User:Panic2k4/Sandbox/RapidEdit

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikibooks:Boilerplate request for permission

Welcome message[edit]

(This is not an automated message, I'll be watching during a time for any reply you make to it...)

Hello, and welcome to Wikibooks!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

  • To learn the wiki-markup-language syntax, see Help:Editing.
  • Make sure to sign your posts and comments with four tildes, like this: ~~~~
    • There is a box at the top of the edit window (if javascript is enabled on your browser) that will insert it too (looks like part of a signature). This will let others know who left it, and make it easy to reply back to you.
  • Remember to conduct any editing experiments in the sandbox (global to the system) or in a page on your own userspace.
  • Remember to use Commons project for image uploading.
  • You can tell the community something about yourself in your userpage.
    • You can get to this page by clicking the tab at the top of the page labeled with your registered username.
  • Wikibooks are open-source textbooks. (What is Wikibooks).
  • If you are a Wikipedian, see Wikibooks:Wikibooks for Wikipedians for a primer since things work a little different here.
    • If you want to base your work here on materials from Wikipedia, please use WB:RFI.
  • If you're an instructor and plan on using Wikibooks for a class project, see Wikibooks:Guidelines for class projects
  • Please say hello at the Reading Room with any questions or ideas.
  • Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
    • Help us by participating in policy and guideline creation.
    • Please take a look at Wikibooks:Naming policy before starting a new book.
  • Remember to keep a Neutral point of view.
  • Explore, be bold in editing pages, and have fun!

You will find more resources in Community Portal. If you have questions, visit the Study help desk, the Reading Room, IRC channel or ask me personally on my talk page. For site news, see the Bulletin board. It might be a good idea to add that page to your "watchlist" so that you can see when any new information is posted there. You can do that by clicking the tab labeled "watch" at the top of the page.


Good luck!


Edit warning[edit]

{{tmbox|type=notice|text='''Please help <u>''improve''</u> Wikibooks'''. Your [[Special:Contributions/EDIT|recent edits]] are considered unconstructive by fellow contributors. Please read [[WB:WIW|What is Wikibooks?]] for a description of what we allow. You can ask questions or ask for help in the [[WB:HELP|Assistance Reading Room]]. Please use the [[Wikibooks:Sandbox|sandbox]] for experimenting with the wiki software in the future. Thanks. --~~~~ }} {{copypaste}}

Get involved[edit]

If you get interested in some of the politics of the system, most important if to keep the project evolving according to your needs, you could start by looking or participating in the common discussions forums, like [[WB:RFD]], and in any policy discussions as they are announced. This projects is very distinct from any other on Wikimedia. --~~~~

Avoid copyright paranoia[edit]

You can avoid any copyright conflict in many ways, by using a different method, approach or structure one can avoid to direct copy word by word any copyright material, in any case we at wikibooks aren't cops nor is our duty to protect any copyright holders rights, but as any Wikibookian we should prevent copyright problems to the project. Our copyright policy is in Wikibooks:Copyrights with some extensions added to media files in Wikibooks:Media and some more useful referential info is pointed out in the Wikibooks:Designated agent page. If you are sure there will be no problem and until anyone proves a blatant copyright violation or the copyright holder requests a pull down you should be free to contribute in anyway you see as an improvement to the project. In the event there is a violation if not properly addressed per policy it will be deleted. --Panic (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikibooks, a collection of open-content textbooks! You do not have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikibooks. Creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

  • The use of a username of your choice
  • The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link
  • Your own user page
  • Your talk page can, if you choose, allow users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address
  • Use a personal watchlist so that you can add articles that interest you to monitor for changes.
  • The ability to rename pages.
  • The ability to upload images
  • The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website
  • The eligibility to become an administrator
  • The right to be heard in votes and elections
  • Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikibookian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. Make sure to sign your posts and comments with four tildes (~~~~), this will let others know who left it.


VFD initiated...[edit]

== VFD initiated... == {{mbox|type=warning|msg= '''[[Cookbook/Temp|Cookbook/Temp]] has been nominated for deletion. Please [[WB:VFD#Cookbook/Temp|share your thoughts]].'''<br/>You are being notified because you have created the page. If you haven't already, please see our [[WB:DP|deletion policy]].<br> --~~~~}}

Question[edit]

QW Question Mark.jpg Can I get a questions?

 

Gnome-mime-text-x-readme.png

Text


Copyright 101 http://www.ascd.org/authors/ed_lead/el200112_simpson.html


Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.jpg

{{Displaytitle}}

{{outdent|:::::::::::}} = reset ident

{{non-free software screenshot}} {{non-free use rationale |book = Metasploit |not free = The written work describes or relates directly to the software that in displayed in the image. |rationale = It would reduce the usefulness of the written work not to provide an image. |must use = The image illustrates or helps to contextualize the textual information provided on the written work. }}

Structure changes[edit]

  • Software maintenance
    • Debugging
    • Optimization
    • Refactoring
    • Rewrite

WB:RFA posts (copy of post on WK talk page)[edit]

My objection [here]

Your objection (recent) [here], I must point out that I selected the one that you state clearly the viewpoints that I find myself sharing with you.

You logic on the rejection of my objection (and to my view of the need of consensus but this is not the point we are addressing now, I will gladly engage you on that point on the discussion of the proposed decision policy ) is (older that the validation) [here], the flaw or opposing views, as I see it, is you converged on my points to validate an objection but on my objection you chose to ignore it (not the problem on the table now). --Panic 00:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Call your attention also to the comments made by others regarding the validity of my objection. --Panic 00:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So and taking even you objection text like "things have changed" it is clear that the objectives or requirements to get the admin flag are mutable without necessarily affecting those that already have it and even you seem to evolve your personal requirements for an approval vote lets extrapolate this to a change in your views on the restrictiveness on granting an approval (or that a significant number of people that share your views are not present during a vote) it is easy to see that having the admin flag is not a certainty of trust or knowledge. (I could probably be more specific and point you situations were users were granted administrative flags under circumstances that bypassed those presets). --Panic 01:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a big difference between the two candidates. Az was particularly active, especially in fighting vandals and cleaning up vandalism. The other user was not active in any respect. I dont see these two issues being the same at all, and I didnt reverse myself. We can talk about the other issue about me promoting Az despite your objection if you want, but i am not likely to admit fault on that issue either. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Well I can point one that you should clearly remember, the approval of Darklama (I also voted in opposition first and changed later but not because of trust or based on the users knowledge), but lets take that as example as you are particularly up-to-date on my still pending requests, the user performed several actions against stated policy (page moves, heavy structural changes), just before and after he was granted adminship (even you stated that on the call for comments), this is not to say he does not perform in general a good job or that I wish to have him lose his admin flag, it is just to demonstrate that there are a myriad of facets that should be considered when placing so much faith on a user just because he is an admin, it is incontestable that this specific user performed more good than wrong but admins shouldn't have a special hold on what is or not correct, as I said somewhere else admins are normal users on a specific task. (I'll go more deeply on this on the discussion of the revision for the specific policy)
The consensus issue will be raised on the proper policy as I know you don't share my view on the strict use of it.
I know that candidates aren't the same but was an opposition (you used the same logic to approve other users), I chose that because its use was similar in the value and content not the target, each user is different.
Would you agree that an user can easily bypass the check and balances to get the admin flag then ? Any user could easily reproduce the valid work Az performed (with the same level of interaction with the rest of the community) and be granted the flag that doesn't provide any clue about the level of trust or knowledge or will to be involved on community matters in the long run, that is why I opposed at the time, your logic with the other user is even harder, the user already had the flag but lost it due to inertia (was he less trustworthy or with a lesser degree of knowledge, who can say), but I share your vote on that case (I must point out that I didn't particularly like how the removal of older admin flags was performed but I will also address that later).
Can we then agree that even if stated as a requirement trust and knowledge it shouldn't be blindly given to any user just because he has the admin flag ? or better yet only to users that have it ? That is what I was aiming to on that discussion a user should be only judged by performance and actions if he is or is not an admin is a lesser issue, I never wanted to be an administrator not because of the "responsibility" or anything like that just because I had no need to, if you place so much importance on that flag I will consider in 6 moths applying to it (that will be fun). --Panic 01:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It is true that what AZ did (and still does a great deal) could be reproduced by other users. However, I think that it's difficult for someone to put that much work into things like vandal fighting and cleanup, etc, and not wanting to get involved with the community as a whole, especially since the point of doing that kind of stuff is to help protect the community from those that would harm it, and to improve it. However, I do understand your argument and to some degree I agree with you, that the newer admins may not have as much experience\community trust as older (not necessarily admin) contributors.
That being said, I think that if a contributor can show that he or she really knows the ropes, has shown a true desire to get involved with the community, and would make good use of the admin priveleges, no matter how long the person's actually been around, he or she should be allowed to have it. There has to be some limit of course (that's what the 200 edit thing is for; people who are involved with the community will likely have relatively little difficulty reaching that due to all the different reasons there are for making posts) but I think it's not as clear-cut as you seem to be implying especially with your quoted objection to AZ's adminship nomination. Maybe it would make more sense to use as a guideline the number of edits in namespaces other than the main space, but I digress. Revert me if you don't think it's appropriate for me to talk here but I wanted to keep it all on one page. Mattb112885 (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
Well, you got more or less the jest of what I was attempting to reason with Whiteknight, note that I'm not in any way diminishing anyones work here, I was addressing the way, or if you will, the special consideration that Whiteknight seems to attribute to the admin flag, nothing more (this is based on talks I have had with him and by several posts I have read here and there, I may be giving to much of attention to this point but it was on topic), administrators it is my view are here voluntarily and to provide a service to all not to archive any kind of special status, in a perfect world all would be granted adminiship or even checkuser rights, so, why not let anyone be an arbiter, if anything breaks no harm can be done to the community and the policy can be reworked later if we bar the access to people at the start without a clear justification we are only empowering the segmentation of what constitutes Wikibooks, the community.
As a side note and on the same topic, take for instance this page I had done some work and noticed the edit of Darklama and so did not fallow on what I will say next about this section Help:Administration_FAQ#Who_monitors_the_conduct_of_an_Administrator.3F, this kind of information or concept is not only inaccurate but can provide to be dangerous it builds expectations of indeed getting above the others, humans are creatures that are in general driven by very basic instincts or formulate specific goal base decisions, one of the most damaging needs we have is to get above the crowd, known as the ego factor. It should be made clear that administrators aren't a special brotherhood with a secret sign, or right of decision to pass personal judgments, or have special powers, they are simple users like anyone else, granted that they should have some knowledge or have shown interest on the wellbeing of all but lets be fair and admit that this is probably hard to prove and very simple to simulate and ultimately people are people there will always be disagreements and attempts to engrandize oneself, we should attempt to perform above all this but we shouldn't be blind to the facts.
In specific to that section, I will let the time pass a little so not to offend or repeat the previous mistake in reverse, it is clear that Admins aren't monitored by the others admins only (Darklama solved only part of the problem), they are monitored by all users, any user can request the pulldown of the administrative flag and any user should (there are no clear policies yet) be able to request administrative actions to be reaccessed or even reverted, by preventing an outside party or non administrators to participate in the decision process if the involved parties agree, is to me just wrong. --Panic 06:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
PS: Call you attention to consider expressing again your support Wikibooks:Staff_lounge/Technical_Chat#Wikijunior_Namespace, txs --Panic 07:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Administrators must satisfy a vague set of requirements on activity, as well as satisfy vague requirements on their trust and knowledgability. Once those conditions are satisfied (and what it takes to satisfy them does change with time), that user is still subject to a vote of their peers as to whether or not to get adminship. Admins are just like ordinary users, and they are treated as ordinary in all discussions and votes. No special attention is paid to admins because of the flag. However, admins have been voted into a position of trust by the community, and that is a milestone that should not be ignored completely. I don't believe that people who aren't qualified to be admins should serve as arbiters, or bureaucrats, or checkusers. You may see these as all different issues, but I see them as the same: You must first prove that you are trusted (through an admin vote) before you can move on to higher levels of responsibility in the community.
In the USA, for instance, any person is entitled to run for president. In practice, however, the only people with a good chance of winning are state governors and US Senators. To the public, people who have already passed the hurdle to become a senator or govenor have less to prove of themselves then a non-politician does. I am not trying to draw a direct parallel, because adminship is not a position of power or control in the same way that presidency is. The point remains: Before moving to a higher rank (or a higher position of responsibility), you should first prove yourself by attaining a lower rank. In other words, you have to work your way up the ladder.
In response to your comments about Darklama, you need to keep in mind that the Wikibooks:Decision making guideline is very vague about these kinds of points, and my comments on Darklama's additions served more as a personal interpretation of that guideline. In actuality, Darklama's edits were protected by the 'Be Bold directive, and it's only after your complaints are lodged that the decision making process begins. Should he likely have discussed changes with you before making them? Yes. Was he required to ask you before he made those changes? No. If you read the text of these policies and guidelines carefully, Darklama was perfectly in accordance with the edits that he made. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok this is my last post on the subject with you because I can't believe you are seriously defending you point or that this will lead anywhere.
How can you so adamantly defend the validity of the vote for adminiship if you consider the number of users we have on wikibooks (heck, consider only half or a third) and the average number of votes that can give one the flag (7 max) and on top of that there is no compliance with the consensus rule, you can only be joking about it or do you really believe that those votes represent the community ?
I have proven several weaknesses to the identity of users, shown that a user can easily bypass the checks and balances, show that consensus is not fallowed, I believe if so inclined a few users that get admitted as administrators can remove the administrative flags of most of the older (a good enough proposal and good timing is all it's needed) and virtually control wikibooks, can't you see that if we start centralizing and empowering a segment of the community over the rest we risk such events or even if not started with that express intention such patterns of behavior can emerge.
This is why I place so much importance on the strict use of consensus.
I was not discussing Darklama I was commenting on past events and your own comments at the time, but again if we fallow consensus the status quo is maintained, that is all I was asking at the time and still require in several of the changes I initiated dialog and requested the user to give a validity to, the BEBOLD expressly states a limitation to that right and extends into how carefully it should be used, in that particular case Darklama was aware that I didn't agree with several changes he made when I was blocked. Move of pages go above simple edits, no policy, not even BEBOLD can be used to validate the moving of pages from an active book (where someone is working) without discussion. --Panic 17:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you're not assuming the good faith of the administrators, Panic; I know you may have some bitterness towards them but most of them started with a clean plate before making their own decisions, they weren't trying to "control wikibooks", and they're still not. It just so happens that most of the users on Wikibooks prefer to focus on content rather than doing things like voting on policy and on adminship, and that most of those users that are active in policy happen to be administrators (partly for that reason; as you pointed out, there have been failed rFas due to insufficient community involvement and knowledge of policy). No, the policy is not exact on what they mean by "having enough involvement", this is left open for a reason and that's to allow flexibility for each new rFa that's out there.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattb112285 (talkcontribs) .
I assume good faith dealing with any person as a rule, not only on wikibooks, but trust and respect is earned and can be lost and levels of both are not fixed or generalized, one has trust and respect for friends and parents but they are no equal, they depend on actions and perception, actions can be simulated and the last one can be fabricated.
Several events have indeed left a scar, reading things like this [here] (random example) and watching intentional misrepresentation of facts have indeed eroded my level of faith on some administrators and that "group" of users in general. But as I have said people are people and each user is unique. --Panic 01:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The community is small, and that's why a relatively large portion of the community appears to be admins, and also why admins can be elected with relatively few votes. You haven't "proven" any weaknesses in the identities of users, nor the falliability of admins, nor in the abuse of consensus. You have given your opinions on the matters, and I have disagreed. Also, there is plenty of accordance with the concensus rule. Concensus does not now and has not ever required 100% agreement. Furthermore, Be Bold enables users to act without gaining concensus (barring argument, of course), and Wikibooks:Decision making is only a guideline, not a policy (I wanted it to be a policy, but the community decided to have more flexibility in the matter). 1 arbitrary disagreement among 7 strong support votes cannot and will not stop a measure from passing. I heard your objection, and I acknowledged it, but as the acting Bureaucrat I didn't believe that your objection was enough to stop Az's promotion. In that case, adequate consensus was achieved, and I stand by my decision 100%. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. weaknesses in the identities of users - If I was so inclined I would get a user approved as admin just to show that it can easily be done.
  2. falliability of admins - both SB Jhonny and Darklama have failed on admin taks, I don't intend to rehash the subject but you own words admited to errors, errors anyone can commit but should be strongly avoided by admins nonetheless.
  3. abuse of consensus - I don't agree with you definition of consensus nor how you have used the word, 7 to 1 is not consensus it's a vote by majority, I have addressed those on my essay. --Panic 01:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. You could certainly try to do this, I am highly doubtful that you would succeed. Plus, if you could "pretend" to be worthy of being an admin for a while, it would certainly raise questions as to why you have't been worthy of the honor on your primary account. At this point, additional sockpuppets, if they were discovered, would likely lead to you being blocked again.
  2. Your frequent insults of both SBJohnny and Darklama are annoying. In admin tasks, I dont believe that either have made any mistakes. Admins are empowered to use their best judgement, and both SBJohnny and Darklama have used their best judgement in handling situations. That you have an issue with either of these admins is to be expected, but it isn't proof of wrongdoing. If you dont like them, nominate them for removal.
  3. 7 people with good reasons, and 1 person with bad reasons is concensus. In concensus, the quality of the argument is more important then the quantity of the arguments. Numerically, the vote could have been 3-5, but if the 3 had better arguments, the vote would have passed. I did not view your argument as being of particularly high quality, and I made a note of that. You would do well to read the full text of Wikibooks:Decision making so that you understand exactly what we mean by the word "consensus". How we have defined that word may be different from the way your dictionary might define it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. I never tried or worked with that as a target, even if I did perform regular admin tasks, fighting vandalization of pages etc.., but will try it in 6 moths, and one of the points that we diverge is that I don't consider the task to be an honor but a vocation and a different way of contributing to the project nothing more.
  2. I don't regard it as insults, SBJohnny acknowledged as much and you own assessment of some actions of Darklama also address some failings (do you need the links to the relevant subjects?), I also have acknowledged my errors. I'm not ashamed of addressing them also. I state again that I don't want to nominate them for removal of the admin flag but I will use even my own errors to demonstrate some view points and try to make committing them again harder.
  3. Again, this point will not be solved as you are irredeemable on you view point, but you make a god point against your own definition, so you now have the sole hold on accessing the quality of votes or if they should count, funny that one, well this is why I stopped voting on the RFA. And will fight to show the community the fragility of using your definition. --Panic 01:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
We have 3 bureaucrats precisely so that I dont have unilateral control over RFA votes. According to the decision making guideline, "votes" (and that really is an inappropriate word) are measured by their quality. This is a necessary safeguard against sockpuppetry, and it also helps to distinguish between people who are non-committal, and people who are passionate about a particular option. As a final note, it isn't "my definition", it is "Everybody's definition except yours". You seem to be the only person who doesnt understand or doesnt agree with the decision making policy, so don't single me out as being some kind of evil perpetrator of a bad definition. Since this is my talk page, and since i am tired of these acusations, I am likely to delete any further references to that effect on sight. Read the guideline, all the details are spelled out. You are always welcome to propose a change to the guideline, I would be surprised if it got much support. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)