→Merge GlobalBlocking to Blocking policy: some history, as far as I can gather |
Epipelagic (talk | contribs) →An appeal to admins: Anna, I'm shocked |
||
Line 195: | Line 195: | ||
::::I like the Twain thing. That's good. :) You're probably right, but plain thinking seems always met with maze-like responses that go nowhere. I can't make heads or tails of an RFC with millions of sections with names like ''"Abandon civility to stand a chance of having more civility"'' and ''"Philosophical problem"''. I'm not much one for bureaucracy and complicated meetings. I just don't want to get sucked into the vortex over there. I've said my piece, and will back into the shadows to let those folks work it out. :) [[User:Anna Frodesiak|Anna Frodesiak]] ([[User talk:Anna Frodesiak|talk]]) 14:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC) |
::::I like the Twain thing. That's good. :) You're probably right, but plain thinking seems always met with maze-like responses that go nowhere. I can't make heads or tails of an RFC with millions of sections with names like ''"Abandon civility to stand a chance of having more civility"'' and ''"Philosophical problem"''. I'm not much one for bureaucracy and complicated meetings. I just don't want to get sucked into the vortex over there. I've said my piece, and will back into the shadows to let those folks work it out. :) [[User:Anna Frodesiak|Anna Frodesiak]] ([[User talk:Anna Frodesiak|talk]]) 14:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
:Anna, it's just not that simple. I'm shocked you see editors as naughty children who fight, and you see admins as having the social and emotional skills to function as parents, and clunk heads together (block editors). Occasionally arguing, even arguing vigorously over content is a proper role for content editors. An important role for admins is to model effective behavior and function as mediators and facilitators, like [[User talk:Dennis Brown|Dennis Brown]] does. But we don't select admins on that basis. Skills such as those hardly figure amongst the selection criteria for admins. Instead, they are expected to be skilled with arcane details to do with copyright or obscure nuances buried within the guidelines for deleting articles. Some admins operate as if they were elementary school principals, lecturing and knocking heads together, like... oh you know examples. That can be appropriate for some editors, but is totally inappropriate for most. |
|||
:There are editors, just as there are admins who behave like children, and perhaps we all do occasionally under enough stress. The immaturity of some admins beggars belief (I've just been enmeshed with one). Admins are not, and never have been, selected on the basis of their ability to discipline editors. You have only to look at at any recent RfA to see that. Handing discipline areas over to admins who may be more childish than the editors they are supposed to discipline is not the solution. It is already difficult enough for content editors to work with any dignity on Wikipedia. |
|||
:We need a special group of administrators who are elected specifically to facilitate, and enforce when necessary discipline amongst content builders. Such admins would need to demonstrate that they have substantial mediation and facilitation skills, and have developed substantial scholarly content, sufficient to ensure that they understand the pitfalls and difficulties of content development. Only a few current admins would currently qualify to belong to that group. Handing the disciple of experienced content editor over to other admins, who no way qualify to belong to that special group, is absurd. --[[User:Epipelagic|Epipelagic]] ([[User talk:Epipelagic|talk]]) 01:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Actresses categorization == |
== Actresses categorization == |
Revision as of 01:31, 18 October 2012
Policy | Technical | Proposals | Idea lab | WMF | Miscellaneous |
- Table of contents
- First discussion
- End of page
- New post
If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try the one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.
Channel lineups in Wikipedia
Why are we allowing channel lineups of any satellite or cable in Wikipedia, like List of AT&T U-verse channels, List of Dish Network channels (United States), and List of channels on Sky? Are they supposed to be alternative conveniences to channel lineups from mail, receivers, or official websites? Moreover, they always change. If we cannot ban them, then how are these lists increasing quality of Wikipedia? --George Ho (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- I noticed these from other boards, and I completely agree they are unnecessary. Because network channel lineups change all the time, as well as differences between regions, there is no hope for these articles to be relavent ever. We can link to the current lineup that is usually offered by the network provider, but we shouldn't be listing them ourselves. --MASEM (t) 05:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Either I will ask one of my mentors to accept my deletion requests, or someone else must tag them as AFD. If these are not that simple, then we must make a policy against them in WP:NOT. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's already there under WP:NOTDIR - these are electronic program guides. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) Deletionism is an interesting view here and the articles suffer from great inattention. My review of sources indicates that changes in channel lineups are very frequently a subject for third-party media attention requisite for keeping the articles, but those sources are rarely incorporated in the article. Further, there are plenty of static sources for a historical review to be carried out. Encyclopedicity attaches to the list because it attaches to the changes. However, it appears the motivated pool of editors is primarily interested in forever syncing to what the official websites say "today", which prevents the necessary balance from appearing on the face of the article, leading to a prima facie case for deletionism. I am involved in a separate dispute on one of these articles and I don't mind if AFDs process but I think more time and discussion are needed than AFD typically allows. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- I know that when there are certain issues with certain channels not being available due to contract negotiations or other wankery, that does make news, but that's information that can be summarized on the provider's page. I have never seen significant coverage of other channel lineup changes. Even given that, WP:NOT specifically says we don't provide electronic program guides. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Either I will ask one of my mentors to accept my deletion requests, or someone else must tag them as AFD. If these are not that simple, then we must make a policy against them in WP:NOT. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm AFD'ing the AT&T Uverse one as a test case. If that goes through, I'm proposing a secondary discussion to delete the others in that Category:Lists of television channels by company without AFD. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Also see Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 33#NOTDIR include current channel listings from July 2010. After the AFDs, this discussion should be brought back to WT:NOT to make the Directory policy more explicit. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- AFD is closed as "deleted"; List of AT&T U-verse channels is deleted. I guess: other similar lists may be deleted, as well. --George Ho (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
May we do something about other channel lineups right now? None of them are nominated for deletion, and we may face more revising, edit warring, pointless editing on long, complicated table, etc. --George Ho (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- I must withhold my embarassing comment; I didn't know that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination) is already done. --George Ho (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
RfC: Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012
This year's Arbitration Committee Election RFC has begun at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012. It is scheduled to last for 30 days and will decide the structure, policies and procedures of this year's election to the Arbitration Committee. There are a few new issues for consideration this year. Comments from members of the community would be appreciated. Monty845 03:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Editors soliciting offers on own user pages
Hi, I was looking around on en.wiki about how this community managed with this kind of requests, e.g. putting on own user page a link to IBAN, Paypal or other online money transfer systems. A LinkSearch targeting "*.paypal.com" reports at least one occurrence amongst user pages, so I am wondering if any policy exists and/or has ever been discussed before. Thank you, M/ (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- This was recently discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive239#Solicitation of donations, for one. Anomie⚔ 00:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Attack page has been marked as a guideline
Wikipedia:Attack page ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Semiprotection of candidate positions pages
I may be wrong about this if my browser is doing something weird (if so, I apologize for wasting everyone's time) but it does not appear that the pages on the positions of political candidates are protected or even semi-protected. I think it is advisable to semi-protect them, at least, to prevent partisans of both sides from posting crazy stuff that may have outwardly reputable sources (such as blogs et cetera which will then have to be checked). This problem cannot be wholly solved with semi-protection, but it would be a step in the right direction. If there is a good reason that these pages are not semi-protected, I would like to know it, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert the Devil (talk • contribs) 18:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- We don't do preemptive protection— we protect only when there is a problem. See Wikipedia:Protection policy. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Grace period for deletion for recently deceased
It has been a common recurrence that Wikipedia pages have been made to people who have recently died. Many of the people are not notable and the author simply created the article as a sort of tribute (so assuming good faith); however, many people also nominate the article for deletion straight away.
Now to the family of the diseased, having people discuss (sometimes rather harshly) the achievements (or lack of) of the diseased can be heartbreaking. So I am proposing that any articles made in good faith of a recently diseased person, should have a grace period of 1 week before discussion should ensure, irrespective of the notability of the subject.
Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 11:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- How would you enforce this? Of course we AGF. How to set the length of the grace period, when grieving periods vary? (just an example of new problems this will create) BTW, it's "deceased", not "diseased", though in a way they're connected. -- Scray (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Correction: It's "deceased", not "diseased". --George Ho (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- If a biographical article has been nominated for deletion for lack of notability, then editors shouldn't be discussing the person's achievements, harshly or otherwise. Notability is about sources; the sources or lack thereof should be the subject of discussion. Ntsimp (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- As long as such articles aren't PROD'd within 5 minutes of the creation of the article and actually given a chance to try and prove notability, I don't have a problem with the eventual deletion. I'm pretty certain that ordinary obituaries, while verifiable, would likely fall under WP:SELFPUB or similar kinds of policies, but the death of a small-town mayor or other minor local celebrity may produce some sources of information that could in theory be used to write such an article yet have an AfD kick such articles out of Wikipedia. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- While I'm not inherently opposed to this in cases of people who become notable because of their deaths (not necessarily murder or disease victims, but also folks who did things in life that result in attention after their deaths), I would prefer that is some sort of exception to prevent unencyclopedic memorial pages for Grandma Nonn O'Table. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- I may not be following the original proposal, which sounds like a moratorium on deletion discussions. I am supportive of the goal, but think there is a better solution. Rather than impose a moratorium on deletion discussions, I'd prefer a moratorium on creation. If a person didn't have a article when they were alive, that doesn't mean they don't deserve an article, but there's no rush. Why not impose a moratorium, say, a month, on the creation of any article for a person in the period after their death. This would eliminate the quick creation of memorial pages, and the ensuing painful deletion discussions. Wait a month, and most of the desire for a memorial page will go away, that left can be handled courteously, but without the challenge of a very recent death. My proposal would not probit the creation of an article about a murder or other event involving death of a person, that discussion can discuss the usual notability issues without having to delve into the potentially insensitive discussions of a bio. I fully understand that the immediate period after someone's death is a time people may be looking for an article in Wikipedia, but if the person does not yet have an article, the world can wait a month. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see how you can prevent creation of an article without it going through AfC.
- Worse is, I CSD'd a 9/11 victim article that reappeared a week ago which had been PROD'd away 2-3 years ago. I felt bad, but life goes on. -- :- ) Don 17:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- I may not be following the original proposal, which sounds like a moratorium on deletion discussions. I am supportive of the goal, but think there is a better solution. Rather than impose a moratorium on deletion discussions, I'd prefer a moratorium on creation. If a person didn't have a article when they were alive, that doesn't mean they don't deserve an article, but there's no rush. Why not impose a moratorium, say, a month, on the creation of any article for a person in the period after their death. This would eliminate the quick creation of memorial pages, and the ensuing painful deletion discussions. Wait a month, and most of the desire for a memorial page will go away, that left can be handled courteously, but without the challenge of a very recent death. My proposal would not probit the creation of an article about a murder or other event involving death of a person, that discussion can discuss the usual notability issues without having to delve into the potentially insensitive discussions of a bio. I fully understand that the immediate period after someone's death is a time people may be looking for an article in Wikipedia, but if the person does not yet have an article, the world can wait a month. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- While I'm not inherently opposed to this in cases of people who become notable because of their deaths (not necessarily murder or disease victims, but also folks who did things in life that result in attention after their deaths), I would prefer that is some sort of exception to prevent unencyclopedic memorial pages for Grandma Nonn O'Table. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- As long as such articles aren't PROD'd within 5 minutes of the creation of the article and actually given a chance to try and prove notability, I don't have a problem with the eventual deletion. I'm pretty certain that ordinary obituaries, while verifiable, would likely fall under WP:SELFPUB or similar kinds of policies, but the death of a small-town mayor or other minor local celebrity may produce some sources of information that could in theory be used to write such an article yet have an AfD kick such articles out of Wikipedia. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- I presume that "preventing creation" means that PRODs for articles about the recently deceased become speedy deletes? I think that is the wrong way to approach this issue. Instead, if such articles are created by people with a relatively short edit history (under 100 edits... give or take) and especially if this new article is the only one that they've worked on, some sort of encouragement and education about reliable sources is a much better way to handle the situation. By definition these articles are being contributed by new users who really are trying to act in good faith to create these articles, and really are the kind of people we should be encouraging to participate with Wikipedia in the long run. Slamming the door on them and telling them that they are without a clue because they can't read Wikipedia guidelines they may know nothing about is insulting and hurts Wikipedia in the long run. This is a situation where diplomacy is particularly needed. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- That was something I did consider, but this person was very sneaky. They left absolutely no trail. The article appeared complete with infobox and citations in one edit from a new user with only that edit. It was hidden elsewhere, because a search of the Wiki only showed the two year old PROD. So I'm guessing the user knew what was going to happen. -- :- ) Don 21:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- I presume that "preventing creation" means that PRODs for articles about the recently deceased become speedy deletes? I think that is the wrong way to approach this issue. Instead, if such articles are created by people with a relatively short edit history (under 100 edits... give or take) and especially if this new article is the only one that they've worked on, some sort of encouragement and education about reliable sources is a much better way to handle the situation. By definition these articles are being contributed by new users who really are trying to act in good faith to create these articles, and really are the kind of people we should be encouraging to participate with Wikipedia in the long run. Slamming the door on them and telling them that they are without a clue because they can't read Wikipedia guidelines they may know nothing about is insulting and hurts Wikipedia in the long run. This is a situation where diplomacy is particularly needed. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Local copy of TOU and PP
We should have a local copy of wmf:Terms of Use and wmf:Privacy Policy on en.wiki. Possible locations:
- Wikipedia:Terms of Use (shortcuts: WP:TERMS, WP:TOU, WP:TOS)
- Wikipedia:Privacy Policy (shortcuts: WP:PRIVACY, WP:PP)
--68.173.113.106 (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- We do— they are in the bottom left of every page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- The links at the bottom of pages go to wmf:. The IP wants a copy at en.wikipedia.org, and presumably that the links at the bottom should go there. I oppose. The pages are made by the Wikimedia Foundation and not Wikipedia. It's also the foundation which physically controls the data. "Wikipedia" is not a legal entity. The pages are stored at wmf where you can only edit if the Foundation gives you an account. They apply to all Wikimedia projects. Many English Wikimedia wikis have the wmf links. I have only seen local pages for other languages. We already have Wikipedia:Terms of use and Wikipedia:Privacy policy with links to the official wmf versions so people can see it's foundation policies. A local copy would have to be fully protected and kept synchronized with the wmf version. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- I also oppose for the same reasons as PH. MBisanz talk 22:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- A locally kept copy could be a version specific to English Wikipedia, since the terms contain information relevant to other wikis that don't apply here. For example, that Wikinews is CC Attribution as opposed to CC BY-SA is relevant only to Wikinews, so it would appear only in a local Wikinews TOS. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- The attorneys at the WMF said that they want the entire organization to have identical terms, and the Board of Trustees voted to support their decision. We cannot overrule their explicit decision to use one identical set of terms for all sites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing is quite correct. This idea is a non-starter. The Foundation's position is that a clear and consistent set will apply across all sites. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is there a reason wmf:Category:Terms of Use does not contain wmf:Terms of Use/ca, wmf:Terms of Use/cs, wmf:Terms of Use/de, wmf:Terms of Use/fi, wmf:Terms of Use/bg? They are in the languages box at top of wmf:Terms of Use. Are there published rules about what is allowed for languages not listed there? Maybe a non-English Wikimedia wiki should only be allowed to replace the link to wmf:Terms of Use with a protected translation containing a link to wmf:Terms of Use. I noticed [1] in the Danish Wikipedia replaced the link on "brugsbetingelserne" (terms of use) away from wmf:Terms of Use. The new link is a Danish page about copyright: da:Wikipedia:Ophavsret. The page is unprotected, sometimes severely vandalized, says people are allowed to change it, only deals with copyright, and has no link to wmf:Terms of Use or any translation. The interlanguage links are to copyright pages like Wikipedia:Copyrights. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing is quite correct. This idea is a non-starter. The Foundation's position is that a clear and consistent set will apply across all sites. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- The attorneys at the WMF said that they want the entire organization to have identical terms, and the Board of Trustees voted to support their decision. We cannot overrule their explicit decision to use one identical set of terms for all sites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiLeaks_is_not_part_of_WikipediaShold be removed
There are many sites contain "wiki" in there names.They are not part of Wikimedia too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.197.173.87 (talk) 05:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- True, but irrelevant. It is a fact that WikiLeaks is not part of Wikipedia - and it is also a fact that far too many people think otherwise. We are fully entitled to tell them that they are wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've created the nomination for you at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiLeaks is not part of Wikipedia. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- For your information, the discussion was closed under what we called the snowball clause, which means that it stands no chance of succeeding. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Section of channel lineups in articles of providers
Look at Angeles City Cable Television Network, Cablelink, Dish México, and others in Category:Lists of television channels by company. In the light of WP:articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels and WP:articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels, I wonder if they shall be removed and then inaccessible to prevent reversion. --George Ho (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels closed as keep, FYI. --Jayron32 04:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, wrong one; here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination). --George Ho (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Increasing incivility and personal attacks
Lately, I've been seeing absolutely shocking incivility and personal attacks among long-term editors. New editors need only say "go to hell" and they get blocked. What I've been reading is many times more serious than that, with outright swearing. It seems to be really pervasive now.
I think they're doing it because there are few repercussions these days. Admins seem to be tolerating an awful lot. This can't be good for the community. It's really turning into a scary place. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. WP:CIVIL is marked as policy, but it obviously isn't one. Demote it or enforce it. --Onorem♠Dil 19:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Examples would be good to have, but I'm reluctantly inclined to agree with the sentiment in general terms. More disturbing to me is when it's claimed that experienced editors should receive more leeway to be incivil because of their innumerable "valuable contributions" to the project. If anything, I'd think an editor who's been here longer should be expected to be a positive role model for newer editors, and certainly should be aware of what's expected of editors in terms of civility (new editors at least may not know any better). I don't see why "time served" should give any editor the right to be incivil to others. Doniago (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)We should probably have a larger discussion about this. This issue comes up often on ANI, and simply creates more drama with few results. Having a policy which isn't enforced doesn't do us any good when it comes to enforcing other behavioral problems. We work on a collaborative project, and the attitude that if an editor contributes content then he should be allowed to treat others poorly is doing damage to the community. I've personally seen it drive away great editors (even me for a little while). If we decide that damage is acceptable or unavoidable, or whatever, then the least we can do is demote or rewrite WP:CIVIL so we know where we stand, and we don't have to rehash this conversation every week. — Jess· Δ♥ 19:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
There is an ongoing RfC on this topic here. — Jess· Δ♥ 19:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's a 250,000-character discussion, all for what? I may be naive, but this seems like the sensible thing to do:
- 1. Warn the editor.
- 2. If he does it again, block him for a day or two.
- 70 characters. Easy. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Define 'it'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- "...█████ off and die you disgusting little heap of █████..." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok. So by that definition, if someone says "...█████ off and die you disgusting big pile of █████..." then they're not being incivil, because they said "big pile" instead of "little heap". Yes, I know that's a ridiculous claim, but it's indicative of the real issues that you're ignoring in your insistence that this is so simple. The problem isn't in defining the extremes of incivility, it's in determining what's civil and what's incivil in the very large grey area, particularly when dealing with people from cultures around the world. Anomie⚔ 20:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's a fuzzy line, but best judgement and common sense will do. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Whose best judgement? Mine? Yours? Malleus Fatuorum's? Anomie⚔ 01:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's a fuzzy line, but best judgement and common sense will do. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok. So by that definition, if someone says "...█████ off and die you disgusting big pile of █████..." then they're not being incivil, because they said "big pile" instead of "little heap". Yes, I know that's a ridiculous claim, but it's indicative of the real issues that you're ignoring in your insistence that this is so simple. The problem isn't in defining the extremes of incivility, it's in determining what's civil and what's incivil in the very large grey area, particularly when dealing with people from cultures around the world. Anomie⚔ 20:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- "...█████ off and die you disgusting little heap of █████..." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Can't tell if troll. --Onorem♠Dil 19:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Anna, no one is going to agree to that. We need to actually come to consensus on this issue so that it is enforced consistently. Having an extremely vague guideline which doesn't address the concerns of those editors who are against civility restrictions is how we got here to begin with. You should read the RfC. — Jess· Δ♥ 20:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Anna Frodesiak - its simple - need admins with more gusto in this reguard. Need to have the same standers for all - Long time users should be block as fast as an IP is for incivility. Just because people have written an article or have been here a long time does not mean they can act like children and be ass's. Would also help to get more admins - but the admin situation is its own can of worms -as most long time editors now avoid the convoluted Admin request process.Moxy (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)If it's that simple, then contribute to the RfC and sway consensus. We have this problem because many tenured editors don't think it's that simple, so there's not one standard and any we have aren't applied consistently. This is a problem. I don't know how to solve it, but ignoring the real issues isn't going to help. — Jess· Δ♥ 20:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with her as well; however, the problem comes in implementation. My incivility sensor kicks in at a much lower level than a lot of editors here. There could be editors who are even more strict who would feel that you were uncivil in your comment "act like children and be ass's". I'd love to see civility enforced more strictly, but there's so much difficulty in enforcing it equally. I think a good start would be enforcing civility where it is clearly abusive or basing the decision on the opinion of the one who the incivility was directed at rather than an administrator. If someone is referred to as an ass and they have no problem with that, don't block. If someone is referred to as a pig and they say it makes the editing environment uncomfortable for them, use a civility block. All of this said, the only way civility enforcement is going to change is if we remove the statement that blocks are meant to be preventative and not punitive. Allowing punitive blocks, at least for enforcing civility, would be preventative. Since we don't allow them, it is incredibly easy to unblock someone or oppose a block on the grounds of it being punitive. Ryan Vesey 20:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Best judgement is already used for NPA and civility. They just need to collectively crack down and raise the bar a little. As a grey area, it will always boil down to the community of admins setting the standard best they can. The odd 24-hr block for a breach just below the line isn't so bad. The editor shouldn't be testing the limits anyhow. Simple. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- No one is going to agree to that? But that is exactly how newcomers are handled. Admins can simply apply the same thing to all, using their best judgement. Simple. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- See also Is–ought problem. --John (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- There aren't many versions of the chat that would seem civil. I'm not a fan of censoring comments when you're looking for reactions to those comments. It clearly was rude. Unfortunately, CIVIL is only a policy and not something to be enforced. (Wait, what? Policies are the things that should be enforced?{Who knew?)--Onorem♠Dil 20:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the original poster here. Incivility turns people off; we should be working on curbing it rather than debating its precise definition. Change needs to come from the inside of the system out, and reaffirming our civility policies and actually implementing them would work. And, as long as we're discussing definitions, how about something along these lines: incivility results from comments made by an editor to another that were derogatory or overly brusque given their wording or context. dci | TALK 22:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
An appeal to admins
Hi folks. We love ya! :) You're all sort of like parents around here you know. Moms and Dads wouldn't need a very long meeting to sort this one out.
Just up the bar and crack down a little. Let 'em ride out those 1 or 2 day blocks. They'll all be speaking with a civil tongue in no time. No need for a whole bunch of this' and thats. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I find your tone to be condescending, the editors of Wikipedia are not children, and admins are not on wiki parents. The community governs itself, and admins exist only to carry out the consensus of the community. Furthermore, your condescending tone is itself uncivil, so if an admin wanted to take your advice they could start by blocking you... Monty845 07:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- 1) Please don't make me laugh, my lips are chapped. :)
- 2) To editors who act like children, admins seem very much like parents. Probably every admin here has watched two editors fighting like children and wanted to clunk their heads together. As for us, well, we're civil, so our relationship with admins is collegial.
- 3) Regarding your suggestion that I should be blocked for incivility for a condescending tone, I trust you were being ironic or facetious in a pleasant way.
- 4) The consensus of the community is for the admins "to carry out" enforcement of civility. That is because part of the non-admin community cannot self-govern in that respect.
- 5) Your arguments just vanished in a puff of logic. My dogma ran over your karma. Case closed.
- (If you wish to appeal this case, please tell me in advance so I can go buy some chapstick.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Anna, if this issue is of such concern to you, why have you not participated in the RFC to this point? You appear to be making an appeal to the admins, but some may feel that you're, as Mark Twain might say, complaining about the weather but not doing anything about it. I'd strongly encourage you to join the conversation there if you have a genuine interest in seeing your concerns addressed. Doniago (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I like the Twain thing. That's good. :) You're probably right, but plain thinking seems always met with maze-like responses that go nowhere. I can't make heads or tails of an RFC with millions of sections with names like "Abandon civility to stand a chance of having more civility" and "Philosophical problem". I'm not much one for bureaucracy and complicated meetings. I just don't want to get sucked into the vortex over there. I've said my piece, and will back into the shadows to let those folks work it out. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Anna, it's just not that simple. I'm shocked you see editors as naughty children who fight, and you see admins as having the social and emotional skills to function as parents, and clunk heads together (block editors). Occasionally arguing, even arguing vigorously over content is a proper role for content editors. An important role for admins is to model effective behavior and function as mediators and facilitators, like Dennis Brown does. But we don't select admins on that basis. Skills such as those hardly figure amongst the selection criteria for admins. Instead, they are expected to be skilled with arcane details to do with copyright or obscure nuances buried within the guidelines for deleting articles. Some admins operate as if they were elementary school principals, lecturing and knocking heads together, like... oh you know examples. That can be appropriate for some editors, but is totally inappropriate for most.
- There are editors, just as there are admins who behave like children, and perhaps we all do occasionally under enough stress. The immaturity of some admins beggars belief (I've just been enmeshed with one). Admins are not, and never have been, selected on the basis of their ability to discipline editors. You have only to look at at any recent RfA to see that. Handing discipline areas over to admins who may be more childish than the editors they are supposed to discipline is not the solution. It is already difficult enough for content editors to work with any dignity on Wikipedia.
- We need a special group of administrators who are elected specifically to facilitate, and enforce when necessary discipline amongst content builders. Such admins would need to demonstrate that they have substantial mediation and facilitation skills, and have developed substantial scholarly content, sufficient to ensure that they understand the pitfalls and difficulties of content development. Only a few current admins would currently qualify to belong to that group. Handing the disciple of experienced content editor over to other admins, who no way qualify to belong to that special group, is absurd. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Actresses categorization
|
Although it could be insignificant at first sight, the distinction between Category:Actors and Category:Actresses (the latter being a soft redirect currently) could be very useful and handy in Wikipedia, particularly in terms of navigation and accessibility (browsing the entire Category:Actors could be particularly inconvenient, when one needs a narrow subject for research purposes, for example Category:Norwegian actresses). The WP:Cat gender statement "separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed" does not give any reason for that. It's a case where the gender-neutral language seems to be unneccessary, if not troublesome in terms of WP:PRECISION. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral language suggests gender-neutral language only "where this can be done with clarity and precision", which is not the case. Linguistically, this is especially so when the person bears a unisex name, like Robin Tunney when it's unclear whether it's he or she. The articles about actresses consistently refer to each as "actress", not "actor" and we already have long-standing categories of women by occupation, that have male counterparts: Category:Priestesses, Category:Abbesses, Category:Nuns. Considering all that, I propose this motion to drop the restriction on actresses in WP:CATGRS so that we could restore Category:Actresses and foster all relevant subcats, like Category:Actresses by country. Brandmeistertalk 01:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- It is a gender issue. Traditionally people who are actors who are women have been called actresses, but they have pointed out that no, they are just as much an actor as any male actor. Apteva (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yet the word "actress" is not an anachronism in English and is obviously neutral as it's neither an offensive word nor a word to avoid. As far as I know it's simply grammatically incorrect to call for instance Jessica Biel an "actor" instead of "actress". Brandmeistertalk 09:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's not grammatically incorrect (at least not in standard UK English); the distinction was common in the past, but has now become a lot less clear-cut.
- Women did not appear on stage in public in England until after the Restoration of 1660, following which the terms actor and actress were both used to describe female performers. Later, actor was often restricted to men, with actress as the usual term for women. Although actress remains in general use, actor is increasingly preferred for performers of both sexes as a gender-neutral term. [OED 3rd ed., 2010; note to "actress, n", sense 2a] Andrew Gray (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think we should not prefer some unclear trends over encyclopedic purposes and having double standards (like Category:Priestesses but not Category:Actresses) is odd. There is still Academy Award for Best Actress, as well as a dedicated Category:Film awards for lead actress (not actor). Many dictionaries themselves still have the entry "actress". Brandmeistertalk
- Women did not appear on stage in public in England until after the Restoration of 1660, following which the terms actor and actress were both used to describe female performers. Later, actor was often restricted to men, with actress as the usual term for women. Although actress remains in general use, actor is increasingly preferred for performers of both sexes as a gender-neutral term. [OED 3rd ed., 2010; note to "actress, n", sense 2a] Andrew Gray (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's not grammatically incorrect (at least not in standard UK English); the distinction was common in the past, but has now become a lot less clear-cut.
- Yet the word "actress" is not an anachronism in English and is obviously neutral as it's neither an offensive word nor a word to avoid. As far as I know it's simply grammatically incorrect to call for instance Jessica Biel an "actor" instead of "actress". Brandmeistertalk 09:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Since this is on WP:CENT, I've tagged it as an RFC. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't categorize female actors separately from male ones, just as we don't categorize female singers separately from male ones. The fact that a different word happens to exist doesn't mean we have to use it in our categorization system. I would only categorize by sex in professions where being of one sex rather than the other is somehow exceptional for that profession. Victor Yus (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Victor, and add that Cat:Priestess is a good example of this, because no matter what the religion, the priesthood is almost always dominated by, if not exclusively restricted to, one gender. Diana was served by women, and Jupiter by men. Exceptions to this approach have historically been rare. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- The Screen Actors Guild, the very union which represents Hollywood actors, gives out the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role. If they want to call themselves female actors, why should we object? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- We have enough problems fighting over what sexuality or religion someone is for categorization purposes. I don't think the benefits will outweigh the inevitable conflicts that will arise when it comes time to decide on an article about an actor of ambiguous gender. Gigs (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Verifiability for articles with no English sources
On Monday, an article on Anatoly Wasserman was AfD'ed with the justification that it has no English sources. The nominator claimed that using non-English sources would necessary involve translation, which, in their opinion, constitutes original research, and is therefore not acceptable. Three users pointed out that the article has a number of Russian sources, which are reliable and clearly show notability of the subject of the article (who is a living person). Then an administrator came along and mentioned that he would delete the article, since he does not speak Russian and the article is therefore unverifiable for him.
I am afraid at this point I need the community input. Is this indeed the common interpretation of Wikipedia:Verifiability? The policy itself only states that English sources are preferred over non-English sources, which is quite natural for English Wikipedia. However, I have difficulties with the interpretation of the type "I can not read the source thefore the article can not be verified". There are at least two main reasons why I do not like it:
- In this case, the AfD result would depend on the admin. A monolingual admin (who are in great majority) would delete an article which a bi- or multilingual admin could keep, because they speak the language of the sources.
- If broadly interpreted, this stance can be also extended to English specialized sources. For instance, I am not sure we have many admins who can verify whether this source (freely available here for non-subscribers) correctly confirms the following statement: "In suspended monolayer graphene at the Dirac point the coupling between electrons and flexural phonon modes is stronger that the coupling to the in-plane modes".
Actually, my own activity here is for 90% writing articles which can not be sources in English at all, or most of their text can not. I always thought this is a net benefit for Wikipedia, because in this way the content which is not available in English still becomes available to English-speaking readers. The position I described above says completely thje opposite: If this content is not available in English, the readers do not need it.
For the record, I do not care about this particular article: I do not like the person, I do not care about What? Where? When? show, which he became primarily famous for, and the topic is not of my direct interest. If I have time, I can look for English sources, but as a matter of principle, I believe, the issue should be discussed.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- WP:NOENG allows the usage of non-English sources when English ones are not available or are very short. Per WP:NOENG, "when citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation", unless required. The good article Roza Shanina for example, which I wrote, relies almost entirely on Russian sources. There are several topics which are broadly covered only in non-English sources. Brandmeistertalk 09:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Also, the GNG at WP:Notability explicitly says, "Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English." (emphasis in the original). And WP:NOR has a section explicitly contradictng the nom's claim that translation work is original research.
- This is a completely invalid reason for nominating an article, and I hope that the nom will not make the same mistake in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sure that the nominator will learn from this. What is much more worrying is the we have an experienced administrator who would delete an article for not having English sources.[2] It's really time that we developed a procedure for de-adminning based on incompetence, rather than the deliberate disruption that is currently required. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I write many articles with few English sources - and the English language sources there that exist are nearly always inferior to the Russian ones. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Working with foreign-language sources might be interesting reading. Secretlondon (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Incompetence is as good a reason as any for de-admining. That particular admin notes "I was in line with the consensus on WP:RFA exactly 100 % of the time, and on WP:AfD a bit over 92 % of the time." 92% is pretty low. There are plenty of admin tasks other than closing AfD, and a friendly note that that is an area where they could get into trouble 8% of the time seems in order. The nice thing about WP is that almost everything is reversible. Apteva (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Without making a comment about this particular case, I think it is worth noting that we have had a number of recent AFDs where this has been an issue. We seem to be having a particular problem with this where an article is subject to both WP:NOENG and WP:COI. Such cases typically run as follows -
- Article is created by (non-Eng) COI editor about a (non-Eng) subject with which they are familiar.
- Article is either created with no sources or non-Eng sources and without being able to verify WP:N, the article is AFD'd.
- At AFD, the original COI editor cites myriad non-Eng sources as being sufficient to meet WP:GNG.
- Other editors can't read/translate the cited references in question and no uninvolved non-Eng editors are available as a third opinion to verify sources.
- Original editor's argument amounts to "trust me (regardless of my COI) the sources are WP:RS and confer WP:N" and "it's not my problem you can't read <language>, the sources say what I say they say". The second argument, especially, tends to illicit WP:OR accusations.
- Non-ENG sources are rejected as non-RS, regardless of objections based on WP:NONENG.
- I have seen AFDs like this go both ways - some accepted (especially where the COI is not as direct, like this one) and some not (especially where COI is blatant, like this one). While in theory the policy is straight-forward, in practice the policies seem to often be interpreted differently and on a case-by-case basis. Not sure what the solution is but I think it is worth having the discussion. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleting a template
I should know this, really but here goes. The article Alliance for Change (UK) was deleted many moons ago. I've just noticed that the connected templates ([[Template:Alliance for Change (UK)/meta/shortname]] and [[Template:Alliance for Change (UK)/meta/color]] still exist
How do these get deleted? Do I go through TfD or is there another flag I could raise?
Cheers doktorb wordsdeeds 10:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- You might see success with {{db-g8}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that applies here. Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Alliance for Change (UK)/meta/shortname and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Alliance for Change (UK)/meta/color show both templates are in use. Such templates are generally used on articles about elections and not the article about the party. By the way, there is no reason for
<nowiki>...</nowiki>
in the post. Template:Alliance for Change (UK)/meta/shortname and Template:Alliance for Change (UK)/meta/color are normal links. It's transclusion code like {{Alliance for Change (UK)/meta/shortname}} which requires special treatment. A common way to present it is with {{tl}} as in {{Alliance for Change (UK)/meta/shortname}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that applies here. Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Alliance for Change (UK)/meta/shortname and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Alliance for Change (UK)/meta/color show both templates are in use. Such templates are generally used on articles about elections and not the article about the party. By the way, there is no reason for
Merge GlobalBlocking to Blocking policy
Currently, we have two policies about blocking: GlobalBlocking and Blocking policy. GlobalBlocking receives a grand total of approximately 6 views a day (and yes, it is formal policy), while the main Blocking policy gets 200. Note too that GlobalBlocking doesn't show up in the tool that calculates pages' number of watchers [3]. Would there be any objection to merging GlobalBlocking to a new section in the Blocking policy? It is a very short policy, so we would not be dumping a huge load of text. IMO, I think it is generally favorable to keep policies concise and as short in number as reasonable (we have over 50 formal policies now), and to avoid splitting same-topic issues into multiple pages. This is so we do not drown people in rules, especially newcomers, and I think we should generally discourage new policy creep. Remember of course that a merge would not demote the importance of the issue; it is simply being moved, to a location that will better serve community members by being in a centralized place that is read when people want to learn about blocking. NTox · talk 21:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Why is "There's this bit of software, see, and we sometimes use it" even a policy in the first place? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I scanned GlobalBlocking's talk page and it looks like the page was self-created by someone, then they decided to mark it as policy since it looked similar to some other policies. A couple people have since suggested a merge, but nothing really came of it. The creator himself even said he's fine with merging, since the policy tag was rather improvised. I'll let him know about this thread - but since this never went through the normal proposal process et al. I wouldn't think merging would be that controversial. NTox · talk 01:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)