User:Prodego/archive/46
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 14 | 2 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
user:wongdai
Sorry i just wanted to say thanks for the opportunity, i will reapply soon after i have contributed more to wikipedia.I dont know why people vandalise wikipedia,i see that your user page has presently been vandalised 54 times, i've been a wikipedian for about three and a half weeks,and my page has been vandalised four times,all of which i've reverted,i just can't be on wikipedia all the time,and just wanted to ensure,that my page, is secure (boy those vandals are sad) Wongdai 11:21 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Listing pages for deletion
Can you please explain to me the method for putting a page forward for deletion. The reason why I ask this, is because I created the page Stuart Balmer (footballer) by mistake before moving all the information onto the page Stuart Balmer.
As you can see, both pages aren't needed because they are about the same person and I wish to put the Stuart Balmer (footballer) article forward for deletion. Thanks Dreamweaverjack 00:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Sent ;-) Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 00:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
VP
Indeed, Betacommand came and demanded it from me on IRC ;). To clear things up, the 1.36 release of VP has not been approved by Daniel, but Betacommand said that he wanted it anyway as he was sure I wasn't going to steal his password with it.
If anyone has any problems with that, they can feel free to bring them up with me :). Ale_Jrbtalk 09:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank You
Thanks for fixing my userpage and status box. The text was looking quite cramped in there. --LuigiManiac 03:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion
How about you add the references in first. Then you cannot call Jimmy Wales the Wikipedia founder. On Wikipedia we go by the verifiable references. We are not disputing the references. The references are verifiable. This is an improvement. We had a compromise discussion before. The compromise was 'a founder.' My suggestion is to use the term 'a founder' or 'co-founder' and add the references. As for the Essjay letter tidbit, I used the existing references that are already in the article. Those references are also verifiable. Your suggestion and wording was not helpful IMO. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 03:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC) The other editors are disputing his role as a founder. That is why the article is on lockdown. Anything I try to add to the article is being reverted including solid references. I thought administrators would read the references and understand the facts. Since administrators are unable to assist in this dispute then what is the next step to take? :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 03:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I request arbitration. This has gone on long enough. The other editors are not allowing me to add anything to the article. They are disputing the Essjay letter which I have provided solid references for. They are diminishing his role as a co-founder despite your beliefs. I do not understand the point of your suggestion and wording. Regards, :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 03:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 15 | 9 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
RE:Username Change on Meta
Yes, it was. ~Steptrip 11:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
VP Approvals
Ooops... I usually check, but clearly didn't there. In the future, if you see me make silly mistakes, please do overrule me - you are much more experienced than me. Ale_Jrbtalk 22:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
VandalProof problem
Hi! First off, thank you for adding me to the approved list of users for VandalProof. As soon as I received your message, I went to download the software, but when I click "Verify Authorization", I received a message that says the userlist is corrupt. The VandalProof FAQ suggested that I contact a VP mod for help so here I am. Thank you in advance for any assitance you can provide me. HumanZoom 00:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link. I guess I just overlooked the newest version. I went ahead and downloaded it and this time it wouldn't load after I hit verify. I then tried installing it on my laptop (which still runs WinXP) and it worked like a charm. I guess there is no Vista support at this time. Do you know if they plan to include support for Windows Vista in the future? Thanks, HumanZoom 21:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Recognition of login name for VandalProof
Thanks for approving me for VandalProof. However, I'm having trouble becoming authenticated to run the program. The problem lies in recognizing my Wikipedia login name. Although I used the login name "lwalt" to apply to use VandalProof, the program does not recognize "Lwalt" as an approved user. Because my Wikipedia logname appears as "Lwalt" (VP also picks this login name), please correct the name for my application from "lwalt" to "Lwalt." Many thanks. lwalt 09:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks again for reauthorizing me under "Lwalt" to use VandalProof. The reapproval under "Lwalt" fixed the problem with the username that I mentioned earlier. lwalt 00:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Page Style
Can I use your page style for my page, plz, as i am currently searching for better styles for my needs! yours, Andrew Marsden 11:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
VP
User:AmiDaniel/VP/Approval Thanks,Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 00:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- The program is not "verifying authorization" when I click on it. Help? Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 01:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. I tried that and hit "Log-in To WP." It didn't work. Anything I am doing wrong? Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 01:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please leave me alone? First of all, I have barely made any edits with VP and I've only used it once. Second, I've been using WP:MWT for a month now and I understand it. I have made a few bad edits, but as you can see [1] I have no problem with them reverting it. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 16:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
About That...
I just got the new version, and it now says I have no privilages. (On VandalProof) So, I figured I had accidentily been removed from the list, (Or I had done something wrong, ha!) So I re-applied. Do you know of any other way to fix this? MikePage HatesTalk EmosIt's True 18:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have Windows XP Home Edition. Ha, I will change it when someone makes a big stink about it. MikePage HatesTalk EmosIt's True 13:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Re:
Haha, hey Prodego. Thanks again for all the help you gave me a while ago. When was it? Wow, June-ish. Hope your wiki-life is fine and all. Have a nice day. :) - Bagel7 04:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 16 | 16 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
cleanup tag
Hi there,
There is a cleanup tag in your talk page archive, could you remove it os it doesn't continue to show up on the list of pages needing cleanup? Thanks!--killing sparrows 03:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
AmiDaniel's Forum
Hi, in the case you haven't spotted it already, I've replied to your message in the forum ;-)
Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 20:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I read it. Looks good, but no matter how delicately you word it, there will always be a chance... Anyway the current reason is below, commented out so not to mess up this page. Prodego talk 22:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Vandal Proof
I am intersted in Vandal Proof. I was looking at a friend's talk page and i came across it. I've heard of it before. Could you tell me what to do to get? Politics rule 8:03pm EST. 4/19/2007
Polling guidelines
A big problem on wikipedia right now is people starting random polls willy nilly, and clogging up the tubes for weeks on end with endless procedure.
You could open an RFC on Durin's behaviour if you like. (but beware of potential backlash) :-)
--Kim Bruning 00:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Experiments don't help with anything.:-P They are experiments.One thing experiments do help with is that Experiments help people learn about what works and what doesn't, (and hopefully also why). Once you have some data, you can start designing prototype processes that are actually useful for something. :-)
- So experiments don't help RFA, experiments help the experiment designer think about RFA. (Though using that data to then help RFA is a good next step :-))
- If an experiment goes really wrong somehow, we can always just run a second (traditional) RFA right after.
- If we run experiments at all, it's important to run the experiments on RFA itself, because people behave differently when real issues are at stake.
- Do you think 1 such experiment per week would hurt too much? If so, how can we streamline things?
- --Kim Bruning 01:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- How about we appoint Durin the RFA test cszar? Would that work? At least that way we know who to blame ;-) --Kim Bruning 02:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, people acting in a non-neutral mode is what manages to get things changed. Neutral people just make sure there's no fighting. --Kim Bruning 04:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Prodego, I followed this discussion between yourself and Kim. You make some good points on Kim's talk page. If I may, I'd like to address a few points.
- I don't believe there is any particular damage that is threatened by having a candidate 'pass' an experimental RfA. It is exceptionally rare (recent events not withstanding) for an admin to cause any particular harm to the project. If an admin does cause such harm, they can and have been emergency de-adminned. I believe you're making an implication (correct me if I'm wrong) that we are somehow threatened as a project by having such a person pass. We aren't, and past experiences show us this.
- I have faith in our bureaucrats to be able to discern whether an RfA has been successful in providing the means for them to evaluate consensus. An experimental RfA in no way prevents the community from having their say with respect to a candidate. If a bureaucrat feels the RfA does not provide a reasonable estimation of consensus, they can return it as such. In the Moralis RfA, it was obvious that the format change did little to change the ability of a bureaucrat to judge consensus. All the words were essentially there as before; just in a different format. In the Matt Britt RfA, it is possible...even likely...that the bureaucrats may return it as incapable of determining consensus. That's entirely acceptable so far as I'm concerned. Indeed, that's one of the potential outcomes of the experiment that needs to be evaluated; can this format in fact support consensus evaluation?
- Of the experiments I expect to run, RfA as an RfC is almost certainly the most radical. It strongly departs from the concept of voting. This has upset a great many people, and I recognize that. I do not feel that this should be conflated with whether experiments are bad or good. Maybe this particular experiment is utterly bad. That should not in anyway reflect on experimentation in general.
- Personally, I have doubts about the Matt Britt RfA. I sincerely believe that, in abstract, an RfA as RfC is actually a fantastic tool to evaluate consensus. I won't bore you with why. My doubts hinge on the fact that RfA has become so attached to voting that they are inseperable from it. They simply can not envision a system that does not involve voting of some kind or another. Yet, in the real world consensus training specifically advocates against vote counting. This is an ongoing quandary that can not be solved by the community at RfA. Or rather, I've so far watched and read three years worth of such indecision amount to little but wasted words on the subject. It isn't a matter of "People can't agree it's bad, so it must be good". It's a matter of being caught in the middle between voting and consensus; the two have no overlap but we allow RfA to exist in that mode. It regularly causes harm; to the candidates, to the people contributing to the RfA, and most especially to the project itself. Yet, because we can't agree as a community what to do about it, we wallow in indecision. Matt's RfA format, given what I've just said, is incapable of garnering sufficient support to be accepted even if it was perfect. Note; I don't think the format is perfect as it is. I think the RfA as RfC format needs considerable work to make it something good. But, even if that work is done, it would never be accepted at RfA because sufficient numbers of people can not separate themselves from voting.
- Am I neutral? No. I'm not. Neither is anyone else :) I have my biases just as anyone else does. There are few people active at RfA who have no opinion on whether it is broken or not. Most everyone who is a regular there has at some point voiced an opinion one way or another. I do not agree that bureaucrats should be the arbiter of what should or should not be tried. While I trust their judgment, they were not put in place to be RfA shepherds. The bureaucrats serve the community, not the other way around. If, for example, the community (somehow) decided that all RfAs should be run like Moralis' RfA, and the bureaucrats decided they didn't like the format, I believe the bureaucrats are subordinate to the will of the community on the matter. With that in mind, it is the community that 'controls' RfA, not the bureaucrats. Note that when two bureaucrats (Linuxbeak and Ilyanep) attempted to replace RfA with WP:DFA roughly a year ago, they were *rapidly* shot down and heavily chastised for doing so. It simply isn't their decision to make.
- Am I open to community will? Absolutely. Frankly, I'm offended by your comment "Someone who will listen to the talk discussion", inferring of course me. I've always been open to input, and remain so. The crux of my disagreement with the input I've received at RfA isn't that I won't listen to it. It stems from a logical failure that people are attempting to use. People at RfA can not come to an agreement on anything of significance. In fact, right now there's an ongoing slow war over whether to include tallies or not, whether to have the tallies at the top of the RfA or not. Something that simple, and the RfA community is arguing endlessly with itself over it. It's hysterically absurd. It's akin to fighting over whether the pencils should be arranged by color or by length. Who cares? We have pencils! Yet, the RfA community is *obsessed* with it, and can't stop itself from endlessly arguing over it. It's absolutely amazing, and harsh testimony to the absurdity that RfA has descended into.
- The result is a completely paralyzed RfA process. All processes at Wikipedia must have the inate ability to evolve, to adapt, to take into account new challenges not previously encountered. Not least of these challenges is the issue of scale, on which I've written extensively elsewhere. RfA as it stands is incapable of evolution. Given that an experimental RfA is essentially incapable of causing harm to the project, I find it very difficult to accept the idea that we should have consensus to allow experimentation before we actually conduct experiments. RfA has, over the last three years, proven itself incapable of achieving such consensus. The result is a process that can not evolve. A process that can not evolve in a frequently changing environment is broken, by definition. Imagine, for instance, a modern society that had not been able to pass a new law into effect for the last 50 years. That legal system would be seriously broken. In effect, in microcasm, we have the same situation at RfA.
- Now, to fix it...permitting ourselves to be bound to a promise to not do anything unless consensus is achieved to do something subjects ourselves to the very paralyis that is killing RfA. Thus, my counter proposal that I laid out twice at WT:RFA (before the ill-advised polls we both started); gain consensus to have me stop. As I stated there, I am very open to this and quite willing to adhere to community will.
- For what its worth, I am gauging input from a number of sources, not just RfA. I don't think there is consensus there that I should stop. But, that aside, I've received considerable support from a rather significant number of people via IRC, e-mail, and other private communications.
- I'm not suggesting any of these formats replace all RfAs. All I am doing is conducting experiments to gain insight on each of these formats and more feedback than we've (literally) ever seen before. This is a positive process, despite the rancor that is has generated. A significant subset of the comments have generated feedback that is frankly fascinating. This has never happened with any of the experiments for RfA that have been tried off RfA.
- My next intended experiment is an adaptation of the "discussions for adminship" concept. It is a perennial proposal at RfA, and nobody can ever gain agreement that it should or shouldn't be tried (once again, the paralysis). The experiments that have been conducted off RfA have been inconclusive, in part because they are not real. Yet, a considerable number of people keep recommending the concept...in fact far more than RfA as AfD or RfC combined. I believe it needs to be tried, if for no other reason than to prove it doesn't work (if that is in fact what happens). WP:DFA's form will still allow voting; the only real difference is that it gains some concepts from RfA as RfC in that discussion happens; in this case before voting (in the RfA as RfC form, without voting). This format actually has some chance of gaining traction as it may satisfy those who believe in consensus and those who believe in voting both, at least to a degree.
- I fully agree that I have been the cause of considerable angst among a number of editors at RfA. I have probably strained at the bit of civility more than I should have. That said, I do believe I have to act in ways that are positive to the process yet cause people to become upset. For example, there have been *rampant* attempts to pollute the experiments at Matt Britt and Moralis' RfAs and/or have them forced back into "classic" form, and/or force them to be shutdown without the nominee's consent. Several users have been...let me put this diplomatically...very insistent on doing this. In order for these experiments to have any hope of garnering some useful feedback, they have to be allowed to run. So, I have faught just as...shall we say insistently :)...against the people trying so hard to get them shutdown.
- Understand something; look at psychology texts regarding change and people's ability to welcome it and adapt to it. There's in fact extensive research on the subject. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of people are at least reluctant to be exposed to changing circumstances. Even among those who say they embrace change, the majority behaves in ways counter to change. I'm not saying I'm the great prophet flying in a magic carpet who is great at embracing change. Rather, we as a project should not shackle ourselves to human's general inability to happily accept change. If we as a society did that we'd still be living in huts and attempting to fashion arrow points using stone chisels, while others went off to gather berries.
- In as much as I have energy and dedication to do so, I promise you that I will eventually write extensively on the entire process of what I have, am, and will be doing. I do not expect by the (good lord it's a book!) words above to convince you I am right or wrong. I do hope to give you an understanding of where I stand and why. I do hope to assure you that I haven't gone insane; I am still quite amenable to community input and especially consensus, if it could form. I simply firmly believe that it can't, and I am backed up by three years of waffling indecision at RfA on any suggestion of reform beyond the tiniest of matters. The paralysis that results from the inability to form consensus on anything is not a reason to staunch the flow of creativity. In fact, quite the opposite.
- I would like to take the opportunity to say I'm sorry for the misunderstanding that developed with our cross-editing of each other's content on the ill-advised polls. What appeared to me as a blatant attempt to silence my input was of course wrong. My apologies. Respectfully, --Durin 03:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)