is about your RFA. You're analyzing RFA as if it's broken, using yours as an example of all these new things. All you want, as you said, was the buttons to block, delete, protect, and un-all the previous. Adminship is about trust, and for the reasons noted by Proabivouac, there's a lack of trust regarding you and the block button. By your own blog, you also aren't trusted with the delete button and your judgment, which is important for adminship, is in question over your support of Durova and her block of !!. Clearly it seems relevant to the topic of this thread.

I thought it was off topic in that we are renewing the NonvocalScream show thread here in this thread. I guess that is allowed here.

I'm analyzing the system as a whole. I can do that.

You are correct that I may not be the most neutral person to analyze my own, but I thought it was fair to at least try to do mine...

...before I analyze others individual RFAs, and the system in general. The focus will be more on the system in general and exposing those biases that exist.

I think it goes without saying that with all the facts known, I do not support the block of !!.

Additionally, I've spoken to PM (regarding the block of him) about this already after his arbcom block expired, like two adults would and should on this project. I consider the matter settled, and thus I won't comment on the PM block.

[Kelly Martin]

I think it goes without saying that with all the facts known, I do not support the block of !!.

The only fact that was not known to you at the last time you supported it was !!'s prior identity (or at least that his prior identity was that of a person generally regarded to be nonproblematic). What this indicates to me is that you feel that whether or not someone should be blocked is, in part, based on who they are and who they know. This means that you feel that blocks are an appropriate tool for playing clique politics.

This is why you should not be an admin.

[NVS]

I think it goes without saying that with all the facts known, I do not support the block of !!.

The only fact that was not known to you at the last time you supported it was !!'s prior identity (or at least that his prior identity was that of a person generally regarded to be nonproblematic). What this indicates to me is that you feel that whether or not someone should be blocked is, in part, based on who they are and who they know. This means that you feel that blocks are an appropriate tool for playing clique politics.

This is why you should not be an admin.

No, you are incorrect about this...

"This means that you feel that blocks are an appropriate tool for playing clique politics."

It means that I assumed Durova had viable information. I should never assume. I should have investigated. That is what it means.