User:Geo Swan/opinions/The frontiers of template policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A wikipedian named Butseriouslyfolks nominated Template:TalibanBounty for deletion, here.

An administrator named RyanGerbil10 closed the discussion nine days later. They closed it as "delete", even though those expressing a "keep" opinion outnumbered those expressing a "delete". Here is RyanGerbil10's closing statement.

Three of the four wikipedians who left a "keep" opinion left notes on the closing administrator's talk page:

Contents

[edit] My concerns over this {{tfd}}, and its closure

  1. Nomination was not in compliance with policy:
    1. Nominator's initial nomination was not for a criteria authorized in the WP:TFD document. IMO any nomination for deletion that is not in compliance with policy should immediately be closed as a "speedy keep".
    2. Nomination was marred by serious errors of fact.
    3. Nominator was unwilling, or unable, to engage in meaningful dialogue.
  2. Closing admin chose to discount the positions taken by BOTH those who expressed delete and keep. The closing admin's justification for deletion were novel -- ones that weren't mentioned during the {{tfd}} discussion. I am concerned, and wonder whether this was an instance when an administrators opinions merit taking off their administrator's authority, and participate in the disucussion as one more regular person, whose opinion carries no more weight than anyone else's.
  3. The closing admin's initial statement explaining their deletion decision was marred by very serious errors of fact.
  4. Closing admin has acknowledged that their deletion decision was not based on policy at all.
  5. Closing admin has been asked to explain their reasoning more fully. Although they did offer a civil reply, of moderate length, it does not address how a wikipedian who wanted to comply with their personal, unformalized, unexpressed, interpretation of how templates should and should not be used, could learn how to do so.
  6. Closing admin seemed to be hinting that their patience with explaining their decision was at an end. IMO, if the closing admin is going to make decisions that are outside the boundaries of policy, they have signed themself up to continue to do their best to continue to provide civil, meaningful answers, about their administrative decision, so long as interested parties continue to have civil, meaningful questions that need anwsers. Geo Swan 14:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] speedy keep

IMO if a formal nomination for deletion is not consistent with policy it should be closed as soon as possible. I believe this nomination, and its closure, illustrates why this important.

[edit] the role of an administrator opinion

There have been several occasions when I have come across {{afd}} discussions where someone has prefaced their comment with a statement like this (paraphrasing from memory):

This discussion has been open for a while. I planned to close it. But as I read through the various positions I found the minority view so compelling that I decided to take of my administrator's hat, and wigh in with my own position.

[edit] how templates should and should not be used

In their closing statement the administrator offered several aspects of the template under question that they felt did not comply with their personal interpretation of templates should work. They were asked to explain, their concern explicitly enough that someone could comply with their ruling. Althought their initial reply was civil it does not address how to comply with their rulings at all.

Closing admin's concern Questions that arise from admin's concern

"A cartoon does not satisfy this requirement."

I need to know, more specifically, which kinds of images will trigger concerns from you, and those who agree with you, if they have templates wrapped around them.

"Additionally, this template does not mention the subject of the articles on which it is placed."
  • I think I am entitled to ask you to be specific about what this objection really means.
  • So, would this concern be satisfied by placing an HTML comment at the top of the template, saying something like: "This template is intended to be transcluded in articles that reference the American bounty program for information leading to the apprehension of someone suspected of a tie to terrorism."
  • If so, this concern doesn't really seem to be an iunsupportable problem.
  • If not, could you please give me wikilinks to some examples of templates that comply with your defacto standards?
  • If it is not obvious, I am going to ask you to identify the portion of those templates that fulfills the requirement in your defacto standards that a template mention

"If a template were being used to provide standard, template-able information, such as in an infobox, the template would need to be able to be customized for each article, something that this template does not, and cannot do."
  • What do you mean by "standard, template-able information"?
  • Are you saying that it is never appropriate to transclude information, in multiple articles, if it is not customized, from article to article? You realize that the way you stated your objection is open to multiple interpretations?
  • I am going to repeat my earlier question -- if a lack of customization is your objection, how much customization is required? I asked you, before, whether you would regard it as sufficient customization so each caption contained a sentence like:

    "Sada Jan testified, before his Tribunal, that he was sold for a bounty."