User talk:RyanGerbil10/Archive 15

Please imagine a different catchy song:

Believe it or not, this page is archived,

Please leave a meesage at this page

Scream all you want, but I'll never hear,

'cause I'm not here-

Believe it or not, it's archived!

Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 37	10 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
An interview with Jimbo Wales	WikiWorld comic: "Godwin's Law"
News and notes: 2,000,000, Finnish ArbCom, statistics, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. R Delivery Bot 20:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Who are you, do you play Laser Quest?

I'm curious, you started the 2007 page before I got around to it for the 2007 north america challenge, I'm wondering what codename do you use at lq and what center do you play at? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandonTheGreat (talk • contribs) 04:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll tell you about me

I'm Mr. SG-1, the hated guy on LQ Arena, I'm more or less a Brampton scrub, I've never played for a team but I do have a fascination with stats, anyways, I've been doing a lot lately, and I will finish the NAC 2006 page.

As for the explanation of NAC points on the 2007 page, I think that should be removed personally, I am currently working on an outline of a NAC page, all the regionals will be done for all years. Thanks for the data input. Don't worry about finishing these pages, I can do it myself as I will be free for quite some time.

Btw, I forget how you do it but how do you ask for a template on here again? I want to make a template similar to the soccer box one they use on the soccer tournament pages but for LQ games. Who do I ask to get that done?

BrandonTheGreat 14:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for your support at my RfA. Regards, Jogers (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 38	17 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Reader survey
Wikimedia treasurer expected to depart soon	WikiWorld comic: "Sarah Vowell"
News and notes: Template standardization, editing patterns, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 03:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you!  — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 03:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no cabal.  — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 03:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

On a serious note, though, given your recent reverts, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Abuse reports/bezeq. If you see similar patterns (mostly he's targetting JetLover), please add the IPs to the list at the top, and if you have time, add in the individual edits in the bottom table too. (The latter is less important, as once I get the IP, I can get the contribs easily). Thanks.  — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 03:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of template

I do feel the need to be the voice in the crowd saying it's fairly inappropriate (though not against the rules) to close a TfD that had twice as many "keep" votes as a "delete, regardless of the votes, I just don't think it's appropriate". Use a vote to register your personal opinion, not an administrative action. Anyways, I don't care enough to open a deletion review, just to chastise you against future infractions. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 06:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to second this. Your reasons for deleting the template don't make sense, and they particularly don't make sense in light of the arguments you conveniently also dismiss. If you had considered these arguments you would understand that what you assert about the template is out of whack. As a voting and commenting editor I find this statement egregious: "Regardless of the arguments presented hereunder, it's just not an appropriate use of a template." What is the point of having this process if an admin is just going to dismiss the work put in by other editors and unilaterally decide what is and what is not appropriate content for a template?PelleSmith 05:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Response: The problem is that I don't know if there really is good reason to delete such a template because you provide nothing for the lay editor to go about understanding the deletion. So maybe there is a policy or guideline that makes this content inappropriate for a template. The nominator's reasons (which did in fact have to do with template guidelines) didn't stand up at all during the discussion, and you didn't refer to them either in your so called explanation. So you didn't delete the template per the reasons given by the nominator. You also wrote on the template creator's talk page that the reason you deleted the template has nothing to do with policy or guidelines at all in fact but simply with your experience deleting templates. I noticed that the standard delete or keep comment by admins in these processes is something like "The result of debate was delete." The result of debate here was clearly "keep." Maybe you wish to take the opportunity here to explain a bit more clearly why you deleted the template instead of hiding behind your status as an admin and your "experience" performing admin related tasks. I believe this is exactly what the template creator has in good faith asked for. Not doing so simply adds to the impression that Wikipedia is in fact NOT run on guidelines and policies that are transparent, but on the unilateral actions of authority figures.PelleSmith 13:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw your second note to PelleSmith. I am going to admonish you. I asked you if there were policies that backed up your assertions.

• You didn't supply me the wikilink to the policies, as I requested.
• You didn't say that your assertions were backed up by policy. You didn't say, "it is backed up by policy, I just can't remember which on, off the top of my head. I'll get back to you."
• What you said they weren't backed up by policy.

Of course administrators are authorized to use common sense when administering areas of the wikipedia that are not governed by policy. Provided they can explain those decisions.

Do you realize that, from your statements, it looked like you were exercising your administrator's authority, in areas that weren't covered by policy, without being prepared to explain yourself?

I am going to go read that policy now. Geo Swan 16:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read the policy. And I read your last note to me. I am trying to figure out whether you think I should extend a level of deference to you, over and above the ordinary courtesy I would extend to any other wikipedia volunteer.

You probably find the same big weakness among your acquaintances, both IRL, and here on the wikipedia as I do -- hardly anyone knows how to give a meaningful apology. I admire people who can openly acknowledge mistakes. I do my best to do so. I think I manage it pretty well, most of the time.

Now, if you were trying to tell me you think I owe you an apology, or I owe you more deference -- well, I am honestly msytified as to why that should be. Yes, closing 2000 nominations for deletion is a lot of work. It means you aren't a beginner. I have over 20,000 edits under my belt. So I am not a beginner either.

Earlier, you offered me some help, bringing my use of templates into compliance. I was going to ask you for that help. But if the cost of your help is to accept an unequal relationship I think I would rather do without.

Cheers! Geo Swan 00:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully...

I'd like to ask a couple of questions about your conclusion in Template:TalibanBounty...

1.	Following procedure is important, correct? So, shouldn't all mal-formed nominations for deletion result in a speedy-keep? If the nominator, or someone else who feels there is a valid reason for deletion -- one supported by policy -- nothing prevents them from drafting a new, properly formed nomination. Do you agree that complying with procedure is important?
2.	The nominator made no effort to discuss their concerns first. I wrote in the deletion discussion that I thought a nomination based on a POV problem that couldn't be modified had to be backed up by some effort made to discuss the POV problem prior to the nominating it for deletion.
	The nominator did not make this effort. This was not compliant with policy -- and, IMO, this gives the appearance of a lack of good faith.
3.	In your conclusion you wrote:
	"There is no reason to display this picture on every enemy combatant article. If the author of a particular article would like to make an assertion that the subject is considered an enemy combatant, they must do so by providing, reliable, sourced information, just as any other editor would be required to do." Sorry, your conclusion embodies some serious misconceptions. The wanted poster has absolutely nothing to do with the assertion that the captives in question have been determined to have been "enemy combatants". 572 captives have had their status considered by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal. The DoD made public that 38 captives had never been enemy combatants. All of the articles that state that a captive was determined to be an enemy combatant are backed up by verifiable, authoritative references. The wanted poster was not applied to 534 articles. It was applied only to about three dozen articles where there was a source that reported the captive was sold for a bounty. And the template was used on Guantanamo Bay detention camp‎ and A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data‎. There is no gentle way to say this. Your reading of the discussion fell short -- you thought the crux of the discussion was over unsubstantiated claims that captives were "enemy combatants"? Did you read far enough into the discussion to see that I responded to the accusation that the articles had nothing to do with poster with this table.
4.	In your conclusion you wrote:
	"A cartoon does not satisfy this requirement." I'd like to know why you call the wanted poster a "cartoon". It is one of several posters designed to be used in an illiterate society.
5.	In your conclusion you wrote:
	"Additionally, this template does not mention the subject of the articles on which it is placed." I hope you can explain this to me. I won;t claim to be an expert in creating templates. I am not aware of this requirement. It is not mentioned in the four criteria justifying a nomination for deletion. Could you please direct my attention to the policy whose authority you paraphrased when you made this assertion?
6.	In your conclusion you wrote:
	"If a template were being used to provide standard, template-able information, such as in an infobox, the template would need to be able to be customized for each article, something that this template does not, and cannot do." I hope you can explain this to me. What do you mean by "standard, template-able information"? You say templates need to able to be customized for each article? I am going to guess at what you mean. Please tell me if my guess is correct. The templates was being used to include the poster on articles where there was a source that reported the captive was sold for a bounty. No offense, but you don't seem to have read the discussion with sufficent care to understand that. So, how customized would you have expected the template to have been used? It includes a caption: Are you saying that you would have been satisfied if the caption had added sentences that said something like: Jan Sada testified he was sold for a bounty.¹ Amnesty International reports Ahcene Zemiri was sold for a bounty² So, my understanding of your meaning? Correct? Incorrect? While I have not learned how to write customized templates I am a computer programmer. Templates use some kind of macro processor, correct? Sorry, but it sounds to me as if what you have described as impossible would actually be trivial. As with my fifth point, could you please direct me to the policy whose authority yoou are paraphrasing when you asserted that valid templates must be customizable?

Questioning wikipedians, and wikipedia administrators

I don't like questioning administrators. I am not comfortable doing so. You and your colleagues are just volunteer, like I am. And most of you are doing your best to build a better wikipedia.

But, you are fallible, like I am.

There are two key questions I ask when I participate in a discussion about a wikipedian's nomination for administrator.

1. I ask them whether they agree that wikipedians who are promoted should continue to feel obliged to do their best to continue to comply with WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Actually, I think administrators should be making a greater effort tom fully comply with the wikpedia's policies, because they should be setting an example, and they should be familiar enought with the wikipedia's policies because they know better.
2. And I ask them whether they are capable of considering the possibility, that when they form an opinion they might be wrong, and the other guy might be right. I aske them if they can consider the possiblity they made a mistake, and whether, fi they made one, whether they can own up and acknowledge that error to their correspondents.

The wikipedia asks of its volunteers that we assume good faith. The way I see it if I am going to ask my correspndents to assume good faith, then I have to show good faith.. And showing good faith requires me to acknowledge when I realize, or have drawn to my attention, that I made a mistake. These are the standards I try to measure up to. And I expect my correspondents to try to live up to these standards..

When I raise questions as to whether someone made an error in judgement it is not my intention to humiliate them I don't try to bully my correspondents into a humiliating apology -- or any kind of apology. I am completely satisfied with an open acknowledgment of error.

Some people IRL, some wikipedians, and some wikipedia administrators, react to questions as to whether they may have made a mistake, as if they are being personally attacked. I do my best when I question people to be as tactful as I can. Ad I am not expecting them to measure up to any standards I don't expect of myself.

An early Computer Science Educator, named Gerald Weinberg, wrote the seminal book, "The Psychology of Computer Programming". In this book he coined the term "egoless programming" -- a technique he recommended be used on programming teams. He encouraged those participating on teams to try to divorce their egos from the contributions. The willingness to openly acknowledge mistakes would play a big role in making the team's efforts more effective. The way I see it the wikipedia has a lot in common with a big programming team, which benefits from participants who can willingly acknowledge error.

Your discretion as a closing admin

WP:DRV tells wikipedians that their first step, when they are concerned there was an error in procedure in a deletion, is to write to the closing admin. I believe that the policy recommends this so that , either: the closing admin can explain their reaoning more fully -- or that the closing admin has the opportunity to realize they made a mistake, quietly, before their questionable judgemnt is exposed widely in the DRV forum.

I have assumed that closing admins have the descretion to reverse their decisions. Is this correct? Will you consider reversing yourself in this particular case?

Am I mistaken -- does your discretion include relisting the discussion with a note saying something like -- "I slept on this particular case, and I have considered that I may have closed it too early, and I am therefore relisting it." Or, alternately, could you say you are relisting the discussion because you were afraid you may have crossed the line from being a neutral closing admin to introducing novel arguments of your own?

The importance of complying with policy

Forgive me for being blunt. But I think your closing comment, and the misconceptions it contains, highlights the importance of making sure all nominations for deletion that do not fully comply with the stated criteria for deletion are closed with a speedy keep, as soon as possible.

Can I point out that several of the concerns you raised, in your conclusion, were new concerns -- not concerns that were raised by any of the participants in the discussion. If you are tempted to introduce new arguments for deletion -- or new arguments for preservation, isn't this a sign you should take off your administrator's hat, and weign in as another discussion participant -- rather than closing the discussion?

I think that this deletion discussion, and, forgive me, your concluding comments, highlight the importance of making sure that all nominations that do not fully comply with the stated criteria for deletion are closed as speedy keep as soon as possible.

Frankly, you and I should not be having a discussion as to whether this template could have brought into compliance with policy -- after your reached the conclusion it should be deleted. I don't think the first place a concern as to whether it could be brought into compliance should be discussed should be in the deletion forum. I think the first place this kind of concern should be discussed is on the appropriate talk page.

I am very concerned that the new concerns you raised are not impossible to satisfy -- that they are easy to satisfy.

I won't be disingenuous. When I asked you to help me find the policies whose authority you were calling upon, I had strong doubts that your assertions as to what did and didn't constitute a valid template were based on any policy whatsoever. If my doubts are well pleace, I am sure it was an honest mistake. However, may I suggest it would have been less embarrassing for you, better for everyone, all around, if you had raised your concerns in a discussion, rather than in an administrator's concluding statement?

My conclusion that those administering policy must be scrupulous to fully comply with policy themselves

I first came to the conclusion that those administering policy must be scrupulous to fully comply with policy themselves about two years ago.

• There was a change in policy about non-commercial use images. The wikipedia used to allow wikipedians to upload and use images that were distributed under a "non-commercial use" liscense. I had uploaded a bunch of non-commercial use images, when they were OK. Mainly images of Canadian Coast Guard vessels. Unlike the US government -- Canadian government images are not in the public domain.
• I wasn't that happy about the policy change, as I had spent some hours finding and uploading those images. But policy is policy. So I spent a dozen or more hours searching for images of Canadian vessels that had been taken by US Federal employees who were on joint exercises -- or reasonable equivalent. I replaced the non-commercial use images I had used with the public domain images I found, that were taken by US Federal employees.
• I wasn't the only Canadian who had spent time uploading non-commercial use images of Canadian vessels and helicopters. By this time I finished I had all kinds of Canadian images on my watchlist, so I noticed when a patroller started removing apparently valid liscense tags, and nominating images for deletion. This patroller wasn't giving the uploaders a heads-up. I thought that removing the tags, without explanation, was pretty fishy.
• I wrote the patroller, and asked them what they were doing. They explained that they felt sure that the {{self-made}} and {{PD}} tags the uploaders had placed were forgeries -- invalid. I agreed with them that anyone who placed a forged tag on an image was a vandal. At the time I was skeptical about their claim.
• I strongly felt that we can't try to get other wikipedians to comply with policy if we aren't following policy ourselves. Those other uploaders deserved a heads-up, in case that patroller's suspicions were misplaced. And he or she really should have provided some kind of proof, or explanation as to why he removed the apparently valid tags.
• Even if the frustrated uploaders were forging tags, they are not going to be brought into a willingness to comply with policy by patrollers who are violating policy themselves.
• That patroller did offer what they thought was a valid justification for failing to comply with policy while trying to administer policy -- expediency --. It is a justification at least half a dozen patrollers have offered to me since then. He could have explained why he was removing the tags he suspected were invalid. But doing so would have made his vandal-fighting efforts half as efficient.
• So far as I am concerned anyone who is too busy to full ocmply with the wikipedia's policies -- when they are trying to administer the wikipedia's policies -- is too busy to do any administrative work at all. IMO the wikipedia would be far better served if everyone who was to busy to conduct their administration in a manner that showed respect for the wikipedia's policies and guidelines, simply postponed their efforts until they were not too busy.
• In particular, no one who is too busy to comply with WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:NPA should try to conduct any administration whatsoever.

Cheers! Geo Swan 15:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Needing protection

[1] Flayer 21:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Flayer 21:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)