Misplaced Pages

User talk:Ezhiki: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:12, 12 January 2006 editAlex Bakharev (talk | contribs)49,616 edits my RfA← Previous edit Revision as of 15:22, 12 January 2006 edit undoEzhiki (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators165,314 edits elaborated on Tobias' questions; side commentsNext edit →
Line 149: Line 149:
#delete Template:Language. #delete Template:Language.
##better use as redirect, because referenced in several talk pages? ##better use as redirect, because referenced in several talk pages?

The way I see it, the end result will be exactly what you and other editors want, and the process only requires one mass-replacement that needs to be done anyway. Am I missing anything or not?—] 18:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC) The way I see it, the end result will be exactly what you and other editors want, and the process only requires one mass-replacement that needs to be done anyway. Am I missing anything or not?—] 18:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I integrated my replies. ] ] 23:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC) I integrated my replies. ] ] 23:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


'''Netoholic's comments''':
⚫ : I disagree with protecting Template:Language. There is very little chance of vandalism, it's watched closely, and is only on a couple hundred articles. Other than that, your proposal is exactly the strategy I've been trying to convince this group to follow. Merging the histories is just a "feel good" move, since it's perfectly fine if the history sits under a redirect from Language to Infobox_Language, but I'm fine with it if it just gets this group participating on the single dispute holding the process back, that being whether to keep support for the old color scheme (Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Languages#The bad side of colors). -- ] ] 22:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

⚫ ::Just as clarification—I offered protection not because I'm afraid the template is going to be vandalized often and not fixed for long (I'm sure enough people watch after it so it will not), but for the impact the very act of editing it would have. If someone vandalizes it (or even tries to improve it without knowing that a new template is being developed)—it's a couple hundred server calls already, then it's another couple hundred when it's reverted. Which is exactly what WP:AUM aims to prevent. Comments?—] 22:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
⚫ I disagree with protecting Template:Language. There is very little chance of vandalism, it's watched closely, and is only on a couple hundred articles. Other than that, your proposal is exactly the strategy I've been trying to convince this group to follow. Merging the histories is just a "feel good" move, since it's perfectly fine if the history sits under a redirect from Language to Infobox_Language, but I'm fine with it if it just gets this group participating on the single dispute holding the process back, that being whether to keep support for the old color scheme (Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Languages#The bad side of colors). -- ] ] 22:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
⚫ :Just as clarification—I offered protection not because I'm afraid the template is going to be vandalized often and not fixed for long (I'm sure enough people watch after it so it will not), but for the impact the very act of editing it would have. If someone vandalizes it (or even tries to improve it without knowing that a new template is being developed)—it's a couple hundred server calls already, then it's another couple hundred when it's reverted. Which is exactly what WP:AUM aims to prevent. Comments?—] 22:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

'''Netoholic's comments, part 2''':


Would you please look into the related disruption that Tobias is causing now on ? He's repeating the same disruptive behavior as he did with the page move fiasco. We don't use disambigs in the template namespace. I originally created this redirect to prevent duplication of effort and help with typos. I am close to requesting blocks for disruption, so maybe you can help him stop screwing around. -- ] ] 01:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC) Would you please look into the related disruption that Tobias is causing now on ? He's repeating the same disruptive behavior as he did with the page move fiasco. We don't use disambigs in the template namespace. I originally created this redirect to prevent duplication of effort and help with typos. I am close to requesting blocks for disruption, so maybe you can help him stop screwing around. -- ] ] 01:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
⚫ :It could also be argued you created the redirect on 2005-12-31 to your template to prevent us from moving our template as proposed on 2005-12-12. Maybe you request a block of yourself after in hidden creating your Infobox Language and applying it to several articles? ] ] 02:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
⚫ ::Per ], the standard naming for infoboxs is "Template:Infobox Foo" (upper-case), so "Template:Language" would never be appropriately moved to "Template:Infobox '''l'''anguage". I created ] on 12/22. I created the redirect on 12/31, as I said, to prevent typos - something I do often.
⚫ ::Here lies the difference between your actions and mine... one would be hard pressed to say my redirect was not in good faith. On the other hand, your repeated disruptions with these templates, with the page moves above and now these edits to the redirect, are less obviously in good faith. -- ] ] 02:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
⚫ :::On 2005-12-12 I suggested using uppercase L. One could argue that your private and hidden creation of Template:Infobox Language was only made to hinder us to move. And effectly that's what it does. That's assuming bad faith, but after you implemented your template in hidden in several articles it looks as if you tried to abuse creation of the standardname template to accomplish your goals. Secondly there is no policy to create Template:Infobox '''f'''oo redirects for all existing Template:Infobox '''F'''oo. ] ] 04:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

'''Ezhiki's comments:'''

Folks, would you please lay petty bickering aside for a little while? Does it really matter who created what and when and why and for what purpose, if in the end all we need to sort out is the final result? It is really not that interesting to find out what your (Tobias' and Netoholic's) original thoughts were—what matters is that you were trying to achieve pretty much the same goal in different ways. The resolution of issues outlined in the comments immediately above would go a long way to entertain your egos, but at the same time it hinders achieving the end result you both so eagerly are looking for. The longer you argue about something as unimportant as who should the blame be put on, the more time passes without any real work done. What are your priorities? I sure hope that in your edits and actions you put Misplaced Pages's interests before your personal satisfaction.


Now that I'm done with scolding :), let's address more immediate concerns. Here are the answers to the questions Tobias asked:
⚫ : It could also be argued you created the redirect on 2005-12-31 to your template to prevent us from moving our template as proposed on 2005-12-12. Maybe you request a block of yourself after in hidden creating your Infobox Language and applying it to several articles? ] ] 02:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#Protect ] from editing;
#*''why can't we develop our template anymore?''
#**As it was mentioned before, every edit to a metatemplate leads to a great number of server calls in each affected article and purges the squid caches, thus increasing access time and server load (which is what WP:AUM tries to prevent). To continue developing the original template will require a lot of editing before the metatemplate evolves into something structurally simpler but just as efficient. Nothing, by the way, prevents you from creating an exact copy of the original template and continuing to work on it under a different title. It will still remain a metatemplate for a while, but the harmful effects will be minimized as the copy will not be used on hundreds of pages, stressing the servers after being edited each time. Once the metatemplate is redesigned, all articles can be mass-updated to point to it.
#develop ] to the point when it's usable enough to replace old ];
#*''why don't develop the original template?''
#**Same reason as above. You can develop the original template as a copy at another location ''before'' article references are mass-updated.
#mass-replace all links to Template:Language with the links to new Template:Infobox Language, thus standardizing the infobox name '''and''' resolving AUM problem for good;
#*''Neto said this is not necessary. Anyway, why wait with mass replace and name standdardizing only because Neto spit is template in our way?''
#**If original template is moved to the new name ''and'' all articles are immediately changed to point to it, it will not affect the AUM problem in any way (you'll still have a metatemplate used in a couple hundred articles), so postponing the move should be done for pretty much the same reasons as above.
#merge histories of Template:Language and Template:Infobox Language to preserve records;
#*''can also be done afterwards with Neto's template from wherever merged in.''
#**See above reasoning. Plus, does not really matter when histories are merged?
#delete Template:Language.
#*''better use as redirect, because referenced in several talk pages?''
#**Good idea; I forgot about the talk pages. Agree.


All in all, to repeat myself, it is not a priority to settle personal disagreements you folks have with each other. I trust that as adults both committed to Misplaced Pages you are pretty capable of settling them yourselves, preferrably in a civil way. All that matters now is to close this incident, hopefully with a compromise solution. The very nature of compromise is that neither side likes it, remember? :) If you think my proposed solution does not benefit Misplaced Pages (as opposed to "does not make me feel good"), please let know here why. I can see how it does not address personal issues you have with each other, but it looks pretty darn good in the big picture.—] 15:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
⚫ :: Per ], the standard naming for infoboxs is "Template:Infobox Foo" (upper-case), so "Template:Language" would never be appropriately moved to "Template:Infobox '''l'''anguage". I created ] on 12/22. I created the redirect on 12/31, as I said, to prevent typos - something I do often.
⚫ :: Here lies the difference between your actions and mine... one would be hard pressed to say my redirect was not in good faith. On the other hand, your repeated disruptions with these templates, with the page moves above and now these edits to the redirect, are less obviously in good faith. -- ] ] 02:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
⚫ : On 2005-12-12 I suggested using uppercase L. One could argue that your private and hidden creation of Template:Infobox Language was only made to hinder us to move. And effectly that's what it does. That's assuming bad faith, but after you implemented your template in hidden in several articles it looks as if you tried to abuse creation of the standardname template to accomplish your goals. Secondly there is no policy to create Template:Infobox '''f'''oo redirects for all existing Template:Infobox '''F'''oo. ] ] 04:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


==ArbCom Vote== ==ArbCom Vote==

Revision as of 15:22, 12 January 2006

Reference: 

Archived talk: 2004 2005 2006

My Request for Adminship

Greetings, Ezhiki! I wanted to sincerely thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with a final result of 55/14/3. Your support means a lot to me! If you have any questions or input regarding my activities, be they adminly or just a "normal" user's, or if you just want to chat about anything at all, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers! —Nightstallion (?) 07:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship

Hey man, thanks a lot for voting, I see you beat me to the response ;) If you need anything, just give me a shout. :) - FrancisTyers 01:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Dick Cheney

I would say "how do you know he's not a Wikipedian", but I think I'll just tip my hat to you. I figured it would be a while before anyone noticed my edit on Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians somewhere unspecified in the United States of America, let alone reverted it. If I had the power, I would award you a Barnstar. --Mareino 20:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was pretty funny, and could even be OK on April 1. Still, even if he were a Wikipedian, the link should have been to his user page, not to the article namespace :)
Speaking of barnstars, anyone around here can award whatever s/he wants to anyone else, if a good enough reason arises. Not that I am soliciting an award from you (a watchlist patrol is a duty expected of an admin—it's definitely not something barnstar-worthy), but I think you'd like to know that for future occasions if you see someone going above and beyond one's duties.
All in all, take care, and please do not attempt such jokes in future—I know a few people who would be giving you a lecture about "inappropriate behavior" right about now :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with your light warning. It's been a long day at work, and for one weak moment, I found myself sympathizing with the Wiki vandals. Won't happen again ... within the next 3 months or so. --Mareino 21:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_Language

happy new year! Template:Infobox_Language seems to be blocked from moving. At least I don't have the move button anymore. I could not find who did it and why this was done / which policy was used to justify this move block. It seems to be there since User:Cyrius moved it the 2nd time. So he has the admin power to preserve the status he thinks is right. With your admin power can you check what happened? Did he block? Where can I call for unblock? Maybe you can do it - but well I don't want to ask you too much here. thx - so long Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too, Tobias. Hope all is going well for you.
The template was protected from being moved by Cyrius on January 6; the following reason was given: user keeps moving this elsewhere and replacing with a disambiguation page for no apparent reason. You, by the way, can check things like that yourself at Special:Log—you can look up all or some of the logs by username or article name (note that capitalization there is important). A quick glance at the edit history shows that he protected it most likely because it was moved back and forth, with discussion going on chiefly in the edit summaries. I will have too look further into this to dig the details; I am hesitant unprotect it right away as I do not yet have sufficient information about what's happened, even though the "for no apparent reason" part does not feel exactly right. I would, however, recommend, to list the template at WP:RM first, after which protection can be lifted (provided that neither you nor Netoholic are going to move it again until the process is complete).
I'll keep researching the matter. Apart from your and Netoholic's talk pages, is there a discussion thread I could look at anywhere else? Take care,—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 13:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Template_talk:Language - on 2005-12-12 it was suggested to move to Template:Infobox language a more standard name for infoboxes. I suggested to use uppercase "L". The move was blocked by User:Netoholic who on 2005-12-22 created a template there without telling anyone not in the template talk nor Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Languages. He even started applying the template to articles without notice. I moved the Netoholic template to give space for the move of the original language template. Cyrius reverted with a spamming complain (the Netoholic template was used in 15 or so articles at this time). I was already cleaning up this, then I reverted Cyrius. He (ab)used his admin power to block further moves. I would even like to start an RfC about Cyrius behavior, because I am annoyed by admins that use their power in conflicts to get their opinion go through. I allready noted WP:RM with move proposal of the original infobox to Infobox_Language. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Tobias. I'll look into this later (see my comment to Kim below as to why not now).—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Cont'd at "Infobox:Language issues" section below

Sloppy statement and answers to questions

Argh, yes. I answered on the basis that people would come and discuss with me, (as advertised, apparently), but people seem to instead treat statements as written in stone, and are just voting.

In fact, you're quite encouraged to ask for clarifications or take the time to discuss issues you agree or disagree on with the candidate. Just not on the voting pages themselvesv I guess.

In any case, voting will be ongoing for a while yet, so feel free to ask any questions where you think I've been unclear.

Hmm, and if you have a minute, maybe point out where and how I could flesh out my statement a bit? <puppydog look>

Kim Bruning 17:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Kim! Sorry if my comment sounded a bit harsh, but it was intended to :) I'd love to ask each candidate questions that bother me, but, with 50+ candidates, it took me four straight hours just to read through all the statements/answers to the questions, trying to figure out whom to support and whom not to. As you can imagine, in such circumstances candidate statements are really important, and yours just looked as if you didn't really care. Since I know you can do much better than that, I left a comment that probably was not too pleasant-sounding. As far as my recommendation to fleshing your statement, I would recommend to scrap it altogether and write it a-new (yes, I think it's that bad, sorry).
I'll think over the questions I have for you and ask them later, when my eyes stop hurting from the four-hour session of intense staring into the screen :) Meanwhile, take care and best of luck to you with your ArbComm run!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok! I've rewritten my candidate statement. Hopefully it's to your liking. Thanks for your advice! Kim Bruning 08:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Kim. This new statement is a lot better and answers all the questions I had.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Inquiry

You stated on my ArbCom vote page that my "recent behavior leaves with little choice" but to oppose. Could you please explain to me what aspect of my recent behavior has forced your hand in this manner? Kelly Martin (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Kelly, my comment, just as the comments of most other opposing people, referred to the recent userbox controversy. I hate to join the lynch mob in this, especially because I myself believe that many userboxes are crap that does not benefit encyclopedia-building (or community-building) efforts in anyway, but the way you handled the matter did not strike me as appropriate for an ArbComm member. Whatever your reasons were, I hope you will not resort to unilateral actions in the future and wish you best of luck with your run. I do otherwise find you as an exceptionally good candidate.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, I'd like to you be more specific. In what way wwere my actions not "appropriate from an ArbComm member"? What do you think would be appropriate for an ArbCom member? Kelly Martin (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I would also add that ArbCom members have no opportunity for unilateral action (nothing happens at the ArbCom without at least four people agreeing), so I don't understand why your concern about any tendency I might have toward unilateral action would influence your judgment of my competency to serve as an Arbitrator. (In actuality, not being on ArbCom will greatly expand my opportunities for unilateral action, as I will be less constrained by not having the responsibilities of that position.) Could you, perhaps, explain your reasoning here in more detail? Kelly Martin (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I tried to keep my reasoning brief since I figured that by now you are probably sick and tired of hearing the same things over and over again, and whatever I have to say would probably be a repetition of what others already said. According to your comments above, that's not the case, so allow me to elaborate.
The thing that troubled me the most was your decision to delete something as widely used as userboxes without offering a discussion of any sort, based on your decision alone. From what I understood, you did not suggest to delete them, you simply did. Users did not even get as much as a warning that the userboxes were going to be gone. One would expect that an ArbComm member has better judgement than to stir a nest like this. And judgement, as it logically seems, is one thing an arbitrator needs the most. I do not know what prompted you to act unilaterally in the userboxes case, but, regretfully, they are likely to haunt you for a long time to come, and I do see the whole thing as a pretty poor display of judgement. You are right that one arbitrator cannot decide a case outcome, but s/he is certainly in position to influence it.
I hope this was detailed enough. If you still have any questions regarding my vote, or if you think I see something in the wrong light, please do not hesitate to let me know.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, I have had no opportunity to actually discuss the situation with anyone other than a few friends. Discussion on an RfC is expressly prohibited (although people violate this rule all the time); by adhering to this rule I have apparently offended a number of people who think I should have instead "discussed" the matter on the RfC. Second, I expected some upset feelings, but not the uproar that resulted. I believe that policy supported my actions in the same way policy supported my actions when I started deleting orphaned unlicensed images back in September. That bold move on my part got some complaints, but not many, and led in some small part to my original appointment to the ArbCom. I believed that bold action was required in this situation and that policy was clear. In particular the decision to delete inappropriate userboxes was spurred in large part by recidivists in the userbox community who insist that they have the right to disregard Misplaced Pages policy (and, incidentially, the law) regarding the use of unlicensed images, a battle I have been fighting for months with some people. (Ironically, some of these people were the ones leading the mob against me on the RfC.) Having a discussion on whether to enforce existing policy seems ridiculous to me. What happened here, as opposed to what happened in September, is that enough people went "OMIGOD MY USERBOX IS GONE" and wanted blood so badly that they were unwilling to listen to reason to form a mob. I failed to anticipate the mob, as I did not realize the extent to which the userbox addiction had spread through the community. (They are not particularily popular with the editors I spend most of my time around.)
I have refrained from posting an "open apology" in large part because I have no desire to appear to be conceding on the underlying issue regarding userboxes, especially those which are used to attack either other editors or to attack specific points of view, and of course those which infringe copyrights, and there were so many people in that feeding frenzy on my RfC that were rabidly defending their rights to say whatever they want however they want that I was that I feared a capitulation would be taken as justification for their clearly inappropriate point of view. Enough time has passed that an apology for not involving more of the community in a discussion beforehand would not be out of line; enough community support for a more moderate position exists to keep the radicals on this point under control. I still believe that the userboxes I deleted should have been deleted and should again be deleted, but I am not going to press the issue at this point as there is a robust and relatively civil debate on the topic now that will, hopefully sometime in our lives, lead to a conclusion. I had also misjudged the degree to which the community has become committed to process, probably because I don't have much to do with deletion anymore (an area where process has become arguably too important). For those two misjudgments, I am willing to apologize.
In any case, I don't think this really pertains at all to my capabilities as an Arbitrator, especially when I have a history as an Arbitrator to look at. I would encourage you to look at my history as an Arbitrator and judge my competency on that basis, instead of relying on what is really an unrelated incident to form your opinion of the merits of my candidacy. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Kelly, for this quite detailed explanation. It made me realize that I, being affected by the mob mentality, never actually sought to hear your side of the story before voting, taking everything said by the others at face value. Obviously, it's very easy to see how the things "should have been done" in the hindsight.
While your explanations still did not me feel entirely comfortable with casting a support vote, I found them convincing enough to withdraw my opposition. Thank you for providing a reason and taking time to provide your view on the matter.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Infobox:Language issues

Tobias Conradi informally asked me to mediate the issues surrounding the (Infobox) (L/l)anguage template. Since I was not involved into the matter, it took me a little while to figure out what was going on. Below please find a summary of the case as I understand it. If something is incorrect or amiss (or afoot :)), please do not make changes but leave a comment below. Thank you.

  1. Per Netoholic, current template Template:Language is in violation of WP:AUM.
    • Netoholic started developing a new template, located at Template:Infobox Language, that would be in compliance with WP:AUM.
      • According to the comments at Template talk:Language, most of the parties involved dislike the new template.
      • According to other comments on the same page, new template does not work properly on Misplaced Pages mirrors.
        • Netoholic defends it as a work in progress that needs to be done anyway to make the template compliant with WP:AUM.
  2. Per Tobias Conradi, current template (Template:Language) should be moved to Template:Infobox Language, so as to achieve consistency with the naming scheme for other infobox templates.
    • As Netoholic's version is in the way, the move cannot be performed at this time.
    • Netoholic is not willing to move the newly developed template to his userspace or under a different name. He is convinced that his template will eventually be accepted, thus saving the necessity to make corrections to numerous articles that call it.
      • Tobias disagrees.
      • Cyrius apparently agrees with Netoholic's arguments, as he protected the Netoholic's version from being moved.
        • Tobias believes that Cyrius' actions constitute an abuse of his admin priviliges.

At this point of time, I abstained from judging/accusing anybody or taking any actions, as I may still not see the complete picture. Comments would be much appreciated.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with Netoholic's arguments, or rather, I take no stand on the issue. I took the action I did because Tobias moved Netoholic's version elsewhere, and overwrote the (at the time) actively-used template with a disambiguation page. My actions were solely to prevent what I saw as a disruption of Misplaced Pages. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Cyrius, I see what you mean. Tobias agreed to file a WP:RM for the template, so I trust he will no longer attempt to move the template himself until that goes (or does not go) through; and definitely not until we discuss the whole situation (here or elsewhere). Do you mind unprotecting it for now? I can, of course, do it myself, but I think it'll only be fair to let you do it. Again, thanks.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Much appreciated.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. Cyrius is imprecise. At time of his second move and the following move block it was not used anywhere. So it wasn't a disruption. I went to WP:RM for the move of Template:Language to Template:Infobox Language, I did not so for the move of "Template:Infobox Language" to "Template:Infobox Language new". So the above assumption that i don't move it anymore because I went to WP:RM is not right. I still think it was kind of abuse and annoying just to block without mentioning / talking / explaining this. Instead of answering my question to an end, Cyrius blamed me for words I used and behaved like the holy father - infailable. This arrogant admin behavior is something I really hate in WP, and now within few month only gave me the third time the feeling of a two class society.
Ezhiki, thanks a lot that you had a look into the issue. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


Tobias posted on WP:RM back on Jan 5th. Apparently dissatisfied and impatient, he then moved the page twice on Jan 6th (around 20:13 UTC) immediately after he orphaned it between 19:55 and 20:10. Not only did he move the page, but he oddly replaced the redirect with what can be best described as a disambig page -- something that we just don't do in Template-land. I think he did that specifically because he knew someone (me) couldn't move it back to it's original location. I asked on IRC for assistance, and Cyrius agreed with me and moved it back. For Tobias to say that "it was not used anywhere. So it wasn't a disruption" is disingenuous. -- Netoholic @ 04:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • You don't seem to understand the issue. I did not post a request to move your template, I made a request to move the original (in use) template to the standard name, as was proposed some time ago. You created your private template at the place where the original template was meant to be moved. So I was not all "apparently dissatisfied". Try again Neto. Are you a troll?
  • "something that we just don't do in Template-land" - something that most users not do is to replace templates in language articles without telling anyone with a version created in obscurity. And something most users don't do: blockade renaming under considaration by simply creating a template in the place where it was considered to move the official in use template. But hey, you warned us?
You were and are disrupting the work within the language project. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Infobox:Language proposed solution

Folks, please remain calm and don't insult each other. No one is incorrect here and/or tries to do any harm on purpose, you just see the priorities differently, that is all.

After hearing out the comments above, it looks that my original summary is mostly correct. I hereby offer you the following compromise:

  1. Template:Language in its current form obviously violates WP:AUM, which is what Netoholic is trying to fix. WP:AUM states that metatemplates are harmful for the following reasons:
    1. they create extra server load when called (a template nested in another template leads to three server calls—one for each template plus one for the article);
    2. they create very heavy load when edited (every page containing templates need to be updated after the template is edited);
    3. they create possibilities for DoS attacks and for vandalism (if a template is vandalized, all pages that contain it are affected).
  2. Template:Infobox Language, which does not use metatemplates, is inferior to the Template:Language and is in need of much work. Putting it to use in the article will greatly diminish the quality of affected articles.

It is proposed to protect the Template:Language from editing. This measure will address the most important points of WP:AUM—1.2 & 1.3, while preserving the quality and integrity of the articles which already use this metatemplate version. In the meanwhile, the community members currently involved in developing Template:Language should redirect their efforts to assist in development of the Template:Infobox Language. As soon as there is a consensus that the latter template is on par with the former one, all references to the Template:Language should be replaced with Template:Infobox Language.

Please indicate your acceptance of this proposed decision. If you find it unacceptable, please indicate below which portion is not to your liking. Once all involved parties accept it, the decision will be posted at Template talk:Language and Template talk:Infobox Language for the rest of involved parties to see and comment on.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi's comments:

  1. WP:AUM != WP:DUM and WP:AUM != WP:NUM
    • a= avoid, d = don't, n = never
  2. if the Netoholic template is accepted it should be copied into the original template {{{Language}}} to preserve the edit history of the latter.
  3. the move of the original template to the standard name, has nothing to do with the WP:AUM violation accusations

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, but:

  1. WP:AUM != WP:DUM and WP:AUM != WP:NUM (a=avoid, d=don't, n=never)
    True, but "avoid" also does not mean "ignore when you feel like it". This is a high-profile template after all, the type WP:AUM targeted in the first place. A metatemplate used only by a dozen of article would not have a significant negative effect; this one, however, is intended for use on hundreds of pages. Perhaps we should invite a developer to take a look at this discussion and let us know once and for all if this particular template is problematic enough to be considered a serious AUM violation? So far all we've been doing is second-guessing the policy's intent.
  2. if the Netoholic template is accepted it should be copied into the original template {{{Language}}} to preserve the edit history of the latter.
    If it's accepted and developed to the point of being usable, then histories can be merged at that time. Merging edit histories is a quite simple procedure. If the original template is protected from editing, it will be possible to merge the histories in a very clean way.
  3. the move of the original template to the standard name, has nothing to do with the WP:AUM violation accusations
    True, but trying to solve the AUM violation together with the name standardization saves us all trouble of having to do mass moves/replacements more than once. Wouldn't you agree that it's good for Misplaced Pages? Every mass action eats resources, and, as it seems, Wikimedia does not have the latter in abundance.

A question for you, Tobias: please tell me what you see wrong with this scenario:

  1. Protect Template:Language from editing;
    1. why can't we develop our template anymore?
  2. develop Template:Infobox Language to the point when it's usable enough to replace old Template:Language;
    1. why don't develop the original template?
  3. mass-replace all links to Template:Language with the links to new Template:Infobox Language, thus standardizing the infobox name and resolving AUM problem for good;
    1. Neto said this is not necessary. Anyway, why wait with mass replace and name standdardizing only because Neto spit is template in our way?
  4. merge histories of Template:Language and Template:Infobox Language to preserve records;
    1. can also be done afterwards with Neto's template from wherever merged in.
  5. delete Template:Language.
    1. better use as redirect, because referenced in several talk pages?

The way I see it, the end result will be exactly what you and other editors want, and the process only requires one mass-replacement that needs to be done anyway. Am I missing anything or not?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I integrated my replies. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic's comments:

I disagree with protecting Template:Language. There is very little chance of vandalism, it's watched closely, and is only on a couple hundred articles. Other than that, your proposal is exactly the strategy I've been trying to convince this group to follow. Merging the histories is just a "feel good" move, since it's perfectly fine if the history sits under a redirect from Language to Infobox_Language, but I'm fine with it if it just gets this group participating on the single dispute holding the process back, that being whether to keep support for the old color scheme (Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Languages#The bad side of colors). -- Netoholic @ 22:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Just as clarification—I offered protection not because I'm afraid the template is going to be vandalized often and not fixed for long (I'm sure enough people watch after it so it will not), but for the impact the very act of editing it would have. If someone vandalizes it (or even tries to improve it without knowing that a new template is being developed)—it's a couple hundred server calls already, then it's another couple hundred when it's reverted. Which is exactly what WP:AUM aims to prevent. Comments?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic's comments, part 2:

Would you please look into the related disruption that Tobias is causing now on a redirect I created? He's repeating the same disruptive behavior as he did with the page move fiasco. We don't use disambigs in the template namespace. I originally created this redirect to prevent duplication of effort and help with typos. I am close to requesting blocks for disruption, so maybe you can help him stop screwing around. -- Netoholic @ 01:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It could also be argued you created the redirect on 2005-12-31 to your template to prevent us from moving our template as proposed on 2005-12-12. Maybe you request a block of yourself after in hidden creating your Infobox Language and applying it to several articles? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Per Misplaced Pages:Infobox templates, the standard naming for infoboxs is "Template:Infobox Foo" (upper-case), so "Template:Language" would never be appropriately moved to "Template:Infobox language". I created Template:Infobox Language on 12/22. I created the redirect on 12/31, as I said, to prevent typos - something I do often.
Here lies the difference between your actions and mine... one would be hard pressed to say my redirect was not in good faith. On the other hand, your repeated disruptions with these templates, with the page moves above and now these edits to the redirect, are less obviously in good faith. -- Netoholic @ 02:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
On 2005-12-12 I suggested using uppercase L. One could argue that your private and hidden creation of Template:Infobox Language was only made to hinder us to move. And effectly that's what it does. That's assuming bad faith, but after you implemented your template in hidden in several articles it looks as if you tried to abuse creation of the standardname template to accomplish your goals. Secondly there is no policy to create Template:Infobox foo redirects for all existing Template:Infobox Foo. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ezhiki's comments:

Folks, would you please lay petty bickering aside for a little while? Does it really matter who created what and when and why and for what purpose, if in the end all we need to sort out is the final result? It is really not that interesting to find out what your (Tobias' and Netoholic's) original thoughts were—what matters is that you were trying to achieve pretty much the same goal in different ways. The resolution of issues outlined in the comments immediately above would go a long way to entertain your egos, but at the same time it hinders achieving the end result you both so eagerly are looking for. The longer you argue about something as unimportant as who should the blame be put on, the more time passes without any real work done. What are your priorities? I sure hope that in your edits and actions you put Misplaced Pages's interests before your personal satisfaction.

Now that I'm done with scolding :), let's address more immediate concerns. Here are the answers to the questions Tobias asked:

  1. Protect Template:Language from editing;
    • why can't we develop our template anymore?
      • As it was mentioned before, every edit to a metatemplate leads to a great number of server calls in each affected article and purges the squid caches, thus increasing access time and server load (which is what WP:AUM tries to prevent). To continue developing the original template will require a lot of editing before the metatemplate evolves into something structurally simpler but just as efficient. Nothing, by the way, prevents you from creating an exact copy of the original template and continuing to work on it under a different title. It will still remain a metatemplate for a while, but the harmful effects will be minimized as the copy will not be used on hundreds of pages, stressing the servers after being edited each time. Once the metatemplate is redesigned, all articles can be mass-updated to point to it.
  2. develop Template:Infobox Language to the point when it's usable enough to replace old Template:Language;
    • why don't develop the original template?
      • Same reason as above. You can develop the original template as a copy at another location before article references are mass-updated.
  3. mass-replace all links to Template:Language with the links to new Template:Infobox Language, thus standardizing the infobox name and resolving AUM problem for good;
    • Neto said this is not necessary. Anyway, why wait with mass replace and name standdardizing only because Neto spit is template in our way?
      • If original template is moved to the new name and all articles are immediately changed to point to it, it will not affect the AUM problem in any way (you'll still have a metatemplate used in a couple hundred articles), so postponing the move should be done for pretty much the same reasons as above.
  4. merge histories of Template:Language and Template:Infobox Language to preserve records;
    • can also be done afterwards with Neto's template from wherever merged in.
      • See above reasoning. Plus, does not really matter when histories are merged?
  5. delete Template:Language.
    • better use as redirect, because referenced in several talk pages?
      • Good idea; I forgot about the talk pages. Agree.

All in all, to repeat myself, it is not a priority to settle personal disagreements you folks have with each other. I trust that as adults both committed to Misplaced Pages you are pretty capable of settling them yourselves, preferrably in a civil way. All that matters now is to close this incident, hopefully with a compromise solution. The very nature of compromise is that neither side likes it, remember? :) If you think my proposed solution does not benefit Misplaced Pages (as opposed to "does not make me feel good"), please let know here why. I can see how it does not address personal issues you have with each other, but it looks pretty darn good in the big picture.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom Vote

Hi Ezhiki,

As per your opposition vote to my ArbCom candidacy due to the lack of questions, I've elaborated on my statement and explanation at the questions page. I welcome any further questions to be asked to clarify any of your doubts, and let me know on my talkpage if it's urgent. Thank you for your interest! :)

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 02:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking time to re-work your statement and answers, but, unfortunately, those were not the only reasons why I opposed (I tried to keep my comments brief). Sorry!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Ust-Orda Buryatia

Talk:Ust-Orda Buryatia , thx for the NO landscape info. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

my RfA

Thanks. WikiThanks.
Thanks. WikiThanks.

I would like to express my thanks to all the good people who spent their valuable time time and effort working on my (failed) RfA voting. Especially for those who actually voted to support me :). You put a great effort into it, it was me who mixed up everything. Lets move on and make together our Misplaced Pages an even greater place abakharev 09:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)