User talk:Renamed user 5417514488/archive 11

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Your message to Jimbo in the Esperanza section

I'm not angry at all with you, but I want to know, how can I back down from Esperanza? If I do, they'll just rampantly do as they will without any opposition. Face it, me and Dev have made up a huge bulk of the deletion force. I mean, I can't just back down now. Besides, any chance I have at adminship is probably dead anyway, I can name at least ten users who'll wantonly throw oppose votes at me. Dooms Day349 17:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis just hard for me. I can't back out now...I'm just like President Bush :) But seriously, ok, maybe I'll try. Now I'll have to wrack my nerves waiting for some responses on my editor review to see if everyone hates me or not. Dooms Day349 20:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. What I feel will count against me is my initial message at the DRV. But hey, it's one negative on a field of...semi-positive. Thanks mate... Dooms Day349 20:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In remembance of a great man

In remembance of a great man, let's spend some of our free time serving the common good by working on a great resource of free learning, Wikipedia. Today, give more time than you normally would, helping do the work that needs to be done to keep this project on track. Drop by the project page Wikipedia:Martin Luther King Day of Service and do what you can. ike9898 04:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your closure of Poll at Talk:Grandpa_Gohan

You closed a poll at Talk:Grandpa_Gohan, instructing us to discuss, not vote. We have discussed the issue. All those that have been discussing the article name have come to a consensus, which is why I made an Uncontroversial Move Request.

Further, we have, and continue to, invite discussion on the issue. I, personally, have made the argument for using the proposed name (I think) very well, and have had no viable argument. I welcome discussion, and prefer it to polling -which is why I started a discussion on the issue instead of merely making a poll.

--DesireCampbell 20:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little bit troubled, Yuser31415, that you closed the poll in that manner when it was set up according to the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. It seems to me as if that sends a bit of a mixed message. Move requests tend to run something like AfDs - there's a discussion form set up, and people "!vote" with support or oppose, and give reasons. Five days later, an admin like myself reads the arguments, and makes a decision, or else relists the request for another five days. I'm not closing move requests based on counting votes, but based on the arguments presented and on what I understand to be the spirit of our policies and guidelines.

If you disagree with that system, perhaps it's something that should be discussed, but I don't think it's appropriate to just shut down move surveys that have been set up "by the book". -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that at this time I cannot be online very long, but I will reply later to any comments you may wish to pose to me.

I did, in essence, request you to discuss and not vote further on the matter. I appreciate the fact you discussed the matter previously. However, in the process of setting up a poll, you violated one of our most important core policies, WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a democracy". I apologize if you correctly followed the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves, as GTBacchus implied above, but, however, policies override the corrupted form of RM. I would agree in principle that RM needs to be amended as soon as possible, but however in the meantime I feel entirely justified to close a "poll", "survey", or "vote", whichever you choose to call it. I would also like both of you, DesireCampbell and GTBacchus, to provide supportive policy for such a poll, when there is formal policy against them.

Best regards,

Yuser31415 01:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"in essence"?

"Please, use standard methods of discussion instead of opening a poll. ... No polls, please. Debate and discuss."

No, you demanding that we discuss instead of polling. We did discuss. We reached a consensus. We followed standard procedure and made a Move Request.

You cited WP:NOT and m:Polling is evil. You now demand counters. It's a bit presumptuous of you to demand such, but I will abide.

WP:Requested_moves - states that any Move Request should be accompanied with a poll. Ostensibly, this is meant to determine between two equally likely article titles, or to announce that a page is planned to be moved and invites any to comment. You'll notice that the template for the poll specifies that each vote be accompanied with explanation, and has a separate section for discussion.
WP:Voting_is_not_evil - is an essay made specifically to counter WP:DDV.
m:Voting_is_a_tool - is another essay made specifically to counter m:Polling is evil.
And Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules - everyone's favourite.

I am angered deeply by your closing of the poll. You treated fellow editors like children by demanding they "discuss, not vote". You obviously made no effort to see if we had done so - as we had. You made no effort to see if we had followed standard procedure - as we had. You made no effort to stimulate a discussion. You just came down with the hand of God and scooped up our poll.

--DesireCampbell 01:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yuser31415. Thanks for your reply. I have a few points to make in response.

In the process of setting up a poll, you violated one of our most important core policies, WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a democracy".

If this is true, then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is also in violation of WP:NOT. A poll would be a violation of that policy, if it were contstrued as a binding vote, but we don't vote on things here. I've closed hundreds of move requests over the past few months, and I haven't been counting votes; I've been weighing policy-based arguments, like I'm supposed to.

The thing is, WP:RM is a little bit like WP:AfD. In both, some kind of concrete decision has to be made: Move the article, or don't? Delete the article, or keep it? In both, there are often compromise solutions: Move the article to some title other than the one suggested, or rescope the article (in the case of move reqeuests); or merge the article into some other location (at AfD). Both are processed in the form of survey-structured discussions, set up to last five days, although requested moves are often relisted two or three times if five days isn't sufficient time to come to a consensus.

In both cases, it should be made clear that no binding vote is occurring. I try to make that clear, when I participate in and close these discussions. Also like AfD, Requested moves works pretty well. I don't know of an efficient way to get move requests processed that doesn't involve a structure something like we have now. Until I see a better suggestion, I can make Wikipedia better by following a procedure that hundreds of Wikipedians are apparently ok with, so I feel perfectly justified in ignoring the fact that these surveys look an awful lot like votes, and that some people inevitably get the wrong idea as a result.

In summary, I would disagree that WP:NOT a democracy is a formal prohibition against formatting discussions as surveys; or if it is a formal prohibition against survey formats, then it should be ignored. On the other hand, such discussions have demonstrated great usefulness, at all the XfD pages, as well as at WP:RM, so I see no reason to oppose them, as long as they aren't being used as binding votes. They're a good way to generate a focused discussion within a reasonable time frame. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to DesireCampbell (talk · contribs): I cited WP:NOT and m:Polling is evil, yes. I did not demand "counters". Please do not make straw man arguments.

In reply to your counters,

WP:RM is in violation of policy, as I stated above. This is not an appropriate counter.
m:Voting is not evil - this is an essay, as m:Polling is evil is.
m:Voting is a tool - same as above, in blatant violation of policies.
WP:IAR - this is not a valid counterargument, as it states, "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." Obviously polls are not needed to improve or maintain Wikipedia.

I am sorry you are angered by my decision, but I do not believe I treated you like children; asking you to "discuss, not vote" meant that you should continue discussing, not voting on every disagreement. Perhaps if you knew I had closed three polls on that page in the last 10 days, you might understand.

In reply to GTBacchus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): As it happens, WP:AFD is completely unrelated to WP:RM, for obvious reasons. That besides, WP:AFD is not a head count poll, but a contructive listing of editors' opinions on which admins or other users closing the debate base their decision. Not only that, but WP:AFD does not claim to be a vote, whereas this WP:RM does.

I admit to not knowing that WP:RM used polls; however, after looking further into the matter, I have discovered I disagree with these unrequired surveys even more.

So I really don't think we need polls to make such a decision. Certainly not discussions that are marked polls. I prefer to see a stronger argument than those procured, although I respect both of your opinions.

Thank you. Yuser31415 03:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your considered reply, Yuser31415. I admit to being confused on a couple of points. You say that "AfD is completely unrelated to RM, for obvious reasons." While they aren't strictly related, in the they have no direct influence on one another, I was attempting to make an analogy between them, and I see no obvious reasons that such an analogy would be invalid. They have certain features in common, including a widely accepted survey-style format.

Furthermore, I fail to see how a Requested Move survey "claims" to be a vote. It doesn't say that anywhere that I can see. Perhaps you can show me where this claim is being made; I'd like to correct it. Speaking as an active closer of Requested Moves, I can assure you that I don't treat them as head-count votes, but rather as "a contructive listing of editors' opinions on which admins or other users closing the debate base their decision," just as I treat AfDs when I close them.

All of this said, I would not be at all opposed to submitting the entire Requested Moves process for a Request for Comment, to see what more people think about RM surveys and their relation to WP:NOT. I'm very sympathetic to your point of view in this matter, namely opposition to voting and all that it resembles, but I've made my peace with RM surveys. If consensus is against me, I will happily modify my behavior to respect the community's understanding of policy, and help to rewrite the instructions at WP:RM accordingly. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When referring to the comparison between WP:AFD and WP:RM, I was noting that while WP:AFD states, "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted." and "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments.", WP:RM provides an example of setting up a discussion using Template:WP:RMtalk; this template specifically mentions the word "vot[e|ing]" and "survey", both of which I disagree with. So I would technically not be opposed to creating an RfC, nor opposed to amending the template to create a discussion and not a vote. // Yuser31415 04:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as you were replying here, I was realizing that the sections included in that template do in fact use the word "vote". I'm just about to post a note at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves suggesting a change there, and will probably implement the change before I sleep tonight. I'm less bothered by the word "survey", as it seems to me to imply an information-gathering activity, rather than a binding-decision-making one. Some text reminding people that they are not voting, and reminding them to provide explanations for their recommendations, is certainly in order. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you. //Yuser31415 04:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem. You may wish to watch (or participate at) Template talk:WP:RMtalk, where I've just made some comments and some edits to the template. I'd noticed that template changed last month, but I hadn't paid it much attention until just now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yuser31415, for one that claims to promote strong argument, you seem to lack such skills yourself. Your entire argument is "I think those policies are wrong, and these one's are correct". Why? "Because polls are evil and shouldn't be binding". Uh huh. That's one point of view. I, and GTBacchus believe that polls are a viable way of gaging support. They shouldn't be used to overrule a discussed consensus, or in place of compromise - but they do have their place.

And, again, it is completely improper to close a poll without warrant. And you have refused to apologize, or even acknowledge, your error. As an administrator you are required to act responsibly at all times. You closed a poll, apparently, because you simply don't like them. Such is tantamount to vandalism. Closing that poll was against Wikipedia guidelines. If you disagree with someone's actions, but they do not violate any official guideline - you cannot simply close or delete such activities without discussion - as you did. Standard procedure would be to ask about the action, and explain why you think it's wrong. I'm sure there was some admin who told me that it's better to discuss than to simply act on principles of hierarchy and democracy. Who might that have been? --DesireCampbell 03:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's clarify here.

Firstly, I am not an administrator. I aim to be one someday, but, for the moment, I am your humble servant

.

Secondly, your comment, "Your entire argument is "I think those policies are wrong, and these one's are correct". Why? "Because polls are evil and shouldn't be binding"." is not correct. I did not claim any policy was "wrong". In fact, I am claiming that policies are right. And your next comment, "Uh huh. That's one point of view. I, and GTBacchus believe that polls are a viable way of gaging support.", is wrong in that you violate the very argument you state, "That's one point of view.".

Thirdly, your comment, "You closed a poll, apparently, because you simply don't like them. Such is tantamount to vandalism.", is incorrect. I closed a poll because "policies forbid them". Also, closing a poll is not tantamount to vandalism; any user in good standing can close nearly any debate on WP, provided they can satisfy the result and that they provide a sufficient reason for closing, as I did.

Best wishes, // Yuser31415 03:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it, though. You didn't provide good reason. You said we need to discuss the move and that we weren't following policy - in fact, we did, and we were. The discussion had reached a consensus, and and MR requires a notification and a poll (a poll that stipulates votes should include reasoning, and the template includes a section for further discussion). Your argument is flawed.

You try to back up your actions by quoting guidelines, but fail to acknowledge we were acting in accordance to other guidelines. I can understand your argument against polls, but you can't close them simply because you feel they should be closed, despite certain guidelines that say they are allowed. When the guidelines change so that polling is outlawed, then your argument would work -until then, you can't use the argument that "it's against policy".

Sorry about my tirade about adminship - I was misinformed (must have been reading another User page). I sincerely apologize, my comments about such are mostly still applicable, but should be taken with less resentment

--DesireCampbell 03:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology, but you really didn't need to

.

In case you didn't already know, Wikipedia:Guidelines are different from Wikipedia:Policies (and I was citing a policy, not a guideline).

Please, don't let's continue this argument now. Another time, and another place, perhaps. I disagree with polls being used to determine consensus, because consensus, not voting, is the core of our community. But now, let's move on as friends.

Best wishes,

// Yuser31415 04:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TeckWiz's RFA

TeckWiz's RFA

I would like to thank you for voting in support of my second RFA. I withdrew per WP:SNOW, as consensus to promote was against me. I will continue to improve until one day, I become an admin. Thanks, and happy editing! --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 21:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Wikipedia Day!

Happy Wikipedia Day!

On January 15, 2007, Wikipedia turned six-years-old. According to statistics, Wikipedia has around 1,500,000 articles and Wikipedians have made 104,000,000 edits. The millionth article was Jordanhill railway station, created on March 2, 2006.

Wikipedia has moved from an Alexa rank of 20 to a rank of 12 having already briefly visited rank 8 (current rank). Happy editing!

—S .D. ¿п? 23:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Segway Geeks Recruitment

Template:Segway Geeks Recruitment has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —S .D. ¿п? 01:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 3	15 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review, Part II	New arbitrators interviewed
Cascading protection feature added	WikiWorld comic: "Apples and Oranges"
News and notes: Fundraiser breaks $1,000,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


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 06:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]