Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Go for it!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Comments from Quiddity

(I don't know if this is appropriate place/advice however, i wish to specify what I see as being at fault here. ie, this is my "comment".)

Go for it! has made numerous highly-useful contributions to the Wikipedia project, specifically (afaik), the organizing of previously scattered help pages, and the creation of various philosophy pages/portals/templates, and i don't wish to belittle these at all.

It is partly the wikiquette issue, as addressed by this RfC. But it is also Go for it!'s lack of education in the fields of web-design (webstandards), graphic design, User-Interface design, and Information Architecture, to back up the design issues that he is attempting to address in his wikipage overhauls. All the enthusiasm in the world, cannot make up for a beginner's level skill set in these complicated (and still evolving) fields. I would suggest he spend a lot of time exploring the various disciplines of visual/web design, before attempting to "lead" such endeavours.

I would also suggest spending a lot more time as an editor of articles, before attempting to overhaul more meta-pages; this would help give the required background knowledge and feel for community needs, and a better understanding of past disputes/resolutions, without having to have elaborate discussions (or polls) around each point. --Quiddity 22:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't know the protocol for this either. This is the first RFC that I've been involved with since joining Wikipedia. But maybe you can add it somewhere after the "Other users who endorse this summary" section (after HereToHelp's signature), and before the "Response" section. That's where I first put my added comments (perhaps should have kept them there). But, now that people are signing, maybe we should separate added comments from us and put them there. --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Agree with the above completely. Worst comes to worst (i.e. ArbCom), Go for it! will find himself banned from interface and graphics design, but nothing more. Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but Go for it! probably should stay away from page design. More articles would be nice, and I try to make some article edits of my own, but he's very helpful at the picture of the day department.--HereToHelp 12:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What happens now?

I've been following this RFC (first one I've been interested in), but held off from commenting until there was a response by Go for it! But I'm still waiting. What happens after this RFC anyway? Carcharoth 09:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I sincerely hope i have not frustrated him away. Maybe someone could email him and acknowledge that the RfC was (partly/mostly) a drastic method to gain his attention/consideration of the issues raised above on this page? I'm not sure. --Quiddity 11:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Just wait a few more days, I think. Carcharoth 11:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, give it more time. This isn't binding; we're not ArbCom. Maybe its pupose is best said as a way for us to vent frustration, and then get back to work. It's not like he's leaving any time soon. If we do take this to ArbCom (not like we should), even they can't ban him outright, only from page design.--HereToHelp 11:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm also not clear exactly what the process is. It's not binding, but at some point it would be nice to unprotect the Community Portal. When we do, he can't go back to what he was doing. He needs to keep working through a draft process that brings consensus and works out bugs, before a draft goes "live". --Aude (talk | contribs) 13:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Amen to that. I have created a draft to present to the community, but I'm not just posting it on the page (partially because I can't get the columns working—anyone who can solve that is welcome to). But I digress. We should wait for him to make another move, and in the mean time see if we can get a good design up.--HereToHelp 19:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inactive since 8 April 2006

User:Go for it! has been inactive since 8 April 2006. What happens now. Should any "inactive" tag be placed on user and talk pages? Or is that generally only done by the person themselves? Compare with the tag at the bottom of User_talk:Radiant! Carcharoth 12:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that. Put him on WP:MW.--HereToHelp 13:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. See Wikipedia:Missing_Wikipedians#G and User talk:Go for it!#Added to Missing Wikipedians. Carcharoth 13:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

He has returned, but has a redirect on his talk page to User talk:Go for it!/talk page, wherein he claims to not be using a talk page anymore. Is that acceptable?

(Just as a warning, for anyone here running an unstable browser, he also has a 14MB animated gif on his user page.) -Quiddity 05:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Scattered talk page archives. Hopefully he will link to these from his own talk page, and update these links if he moves them again. -Quiddity 18:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed Go for it! from the inactive list. I will add my voice to those asking Go for it! to use his talk page properly. It is difficult to follow what is going on, and it forces people to rely much more on looking at the contributions - which might be a good thing anyway in general for most people. But I'm getting off the topic. I'd also like to ask Go for it! to please bring a closure to this RfC, even it is just to reject what has been said. Then we can all move on. Carcharoth 21:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

From the latest change at his talk/user page, he has abandoned that account. I'll re-add him to the inactive list, and add the above archive links to his talk page. I guess this RfC is over; does anything else need to be done to close it? -Quiddity 19:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: I've fully restored Go for it!'s talk archives, and have chronologically listed them here.--cj | talk 01:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New account

Based on editing style, editing summary style, editing times, and the selection of pages edited, I believe User:Go for it is now editing under the account names User:The Tipster and User:Nexus Seven, and possibly others (presummably all in order to avoid scrutiny, but if he keeps editing pages that I'm watchlisting, I can't help but notice...). I don't know how strict the WP:USERNAME#Using multiple user accounts policy "recommendation" is, but I wanted to note these observations down somewhere. --Quiddity·(talk) 18:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm still following all this occasionally. I'm very bad at clicking on user names to find out about the people I bump into on Wikipedia, so I would likely have taken ages to find out who Nexus Seven is. Not that I actually care that much. I try to focus on the edit, not the history of the person behind the edit. But being human I'm as curious as the next person. And half the time I think no-one bothers to change identity and use different accounts. The other half of the time I think everyone is just one person! Well, not really, but the idea is always there. Hmm. I'm rambling now. Better stop there. Carcharoth 02:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)