User talk:Ansei

Welcome to Meta!

Hello, Ansei. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

-- Meta-Wiki Welcome (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Simple French proposal

• I have now formally submitted my proposal: Requests for new languages/Wikipedia French Simple (2)

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC) At Requests for new languages/Wikipedia French Simple 3 a user said that we should start a test Wiki now to show that we are serious about the project WhisperToMe (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Meaning

What do your questions mean? There are some candidates who don't speak English well, and I don't even understand completely what the questions are meaning... πr² (t • c) 19:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Half empty or half full?

Yes, these are not easy questions, but is stewardship only about things that are easy and foreseeable?

One purpose of the questions is to give each candidate a chance to show good judgment, and this process may begin as you have done by responding with a question about what I mean?

Perhaps it would have helped to add bold for the linked terms? Does it help to underline the words "active" and "passive"?

An image that is partially in focus, but mostly out of focus.

• Do you look forward to being an active catalyst for consensus-building, especially in small wiki contexts?
• Do you see your role as a passive bystander with a few tools?
• Are you able to make guesses about why, when and how "it is better not to reach than to go too far"?

If you like, please suggest how I might re-write my questions. The problem is that this is not merely an exercise in rhetoric. I'm asking real questions; and I don't know the answers. When an administrator asked me if I wanted him to consult a steward, I responded by asking for time to think about what might be the most practical thing to do next.

Can we please start-over by agreeing that not all questions have immediate answers; and not all questions include an easy-to-answer context. --Ansei (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Please reconsider your puzzlement in a different way?

If the only time stewards may be asked questions is when they are candidates for election, is it not important for such questions to be asked and answered? - especially if such questions are never again recognized or acknowledged by current stewards

In this context, may I ask what non-response suggests or implies?

• There is something wrong with a question which gives candidates an opportunity to show good "judgment"?

simple:Wiktionary:judgment = being able to make good choices

• There is something wrong with a question about being a "catalyst"?

en:Wiktionary:catalyst = someone who encourages progress or change.

• There is something wrong with a question about "consensus" or "consensus-building"?

en:Wiktionary:consensus = (a) a process of decision-making that seeks widespread agreement among group members; and(b) general agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision-making and follow-up action.

• There is something wrong with a question about being a "bystander"?

en:Wiktionary:bystander = a person who, although present at some event, does not take part in it; an observer or spectator

As written, my short questions can be answered with yes/no.

If it is reasonable to pose questions for steward candidates to answer, why is it unreasonable for me to invite a small number of current stewards to consider the same short questions? --Ansei (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: (your questions)

Are you sure that your questions are related to any of this two

• My own work as a Steward since 2006
• My little service to simple.wiki community since 2006?

Since I cannot see or understand any correlation, could you please take a little time to better explain your concerns? Thank you, --M/ (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, you have some uncommon ideas about Stewards' service. I do not see how your questions might be applicable to any administrative and service action carried out during past years: I've always tried to follow community rules and to understand the rationale of every single request that I was going to fulfill or reject. In case of doubt, I've also waited for, or suggested my own ideas, to other Stewards. Thank you, in any case, for your kind attention. --M/ (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Rethorical exercises? --M/ (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

If my questions are unwanted, please excuse my mistake in asking them. Shall I withdraw my questions or try to explain in different words?

May I ask you to try to reconsider this in a different way?

May I ask what should your response is showing me?

• You do not like questions about good "judgment"?

simple:Wiktionary:judgment = being able to make good choices

• You do not like questions about being a "catalyst"?

en:Wiktionary:catalyst = someone who encourages progress or change.

• You do not like questions about "consensus" or "consensus-building"?

en:Wiktionary:consensus = (a) a process of decision-making that seeks widespread agreement among group members; and(b) general agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision-making and follow-up action.

• You do not like questions about being a "bystander"?

en:Wiktionary:bystander = a person who, although present at some event, does not take part in it; an observer or spectator

Should I learn from this that the only time stewards may be asked forward-looking questions is when they are candidates, but never again afterwards?

Please accept my apology for any inconvenience I may have caused.. --Ansei (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

What my questions means is a bit puzzling. These questions are an opening, a start, a first step. My thinking is explained in greater detail here. --Ansei (talk)

On the matter of your questions

You seem to have decided to send a batch of general questions to all stewards who also retain local admin rights on the Simple Wikipedia project. Aside from the vagueness of the questions, and the fact that especially the last one seem to be a reference to this old thread on simplewiki or rather your last comment there. If you're asking it because of their local admin status, then perhaps this should be moved to an appropriate page on simple, but if this is about their steward status, I fail how to see what project a stewards comes from is of any relevance. As stewards, we do not carry out actions on our homeprojects with our steward rights, and hence where we come from is really irrelevant. Confirmations are generally about the steward's activity during the period since the last reconfirmation, and tho I support and extended view of the issues that could be brought and addressed there, I fail to see how targeting stewards with very, veeery broad questions that don't really help in evaluating their activity and whether they still retain the community trust is productive or helpful. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the best response to your concerns is written here. --Ansei (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought that questions on a talk page were just that -- questions? For example, diffs were posted

• at User talk:Barras, but not Stewards/Confirm/2013/Barras?
• at User talk:Bsadowski1, but not Stewards/Confirm/2013/Bsadowski1?
• at User talk:Fr33kman, but not Stewards/Confirm/2013/Fr33kman?
• at User talk:M7, but not Stewards/Confirm/2013/M7?
• at User talk:Mentifisto, but not Stewards/Confirm/2013/Mentifisto?

Does this resolve a perceived problem? --Ansei (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

What my questions means is a bit puzzling. These questions are an opening, a start, a first step. My thinking is explained in greater detail here. --Ansei (talk)

@ Snowolf -- Perhaps it will help to consider responses which these questions have generated thus far:

• Amqui → here
• BruTe → here
• Ezarate → here + here + here
• Mathonius → here
• MF-Warburg → here + here
• QuiteUnusual → here + here

As I acknowledged and thanked each one, I explained (a) "Your responses help me discover who you are" and (b) "Your answers help us to make better guesses about how you will think and act in the future".

The answers reveal a range of thoughtful ideas about how to make a constructive contribution to the work we do together. On second thought, can you see my questions in a different light? --Ansei (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)