User talk:N5iln/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Editor review

I have been waiting at editor review for a week now. I know that isn't an extraordinarily long time considering that many users wait much longer, but since you are an editor I respect, I was wondering if you could review me. Ryan Vesey contribs 01:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Be happy to, shortly. Don't feel bad, it was over a month before someone reviewed me! --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel bad that I wasn't reviewed, but I do feel bad because I just went to amend my support !vote and realized that I had never !voted previously. I was busy when I first saw your RFA and didn't comment, I later assumed I had. At least I got it in before it was finished. Ryan Vesey contribs 01:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of time...it won't close until tomorrow. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

flagging of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windchill_(software) page

Hi! Thanks for your flags on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windchill_(software) page. I was wondering if it was starting to sound too market-ey. In fact, the text I received was more so than this, and I stripped it down quite a bit. I also just made some edits to remove use of the phrase "wide-range". Obviously, I don't want to see the flag on this page, and I want the entry to read as objective as possible. Can you suggest or point out which specific areas sound more like an advertisement than others?

Thanks!

Abelniak (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC) ABelniak

The only other thing that really needs to be done is to rewrite it from its "fact sheet" appearance to a more encyclopedic, prosaic article. I have a feeling that might take some significant time and effort. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. So, it doesn't read like an advertisement anymore? There are two flags on the page (and that's the one I thought you made - perhaps I'm incorrect). -ABelniak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abelniak (talk • contribs) 17:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't read AS promotional as it did, but it still reads to me like a corporate fact sheet...mostly a list of bullet points regarding the software. The "list" format needs to be rewritten in a prose style before the {{wikify}} tag can be removed. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, N5iln. You have new messages at Calabe1992's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Contested WP:CSD questions at RfA/N5iln

Your RfA has remained a close decision, but for the closing bureaucrat, I have contested asking questions about the nebulous WP:CSD issues, which gave many people the feeling to "Oppose". My text is repeated below, for discussion here, but also see any replies in this RfA/N5iln subtopic:

• WP:Requests_for_adminship/N5iln#WP:CSD has nebulous wording

The jist of my objection is that candidates should never be asked to "interpret" confused wording for would-be simple deletion polices, and then blamed because the answers do not match some people's imagined ideas about the poorly-worded policy. I am sorry you are being penalized because WP:CSD is so confusing that you need to interpret in "your own words" what the policy is trying to convey (and should have clearly stated months ago). Hopefully, a bureacrat will agree with my clear viewpoint. Anyway, my full objection is repeated, below:

22-July-2011: For Kudpung's question 5 (...in RfA...), about the difference between CSD A1 (context) and CSD A3 (content), I think the policy WP:CSD needs to be reworded to be less nebulous or rambling, and focus on specific issues. It bothers me that a candidate has to be asked to "explain" a speedy-delete policy that should have been written with simple, obvious, direct wording, which would not require a candidate to "interpret" reasons to delete a page without prior discussion. Plus, for gray-area deletion loopholes, then there should be an "official" tutorial essay that explains some rare, borderline deletion cases, rather than wonder if a candidate has "absorbed from experience" the critical nuances of "deletion-calculus" techniques. Admin-action policies should not be so nebulous or confusing that candidates would need to explain what they mean in "your own words" which are not words used to define the policies. In cases where policies are potentially confusing, then we need to have "official" tutorial essays to clarify the issues. Specifically, policy editors should rewrite (and clarify) WP:CSD criterion A3 (issues of insufficient page contents). Meanwhile, the candidate should not be penalized because his philosophical interpretion of a poorly-worded action-oriented policy does not match some imagined ideas of what that policy should say in "your own words": it is akin to requesting to explain the differences between Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion as if there were a single specific "right answer" to that question. We are looking for admins, not Supreme Court Justices. RfA questions should be more specific, with obvious answers. -Wikid77 12:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I just stated this topic, for the record, so there is no need for a reply, if you wish to just let others sort out the issues. I regret that I did not notice these nebulous-wording problems, earlier, but I am continually amazed at the bizarre contents of some pages on WP; this time, bizarre wording in WP:CSD A3 which reads like a "shaggy dog story" of what contents could be deleted. Your RfA might pass, but if not, perhaps we can fix WP:CSD before your next RfA. Please do not be upset with any particular people; the system is confusing to everyone: Wikipedia is like walking through a minefield to get to your destination. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and feedback both here and at the RfA, and I agree that some of the CSD policy wording is nebulous at best. I'm not too sanguine about my RfA succeeding as I write this, but I'm also not going to curl into a fetal ball and whimper if it's closed as unsuccessful, since I still hold to the premise that adminship is WP:NOBIGDEAL, misguided though some may see that approach.

set soapbox-mode ON While I'm thinking on the topic, though, there is one concern I need to give voice to, and my Talk page is the best venue for it. I'm very concerned that so many commenters on my RfA have put such a tight focus on an administrative area I stated I would only approach with caution. A more pessimistic candidate might be the recipient of that level of scrutiny in an unfamiliar area and be led to agree with those who believe that the admin corps is a "good ol' boys club" that limits membership to those who use the right keyboard brand or the right deodorant. Since I do still hold to the WP:NOBIGDEAL concept, the only tangible effect of my not being granted the mop will be that I don't get to do anything about backlogs on noticeboards like UAA. I'll still be a WP:GNOME, still hunt down and revert vandalism as I come across it, and so forth. set soapbox-mode OFF --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Some responses to your RfA noted fears about prior admins who went astray, so that might be why you are being judged by perhaps severe standards. There is still the chance a closing bureaucrat will value the diplomacy and well-centered comments you have made, as indicators of how you can be trusted. Meanwhile, I am still stunned how people objected to my action-oriented "competency test" (to create an article or state why not) but did not object to open-ended philosophical musings about when to delete files or other should-have-been-documented policy decisions. It is like grilling the upstairs maid, "Explain the ergonomic differences between feather duster and lint roller specifications" (wtf?) rather than show a specific table top and ask how the maid would clean it. These RfA tests have become arcane philosophical-essay dialogues, rather than focusing on the specific work to be done. Now I better understand why some standardized tests have become mostly multiple-choice-quiz format, rather than being all foggy essay questions. It is inherently unfair to be judged by hypothetical topics which would never be allowed in a court of law. -Wikid77 18:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Losotaint 2

Thanks for opening a SPI on User:Losotaint 2, and thanks also for your comments at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. However, here are a few remarks which may be helpful to you in similar cases in the future. Generally speaking, if an anonymous IP vandal has edited for just a short time and then not edited for a while, an AIV report is likely to be considered stale, as it is very likely that the user is no longer active on the same IP address, and any block would only affect other users. Personally, I don't apply that principal if there has been continuing vandalism of the same kind (suggesting the same person) over a prolonged period, which suggests that there is just a short break in a continuing pattern, but there are differences of opinion among different admins as to how far the principal applies. What is quite clear, though, is that the same principal does not apply to a registered user. If a user has been vandalising for a significant amount of time, the fact that there has been a break in the vandalism for a few hours does not in any way reduce the validity of an AIV report. Since we know it is one user, blocking is not going to affect other innocent users, and there is no reason not to block. Thus "Report appears stale; user hasn't edited in over five hours" is not relevant.

None of this is meant to be criticism of what you did: it is rather in the spirit of "thanks for your good work, and here is a bit of advice on how to do even better." JamesBWatson (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. The "stale" part of my comment was intended to "cover the bases", and was written a bit prior to my SPI filing...and certainly well before I saw how many socks the user was going through, and before I knew there was a completely separate username as a sockmaster (thank you for revealing that, Amalthea). That said, I'll avoid such a comment on a registered username in future. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning the sockpuppet off my talk page. He seems to be obsessed with harassing Favonian, Acroterion, and myself. :/ Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It was rather obvious, wasn't it? No worries. Chalk it up to another successful use of Huggle. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)