User talk:Cynical/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Adminship views

In your candidate statement you said that you will 'Advocate that a successful, peer-reviwed membership period in the Moderation Cabal be a pre-requisite for adminship'. Could you clarify whether you mean to encourage users to consider this in RFA, or encourage the Foundation to make this a formal requirement for adminship (of the kind that we currently have zero at the moment). Thanks. Cynical 19:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Your question about my Candidacy

Thanks for such a tough provoking question. I jhope this process continues like this for all candidates.

I chose my words carefully: I said very purposely advocate rather than seek or any stronger word. While I belive in the community-involved RFA process, I belive also that one of its biggest flaws is that unlike other processes in Wikipedias, where verifiability plays a huge role, the RFA is too much of a "from the gut" response, with a lack of clear, verifiable criteria for objective and neutral editors to be influenced by in voting. This leads to voting being a popularity contest at bet and a self-electing clique process at best.

Adminship is a badge of honor, no soubt, but it carries with it commitment, responsibility, and sheer work, of the boring, menial kind, directed at producing a quality encyclopedia. Hence, a proven, verifiable track record, not just of editing and popularity as it is now, but also of ability to remain cool under pressure and perform menial boring tasks, can only help to develop even further the strengths of the current admin body, while allowing it to expand qualitatively and not just quantitatively.

A lot of RFA's end up being self-electing cliques (contrary to a stated goal of wikipedia against cabals and cliques), or sheer vanity circuses.

I am very open to other suggestions on how to solve these problems, but I think a requirement of actively serving, with a general consensus view of a positive grade, in some project like the Moderation Cabal, or the Neutrality Project, or Esperanza or whatever, will help mitigate the impact of "from the gut" noms and provide, in a positive, community-involving way the disarming of the growing challenge of the cabal and clique issue.--Cerejota 02:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that clears things up. Cynical 13:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Correction

Have you seen the response to your comments on Ambuj.Saxena's RfA. If you think it is skewed, then it is skewed to his disadvantage, not in his favour! Tyrenius 03:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Board of Trustees election question

In your candidate statement you point out that there have been many disputes over policy and process recently, and that these represent a challenge to Wikipedia. What solutions do you propose to solve these problems? I'm not looking for a list of new edicts, just a general sense of the direction in which you would take us. Thanks. Cynical 14:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Cynical: Thank you for your question, and I'm sorry for the slight delay in responding to you. I think the best way of answering this very pertinent point would be to describe the overall methodology I would hope to implement, as I think all the major problems that have started to show up relating to community affairs probably fall roughly under the same set of methods necessary for a resolution, which I will outline below:
Firstly, and probably foremost, liason with the community by the Wikimedia Foundation has been in my opinion generally quite poor with regard to transparency of decision-making and the involvement of the Wikipedia community in decision-making activities. Of course, Wikipedia is not a democracy (and nor should it be, really, since the goal is after all to create an encyclopaedia) but the volunteer editors are nonetheless stakeholders in the project - and, just as is practiced in business projects, thorough consultation with all stakeholder groups is vital to the success of organisational management.
To date, we have seen controversial policy implementation brought in by fiat without prior direct consultation (q.v. WP:CSD T1 relating to the userbox affair, WP:OFFICE, and "oversight" privileges) which has created undue animosity from both those areas of the community opposing the decision, and external critical entities who disapprove of unilateral enaction of controversial changes (such as Wikitruth and Wikipedia Review, which has the effect of harming the reputation of our project through the characterisation by these organisations of Wikipedia as a dictatorship). We thus have a whole plethora of issues that would be remedied by involving the community more thoroughly in decision-making - perhaps via some sort of policy development system. It could be called Wikipedia:Proposed policy changes, whereby the Board posts the proposed changes and users discuss, but not vote, on the various changes.
This would hopefully in some cases highlight the issues that would make the proposed change problematic, and indeed may well serve to generate alternative ideas on better ways of solving the issue. It would, in addition, mean that resoundingly unpopular changes could be easily detected prior to implementation, and would theoretically also permit the Board a greater deal of latitude for proposing policies versus simply enacting them - essential for large-scale problem solving on a project of this magnitude.
Secondarily, there is a lack of direct analysis of indepth issues relating to particular subject areas on Wikipedia; the finer issues relating to article content in specific groups, such as whether particular article subjects are noteworthy enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, appear to be overlooked creating bizarre incongruities between different WikiProjects' decisions, and where authority direction would be advantageous it is avoided (q.v. the "fair use" images debates, and also the Kelly Martin RfC fiasco). This also links in with issues over authority being held by a single "Oracle" without sufficient delegation to deal with an organisational structure that has outgrown its initial size - delegation is an essential part of procedural agility within any organisation, and it is this that needs implementation. I propose the creation of Focus Groups that deal with specific issues on Wikimedia projects, comprised of editors with expertise in the particular areas, which are given some level of control over the enaction of changes in each area (semi-demi-gods, I suppose). As well as the increase of delegation within the Wikimedia organisational structure, I would also advise the Board taking a more proactive stance on solving issues with the community, whilst incorporating the elements of consultation I described above.
Thirdly, more attention needs to be paid towards the reduction of conflict on Wikipedia. The arbcom solves disputes, but doesn't in my opinion reduce conflict overall, looking at arbitration from a wider perspective - the function of the Arbcom has become more punitive rather than curative. We have an overloaded mediation system; both the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee and the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal are overburdened and are short-staffed. If we are going to have a project that will survive into the future - which I sincerely hope we shall - we will have to put better measures in place to keep "editing temperature" as low as possible, so that ordinary users can edit without fear of running into some massive dispute in so doing, and the Board will have to, again, be more proactive in remedying these issues. Proper care and attention to the psychological impact of Wikimedia projects (specifically the English Wikipedia) will be vital to ensuring the continued viability of the open editing environment, and these issues encompass a broad spectrum of subjects: everything from the user interface, down to policy decisions, enforcing of decent standards of interaction on talk pages, etc.
This reply was rather lengthier than I intended, for which I am very sorry! I believe, however, it outlines well the sort of direction I intend to take Wikimedia. Should you have any further questions for me, please let me know. Thank you, and best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Editor review

  • I've been inspired by your username, so I'll review you as cynically as I can. I'm a frequent RfA voter, so I'll tell you what I would be looking for, and hopefully it'll help you know what to improve : )
[1] In this instance, you went from a test1 to a test3, and I'm not sure why. RfA people might question your familiarity with the rules, willingness to follow the process, or attitude towards newbies.
Your talk edits are low, so you might consider getting involved in a few discussions, and maybe getting the number up above 250.
Your Wikipedia space edits are average, but I haven't seen any AfD involvement since December. You might want to consider getting at least 100 in that area.
Your edit summaries look good, and barring any unforseen incidents in the past that others might bring up, you should pass without issue if you boost your talk and wikispace edits. Good luck! AdamBiswanger1 14:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


Vandalism

From a newbie. How are you supposed to handle repeated vandalism as the one on the golgi apparatus page. Reverting eternally seems pretty hopeless. Best wishes. --Warfvinge 20:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You can use a rather helpful javascript called WP:POPUPS. Once installed (it's not difficult, and the page gives you instructions), you can use it to automatically revert just by moving your mouse over the 'diff' in that idiot's (or any other vandal's) contributions list and clicking a button. Welcome to RC patrol by the way :) Cynical 20:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
See,s to work pretty well. Thanks alot! --Warfvinge 20:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

I understand your trepidation as to allowing every shmo who has a biased opinion post to Wikipedia, but the "nonsense" about Jeremy Clarkson is in fact true. Below are the pages in which those discussion strings still exist. I only wished to add this information to the site as an extension of the controversy that seems to follow Clarkson like a lost dog.

http://www.streetfire.net/2006/07/jeremy-clarkson-dead.aspx

http://www.jalopnik.com/cars/jeremy-clarkson/

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/jeremy-clarkson-dead-ar10877.html

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060711140248AA9n1wh

http://www.digg.com/celebrity/The_BBC_s_Jeremy_Clarkson_of_Top_Gear_reportedly_dead_in_Portugal.

I request that the honorable Cynical Google this topic. The list of sites containing reports that Clarkson had gone to his maker are endless.

Thank you for monitoring this website, but, with respect, if it weren't for people like us and the "nonsense" we post for the enrichment of others, Wikipedia would not exist.

67.123.202.214 23:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

NB: This is in response to a message the user left on my talkpage. OK, the reason I treated your edit as vandalism was that you didn't give any examples of the 'many websites' in your edit to the article. I now realise (given the links you provided me with) that it was not vandalism, however the information is not suitable for Wikipedia - a rumour which appeared on a sum total of 5 blogs is not really notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Cynical 07:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sidebar redesign final vote!

It's that special, special time! No, grandma's not coming over. No, not time to clean out the fridge. It's sidebar redesign voting time! Yes, the community has narrowed it down to 3 different options, and a vote for the same old original sidebar is a choice one could vote for as well. Voting for multiple options is allowed, and discussion on the whole shebang is right there on the vote page itself.

You're probably getting this message because the sidebar fairy (JoeSmack for now) noticed you commented on the project at some time over on at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign. Lovely. JoeSmack Talk 07:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 66/11/5. I learned quite a bit during the process, and I expect to be learning a lot more in the days ahead. As I stated in the request itself, I respect your decision to oppose me based on my short tour of duty, but I hope I can earn your trust. I will be taking things slowly (and doing a lot of re-reading), but please let me know if there is anything I can do to improve in my new capacity. -- Merope Talk 13:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Apples are not oranges

In short, Tawkerbot2 (and Tawkerbot2A which was only a unique username as I didn't want TB2 norm to be able to edit protected pages) etc is an Apple and TorScript is an orange. I think it was pretty obvious that we were talking about Tawkerbot2 when were talking about no sysop bots (I had no other bots then) (there the purpose would be to autoblock vandals after a test 6 or something like that... a user could trigger it by setting off the bot too much) whereas this is totally unrelated and only does a very limited no-discretion involved task. They are totally unrelated technically, TB2 is in python, TBTA in C#. I just thought I'd try and set the record straight.... you seemed a tad facts confused-- Tawker 18:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I was not seeking to hold you to Tawkerbot2 promises in relation to TawkerbotTorA. My point is that (from my impression of Essjay's much-linked comment) you had previously made promises about the capabilities of a previous bot, and then failed to keep those promises. Since you failed to keep promises about the capabilities of a previous bot, there is no reason for me to believe that you will keep your promises about the capabilities of this bot. Cynical 19:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
So in short you're concerned that I will scope creep and add additional code / runtimes w/o going back for approval (sorry if I'm bugging you, I just want to figure this out). I thought you were going somewhere else with that... -- Tawker 20:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The short answer to your question is yes (sorry to be brief, I've got a lot to do at the moment). Cynical 20:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Radiometric dating

What is the proper way to reference the note in Radiometric dating (which you had changed to [citation needed])? Dan Watts 17:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the referencing! Dan Watts 18:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The reference conversion script I used got confused because you had used {{ref|fn_1}} to reference the note, but hadn't used {{note|fn_1}} in the 'notes' section where you actually defined the source. In any event, that format is out of date anyway. Marking it as 'citation needed' was an oversight on my part, and I've done the reference conversion properly this time. Sorry about that! Cynical 18:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Bill Wyman

Interesting comment, but not entirely sure what you are refering to. Why would it be deleted? I simply wished to add information and it was never my intention to discredit or vandalise anything. If I have written something wrong then i'm very sorry, but my information came from a credibe source.

Please explain as the message was rather vague.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.11.158.43 (talk • contribs)

The bit about Keith Moon having an 'elegantly wasted appearance' made your edit potentially defamatory, and that's why I had to remove it - because of our biography of living people policy, any negative material without a source citation must be removed immediately. Sorry for the vagueness of the message - it's a semi-automated one, given the volume of reverts we have to do on Wikipedia there isn't time to write a personal message for each person. Cynical 22:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hey, don't be so down about your RfA. Although you had some minor setbacks, I'm sure that a few months of good editing and doing the things you suggested will definitely lead you to a successful RfA. Best of luck. Nishkid64 21:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey man, you don't wanna be an admin - it sucks the soul out of you. --Dangherous 13:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Battlefield High School

Just to let you know that I've reverted your edits to Battlefield High School - the old version also contained the infobox, logo etc. so it looks just as professional. The version you had put in (aside from being a blatant violation of WP:COI as it was written by a school employee) isn't consistent with WP:NPOV, which is one of the three core content policies and is therefore non-negotiable. Cynical 14:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I will admit that I haven't read every single policy Wikipedia has, but I will keep it in mind. I can understand why a school employee could create a "conflict of interest" with a wikipedia page now that you say it and now that I have read the policy.
20176 04:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry too much about policies - if you make a mistake, people will generally point it out nicely. I've been two years and I still haven't read all of the damn stuff, hasn't done me any harm :P Cynical 11:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Battlefield High School

Hello, Cynical, and thanks for explaining the conflict of interests issue. While I appreciate removing sections that are inappropriate, reverting to the old version this past time around:

1. Displayed factually incorrect information, including the removal of current and relevant statistical data

and

2. Included material that was inappropriate and incorrect, specifically the comment (which included grammar and spelling errors, I might add) about our marching program being unique in its presentation of challenge.

This material was opinion-based, not factual, and not only reflected badly upon the institution and the program vis a vis bias, but provided inaccurate information to the general public. Thankfully, I have now gotten my ducks in rows so as to be able to edit the article from my office, and hopefully the newest version complies better with the expectations of the community.

While I am a fierce advocate of our outstanding music program, putting down one program to laud another is not only inappropriate, but it is not factually accurate. Coincidentally, the marching band commend was also a violation of the very NPOV policy you cited, so I appreciate very much your bringing it to my attention. It is all the rationale one needs to remove the biased comment!

Bhs itrt 16:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edits are great, and your position as a member of school staff means you may be aware of changes in the facts before the wider Wikipedia community is - the problem before was (in particular) inserting the following paragraphs into the article, as if the article is the property of the school:
“ There is no way to account for all of the successes of the many outstanding and talented young people at Battlefield, so it is the policy of the Office of Instructional Technology at Battlefield to regularly visit Wikipedia and ensure the correctness of information and to prevent discrimination, bias, or malice. While the promotion of the free exchange of ideas and information through electronic means is a valuable enterprise, so too is the teaching of students the necessity of good information user skills and information management, as well as the critical evaluation of web-based materials. ”
“ Battlefield High School has made efforts to ensure the information in this article is correct. However, due to the nature of the Wikipedia vehicle, the information contained on this page is not and should not be considered authoritative. As with any internet-based information, please contact the source directly to report abuse or to verify statistical or factual data.

You can contact the Office of Instructional Technology at (571) 261-4518.

--Bhs itrt 19:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

 ”
One other thing - you shouldn't sign article pages (as in the second quote). Having said that, I would like to take this opportunity to repeat my earlier welcome - and if you have any questions feel free to drop me a line. Kind regards. Cynical 21:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Valley Primary School

Hello. I suppose that you are thinking that this article should be taken to afd. Have a look at the website of the school. If not satisfied you can write in my user talk or you may delete the page, I don't have a problem. Thanks,--Ujjwal Krishna 15:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the article should be deleted, but because there is not a lot of information available about the school it might be better if it was on a Schools in Bromley page (or another page with a similar name), rather than having its own separate page with only three sentences in it. Cynical 09:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

GA article

The University of Glasgow article that you nom'd for GA is on hold. See its talk page. Rlevse 19:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Good. but I saw a few more things--the Hetherington link and the two links here...."The University's constitution, academic regulations, and appointments are authoritatively described in the University calendar, and other aspects of its story and constitution in a separate history." should be footnotes, not external jumps. Also, if you want this to be FA later, you should converet the footnotes to cite php format. For GA that isn't required as long as their format is consistent, which it is.Rlevse 23:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. Cynical 09:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
You forgot the Heterhington link, but I fixed it for you. GA OK, congrats ! Rlevse 11:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You have mail

You have a reply waiting for you at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching  The Transhumanist   18:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Virtual classroom

I've received two coaching assignments instead of one from the Esperanza Admin coaching program, so inorder to accomodate both students, I've set up a Virtual classroom. And to make the classroom even more rewarding and fun, I've invited some of the most prolific and talented editors of Wikipedia to come and contribute their know how so we can all learn. Currently, we are all comparing the tools each of us makes use of in navigating and working on Wikipedia. So far, Interiot, Rich Farmbrough, and CBDunkerson have been kind enough to help get things started by sharing their experience. You are cordially invited to participate as a student, a coach, or both!  The Transhumanist   16:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Virtual classroom update

I've written a translation of Interiot's "geekspeak" post. It took me hours to figure out what he was talking about. Some pretty cool tricks, now described in easy to follow steps. I've also thrown in some of my own tricks, have updated my notes on the interface I use, and have answered students questions in the questions and comments section at the bottom of the page. Let me know if the page is helping in any way. Hope to see ya there again soon.  The Transhumanist   00:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Virtual classroom lesson #2

Well, we've moved on to our second lesson in the Virtual classroom, though each lesson is continuous so we may see more additions to the interface share and compare discussions as well. The current topic of discussion is "stubbing," with a short course to kick things off provided by our resident expert on the subject, Grutness.

To help keep track of what's going on, here's a template you can place at the top of your userpage or talk page:


Tutorials
Introduction to Wikipedia
Introduction to editing
Scartol, on template use and design
Dweller, on Featured Article Candidates
Yuser, on fighting linkspam
Learning the ropes
Elaragirl, about deletion and deletionism
The Rambling Man, on vandalism
Grutness's guide to stubbing
External interfaces - let's compare
Internal interfaces - what do you use?
Getting an article to featured article status
Basic dispute resolution
Adding citations
Reporting and dealing with vandals
Fundamentals of editing

Hope to see you at the Virtual classroom soon.  The Transhumanist    14:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


Identity confirmation

Hi! I've followed the link from m:User:Cynical here. Most probably it is your account but I would sleep more happily if you can provide a confirmation in the opposite direction - from en: to meta:.

I am asking in relation to the vote being invalidated. In theory an imposter could register the same name as yours, so the account meeting the suffrage criteria (en.wp one) should endorse the other (on meta). TIA, Goldie (tell me) 21:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)