Anachronist (talk | contribs) m →Comments on User_talk:Tarc: moved again |
Some admin (and friend) advice needed |
||
Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
--[[User:Sashatemov|Sashatemov]] ([[User talk:Sashatemov|talk]]) 16:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC) |
--[[User:Sashatemov|Sashatemov]] ([[User talk:Sashatemov|talk]]) 16:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC) |
||
--[[User:Sashatemov|Sashatemov]] ([[User talk:Sashatemov|talk]]) 16:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC) |
--[[User:Sashatemov|Sashatemov]] ([[User talk:Sashatemov|talk]]) 16:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC) |
||
==Could use some admin advice== |
|||
Hey Amatulic! I could really use some advice on how to deal with an issue that is unfortunately starting to spread to other Wikipedia pages. Essentially I want to know if I have cause to go to the [[WP:RM]] page and request the admins there to close what I feel is a premature (and slightly bad faith page move). |
|||
<br> Here's the short and sweet: An editor at [[Talk:Champagne]] expressed a desire to change all reference to Champagne to lowercase. After he encountered some concern and opposition to his wishes, he still went ahead and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Champagne&diff=490652558&oldid=488826243 unilaterally did what he wanted anyways] (Kind of BRD turned into ''Discuss, Find Opposition, Do it Anyways'' :P). Thankfully, he just did this once and responded to the plea to let discussion continue so we could have some kind of real consensus emerge. While discussion has emerged and with one editor on his side, one a slight lean, two opposed and some anons/new users chiming in more or less opposed, it is still pretty mixed with no consensus. This would be fine except now this editor has decided to drag this ''secondary'' pages involving Champagne and has opened up a page move request for [[Talk:History of Champagne]] to lowercase the ''title''. (Kinda odd since the article is also about the winemaking history of the Champenois in the region, but hey) This, again, seems a bit bad faith and a heavy handed way to try to "force" consensus back on the ''primary'' Champagne page by getting this page move to go through. So is this cause enough to go to the [[WP:RM]] page? What are your thoughts on how best I should proceed? I greatly respect your opinion and if you think I should back down or go another path, I certainly will. [[User:Agne27 |Agne]][[Special:Contributions/Agne27|<sup>Cheese</sup>]]/[[User Talk:Agne27|<sup>Wine</sup>]] 17:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:25, 7 May 2012
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
User talk:67.168.135.45
Although I understand that you are trying to encourage using an account, and more effectively than I tried, I do consider this comment [1] to be a bit strong and factually incorrect - a single (aborted) error, not even using rollback. More importantly, is the lack of AGF. Encouraging need not come at the expense of others? Widefox (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I do not consider the comment factually incorrect, and I apologize if a lack of good faith on your part was implied; that was not intentional, and the message was meant for the benefit of someone else. I appreciate and thank you for your understanding, and your final point is well taken. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your consideration. Not wishing to labour the technical point - and I'm sure you know this better than me - but to ensure we're all on the same page - no rollback right was used in error (it was Twinkle), but yes rollback was removed until I explained my error. (I did point-out the irony - however understandable - of removing rollback for a non-rollback error with the other admin). Widefox (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding article titles and capitalisation has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegiately towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes.
- Pmanderson is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in discussions and edits relating to the Manual of Style or policy about article titles.
- Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed.
- Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors.
For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments on User_talk:Tarc
Hi Amatuilic! I really appreciate your comments. It's really nice of you to look out for me.
You said:
- As an admin myself, I appreciate your goal of being one. However, your account has been active only since January and you haven't even tallied up 1000 edits in main article space. I don't mean to disillusion you, but an WP:RFA for you would be highly premature, and dead on arrival, based on my experience with RFAs. That doesn't mean you wouldn't make a good admin, but you simply haven't yet established an extensive record of participation that the community can examine and trust. I suggest you wait at least until you have a few thousand main space edits under your belt, and try it.
- I'll also add that being an admin is really like being a janitor. There is no "leadership" implied by the position. I am continually amazed that people seem to think so. It's a lot of drudge work. If you enjoy contributing to quality content here, you may find that adminship involves a lot of cleanup, housekeeping, preventing disruption, etc., and that takes time away from making quality contributions. Wikipedia needs more good editors more than anything else. I hope you stay. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
This merits clarification. I don't have any "burning desire" to be an admin. Didn't plat to submit an RFA tomorrow. If we need more admins, I'd we willing to try, but if it seems like we have enough admins, I'm happy to sit back and just edit. I have no interest in blocking, banned, closing RFCs, or anything that controversial I have noticed that I _do_ need ViewDeleted to intelligently participate in XFD.
Everyone has to pay their dues. My need to "view delete" isn't urgnent or case-specific-- it's just something I thinK I can be trustedto do.
But-- I'm at a crossroads. I can't accept being "doomed' to second class because of my wik-political politcs. If WP doesn't weclome me, I could alsom move to a different platform. I think it's preferable to reach out to a coaliston of my fremies and ask what they think about my general "moral responsibility" as a Wikipedia.
If Tarc and others like him want to "sink" my inclusion in to the community, he can-- immediately or a year from now. I won't presume to decide which is the best answer for Wikipedia--- but I want to know whether the communities consideres me 'Welcome' or not. No point in wasting a year just if I'm just going to be rejected-- there are other venues.
I believe in Wikipedia, I want to believe all good-faith editors are on-track to become "full fledged member". If that's no realistic, I'll can always branch outward and find other platform and t start a blog. But I 'want' to join the WP community, if my "political opponents" agree I have the moral character for the job. --HectorMoffet (talk)
- You have some misconceptions still.
- There isn't a "second class" except maybe for a technical distinction between autoconfirmed and non-autoconfirmed editors who don't yet have 10 edits. There are additional user rights you can have also without being an admin, and some are "administrative" rights. This is not a complete list:
- reviewer
- account creator
- IP block exempt
- rollbacker - this used to be an admin-only function
- autopatrolled
- file mover
- edit filter manager
- Beyond that, there are no distinctions; your "class" is a continuum, a function of the respect you have gained from the community as a result of your participation. And that takes time.
- Some of our most productive editors with the highest edit counts have chosen not to become administrators; they are hardly "doomed" to be second class.
- The only valid reason to become an admin, in my opinion, is if you're interested in picking up the mop and helping out with backlogs. There is so much to do that there's no time left for productive editing. Once in a while I take a wikibreak (like I'm trying to do now, see the top of my page) and edit as an anonymous IP, without being concerned by the admin duties I'm taking a break from. It can be draining. There is no end of AfDs to close, no end of articles needing a decision about speedy deletion, no end to article protection requests, no end to usernames requiring attention, no end to preventing disruption from spammers and vandals, no end to reviewing unblock requests, no end to analyzing blacklist and whitelist requests, no end to sockpuppetry investigations, no end to ArbCom enforcement discussions, etc. Gaining access to a few additional tools comes with an unwanted burden that turns away experienced editors who are more interested in contributing good content.
- Since I started six years ago, I have never needed to view deleted contributions to participate in any XFD discussion. Even as an admin, I don't need to view deleted contributions for XfD. The only thing I need it for are speedy-delete decisions. I can't see why anyone would need it for XfD. I suppose it's a convenience, and I recall it has been discussed in the community to grant this right to trusted editors, not just admins. I don't know the current status. This happened with rollback, which used to be an admin-only right, but now any trusted editor can have it by asking an admin to grant it.
- Your general "moral responsibility" as a Wikipedian is to uphold the five pillars as best you can. Be neutral, don't push a personal point of view, be civil and understanding to others, be bold and edit. Refrain from edit warring even if others don't. It's pretty simple, really. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think all those things you say were true of Wikipedia. Six years ago, it was No Big Deal. Everyone knew everyone else, rednames and IP editors got equal respect, etc.
- I grow increasingly skeptical if the ideology we shared is still an accurate reflection of how people actually treat each other on our project. The "admin-vandalfighters" seem to be getting distant from the mainstream of the Writer/Editor community.
- Most of the admin tools are No Big Deal. But a few are a big deal. We give vastly more oversight to inter-admin disputes. Admins can view deleted, a huge huge advantage in some discussions. Admins have special "approved" venues for off-wiki collaboration.
- If it's "no big deal" why are there so few new admins compared to the past? Six years ago, you could get adminship almost on a handshake, whereas now I understand very few potential admins ever make it through the process.
- And I personally don't want to try, based on the fact that RFA is such reportedly such a negative experience. but I'm interested in whether my behavior to date is incompatible with future inclusion in the ranks.
- I used to believe the theory you share: "Admins are separate group of editors, but all editors all are equal." Unfortunately, group dynamics trump fancy words-- in practice, separate gives rise to unequal. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
OotS
Well, I think that biographies of the antagonists of OotS should be included only in the article about the OotS characters, like in the case of the main characters. Mithoron (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
![]() Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Anachronist. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
Leif Ericson
Hello Amatulic, I was reading the article on Leif Ericson and noticed that the Icelandic version of the name was missing at the beginning (currently only Old Norse and Norwegian).
As you've marked the article as semi-protected, I wanted to check with you, if it was ok that I (or you) added it?
In short, I'm proposing this addition:
Icelandic: Leifur Eiríksson;
Best regards from Iceland, Omnis
Omnis73 (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Semi protection simply prevents anonymous IP addresses and newly-created accounts from editing the article. Semi-protection was necessary because that article seemed to attract vandals for some reason. Nothing prevents you from making any necessary changes. Go right ahead, be bold and do it. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Android (operating system) > Marketing Section Edit
Hello Amatulic!
I am a new user and wanted to kindly ask your help to make a correction for Android (operating system) page, Marketing section. As you've marked the article as semi-protected, I still can't make edits to that :) I added Edit Request to the talk page, but I am not sure if anyone saw this yet. I was hoping you can help me edit the page, please.
In Marketing section please change "The Android logo was designed along with the Droid font family made by Ascender Corporation." to "The Android logotype was designed along with the Droid font family made by Ascender Corporation. Android robot icon was designed by Irina Blok, as part of Google marketing team."
Ascender corporation designed the original Android logotype, not the Android logo. Android logo is a little robot character, and logotype refers to the words of a logo (it spells Android). Please add a correction that Irina Blok created the little green robot (known as the "bugdroid" among Android team members) in the fall of 2007. She was a member of Google's marketing communications team, which was helping Android team out with copywriting and graphic design in preparation for the announcement of the Open Handset Alliance on November 5, 2007 and the early look SDK on November 12th.
Evamy, Michael (October 2011) "Android, not built by robots" Creative Review. Retrieved 2012-04-12.
Woyke, Elizabeth (September 26, 2008). "Android's Very Own Font". Forbes. Retrieved 2012-02-16.
Blok, Irina (November, 2007) Creative Portfolio Retrieved 2012-04-12.
Kim, Sung Hu (May 2012) Android (OS): Who designed Google's Android icon? Retrieved 2012-04-12.
--Sashatemov (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC) --Sashatemov (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Could use some admin advice
Hey Amatulic! I could really use some advice on how to deal with an issue that is unfortunately starting to spread to other Wikipedia pages. Essentially I want to know if I have cause to go to the WP:RM page and request the admins there to close what I feel is a premature (and slightly bad faith page move).
Here's the short and sweet: An editor at Talk:Champagne expressed a desire to change all reference to Champagne to lowercase. After he encountered some concern and opposition to his wishes, he still went ahead and unilaterally did what he wanted anyways (Kind of BRD turned into Discuss, Find Opposition, Do it Anyways :P). Thankfully, he just did this once and responded to the plea to let discussion continue so we could have some kind of real consensus emerge. While discussion has emerged and with one editor on his side, one a slight lean, two opposed and some anons/new users chiming in more or less opposed, it is still pretty mixed with no consensus. This would be fine except now this editor has decided to drag this secondary pages involving Champagne and has opened up a page move request for Talk:History of Champagne to lowercase the title. (Kinda odd since the article is also about the winemaking history of the Champenois in the region, but hey) This, again, seems a bit bad faith and a heavy handed way to try to "force" consensus back on the primary Champagne page by getting this page move to go through. So is this cause enough to go to the WP:RM page? What are your thoughts on how best I should proceed? I greatly respect your opinion and if you think I should back down or go another path, I certainly will. AgneCheese/Wine 17:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)