Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:04, 8 December 2008

Template:Werdnabot

This editor is not an administrator and does not wish to be one.

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Real-life workload: 8.5

• 1 = no work pressure
• 5 = middling
• > 5 = please don't expect much
• 10 = frenzied

Please note that I don't normally (1) copy-edit articles, or (2) review articles that are not candidates for promotion to featured status.

List_of_U.S._friendly_fire_incidents_since_World_War_II_that_have_British_victims

I would appreciate your input at Talk:List_of_U.S._friendly_fire_incidents_since_World_War_II_that_have_British_victims. There is a very small issue relating to renaming it to List_of_U.S._friendly_fire_incidents_since_World_War_II_with_British_victims ('that have' -> 'with'). You may also be interested in the other matters being discussed. None of which are a big deal. Lightmouse (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Are they friendly incidents that involve fire? A hyphen is required: "List of post-1945 US friendly-fire incidents with British victims"? Tony (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see you support hyphenation, but this is another ENGVAR question, because American usage is clear: do not hyphenate. Which VAR is more relevant here is not clear to me, so should we fall back on leave it as it was? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No, American language editors will insist on a hyphen here; the nominal group contains 14 words on the highest rank, and on the second rank, "U.S._friendly_fire_incidents" is a four-word nominal group. It's ambiguous without the hyphen, not to menion harder to read. Go see Scientific American. Tony (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have. None of their three uses of "friendly fire" are in apposition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

1910–12

I am disappointed in you.

I admit that 1910–12 can mean something other than the triennium, in the right context, but that's true of all of English; consider bear. The numbers have a normal meaning, and only mean something else in parallel with 1910–09 and the like. The argument that we should adopt novel formatting everywhere to avoid ambiguity in a handful of places is the sort of thing that's making Misplaced Pages look perverse to literate speakers of English; it should be discouraged, not coddled. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

To attract your disappointment, Anderson, is indeed a thrill. Tony (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure is my power to please you, Sir. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That's getting kinky. Tony (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on hyphens again

Please comment on hyphens again at Template_talk:Convert#Apparently_bad_use_of_hyphen. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Primate at FAC

Hello! As a previous reviewer of Primate at FAC it would be great if you could have another look at the article. The FAC has been restarted, and any comments would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice

Misplaced Pages:Tip of the day/December 2 --Closedmouth (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• recycling tips of the day... Someone should have words with the gang responsible. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Tony (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Help needed at Talk:Lazare_Ponticelli#Date_links

Hi Tony, could you explain to a couple of editors why linking years, especially on a Featured Article, is not helpful and goes against a definite consensus. I would do it myself, but one of the editors seems determined to disregard whatever I tell him. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I noticed that one of them posted a message with a negative gloss on Tony's advocacy of doing away with DA. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Now Mandrax is there causing trouble. He sniffs it out by stalking contrib. pages. Tony (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice theory; but in fact, I followed the link from this section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Tony. However, I feel that threatening FAR is a bit drastic and may be seen as a bit POINTY by some at FAR (it is after all, one year link). The important thing is that certain editors don't proceed to disrupt other articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Generational change at Washington? Now let's do it at ArbCom

I'm going to make an unashamedly POV statement: SandyGeorgia, who is in the key position to maintain and improve the standards of WP's articles, has provided a helpful Voters' guide for the upcoming election. Seven of the 13 seats are up for election, so this is a chance to put an end to the administrative incompetence and backchannelling that has plagued ArbCom during 2008. We need ArbCom to be more:

• open;
• respectful of contributors;
• engaged with what happens at the article level—especially in the writing of articles; and
• skilled at writing its judgements.

The future lies partly in your hands, so please consider the values that underpin the voting guide when you make your decision. Tony (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing?

Comments like THIS

Lazare_Ponticelli I see that Mandrax has sniffed out this location and is stirring up trouble by reverting back to the date links and autoformatting. Tony (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

smack of canvassing. "Stirring up trouble?" Have any mirrors around?Ryoung122 03:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

How is this canvassing? WP:CANVASS explicitly defines canvassing as "sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion." This has nothing to do with a community discussion. Tony sent a friendly notice to me. There is no relation between canvassing and this. Please assume good faith. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is strictly limited distribution, thus I believe fails WP:CANVAS. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and apart from that, the people involved are in continual contact about such matters as this. Tony (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Continually apprising one another of disputes so you can mob up on the editor(s) on their talk pages does smack of canvassing. It would be fascinating to see these disputes unfold without the usual suspects showing up to weigh in. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

We all have a right to give an opinion. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ryoung122, Tony's post is just a small part of a large, ongoing pattern of disruption and incivility that is wholly inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. Tennis expert (talk) 05:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Tennis expert, haven't you retired per your userpage? Please stop posting rude and disruptive messages - we're here to improve the encyclopedia, not just snipe from the sidelines. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of "improve the encyclopedia". Obviously our views are not shared or we wouldn't have these kinds of problems... —Locke Cole • t • c 07:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, so we agree to disagree on this. What are you trying to prove with this posting, then? Ohconfucius (talk) 08:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That there's a disagreement over what constitutes "improvement". —Locke Cole • t • c 23:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• My repeated "friendship" requests of Locke Cole have hit a brick wall. I think this is a great pity. There are no two WPians who don't have something in common that might form the basis of rapprochement, or at least mutual respect so that we all might work without this sniping. Might that be possible? Tony (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• une folle éspoir... Ohconfucius (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's difficult to have mutual respect when you belittle and attack what I (and others) consider valuable. FYI, this also makes it difficult to want to be "friends". You must understand that changing something from a status quo after five years of it being that way will be met with resistance. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• But with nowhere near as much resistance as you present to the community. At some point you need to acknowledge that there were many thousands of alterations made by Tony (and others) that met no (or only minor short-termed) resistance. The overwhelming sentiments of the various RfC responses demonstrate why.  HWV 258  00:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• The only thing the community seems to agree upon so far is that dates should not be linked purely for the benefit of auto formatting. The community does seem to think dates should be linked in certain circumstances (thus this makes it impossible for any automated method to work: a bot doesn't know the intent of the editors who created the article or their reasoning). And a lack of resistance by the wider community should not be deemed an acceptance: that I haven't chosen to engage in mass scale revert warring over this is because I don't wish to be as disruptive as those engaging in those types of edits. I could, but what's the point when we should come to an agreement that automated changes are bad and clearly not what the community is endorsing at the Date linking RFC? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• The community has not agreed on what dates, if any, should be linked. The opinions range from once in a blue moon to "significant dates", in which significant dates, more often than not, have not been explicitly defined. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Even if we take your reading, that implies that no dates should be delinked until the community has reached a consensus decision. It doesn't mean start delinking dates and hope nobody notices. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• "The only thing the community seems..."—sadly, no. I had hoped you would address the main point I raised, but this doesn't appear to be the topic conducive to that.  HWV 258  02:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Look at the other RFC, which so far is painting a very different picture of what the community wants. I don't know what point you hoped I would address, but obviously it wasn't as important as the point I'm trying to make: the community has made only one clear decision in this RFC, and that decision doesn't support mass delinkings. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Lazare Ponticelli

If you don't think that the article is an example of our best work, then why don't you fix it? ~the editorofthewiki ~ 00:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

At the top of this talk page, it says that Tony has a real-life workload of 8.5 on a scale of 1–10. He doesn't have enough time to do that much. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Take a break then. Whenever I get that stressed out, I tend to be unproductive and/or irritable. ~the editorofthewiki ~ 00:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for Tony there. Anyway, also note that he does not normally copy-edit articles anyway. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

EOTW: I don't fix articles: I critique them. Tony (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: It's a lot easier to tear down than to build up. Criticism should be thought of the way a gardener prunes a tree: its purpose is to shape the tree, allowing for a fuller regrowth. However, overcritism, like overpruning, can make the tree look ugly, robbing it of its shape and possibly killing it. Also, you should be able to take criticism yourself, not as some contest but because no one is 100% right, and the Wiki policy on consensus calls for reasonable compromise.Ryoung122 04:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone thought that there was consensus to link a year on Edna Parker also. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Candidate questions

Hi Tony, thanks for the candidate questions. Just wanted to let you know I am not ignoring them, just running low on wiki-time (my workload is right up there with yours). I will have them completed over the weekend. Thanks for taking the time to include them; this process has certainly been intellectually challenging. Best, Risker (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sandy pointed out that it's rather late in the day for questions to be asked. Please don't spend long on them. I've asked quite a few of the candidates the same questions, and wonder whether they'll be stumped at how to address a messy part of a policy page that is relevant to a real-life case. Tony (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Featured picture Dispatch

Misplaced Pages:FCDW/TempFPreview showed up at the Newsroom, unannounced, with no discussion at WT:FCDW. It's rough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean someone copied the draft and posted it somewhere else? It's a very important article. Tony (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the Dispatch was written and posted to the Newsroom without going through the Workshop and before I/we had a chance to work on it. I'd like to tune it up to our usual Dispatch quality before it runs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sneak Preview

Nice job mate, the community needs something like this. I hope "they" don't try to shoot it down. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see "them" try. They may get more than they bargained for if they do. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Goddam "them". Ryan4314 (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sentiments I entirely agree with. But I just want to take the opportunity of saying that I'm full of admiration for the job that most admins do: they are absolutely essential to the project, and make it not just better, but doable in the first place. Tony (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but not sure about "most". There are certainly many who do great work in making this environment at least tolerable though. Which is why it is so important to draw attention to the bad apples who degrade the work of the best. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes brother, I too would like to take this opportunity to continue my pledge of compliance to our malevolent "administration". Ryan4314 (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• There are many good cops and many ordinary ones, but there will always be some bad eggs. The checks and balances has been too heavily loaded against non-admins until now. Tony's move is an overdue move to call "time" on the hoodlums. As Tony said, it's all there, but he's formalising and institutionalising it. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood me

I think you will be happy with the response on my talk page. I do not hold the view that you supposed I might.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Date formats

Please don't change the format of dates as you did to Suborbital spaceflight in 2008. Thank you.GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 11:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

My humble apologies. I don't make that mistake often when using the script (this was an edit from some time ago, I think). If you'd let me know, I'd have saved you the trouble of manually changing them back, with a click of the mouse. I've removed the long-winded, standard part of your message, which is for newbies, I presume. I've done a little fixing up at the top by way of apology. Tony (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Image captions

Hey Tony, I wonder if you could give an openion on the usefullness of long image captions on The Lucy poems. I generally favour self contained and if needed lenghtly captions if the body of the article is sufficient developed to hold them (ie no scrunching of text) eg half way down the page of this. I'm being reverted from this to this (look at the Coleridge caption) on the basis of per:MOS. Sigh, from "too long" to: nothing. What? Your input would be appreciated, either way. Ceoil (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Couple of them look on the long side, but length has been contested at FAC, and the result was that it's not a deal-breaker. I have no prob. Looks beautiful—must read when I get time next week. Tony (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

AdminWatch

I'm not sure what you aim to accomplish by AdminWatch that can't already be done through Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony1's response: I'm unsure that this is a better place to discuss the matter than the AdminWatch talk page. The aims of the process are clearly set out on the page. Briefly, it is abundantly clear that many WPians are deeply unhappy with the "official" procedures for encouraging admins to adhere to the policy governing their behaviour. There is widespread cynicism in the community at the difficulty of gaining a remedy for perceived breaches of that policy, particularly WRT the perceived unfair use of the power to block by a small minority of admins. This appears to be the single most contentious issue in the relationship between admins and non-admins.

The source of the policy is the Admin policy page and a number of ArbCom decisions, particularly from 2007. The policy is, inter alia, that:

• blocking is "a serious matter";
• admins should be "exceedingly careful when blocking, and should do so only if other means are unlikely to be effective", and that
• blocks should be used only to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages.

Tellingly, this unhappiness and cynicism—at least a generalised feeling that "something is wrong"—is shared by numerous admins; a good example is "the jc37 proposal" at the Village Pump last month, which was howled down by his fellow admins. There appear to be two hurdles to his notion of a two-tiered admin system in which most admins cannot directly block user accounts, but must apply to one of smaller group of admins in whom the power to directly block is vested. The first hurdle is that many admins believe that the votes of their supporters at their RfA were under the assumption that blocking power would be granted. Therefore, the argument runs, it would be a denial of that process to go against those assumptions.

Perceived injustice in the use of blocking power becomes a systemic issue when mature, conservative and respected WPs believe it's utterly useless to pursue the official dispute-resolution procedure, because the ultimate decisions are made by admins, and "the police have an inherent conflict of interest in reviewing the actions of their fellow police officers" (name withheld). Under these circumstances, claims that the assumptions of some RfC voters trump the need for systemic change need to be seriously questioned by the community. The same argument could be used to set in cement the current role and powers of admins for eternity; but this is a wiki, and the essence of wikis is their adaptability.

The second hurdle is that Mike Godwin, the WMF attorney has said he is not prepared to see the admin tools split into sub-packages; I've been advised that the reasons proferred concerned the possible legal exposure of WikiMedia. I hope I'm not misrepresenting Mr Godwin's views, but I do not understand why this would be the case, and I am disappointed not to be able to locate the detailed legal reasoning underpinning this opinion.

If WP could bring itself to deal with the problem—whether by adopting a form of the jd37 proposal or setting up an effective process for managing the blocking problem—AdminWatch might have been unnecessary. I want to remind users that the purpose of AdminWatch is not punitive, but to reduce the level of angst related to perceived abuse by admins, bring admins and other users closer together, and to improve WPians' respect for adminship. The process requires significant refinement to ensure fairness, consistency, the effective filtering out of unnecessary or unreasonable grievance notifications at an early stage. This is no mean task, but I believe we should try. If it is successful, I intend to recede from managing it.

Your continuing feedback is welcome. Tony (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ponticelli dashes

I don't know a thing about dashes - mind fixing them yourself? ~the editorofthewiki ~ 16:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not a contributor. Try this: User:Tony1/Know_your_Manual_of_Style#Hyphens_and_dashes. Tony (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Administrator Review

Hi there: Was it really killed off by admins two weeks after you started it? See User:Tony1/AdminWatch. Tony (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember the timeline, but sounds about right. I don't know that it was so much 'killed off' as it was just 'not accepted by anyone'. Is there a discussion related to this somewhere right now? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Not specifically related to your AR, but a new proposal. Tony (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear. Could you please provide a link? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Dearest Tony1,

Your crusade

'From the look of all of these complaints here, you are the one on a crusade'

No, I'd say opinions differ. And what 'crusade', pray tell, would I be conducting based on your reading of my talk page? Be specific, as some factual comment above the level of 'I know you are, but what am I?' would be helpful. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, just look at all of the people you've clearly upset on your talk page. Ownership issues? <Yawn> Tony (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• I see some very strong defensive-aggressive behaviour here. Painful though it may be for him/her to admit, CalendarWatcher is simply unable to chill out. It's far easier to throw up a defensive shield than to admit one's own mistakes. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)