User talk:MindTheGap
I've left this area of the project as I find the thought of children making an illiterate child an admin disgraceful, especially given what Simple English is mean to be about MindTheGap (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is a shame. You were a good editor. I hope you come back at some point. Giggy (talk) 01:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
While I do think that RyanCross, Da Punk '08, and any other person who has trouble spelling in the English Language should not administer a community built to educate people who have trouble with English about myriad subjects, I think that MindTheGap is a sock of somebody. I have suspicions as to who this might be, but Eptalon has proven that the IPs don't match up with the accounts. That does not mean, however, that it is not this person. Some of this user's first edits regard a sensitive case: Benniguy. I don't think, based on the way this user trolled about the issue, that MTG is a new user. — Jonas Rand · (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- In opposing the RfA referred to above, MindTheGap's spelling/typing was not perfect either:
Admin tools are not for editing, the tools are provided to editors we trust to use them in accordance with policy and who are active editors committed to the project. The community has expressed the view that the editor referred to above is to be trusted with the tools. While commenting in the RfA is appropriate - the comments above are a personal attack in my view and inappropriate. --Matilda (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Also, I have issues with the candidate's grasp of the English language. The continued failure to understand the difference between your and you're may not be that big a deal on EN (were [sic] he has been told about that specific issue at least once) but here, on Simple, English is less likely to be a user's first language, and basic spelling and grammar errors cause more problems MindTheGap (talk) 10:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Waaah! Although adminship is a position of trust, someone who has an educational role (i.e., a trusted editor of an encyclopedia for those who don't have excellent comprehension of the English language, although it does a very poor job) should know what they are teaching. It should be a given. As for personal attacks, if RC is really offended, he should grow some thicker skin. It is as much of a personal attack as using the edit summary "Glass houses". — Jonas Rand · (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Admins do not have an educational role in the sense of teaching those who have a poor comprehension of the English language, they assist in managing the wikipedia. There is no question that the editor in question's language skills are up to the job of using the tools. User:MindThe Gap chose to criticise an editor over his English skills but made an error while making that criticism. The proverb I was referring to in my edit summary is people who live in people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. It is drawing attention to the fact that People who have a fault should not criticize others for having that same fault - given the attack made and reiterated in very crude terms by this user, I believe it is an appropriate reminder. It is not about whether Ryan Cross is offended, it is about an appropriate standard of behaviour - ie Wikipedia:Be kind ( a redirect from Wikipedia:Civility). It is OK to draw attention to somebody's faults in an RfA (though one might be careful that one doesn't have the same fault). It is not OK to have brought that criticism to other places, for example as this user has done, linking the alleged faults of Ryan Cross and the community's tolerance of those faults, to his resignation. --Matilda (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Admins have no more special a custodial role than other users. They have special permissions as they are permitted by a Y/N vote (because despite what Jimbo and his followerrs says about "consensus", all it is is majority increased by 10% or 25%) as to whether they should or should not have those permissions. That is considered a trust by the community with the tools in the hands of the candidate. As for glass houses, I know what that expression means, and I knew that's what you meant. MTG was not the one running for adminship. I was saying it was just as incivil and as much of an attack as what you said my rising of this issue may constitute (i.e., merely criticism that is not at all equivalent to a personal attack). What I said was not incivil in the least, and what was more of an attack was the way MindTheGap phrased it. — Jonas Rand · (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- It seems that my original comments on this page were misinterpreted as being directed at User:Ionas68224 (Jonas Rand) - they were not. They were directed at User:MindTheGap whose talk page this is. My comments were a propos MindTheGap's remarks dated 00:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC) and which said "I find the thought of children making an illiterate child an admin disgraceful...". I did not think MTG was running for adminship - I was commenting on his comments at Ryan Cross's RFA which were OK in that context but not OK to repeat here or elsewhere. I continued the conversation to clarify but that seems to have got in deeper :-( --Matilda (talk) 06:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, this is now understood, but my points still stand. — Jonas Rand · (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree with MindTheGap about adminship, and I disagree with Matilda about glass houses. I think that administrators do not need to be the best editors. Administrators need to be good about making decisions. The people who edit articles need to be good editors. It's OK if some editors make mistakes; other editors will fix them. I think that administrators do not need to be teachers. But it's OK if MindTheGap thinks that administrators need to be teachers. If we understand MindTheGap's comment like that, then Matilda's comment about glass houses doesn't make sense to me. Was MindTheGap an administrator, or someone requesting adminship? If not, then I think MindTheGap meant that teachers should have good grammar. It's quite fine for someone who makes a mistake with grammar to want teachers to have good grammar; they don't have to be a teacher to be able to say that. Anyway, maybe MindTheGap only made one mistake. Even a good teacher may make a small number of mistakes. (Please don't go and find more mistakes ... that's not what we're here for.) Basically, I think it's fine for someone who is not an administrator to oppose someone's adminship because the person doesn't have a quality, even if the person opposing doesn't have the quality either. Coppertwig (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, this is now understood, but my points still stand. — Jonas Rand · (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- It seems that my original comments on this page were misinterpreted as being directed at User:Ionas68224 (Jonas Rand) - they were not. They were directed at User:MindTheGap whose talk page this is. My comments were a propos MindTheGap's remarks dated 00:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC) and which said "I find the thought of children making an illiterate child an admin disgraceful...". I did not think MTG was running for adminship - I was commenting on his comments at Ryan Cross's RFA which were OK in that context but not OK to repeat here or elsewhere. I continued the conversation to clarify but that seems to have got in deeper :-( --Matilda (talk) 06:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Admins have no more special a custodial role than other users. They have special permissions as they are permitted by a Y/N vote (because despite what Jimbo and his followerrs says about "consensus", all it is is majority increased by 10% or 25%) as to whether they should or should not have those permissions. That is considered a trust by the community with the tools in the hands of the candidate. As for glass houses, I know what that expression means, and I knew that's what you meant. MTG was not the one running for adminship. I was saying it was just as incivil and as much of an attack as what you said my rising of this issue may constitute (i.e., merely criticism that is not at all equivalent to a personal attack). What I said was not incivil in the least, and what was more of an attack was the way MindTheGap phrased it. — Jonas Rand · (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Admins do not have an educational role in the sense of teaching those who have a poor comprehension of the English language, they assist in managing the wikipedia. There is no question that the editor in question's language skills are up to the job of using the tools. User:MindThe Gap chose to criticise an editor over his English skills but made an error while making that criticism. The proverb I was referring to in my edit summary is people who live in people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. It is drawing attention to the fact that People who have a fault should not criticize others for having that same fault - given the attack made and reiterated in very crude terms by this user, I believe it is an appropriate reminder. It is not about whether Ryan Cross is offended, it is about an appropriate standard of behaviour - ie Wikipedia:Be kind ( a redirect from Wikipedia:Civility). It is OK to draw attention to somebody's faults in an RfA (though one might be careful that one doesn't have the same fault). It is not OK to have brought that criticism to other places, for example as this user has done, linking the alleged faults of Ryan Cross and the community's tolerance of those faults, to his resignation. --Matilda (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)