JohnClarknew (talk | contribs) →John Le Mesurier talk page: Celebrity vs. WP scenario |
80.174.78.102 (talk) →As the archetypal Wikiphilosopher ....: re Jimbo |
||
Line 226: | Line 226: | ||
:::::I'm pretty sure NYB didn't say the green words. --[[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Anthonyhcole|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Anthonyhcole|email]]) 18:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC) |
:::::I'm pretty sure NYB didn't say the green words. --[[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Anthonyhcole|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Anthonyhcole|email]]) 18:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC) |
||
::::::No, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boston_Marathon_bombings&diff=prev&oldid=551122109 his fellow Arbcommer NuclearWarfare did]. [[Special:Contributions/78.149.172.10|78.149.172.10]] ([[User talk:78.149.172.10|talk]]) 18:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC) |
::::::No, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boston_Marathon_bombings&diff=prev&oldid=551122109 his fellow Arbcommer NuclearWarfare did]. [[Special:Contributions/78.149.172.10|78.149.172.10]] ([[User talk:78.149.172.10|talk]]) 18:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC) |
||
::*It was about the specific case, it was about the general one, about the policy, and the "wikiphilosophy". NuclearWarfare believes that it's fine for admins to carry on editing a protected article, whether it is protected for 2 hours or 2 months. I was interested to know whether you share that view. [[Special:Contributions/80.174.78.102|80.174.78.102]] ([[User talk:80.174.78.102|talk]]) 20:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*As one of the individuals who sparked this conflict, I wish to humbly apologize for the grievous harm I have caused the project with my abuse of my admin powers [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boston_Marathon_bombings&diff=prev&oldid=551127742 here]. I think a total site ban is too lenient for the likes of me, would someone please come to my house and kick me in the balls? [[User:Mark Arsten|Mark Arsten]] ([[User talk:Mark Arsten|talk]]) 18:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC) |
*As one of the individuals who sparked this conflict, I wish to humbly apologize for the grievous harm I have caused the project with my abuse of my admin powers [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boston_Marathon_bombings&diff=prev&oldid=551127742 here]. I think a total site ban is too lenient for the likes of me, would someone please come to my house and kick me in the balls? [[User:Mark Arsten|Mark Arsten]] ([[User talk:Mark Arsten|talk]]) 18:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 20:07, 23 April 2013
(Manual archive list) |
Gibraltar DYK
It feels like pro-Gibraltar editors a still abusing DYK. Maybe I am wrong, I have not followed 'the drama' much. But after I made an intervention in a DYK I get that feeling. I am not good in dealing with this WP conflicts, I hate the long written discussions (I got into a few, yes, that's how I know I hate them :-), I hate the lot of "small dictators" WP generates. I mean, typically each "corner" is ruled by a handful of editors owning it, bashing out, and shouting away any intruders, "per consensus". So for the sake of my time management, and my health, I'll drop it. But I ask you to take look at Did you know nominations/Twelfth Siege of Gibraltar, please. Thanks - Nabla (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nabla, we have asked you several times to look at the DYK process guidelines (and pointed them to you). If you want to avoid 'the drama', it may be a good idea to read the replies you are getting, the vast majority of which have been made in good faith. Ignoring the replies and sticking to your opinion which, although you are welcome to it, is entirely against the consensus that has been established (linked at the nom) and the DYK guidelines (also linked at the nom) and is bound to bring on 'the drama'. Especially when your definition of conflict of interest and advertising is so wide that it could apply to anything, anywhere, as already indicated at the nomination page (which you promptly dismissed out of hand, stating that those other topics were not under editing restrictions while patently ignoring that nothing is under the editing restrictions that you want applied in this case, not even Gibraltar). If you think that a blanket ban should be applied, and that consensus has changed, start a discussion at WT:DYK. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Probably worth also pointing out that this appears to be Nabla's first ever review of a DYK nomination.[1] WP:COMPETENCE applies, I guess. Prioryman (talk) 10:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Agree, but I'm wondering if Nabla failed to read and comprehend the implications of this posted guideline: "Note: No more than one Gibraltar hook should appear on the main page in any 24-hour period". Seems pretty clear that Gibraltar hooks are permitted, despite whatever problems have occurred with them. --Idontnodi (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Here they came, predictable like a Swiss clock, pounding on. I rest my case.
- Oh! Just one more pointer: "the vast majority done in good faith"?! So some small minority are admittedly done in bad faith? Wow! Not that I did not suspect it, but I was not hoping for such a open admission. - Nabla (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Here who came? I've not been involved in any way, and so I looked at your dispute. I don't see others willfully or incompetently ignoring collaboration and posted guidelines. --Idontnodi (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- They, equals Crisco and Prioryman, which came in shouting out yet another guideline, policy. I was not refering to you. That is obvious for anyone reading the linked page, but I agree it is best to highlight that here, for the benefit of those who do not and for clarity sake. I am sorry, please accept my apologies, I was not pointing at you. I had enough of this silliness, but I guess you deserve a reply, so: I read the no more than one per 24h guideline; that is a upper limit, it sets no lower limit and it is not the only Gibraltar specific guideline, so it was not relevant for my review. Nabla (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I did the same, Idontnodi, but Nabla doesn't seem interested in anything that doesn't agree with him or her. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- @Nabla. You wrote: "The problem is not any sentence in the article, the problem is yet another Gibraltar article in DYK." Isn't pretty obvious to you and others that rationale which you gave is in direct conflict with the guideline though? --Idontnodi (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- The fundamental problem is that Nabla and the community are in conflict; Nabla apparently believes there should be a total ban on Gibraltar-related DYKs, but the community does not (that suggestion was overwhelmingly rejected the last time it was put to a vote only a couple of months ago). It's wrong to hijack a DYK review to try to impose a personal policy preference against consensus, and it's doubly wrong to accuse hugely experienced DYK contributors like BlueMoonset and Crisco of "abusing DYK". It's a textbook example of assuming bad faith. Coming from a regular editor it would be concerning, coming from an admin it's reprehensible. I'm seriously wondering how Nabla got their sysop bit with such an attitude. Prioryman (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- @Nabla. You wrote: "The problem is not any sentence in the article, the problem is yet another Gibraltar article in DYK." Isn't pretty obvious to you and others that rationale which you gave is in direct conflict with the guideline though? --Idontnodi (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Here who came? I've not been involved in any way, and so I looked at your dispute. I don't see others willfully or incompetently ignoring collaboration and posted guidelines. --Idontnodi (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nabla also disapproves of the community's views on image licensing, to the extent that Nabla, according to their userpage, will never again upload an image to Wikipedia. Nabla also disapproved of the SOPA blackout to such an extent that they resigned their admin bit... but then changed their mind and requested it back again. There are many, many instances where Nabla and the community disagree. However, so long as Nabla continues to use their sysop bit responsibly - which they have done so far - there's no immediate need to take action. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nabla's oppose of the nomination appears to be "because it's about Gibraltar", which is not a reason and their opinion should be, thus, ignored. SilverserenC 21:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Prioryman, I repeatedly said I do not want to ban this or any DYK nomination based only on my opinion. So please don't say otherwise.
- Demiurge1000, thank you, looks like there is still a few out there respecting different opinions.
- Jimmy, and All, I was only interested in one thing: to give my opinion. I expected it to be respected. I also expected it to be disagreed, yes. And most likely defeated on a vote, or whatever similar process. I did not expect this, Prioryman and Crisco accuse me of just about everything, adding one more at every sentence.
- I'll give yet another try in explaining my reasoning:
- The DYK page asks for input on promotional and COI concerns about the article under review. I did just that (not with the best style, maybe, but I was trying to be short and incisive)
- I bet no article about Gibraltar, or anything by that matter, never had a content as "Gibraltar is just the coolest guys! Visit and then tell your friends!" (which is Crisco's sample of what should be a promotional article!), nor any article ever asked readers to buy, visit, use anything. Nevertheless, there was a decision to keep a close watch on "promotional concerns". How come? Because there was a large series of positive Gibraltar related articles, combined with other external stuff. So the promotional issue was not on any article, and can not be analysed based on any article alone, but in context. I stated, and explained (even after Crisco's started to shout out "POINTy disruption" accusations), that in such context, an article with content appealing to a probable target audience of tourism in Gibraltar (UK citizen's), looks like having promotional issues.
- As to the COI, I have not accused anyone of personal benefit. I only said that, based on Prioryman's extensive campaigning for the lifting of restrictions on Gibraltar DYKs, he is too close to the subject to assess it clearly.
- I don't expect anyone to agree with me (well, I hope someone does... :-). I simply still hope that editors understand that it is just that, one opinion, based on my view of some facts.
- Possibly the main problem is with DYK's procedures, that I admit not to be used to (yes, first time I gave an opinion there, that I recall of). I presumed I could give my opinion, some other editors would agree, disagree, complement, etc., and the world would keep on turning quietly, just about as in most places in WP. Any opinion, if clearly minoritary, is listened to, but things get done according to the majority, rightly so, and mostly peacefully. Why not there?
- Apparently it is not so in DYK nominations...? Is it is enough to have one "oppose" opinion to block a DYK nomination? If it is so, then the process is badly broken. - Nabla (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. I have reviewed them. After reviewing your comments, by your own standards, you are too close to the subject to assess it clearly. I therefore ask you to refrain from further comment. Thank you! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think what's happening here is a misunderstanding of DYK's rules. When it is talking about assessing promotional concerns, it means does the article as written have promotional writing in it, is it non-neutral in its information. It doesn't mean are the reasons behind it being written promotional. That's because the reasons why something is written should be completely irrelevant, so long as the article is well-written, neutral, and covers all the relevant information with due weight. As I remember someone saying once, it wouldn't matter if Satan himself was the one writing the articles, so long as he was writing them properly. SilverserenC 21:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's more than that. The trigger for all of this appears to be that a couple of weeks ago I asked Nabla for their views on when and how the existing restrictions should be lifted, as they had previously participated in a discussion on the matter [2]. It's dismaying that my attempt to reach out and politely find out what their concerns were, so that they could be resolved, has met with this response. The idea that the Twelfth Siege of Gibraltar article was written for "a probable target audience of tourism in Gibraltar" is pure fantasy - it was written simply to fill in the last red link on Siege of Gibraltar (before its recent redirection). Nabla's claims about DYK being "abused", editors behaving like "dictators" and articles being written for "probable audiences" are based on bad-faith assumptions, not misunderstandings about DYK's rules. It'd be nice if Nabla could apologise, though to be honest I don't really expect that to happen. Prioryman (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
For reasons that need not be rehashed here, there may be good reason to be sensitive to the possibility of overcoverage of Gibraltar on the main page. There are two separate arguments that could be offered for this, one of which arises from the possibility that Wikipedia could be misused for purposes of promotion or advertising, and the other of which is a meta version of the proscription against giving undue weight to a given aspect of a topic. Here, the article content does not appear promotional, and it appears (I'm subject to being corrected if I'm wrong) that the main page has not recently been accused of Gibraltarcentricity. Hence, while I can understand where Nabla's original concern stems from, I think the ordinary DYK process can be trusted in this instance. The discussion above of the merits of Nabla's personal opinions on other wiki topics is irrelevant. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. At least one person understands what I am saying, even while disagreeing with it. Looks like I am not completely out of my mind. Again, Thank you! - Nabla (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Let's boil this down to simple facts and draw a conclusion
- Fact: All editors, including admins, are to abide by consensus, guidelines, and policies
- Fact: Consensus at the last discussion was that no moratorium on Gibraltar DYKs was required or necessary
- Fact: Nabla disagrees with this consensus, as s/he does with several others
- Fact: Nabla has written at least 5,000 characters in defense of his/her position at the DYK nomination and here
- Fact: As of this time stamp, Nabla has yet to initiate a discussion about a possible moratorium at the proper venue, despite being told this was a valid alternative
- Conclusion: Nabla is not abiding by consensus, nor has s/he attempted to create a new one, but has written extensively against the existing consensus at various pages, including the DYK nomination and this talk page. Current policy is that Nabla should attempt to swallow his/her pride and drop the stick rather than prolonging arguments. As such, Nabla should either a) open a discussion at WT:DYK and look for a new consensus or b) stop for a moment, listen to what some 10 editors have said (not all of them related to DYK), and find other activities. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I fail to understand the need to continuously bash an editor. You and Prioryman do not agree with me. All very fine. But why misrepresent just about anything I say? Why don't you ear Newyorkbrad, when he says he disagrees with my opinion, but understands it? Please, stop... - Nabla (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Misrepresent how? Every fact in the above statement is true, and part of it is based on your own user page. I never said I didn't understand your opinion, and I've told you that I think its fine to have one, but you are also required by policy to follow consensus. You have yet to do this, despite numerous editors pointing out your error. I'm going to stop now, as it appears I am not reaching you no matter how explicitly I write. Enjoy your day. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sometimes, consensus should be ignored if there is a compelling reason. If a small coterie of editors keep ramming through Gibraltar DYKs week after week after week, to the point where coverage of this island rock is extremely disproportionate to other topics, then that would be one of those compelling reasons. Tarc (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- The devil is in the detail there. Define "compelling". One mans compelling reason is anothers asassination, revolution, etc, etc. History is full of compelling reasons for ultimately unreasonable actions. I would say it is no less true in our WP sphere. It sounds like a WP licence for a coup in terms of consensus. Not very democratic, and I know its faults, but its the best system we have at this point in our development. I am commenting here of course on the general principle, not on the Ed. who made it. Irondome (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I fail to understand the need to continuously bash an editor. You and Prioryman do not agree with me. All very fine. But why misrepresent just about anything I say? Why don't you ear Newyorkbrad, when he says he disagrees with my opinion, but understands it? Please, stop... - Nabla (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Define "island", too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- For comparison, there have been no fewer than 115 Indonesia-related DYKs and 112 DYKs about mushrooms in the last year, almost all written by a single editor in each case. Both figures are far higher than the number of Gibraltar-related DYKs over the same period. Prioryman (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Does the mushroom guy have a business or associate selling the advantages of mushrooms over LSD as a recreational trip? John lilburne (talk) 10:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Tarc, nobody is "ramming through" Gibraltar-related DYKs, nor is the number disproportionate by any stretch of the imagination. There was only 1 Gibraltar-related DYK in March and only 2 so far in April, out of approximately 1,100 DYKs that have run in that time. During the most recent discussion on the issue a couple of months ago, a (failed) proposal was made to impose a 3 per month limit. Well, guess what, the number is already below that threshold. The Gibraltarpedia competition is long over - it ended in December - and all we're seeing now is people filling in the occasional red link, as was the case with the DYK that prompted Nabla's intervention. There is no "small coterie of editors" - each of the DYKs was written by a different editor. There is no need, if there ever was, for the continued hysteria, bad-faith claims of "abuse" and demands that consensus should be ignored. And Gibraltar isn't an island. Sheesh. Prioryman (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Template:Citation pending as a way to reduce edit warring and increase self-responsibility
I suggest a new citation link. Template:Citation pending. The purpose of this would be to create a new marker whereby the editor is at that time unable but undertakes to provide a citation within a given period. Citation needed is a fairly blunt instrument, available to anyone and can lead to reversions and subsequent edit wars and general unpleasantness. A red rag to a bull to Eds of the impatient type. I suggest a new cite pending to stop overhasty reversions and to put some self- onus on the editor making such an insertion. I would suggest that after 7 days a bot removes the cite and the added info. A warning or advisory message also is left on the Eds talkpage. Over a certain number edited into mainspace in a given period without being "honoured" would lead to some kind of caution. Maybe the count could be used in "evidence" of an Eds suitability for an Admin/related nomination. In that 7 days no reversion of material covered by that cite insertion would be allowed. It may cut the crap by some measure and focus Eds minds on the wilder edits. A sort of "can I actually back this up?" reality check on Eds. It would not be available to I.Ps. Just a thought people. Irondome (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- That's an interesting idea, but I have two concerns: (1) it may have the clearly unintended side effect of seeming to give license to use BLP-violating material for seven days and (2) if the content is sufficiently controversial that people are edit warring over it, and you can't provide a citation today, is it really the end of the world if it just stays out of the article until such time as you are able to provide a citation? --B (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I would say that it would be inadmissable for use in BLP related mainspace. Would that be technically possible? With the second point, in general articles there are those Eds who just cant contain themselves, and stick in garbage basically as a kind of twitch. This provokes a cite needed from others, removal of material, readdition, etc etc. I would say cite pending indicates a serious editor. Attacks on cite pending should be treated as vandalism. Its a potential mechanism for sorting the Eds from the potential problem editors too. Irondome (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think it might be useful but utterly oppose giving it any effect of stalling any application of WP:BURDEN. In other words, I would oppose allowing it to have any teeth to stop removal of disputed, unsourced material, and certainly not to give its removal (or the content to which is it appended) a presumption of vandalism, thus effectively reversing the burden. On the other hand, if this gained consensus I could see adding to the existing language at WP:BURDEN a note recommending people provide more leeway when they see this tag in place. BTW, why is this post here, and not at WT:V?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I basically agree, but I am advocating its usage in terms of peer respected, reliable eds. It would be very obvious if the material finally delivered was merely a stalling measure and that could be noted appripriately. In terms of vandalism, I would suggest that an attack on pending without foreknowledge of the evidence to be presented, esp if the presenting Ed is solid in output, be considered vandalism, esp if the offending ed has a historically tendentious attitude to other eds. I was not aware of WT:Vs existence until now. Im still negotiating my way through the WP maze. Ive found this to be a user friendly space that inspires authoritative responses in good time. Irondome (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Why not just put the material in a few days later, when you have time to include an appropriate supporting source? Where's the urgency here? If an editor wants to be reminded to add a source to an article, they can make a note to themselves in their own userspace, or invite others to provide sources on the article's talk page. I'm not sure that giving editors a free hand to declare "I'm sure this is true, and I'll get around to sourcing it later, and you're not allowed to change it because I'm using the magic tag!" is really a good solution to content disputes on controversial topics. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I advocate that there would be penalties for using it improperly or with abandon. If they are overused ansd unsupportable they may be used in admin apps for example. Many Eds do chuck in crap, causing edit wars, in so many mainspaces. This may check them. Please read my initial satement, it covers that aspect. Irondome (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I saw that, but I'm not really buying it; I'm sorry. Your proposal privileges controversial content that has no source over controversial content that has poor-to-mediocre sourcing; the former would get a week's free ride in the article, whereas the latter can be removed and is subject to discussion on the article's talk page – and a requirement for consensus – before it can be reinstated. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I cant really see your point here. Both markers indicate a lack of citation. There is no free ride if the cites produced on pending are garbage. In fact the onus on sound citations on pending would be much stronger, and community criticism on talk would be all the greater. And I advocate recording it via a bot. Theres no free ride here, rather a bumpy one if you want to use pending and screw the community around and still be considered a solid WP ed. Irondome (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I saw that, but I'm not really buying it; I'm sorry. Your proposal privileges controversial content that has no source over controversial content that has poor-to-mediocre sourcing; the former would get a week's free ride in the article, whereas the latter can be removed and is subject to discussion on the article's talk page – and a requirement for consensus – before it can be reinstated. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I advocate that there would be penalties for using it improperly or with abandon. If they are overused ansd unsupportable they may be used in admin apps for example. Many Eds do chuck in crap, causing edit wars, in so many mainspaces. This may check them. Please read my initial satement, it covers that aspect. Irondome (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- No. The editor inserting the material should simply wait until he can source it.—Kww(talk) 03:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- In an ideal world yes. But that isnt the case in real WP world, and such issues cause edit wars and endless drama. The citation needed marker is useless. Ive seen them months old. Pending creates a mechanism of good faith and ownership by the ed, not merely adding nonsense. Its also timebound, and recordable. Its a good measure of a decent Ed too if it could be implemented. Irondome (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not a big fan of "citation needed", either. Editors that knowingly violate WP:V by inserting material without an inline citation after it has been challenged are subject to block at any reviewing admin's discretion. I've certainly blocked editors that do it and encourage all other admins to do it as well. Your edit-warring problem will see an immediate and significant reduction.—Kww(talk) 03:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- That is very interesting. I would advocate replacing needed with pending entirely. There should be a clear mechanism for introducing cites after a short well defined period. And it would be a self referring mechanism. It would help to sort out the nonsense. And we would discourage many problem Eds who are with us at this time. At the mo your quoted Admin solution appears to be too arbitary and enforced in a patchy manner. As I say, just thoughts here. Irondome (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that some people around Wikipedia will go off the deep end. They "challenge" a fact solely because it is unreferenced, even if it seems plausible and probably has lost its citation only due to a rewording that has put the ref a few sentences away. Blocking editors over a simple content dispute like that isn't right.
- The difference between "citation needed" and "citation pending" is purely semantic, and of the two, the form that should appear in the article text is the one that sounds less confident, i.e. needed. If behind the scenes here people can actually agree on a hard limit for how long the citation can stay in that state, that's all well and good, but changing it to 'pending' would make the casual reader more likely to imagine that there really is a reference somewhere and someone just has to code it up in the citation template. Wnt (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that there are quite a few "source nazis" who, as mentioned above, go around challenging a fact based on nothing more than that it isnt sourced. It not being sourced is not a reason for a challenge. We specifically do NOT go around sourcing every single fact or sentence, nor should the burden be put on someone to do so. What is common sense to one person who is well-versed in the subject may not be common sense to another, and when a legitimate challenge comes to a fact, based on good-faith questioning of whether the fact is true or not and not simply that it does not have a source, THEN burden should apply to give the person who added the fact ample time to find a source. Of course the person who challenges should give the person who added the material some good-faith and yes even take some of the burden of finding a source on their own with at least a cursory google search. If an article has added to it the following sentence- "Amman is the capital of Jordan", that should not be removed based on not having a source, as anyone in 2 seconds can verify that on their own and add a source. So basically- if people use good-faith and civility there would be no need for templates in these cases and everyone can work collaboratively rather than instigating bad-faith and accusations that people are not doing their job or that ONLY one group has the entire burden. Those challenging material need to take on some burden instead of just yelling- UNSOURCED MATERIAL=DELETE!!!!97.88.87.68 (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Since we are required to assume good faith, "challenges are only valid if made in good faith" is in practice the same as "almost any challenges are valid". Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that there are quite a few "source nazis" who, as mentioned above, go around challenging a fact based on nothing more than that it isnt sourced. It not being sourced is not a reason for a challenge. We specifically do NOT go around sourcing every single fact or sentence, nor should the burden be put on someone to do so. What is common sense to one person who is well-versed in the subject may not be common sense to another, and when a legitimate challenge comes to a fact, based on good-faith questioning of whether the fact is true or not and not simply that it does not have a source, THEN burden should apply to give the person who added the fact ample time to find a source. Of course the person who challenges should give the person who added the material some good-faith and yes even take some of the burden of finding a source on their own with at least a cursory google search. If an article has added to it the following sentence- "Amman is the capital of Jordan", that should not be removed based on not having a source, as anyone in 2 seconds can verify that on their own and add a source. So basically- if people use good-faith and civility there would be no need for templates in these cases and everyone can work collaboratively rather than instigating bad-faith and accusations that people are not doing their job or that ONLY one group has the entire burden. Those challenging material need to take on some burden instead of just yelling- UNSOURCED MATERIAL=DELETE!!!!97.88.87.68 (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- That is very interesting. I would advocate replacing needed with pending entirely. There should be a clear mechanism for introducing cites after a short well defined period. And it would be a self referring mechanism. It would help to sort out the nonsense. And we would discourage many problem Eds who are with us at this time. At the mo your quoted Admin solution appears to be too arbitary and enforced in a patchy manner. As I say, just thoughts here. Irondome (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not a big fan of "citation needed", either. Editors that knowingly violate WP:V by inserting material without an inline citation after it has been challenged are subject to block at any reviewing admin's discretion. I've certainly blocked editors that do it and encourage all other admins to do it as well. Your edit-warring problem will see an immediate and significant reduction.—Kww(talk) 03:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- In an ideal world yes. But that isnt the case in real WP world, and such issues cause edit wars and endless drama. The citation needed marker is useless. Ive seen them months old. Pending creates a mechanism of good faith and ownership by the ed, not merely adding nonsense. Its also timebound, and recordable. Its a good measure of a decent Ed too if it could be implemented. Irondome (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Kazakh press conference
Jimmy, could you please communicate clearly when you became aware of Ting Chen's participation in the Kazakh press conference on June 16, 2011? Then, could you also specify when you become aware that the Samruk-Kazyna Foundation also participated in that press conference? Several people have been curious about the timing of the press conference and the subsequent award of the Wikipedian of the Year prize to a former Kazakh government official in August 2011. Lastly, could you confirm that the Wikipedian of the Year honor included a $5,000 contribution to Rauan Kenzhekhanuly, paid from your own personal resources? And, was that money actually received by Kenzhekhanuly? Thank you for considering and answering these questions. - 2001:558:1400:10:8008:3684:A1BD:682F (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Since when did the User talk:Jimbo Wales page become question time? Drop this ridiculousness.97.88.87.68 (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe since Wales moved to England and has always described his role on Wikipedia as a parliamentarian monarch? It's not ridiculous. They are simple questions, and their answers would help to resolve some of the cognitive dissonance surrounding Wales' support of the Kazakh Wikipedia project. - 2001:558:1400:10:8008:3684:A1BD:682F (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
You are asking the wrong questions. The right question is this: "Knowing what you know now, would you still make the award of Wikipedian of the Year to Rauan?" And the answer is "Yes". Perhaps if you could give me some indication of what the hell it is you are driving at, I'd be more inclined to research your specific questions, but I do not understand the point. I don't remember when I became aware of Ting's participation - I'd have to dig that up. I can tell you that the press conference and Ting's visit had no bearing at all on my decision to award Rauan, who richly deserved it. So the timing of the press conference and my awareness of it, is entirely irrelevant. And no, the actual money has not been transferred yet, as the concept has always been that I'd do it ceremonially when I go to Kazakhstan, which I've not managed yet.
There is no need for cognitive dissonance here. I strongly support efforts to bring freedom of speech and a neutral high quality encyclopedia to Kazakhstan. I think that the Kazakh government has a very poor track record in this area. I think it unfortunate that Wikibilim (which is an independent organization not even remotely under my control) accepted funding from the Samruk-Kazyna Foundation, and yet I am glad that the funding came with absolutely no strings attached, and that Wikibilim has good policies in place to avoid editing Wikipedia in an official capacity. I'm glad they have taken the old official encyclopedia (which is most assuredly biased and flawed in deep ways) and gotten it under a free license in an open project so that it can be updated. What they do, 2 of their 25 employees, is hold seminars and training sessions to encourage more people to edit Wikipedia. The rest of their work has nothing to do with Wikipedia but has to do with bringing more information online in the Kazakh language.
I do not wish to be seen as naive or as claiming that everything is perfect in the Kazakh language Wikipedia. They have their problems and controversies as all languages do. When I do visit Kazakhstan, I'll meet with representatives of the government (as I have done in many countries including Russia, China, France, the US, the UK, etc.) and press them on issues of freedom of speech. I'll meet with the Wikipedians to hear their personal stories about editing Wikipedia.
I encourage people to talk to Rauan about whatever concerns you, as well. He speaks perfectly good English.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- He is also seems to be head of the, deaf in one ear and hard of hearing in the other, department. IOW neither his email nor phone appear to be working. John lilburne (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Jimmy, this is the second time you have been asked these rather simple questions, and it's the second time that you have evaded the questions and tried to reframe or recharacterize the discussion. For example, you are saying now, "I am glad that the funding came with absolutely no strings attached". How do you know this? Did the recipient of the funding tell you this, and his word (as a former government communications official) is good enough for you? It is rather pointless to go into why we would like you to answer the questions presented to you, if you're likely to just dodge the questions once again (because you don't agree with the rationale behind the questions). Will you promise that if we clarify why we want you to answer the questions, that you will answer them? No sense wasting time clarifying if you're not going to be willing to respond anyway. - 2001:558:1400:10:D26:F6:DCDE:54BB (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I have a question for the above IP address- Why do you care and why do you feel Jimbo has any obligation to tell you when he found out ANYTHING? He, or you, or anyone, can describe his function as a "parlimentarian monarchy" all they want, but in the end he is not, nor is he beholden in any legal manner to you. This is not a US government entity functioning under sunshine laws requiring openness with anyone who requests information simply because they are curious. So basically- I'd like to know WHY you want to know these answers from Jimbo.97.88.87.68 (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
John Le Mesurier talk page
Mr. Wales, if you have a moment, would you be so kind as to take a glance at Talk:John Le Mesurier. There is a nasty quite unnecessary brutal exchange going on there, which involves the existence of me, the validation of Just William and now borders on elder abuse! I have asked for neutral arbitration, but it would be nice to think you know what's going on down there. Thank you. JohnClarknew (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- If someone is abusing you, you should call the police. If someone is being unpleasant to you on Wikipedia, that's not elder abuse (or unusual). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)as
- My best advice would be to first stop accusing people of elder abuse, as DC says above. Please assume good faith from other contributors. Wikipedia works by consensus, which should be arrived at by considering the due weight to place on things per their coverage in reliable sources. Sometimes consensus is against your opinion (as appears to be the case here), and you just have to accept that and move on. It's nothing personal--there is only so much information that we can fit in an article about a widely covered topic. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Also, please review our WP:COI guideline; people are generally discouraged from adding information about themselves to Wikipedia. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I just did a quick read of the talk page. It seems that John Clark may warrant inclusion in the article. They have asked for a source. User:JohnClarknew has provided one and they keep deleting the url from the talk page claiming it is promotional of the magazine that he is trying to use as a source. Do we delete links to other magazines from talk pages because they try to sell you copies on their websites?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, Canoe 1967. You are the voice of reason and common sense. This article has a long list of the subject's co-stars and co-featured players, so I think it is of interest to the reader to see the inclusion of John Clark as part of that list. Objection was unwarranted from the start. So they say it lacked a source? I have provided one, which includes a photograph of me, Le Mesurier as the character Uncle Noel, and his signature; what could be better? So then they changed their tune, and started insulting me with accusations which you can read. Finally, when one of them used my age (80) as somehow relevant in disparaging terms, holding me in disrepute, that, Delicious Carbuncle, is a form of elder abuse. Not criminal, but actionable. JohnClarknew (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- A photo is not a reliable source IMO, what with photoshop and other clever picture editing software etc doing the rounds. You provided a poor source, for trivial information. I'm sorry, but I do not consider "John Clark" to be a notable actor, compared to the others listed. We are talking of Peter Sellers, Eric Sykes, Terry-Thomas etc. These actors were hugely popular and everybody knew of them and their work. John Clark was less well known, who most would struggle to remember or recognise. Why should we bloat this featured article with the names of actors who played a very minor part in a very minor play alongside JLM. Where do we draw the line? -- CassiantoTalk 21:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- That is something of a misreading of the situation. The information was originally removed from the article after the COI inclusion because there was no source (which was also a BLP problem). It's not the only reason for not including it: it's a piece of trivia of such minute proportions that if shouldn't be included, source or no source. JLM was in over a hundred films, for example, and we don't even list all of them, so why would we include an obscure unknown from a minor radio play in the 194os? - SchroCat (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- (a second brief correction: the information that was deleted was a plug for subscriptions to an obscure society, and failed on wp:notadvertising grounds.) - SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, an appeal to Jimbo because consensus is against him... Agreeing with SchroCat that Canoe1967 has misread the situation, particularly in saying that an article about John Le Mesurier ought to include a mention of the name of the actor who played the title character in JLM's first radio show, when that actor is not mentioned in secondary sources about JLM and is not himself a household name (with respect). BencherliteTalk 22:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I stand by the deletion of this text from the talk page. Promoting and attempting to sell the magazine which he has admitted being a member of, is a clear breach of WP:SOAP #4 and #5. I did not delete this because of his desire to use it as a source. It was his blatant attempt at trying to flog me a copy of the magazine, and desperate attempt at trying to recruit me (and others) for future membership in exchange for a small fee I objected to. -- CassiantoTalk 21:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think you should just be a little philosophical here John. Remember JLM never even recieved a credit in Ben Hur for his beautifully crafted little characterisation of the Greek doctor at the end of the chariot scene. The JLM I recall (vaguely and from a respectful distance) during my time in Ramsgate in the 70s and 80s would have just given one of those slight, almost sad smiles he did. Dont worry about it. You may have a case for insertion, but someone else should do it and the usual WP rules should apply. I think the process of consensus building and discussion has broken here. I hope it is repaired. Its not always a good idea to bring such things to large forums such as this. Some wise advice I got from a fellow Ed. Keep things small and quiet on WP. Irondome (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'd disagree on the inclusion: adding the name of a minor unknown really is rather pointless: so much has been removed from the article to make it readable (including the names of most of his films, stage shows and tv and radio broadcasts, that adding this information really adds nothing to the background or understanding of Le Mez, but seems to be little more than an ego trip. - SchroCat (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think you should just be a little philosophical here John. Remember JLM never even recieved a credit in Ben Hur for his beautifully crafted little characterisation of the Greek doctor at the end of the chariot scene. The JLM I recall (vaguely and from a respectful distance) during my time in Ramsgate in the 70s and 80s would have just given one of those slight, almost sad smiles he did. Dont worry about it. You may have a case for insertion, but someone else should do it and the usual WP rules should apply. I think the process of consensus building and discussion has broken here. I hope it is repaired. Its not always a good idea to bring such things to large forums such as this. Some wise advice I got from a fellow Ed. Keep things small and quiet on WP. Irondome (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- (a second brief correction: the information that was deleted was a plug for subscriptions to an obscure society, and failed on wp:notadvertising grounds.) - SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
http://www.justwilliamsociety.co.uk/page-willsoc-magazine.htm is the link in question. If the magazine is a foremost authority on Just William then it could be used as a source. Mentioning an editors age on an article talk page probably warrants a revdel as outing. If the magazine is accepted as an RS then inclusion of John Clark in the article could be discussed if the connection between the article subject and John Clark is notable. I haven't looked into detail on the connection.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- The Society is indeed the foremost authority on the creation of Richmal Crompton's loveable rascal. They meet once a year, and online. The magazine can be obtained for £10, and there's no need to participate in any activity. Back copies for £3.50, members only, and they exist barely as a non-profit, just like WP. They could do with donations too! I and Martin Jarvis who is famous for reading the stories on BBC radio and audiobooks, are honorary members, and we feel honored to have been asked. JohnClarknew (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- There's no outing here, the editor has their own article (which they created), as well as their user page. It's the connection that is part of the issue: it's minor and fleeting at best in the career of JLM. In terms of inclusion of any more info into the article, there are several thousand other actors, films, TV and radio broadcasts which would come further up the chain that this. - SchroCat (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I would disagree with this planned copy edit. The article has passed through a peer review, good article review, and featured review and its content was not in question. Copy editing this now could void the opinions of the excellent reviewers who took part. -- CassiantoTalk 22:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- There's no outing here, the editor has their own article (which they created), as well as their user page. It's the connection that is part of the issue: it's minor and fleeting at best in the career of JLM. In terms of inclusion of any more info into the article, there are several thousand other actors, films, TV and radio broadcasts which would come further up the chain that this. - SchroCat (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
John. Why dont you and some other editors improve the rather shaky (at the moment) Just William article. It could do with clean up reorganisation and a portrayal of William on screen and radio section, and you could it would seem quite legitimately go in there. Based on an old R/T Radio Times listing that could be sourced to everyones satisfaction. I do not know how much the JLM connection means to you, but if you disconnect from that, it looks like you can legitimately be in and help improve a potentially good article, which actually direct involves an obviously very important role in your professional career. In that sense I think notability and other stuff would be satisfied? In the opinion of other Eds and if John was in agreement could this provide consensus for a new direction for this issue? Irondome (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Were you the first to portray William on the BBC? Irondome (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- We are talking of Peter Sellers, Eric Sykes, Terry-Thomas etc. Right. We are also talking of Andrew Osborn (who?), Esme Percy, Ernest Jay, Zena Marshall and John Barry (no link) in the article, just below the Just William reference, among dozens of others. WP:NPOV editing? And how about WP:OWN? And Irondome, have a look at this sad state of affairs at the BBC archives department Radio Times archives. Won't find much there, I'm afraid. And yes, I was the first on radio and TV and stage, and there have been several others to come along later, continuing up to the present day. There was a Just William movie in 1940, which starred Dicky Lupino as William and Roddy McDowell as Ginger. JohnClarknew (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- John. Do you remember taking part in any related early media promotions? Because I appear to have found you. It was a British Pathe newsreel. Its on their archive. But it appears to be dated 1946. The synopsis given to the piece is A look at young "Just William" actor John Clark as he relaxes at home. M/S of John appearing in radio show. M/S of John in his garden, he throws a catapault at.. Where it breaks off. It can be found at http://www.britishpathe.com/video/just-william-aka-john-clark/.../radio Irondome (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- You will find that external link on the John Clark (actor) article, which is packed with information, including how I got my start with Will Hay. The trouble is, these boys require it to somehow be tied in by direct association with John Le Mesurier. His biographer didn't mention me, didn't have to, and it's from that book, long out of print, from which many of their sourced references come, through page numbers and bibliography. I don't question their expertise with the software, but I do question their use of common sense and their rejection of WP:GF. I am not raising WP:MEAT.
- Just William, the magazine, is the only place it is to be found, with JLM standing behind me in a full cast picture, signed by the entire cast including him. There's also a Radio Times scan of a plug which lists him appearing with me in the play, as it was broadcast live from the stage as the BBC Christmas special in 1946. That should resolve the issue. I would rather someone else enter it, in this instance. JohnClarknew (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- "these boys require it to somehow be tied in by direct association". John, I don't wish to start accusing anyone of falsehood, but this just patently isn't true. The Pathe link has never been mentioned in any of the discussions on the four talk pages, or in the article itself, so to say that other editors require a direct link just isn't true. As an additional point, his main biography (by McCann) is not out of print, it is still very much available. His autobiography is, (as is his wife's autobiography) but we've tried to use that sparingly. None of those three books mention you. As to the question of good faith, you have questioned our good faith on a number of occasions, and it is something I will refute entirely and without reservation. I have no idea why you are questioning my common sense, it seems to just be another in a long line of cheap gibes we have had to put up with since the various discussions started. - SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- John, drop the JLM link. It would appear you have enough notability to be included in a much improved Just William article, whicjh is an excellent subject in the English schoolboy fiction genre. The JLM article is mature, the JW article deserves to be improved. You should be part of a actors portraying William section in an expanded and improved article. I cant keep repeating this. Irondome (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I have not been able to view it because it is taking forever to download. Its prob my old PC. But there appear to be several links relating to the same newsreel. I assume this would be a reliable source to all concerned. But I do advise that this be used in the Just William article as I mentioned above. I suggest dropping the linkage with JLM. Irondome (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I will not drop this one, the principle is too important! There's a double standard at work here in WP. I looked at the article on the life of Richmal Crompton. I see a few references at the bottom of the page, but not one single inline citation to support a fact. I know it to be a well-written truthful article. But some users would destroy it by deleting anything not sourced, as they just did with my ex-wife, actress Kay Hawtrey. Which would be a crying shame.
- I have many friends here in Hollywood where I live who are household names, and I can tell you, most of them will have nothing to do with WP because they perceive WP:NPOV editing by fanboys, or haters, depending on who they are, and absolutely none have contributed as I have, because they are intimidated by the software, or they have no interest in real life outside of their performing careers. Mr. Wales needs to know this, which is why I started the discussion here, and I think he does. That is why I believe that ALL BLPers should be not just allowed, but encouraged to edit articles on themselves, always working within the rules of course. I remind them that their obituaries, eventually, will be quoted for free (no copyright) off these pages, wind up at the top of search engines, and they'll be stuck with them. I promote WP wherever I can among my peers, because I think it is a wonderful force for good, but it is always being unfairly slammed in the media. I try to preach for donations. JohnClarknew (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- There is no principle involved here at all John, and if you are trying to turn this into some sort of cause celebre then you are barking up the wrong tree, I'm afraid. The unsourced addition of your name to the article of another individual on a matter of such infinitesimally minor significance in the life of JLM is one thing. It has nothing to do with whether we as a project start encouraging the circumventing any form of verifiability on the basis that COI editing is beneficial. It will lead to nothing more than skewed self-written hagiographies penned by PR machines on the one hand and open the door to libel actions on the other. - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Mr Clark could maybe have a brief mention in a section about any early variations of the JW play in the JW aricle. And when I say brief, I mean very brief. (I still don't completeley agree with it as Mr Clark is unheard of here in England and his appearance was a non-notable performance compared with, say, Kenneth Williams)). Also, I would strongly discourage him from adding this information himself, and not to advertise his society and magazine in exchange for money. As far as a source goes, the magazine might not be considered reliable unless we can establish the credentials of the contributors and the editor. These credentials will need to be proved. I would justify its use on the JW talk page by leaving a brief note with some evidential links as to the reliability of its founders, editors, contributors etc). There is still no evidence to suggest the magazine is anything other than WP:SPAM or a fansite at this stage. -- CassiantoTalk 04:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
A Lawsuit
A user above says the following:
It has nothing to do with whether we as a project start encouraging the circumventing any form of verifiability on the basis that COI editing is beneficial. It will lead to nothing more than skewed self-written hagiographies penned by PR machines on the one hand and open the door to libel actions on the other.
This brings up an interesting legal issue, possibly a class action. Here's the scenario:
Celebrity vs. Wikipedia, does 1-30
(The does will cover senior editors, founders and 30 users)
CELEBRITY ATTORNEY: My client has been libeled in the pages of Wikipedia in an article written by users who operate under assumed names.
JUDGE: Libeled? Does your client claim privacy privileges which are quite broad?
CELEBRITY ATTORNEY: No your honor, he knows that he is vulnerable to general criticism and accepts that. He is what they call a notable, and as such becomes part of a category called "Biographies of Living Persons", and any content may only be changed at the discretion of other users, but not him. That is the crux of this action. He does not accept statements that hold him up to ridicule, scorn, and contempt.
WP ATTORNEY: My client claims immunity as a public website. It merely passes on what is being said elsewhere. All statements are sourced.
JUDGE: Can't the plaintiff remove the offending language?
CELEBRITY ATTORNEY: No your honor. Under Wikipedia's restrictive rules, he may not change anything. He contravenes what is known as their Conflict of Interest rule, which is a core principle.
JUDGE: How about the individual users?
CELEBRITY ATTORNEY: Interesting point, your honor. They don't always provide a source for their unpleasant remarks, and many are the celebrities fans, and in this case haters.
JUDGE: Then I grant permission for you to bring any such users into court, as I rule they are not exempt.
CELEBRITY ATTORNEY: But how do I find them?
JUDGE: That's your problem.
WP ATTORNEY: May I confer with my clients?
(A short interlude.)
WP ATTORNEY: I think we can settle this, your honor. My clients are willing to change the rule. They will henceforth include the celebrity and notable BLPers as regular users. Of course, they will then have to conform to the same rules as everybody else.
JUDGE: Sounds good to me. I will sign an order to that end. Case dismissed.
JohnClarknew (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar | |
For wasting my time. Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 02:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC) |
As the archetypal Wikiphilosopher ....
A serving arbcom member believes that admins should carry on editing articles when they are fully protected. Any objections raised on "Wikiphilosophical" grounds" should be ignored. As the original Wikiphilosopher, do you support that stance? In the Boston Marathon bombings article, for example, this would have resulted in about half a dozen admins continuing to write the article, while everyone else stood around and watched.80.174.78.102 (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- The keyword is 'uncontroversial' edits and an editor in that same thread claims that Wikipedia doesn't define the term well. If other editors object to an admin edit then I would call that controversial and then the process of consensus would be needed. If the editing admin doesn't follow consensus then other routes would be followed to correct the article and the admin. See: Controversy. It seems we do have a reasonable definition of it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Admins editing through protection to add content without consensus are misusing the tools. The tools were never designed to be used in that way. It has long been a fundamental, universally accepted tenant that they shall not be used in that way. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Did he harm the article? Did he do anything controversial? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- That seems to be a bit besides the point. Admins are appointed to do adminny things that normal users cannot...block users, delete articles, close discussions. Apart from that, they are supposed to be viewed as and treated like any non-admin when it comes to editing articles. If an article has to be fully protected due to editing disputes, then that should mean full; not kinda full, not sorta full, but full full. Otherwise we have a caste system here, which I believe the project has been quite studiously trying to move away from over the years as that is what it was like circa 2004-2008. The only edits through protection that should be done are those made via a templated request or those that are needed to fix clear policy violations, i.e. WP:BLP. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly. This is nothing to do with minor fixes. It's about continuing to write the article while it's protected. NuclearWarfare believes that it is okay to continue shaping the article. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- My first question is why is the article fully protected rather than semi-protected?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- The article in question was Boston Marathon bombings, the full-protection was for a couple of hours last week, and the purpose of the full-protection was apparently to prevent editors from inserting reported but unconfirmed names of suspects into the article. There is ongoing discussion, to which I've just posted, on the protection policy talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, ok. Well, as it only happened for two hours, I think it's pretty uninteresting. I figured with all of the moaning that it was an ongoing issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just to add to that, at least some of the names being inserted were not those of the currently identified suspects, as I understand it. Looie496 (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter. Newyorkbrad's statement "The purpose of the full protection is not to shut anyone out of shaping the article's content" is false. That absolutely is the purpose of full protection. It's not only false, it's so false. There are no instances of full protection such that "doesn't apply to my edits" is operable, any more than there instances of NPOV or RS or whatever where "doesn't apply to my edits" is operable. OK, Newyorkbrad made a (fairly minor) error in his understanding of this. OK, we all make such errors all the time, it' been pointed out, I'm sure that Newyorkbrad has taken the point, and not a huge deal, but an "oops, my bad" statement from Newyorkbrad would be helpful. Herostratus (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure NYB didn't say the green words. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, but his fellow Arbcommer NuclearWarfare did. 78.149.172.10 (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure NYB didn't say the green words. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter. Newyorkbrad's statement "The purpose of the full protection is not to shut anyone out of shaping the article's content" is false. That absolutely is the purpose of full protection. It's not only false, it's so false. There are no instances of full protection such that "doesn't apply to my edits" is operable, any more than there instances of NPOV or RS or whatever where "doesn't apply to my edits" is operable. OK, Newyorkbrad made a (fairly minor) error in his understanding of this. OK, we all make such errors all the time, it' been pointed out, I'm sure that Newyorkbrad has taken the point, and not a huge deal, but an "oops, my bad" statement from Newyorkbrad would be helpful. Herostratus (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- It was about the specific case, it was about the general one, about the policy, and the "wikiphilosophy". NuclearWarfare believes that it's fine for admins to carry on editing a protected article, whether it is protected for 2 hours or 2 months. I was interested to know whether you share that view. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- The article in question was Boston Marathon bombings, the full-protection was for a couple of hours last week, and the purpose of the full-protection was apparently to prevent editors from inserting reported but unconfirmed names of suspects into the article. There is ongoing discussion, to which I've just posted, on the protection policy talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- As one of the individuals who sparked this conflict, I wish to humbly apologize for the grievous harm I have caused the project with my abuse of my admin powers here. I think a total site ban is too lenient for the likes of me, would someone please come to my house and kick me in the balls? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
helloooo :) i from wikipedia spanish
hola jimbo te saludo desde lima Peru!!! :,) que alegría que leas mi mensaje, te deseo muchos exitos!!! y que viva wikipedia!!!! :) :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlosandres2000 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)