Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:16, 23 April 2007

Two Flaws.

Kelly Martin, don't you realize that getting users to join WikiProjects in order to get your support has two major flaws? One: it'll scare potential admins off, as some users don't want to join WikiProjects, and prefer to do work on various articles. Two: it'll make users join WikiProjects for the wrong reasons; instead of joining a WikiProject because they're interested in the WikiProject's subject, they'll join it simply as a way to become an admin. What would you rather have? Users joining WikiProjects because they care about the WikiProject, or users joining WikiProjects only as a way to become an administrator? Acalamari 19:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What about wikigonmes, who may participate in a category of articles but dont want to wear a "badge" announcing themselves. It seems to me to be against what much of wikipedia is about. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm afraid not all WikiProjects are alike. WP:P*, which is really the only one I'm active in, is fairly dysfunctional in terms of getting people to edit specific articles, or in a specific style. Probably fewer than half a dozen people actually participate; though it isn't dead, and has never been much more active than this. Per the 80%/20% rule, I strongly suspect most wikiprojects are closer to this than to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history or something similarly well organized. Here are a few I picked at random from Category:WikiProjects participating in Misplaced Pages 1.0 assessments: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Blackadder hasn't been edited in a month; Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Viruses- worse... How "active" would you require a wikiproject to be before you would accept a nomination from it? --AnonEMouse 20:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why people would not want to be associated with wikiprojects? Misplaced Pages itself a just a huge project, if people are so against wikiprojects why would they be part of wikipedia? Wikiprojects are not about ordering people around and micromanaging. Its about collaboration and an exchange of ideas. If people view projects as anything else they are part of the wrong project and there needs to be a reform for project reform. One way to do that is get more people involved. One way to get more people involved is give wikiprojects a higher profile. i wonder how we could do that? David D. (Talk) 16:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue is more that content creation has little to do with adminship, and this proposal is trying to link them (thus the exclusion of non-content wikiprojects). There is no reason why a good admin should also be required to be good at content creation, and someone involved mostly in content creation doesn't need to (and in most cases shouldn't) be an admin. To make matters worse, many WikiProjects have specific points of view, and requiring endorsements could worsen the battles between some projects, and create new factions pushing particular viewpoints. In fact, I would say that in a variety of cases, I would consider WikiProject involvement to be a negative point for admins. Would you expect that an admin candidate endorsed by WikiProject_Paranormal, WikiProject_Psionics, or even WikiProject_Pseudoscience for example, would be unbiased, and that the endorsements were not being given in order to gain admins to assist in edit warring? --Philosophus 15:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What would be the probem of someone in the paranormal project? Why do you assume they are all biased? Clearly each admin candidate is judged based on their individual contributions. Why would you label someone based on their affiliations?

Also there are many good reason why an admin candidate should have experience in the main space other than vandal fighting and adding stub templates. Primarily since experience at that level allows one to since the whole picture. If the admin chooses to drift away from editing mainspace and focus on other tasks, fair enough, but it is reasonable to expect main space edits and contributions as a minimum requirement. In all my comments at RfA this has been my highest priority. In my experience that is the way you gain the background knowledge to do the job well. It also shifts the focus from the numbr of edits to the quality of edits. Obviously this is only one aspect of the qualifications to be a good admin but it's where I start.

What about the big picture here. Wikiprojects gain from such a focus. This is good for wikipedia. Others users are still free support admin candidates without a nomination from a wikiproject? Who loses here? Why is this idea so intimidating to so many? David D. (Talk) 15:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know

The threadfuls and threadfuls of outrage on your talk page are making me, for one, just more convinced that this whole thing is a good idea. The instantaneous and piled on dissent just shows that many people are wikistalking you, and the repeatedly recreated threads (as opposed to posting int eh same thread as others have created) just show that people aren't paying attention to actual discussion and are just trying to "get their say in". Lol! I hope you march on with this idea. Maybe the focus on the encyclopedia is what is scaring people. Milto LOL pia 00:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"Maybe the focus on the encyclopedia is what is scaring people"? I don't think so. More like the attempts to reverse WP:CREEP. -- Earle Martin 14:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea if anything good will come off it but I think it's a reasonable idea being conducted in a reasonable manner. Haukur 01:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Response.

I don't know if you are watchlisting my talk page at the moment, but to let you know, I have responded on my talk page here to keep our discussion centered. Acalamari 16:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

My userpage

I have refactored my userpage and removed all the userboxes that you objected to. I've also fixed the grammatical error (which, as I explained, was the result of a standard template). I'm sorry that my userpage was inappropriate, and I don't expect you to change your vote in my RfA; I just want to ensure that my userpage complies with your requirements, for future reference. I wasn't aware that some users found those kind of userboxes inappropriate, and I will not add them in future. It isn't the RfA that's important to me here, I just don't want to offend anyone generally. Walton 17:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's fine if you don't want to answer my question, but I'd appreciate some kind of response, just to let me know that you've read my posting. Walton 09:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Unhelpful falsehoods?

What, specifically, do you think is wrong with those edits? — Omegatron 17:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"As of May 2005, a major requirement of this policy is that use of non-free content on Misplaced Pages be considered fair use under US law." This statement says something different than you probably think it does. What this statement says is that "As of May 2005, Misplaced Pages chooses to interpret United States law such that any content complying with this policy will be considered, by Misplaced Pages, to be consistent with that law." Clearly this is false. Misplaced Pages is not empowered to make binding interpretations of United States law. What I think you meant to say, but failed to actually say, is "As of May 2005, in order to comply with this policy, any particular use of nonfree content must be used consistent with US fair use law", or something to that effect. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That's it? That requires a revert of all of my edits? Of course I meant the latter. You could have just reworded it. — Omegatron 18:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There were other problems as well. That was just the most serious objection. In any case, Greg has already reinserted the salvageable portions of your edits, so I think there's no need for further acrimony over this issue. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Salvageable"? — Omegatron 00:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha RfA thanks

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! --Shirahadasha 05:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I despise "thank you for voting" notes. If I had known you were going to bother me with this swill, I would have opposed your candidacy. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, cmon Kelly. That's pretty harsh. --Dweller 12:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what happened to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL? The Rambling Man 12:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure his comments were good faith; I just happen to despise "thank you for voting" notes and said so. Nothing bad faith about that. And really, what's uncivil about expressing my opinion honestly? And stop spraying CAPITALIZED GIBBERISH on my talk page; if you are going to refer to Misplaced Pages "policy" here, you will do so using English. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. The Rambling Man 12:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Kelly, you're a gem, but I do think "despise" and "swill" are pretty harsh words for him, not to mention the sentiment of the last six words. Anyway, to change the tune somewhat, I may be able to line up a WikiProject admin candidate. Regardless of whether or not you choose to support that particular nominee, it's an interesting step. Watch this space. --Dweller 13:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Donald Stephens

No problem. I think that everything I added comes from the external links already on the page, in case there are any concerns with sourcing. Zagalejo 19:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

AFD closures and admins

Kelly, I noticed that you recently opposed several RFA candidates for believing that closing deletion discussions is an admin only task. IIRC, that used to be true. Do you know when and where it changed? Also (and not intending to be confrontational when I ask), why is this a good reason to oppose someone? Because it indicates ignorance of a policy/guideline change or because it shows an inflated view of the responsibilities of sysops, or perhaps something else...? Thanks.--Chaser - T 10:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Closing deletion discussions has never been a role exclusive to admins. There is a common belief that only an admin can close a deletion discussion as "delete" because the closer is required to delete the page as part of closing, but that is false: a non-admin can close the discussion and tag the page for speedy deletion, and a subsequent admin will actually delete the page. This has always been the case.

I will oppose candidates who express positions or attitudes I disagree with because I don't want people who hold such positions to benefit from the added influence of being admins, lest they spread their mistaken ideas more broadly as a result. In this particular case, both of your suppositions are basically accurate. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions is pretty clear that non-admins should only close "keep" AfDs, actually, and has been that way since, June 13, 2005. --AnonEMouse 14:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That is, in my opinion, incorrect, regardless as to how long it's been there. Stupid policies should not be followed, regardless of how long they've been stupid. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I humbly submit that an admin candidate that takes any one person's opinion above an official Misplaced Pages:guideline, marked such for 2 years, is not qualified to be chosen as an admin. Just think, for example, if that candidate were to take Badlydrawnjeff's opinion above the Notability guideline. --AnonEMouse 14:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but any guideline or policy which happens to disagree with my opinion, should not be followed! :-) --AnonEMouse 15:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I would not expect you to feel any differently! Kelly Martin (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on my RfA

I noticed your comment on my RfA. The one problem in getting an endorsement from a WikiProject is that WikiProjects do not at present endorse candidates for adminship. I have in mind some time soon to start a WikiProject for biographies of Members of Parliament (Harry Hayfield has contacted me about something similar). I have also been active in fields covered by WikiProject Baronetcies and WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies; if I went to their talk pages and mentioned that you had made this request, would this be a violation of WP:CANVASS? And what if project members come back saying "I can't speak for the whole project"? Sam Blacketer 17:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It most probably would be a violation of WP:CANVASS at present, so I would be extremely hesitant to go down that road. Kelly hasn't opposed you, she simply remained neutral so overall it isn't going to hurt you. Please note, as yet, no wiki project has endorsed a candidate, and kelly's neutral is not going to bias anyone elses judgement in your RfA. All in all - I'd suggest leaving it. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be considered canvassing to make a single post on the talk page of a WikiProject you are active in asking whether they would endorse you for adminship. And if that does count, then the canvassing guideline needs to be changed, because there clearly isn't anything wrong with this. --Cyde Weys 18:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, how I meant to put it was some people may see it as canvassing and oppose accordingly, I personally have no problem with it. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think there is something wrong with this, I would consider it canvassing, and quite sufficient grounds to oppose an RfA. When and if wikiprojects start endorsing RfA candidates, they should do so on their own, or on a suggestion from a project member other than the candidate. DES 19:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care much for the anti-canvassing rule. If that policy interferes with obtaining a WikiProject endorsement, then change the policy. (Note that this is a repeat discussion; refer to my talk page archives for several other people making exactly the same comment and the responses thereto.) I also draw your attention to my standing rule (mentioned above) that discussions related to Misplaced Pages policy on my talk page are to take place in English and without the use of "capitalized gibberish". Kelly Martin (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I am actually intending proposing a substantial rewrite of the anti-canvassing policy, which has a valid core intent but also a variety of unintended negative side-effects. So upon reflection, I agree that "canvassing" concerns perhaps should not be an objection to Kelly Martin's proposed change in RfA standards, though as a practical matter they are at the moment. More fundamental remains the simple fact that Wikiprojects don't endorse RfA candidates and there is no indication they are going to start doing so. So I fear that what we have here amounts, inadvertently, to not only a demand for a shrubbery, but for an unprocurable one. Newyorkbrad 19:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

... subject to the thread at the bottom of the page. Unexpected (by me, anyway). Newyorkbrad 14:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not at all by me, though. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for commenting on my RfA! I had read something bad about vandalism counters, but I had forgotten; thanks for reminding me. Also, do you mind pointing out the grammatical errors on my page? I can't seem to find them (and I hate them!). Also, you mentioned that I declared I was going to run for RfA on my page, but I've not done that. Maybe you're confused with someone else, or I misinterpreted you. I'd appreciate a response; thanks! · AndonicO 20:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Knowing who Greg is

I was reading this thread, and I hope you don't mind me saying that I was surprised to see you follow up your explanation of who Greg is (though the cryptic "CRO" still might have confused some people), with a request for kingboyk to assume good faith. The way I see it, it was perfectly acceptable for him to ask what authority Greg was acting under. I had to search my memory for a moment before I remembered (from previous lurking elsewhere) that Greg was a developer. For future reference, maybe there is a list of developers somewhere that could be referred to in situations like this? Carcharoth 21:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I found meta:Developers, but that seems out-of-date, as it says. Carcharoth 21:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

And Chief risk officer would be an amusing "not-all-capitals" alternative to Chief Research Officer, or as the WMF put it, Chief_Research_Coordinator... Carcharoth 21:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was perfectly okay to challenge Greg. I don't recall voting for him to have any powers over bots, or any discussion leading to his being given a position of power. I have seen him throw his weight around in various places on the wiki, so I can understand why someone would ask who he thinks he is. You should note that how many edits bots make is an editorial issue, not a technical one, so even if it's the case that the Foundation has appointed him to some role or other, he still should take some care not to claim a jurisdiction in editorial matters that will jeopardise the Foundation's position that it is not responsible for the encyclopaedia's content. Grace Note 01:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And I can't find Greg listed at current staff, though I realise that is a list of the full-time staff. The Board of Trustees is listed here, and the Advisory Board is llisted here. Former staff are here, but I'm still struggling to find Greg there. I realise that this may be because the WMF wiki is often out-of-date, but I can see why it would be difficult for someone to track down Greg's official position relative to the WMF. The resolution I linked above is the only thing I've found so far. Carcharoth 10:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone should probably also add this page to this category and set up a redirect from Chief Research Officer to the new title page. Anyway, sorry to have dragged on about this on your talk page. I'll drop a note off at Greg's talk page and stop here. Carcharoth 10:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Whereas I at least did go through some sort of open procedure to be in the Bot Approvals Group; whether or not that procedure is sufficient isn't really the issue here. The issue is that an elite group on IRC made a decision without bothering to inform us of it, and then made grossly offensive accusations of bad faith and personal attacks designed to portray us as villains when they were rumbled. Really not acceptable at all imho. --kingboyk 12:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please kindly put your annoying and ludicrous allegations of "IRC cabalism" back into the nether region from which you have extracted them. There's no "elite group on IRC", just several qualified and competent members of the community collaborating to achieve results. As opposed to a group of much less qualified and competent individuals conspiring to protect their own power base. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

On what basis do you claim "much less qualified and competent individuals"? I am getting sick and tired of these baseless insults. --kingboyk 14:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Kingboyk - there is a certain way to handle Kelly Martin. Getting upset is not one of them. And I would actually agree that the IRC accusations are not helpful. Concentrate, like I am, on improving the processes in future, so that it is clear what roles Greg has, and fine-tuning the bot guidelines on Misplaced Pages and working with developers to ensure you are not misunderstanding each other. Bot operators and developers need to work together. Unfortunately, developers can be a bit of a law unto themselves, but that is something for another day. Carcharoth 14:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The first ever WikiProject endorsement?

Kelly, I have glanced at my Request for adminship and it appears that Kittybrewster has endorsed me on behalf of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Baronetcies. (Kittybrewster is not only an active member of the project; I understand he is himself a Baronet). I understand this may be a first. Sam Blacketer 09:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also you may wish to see Warofdreams' comments at WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies. Sam Blacketer 09:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to wait a few days to see if there are objections at WikiProject Baronetcies; if there are not I will consider the endorsement to have the consensus of the project and will, at that time, alter my vote. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA and userboxes

Kelly, I respect your evaluation that it takes more than a vandal fighter to make a good admin. However, if that's the basis of your opposition, then please present your opposition in that light. But there is a growing frustration from RfA candidates that RfAs are failing on completely arbitrary reasons and what you're doing is a direct contribution to that. In case you forgot, your oppose rationale is "Questionable user page content (specifically, the "I wanna be an admin" userbox, and the CVU "WikiDefCon" stupidity) compels me to oppose this candidate." The content of this candidate's user page is perfectly within the average spectrum of userpages of well-respected editors. It's perfectly comparable to many an admin's userpage. For cryin'out loud, it's not even to different from your userpage. If you have a problem with the WikiDefCon template, well start an MfD and if that MfD fails then just accept it and move on. What you're doing is participating in the current atmosphere of paranoia that surrounds RfA. Countless editors have asked you time and again to stop opposing on such trivialities and yet, all we get back is that we should be more civil to you. At some point, however, your insistence that you shouldn't care about what editors are telling you is really the more serious concern of incivility. Pascal.Tesson 18:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your opinion, but I find that I do not wish to follow your advice; I do not believe that the approaches you recommend would be as effective in improving Misplaced Pages as the methods I am currently employing. If you have any further suggestions, I will be most pleased to entertain them. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So what you are saying is you are trying to change the average spectrum, or what is generally accepted on wikipedia through opposition on the RFA process?-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is that instead of opposing users directly over their user page, you should go to their talk page and politely inform them of any problems you have, or alternatively, you could just do what you do with your endorsement policy, and just !vote neutral until the concerns are addressed. That to me seems far more civil than direct opposition. Acalamari 19:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel that your methods would be less effective. I choose not to adopt them. Thank you for your input, however. I do, however, categorically reject your assertion that opposing someone's candidacy is inherently uncivil. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Opposition is not uncivil. I was just saying that you could take a more civil approach to your opposition over user page content. Acalamari 19:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, I am not trying to push a method on you, just trying to gain a better understanding. I guess I am just trying to understand why (and i dont mean to offend) you oppose on what appears to be such pedantic semantics. Having a want to be admin userbox. Just to let you know, most likley if they are at RFA, they want to be an admin some day. Does that mean everybody at an RFA should be opposed? I am not trying to discount your opinion, just trying to gain a better understanding of why you feel that such content of userpages is a reason for opposition? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also to clarify, I know that you do not owe me an explanation, however I am respectufully attemtping to enage in discourse over behavior that on the surface may seem disruptive to some, however if deeper reasons, not obvious to the casual editor exist that may merit such objections. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be saying with this that you consider opposition on an RFA to be inherently an act of incivility. Is that what you meant to say? - David Gerard 19:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is, lets say theoretically somebody failed an RFA yesterday and went around opposing all of the rfas for the reasons posed by Kelly Martin, while they may be valid, the said theoretical editor would most likjley end up being blocked for WP:POINT violations. Note, I am not likening Kelly Martin to a failld RFA WP:POINT violater, however contrasting a theoretical community reaction if said opposeds were by a disruptive editor. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris, I draw your attention to my request that contributors refrain from using capitalized gibberish in discussions here. If you wish to refer to Misplaced Pages policy documents on my talk page, you may do so using English. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am also not trying to push anything on you. I would like to say, however, that from my experience on Misplaced Pages (and in real life), people are more likely to go with your suggestions if you are polite. Acalamari 19:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)