Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:39, 2 September 2008

August 28

Template:Notable Wikipedian

Template:Notable Wikipedian (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template facilitates violation of the BLP policy and offers little or no appreciable benefit to the encyclopedia. Allow me to explain these two assertions:

This template facilitates violation of the BLP policy because there is no simple and unintrusive way of determining whether a particular user account actually belongs to a particular person. While there are ways of confirming the identity of the person operating a particular account, this can be quite intrusive, and we should not demand this for something as trivial as this template (see below). Let us consider two hypothetical examples:Example 1: A high school student with the name Bill Smith creates a user account with the name User:Bill Smith. He subsequently edits the article about Bill Smith, a businessman. Another editor notices that User:Bill Smith edited the article Bill Smith and places {{Notable Wikipedian}} on Talk:Bill Smith. Even if User:Bill Smith makes only positive contributions to Misplaced Pages (or makes no additional contributions), the template is inaccurately attributing the edits of Bill Smith the high school student to Bill Smith the businessman.

Example 2: Someone creates a user account with the name User:Bill Smith and edits the article about the person Bill Smith. Another editor notices that User:Bill Smith edited the article Bill Smith and places {{Notable Wikipedian}} on Talk:Bill Smith. The next day, User:Bill Smith vandalises a series of articles, insulting and threatening various people and organisations (such as schools). As long as {{Notable Wikipedian}} remains on Talk:Bill Smith, we are in effect attributing these insults and threats to Bill Smith (the person), without any actual evidence. While this claim by itself is unlikely to have legal consequences for Mr. Smith (law enforcement authorities would presumably seek actual evidence), it could damage his reputation and/or cause psychological distress.

This template offers little or no appreciable benefit to the encyclopedia due to the fact that any useful function that it performs could be carried out just as well or better by other means. The template is designed to be placed on the talk pages of articles, and is claimed to be a useful way of keeping track of autobiographical editing. However, we have other templates for that: {{COI}} and {{Autobiography}}. (We also have Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians with articles.) Moreover, whereas {{COI}} and {{Autobiography}} are designed for use on articles which have been edited extensively by the subject (or someone else with a conflict of interest), this template could be added for even minor edits. In other words, whereas {{COI}} and {{Autobiography}} are intended to identify content issues, this template is just a bureaucratic record-keeping mechanism. –Black Falcon 18:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, assumes an unverifiable link between a wiki account and a real person. Bazj (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Checked one of them to see the template in action... "An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Donald Knuth, has edited Misplaced Pages as 171.66.180.182". Linking a person to a wiki account is one kind of bad, but to an IP address is SOOOOOO bad! Kill it. Kill it now. Before somebody sues. Bazj (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Hey hey hey, misuse of a template is not grounds for its deletion. I've always seen this as a "there's a potential COI thing going on here" type of template, rather than a "did you know"-style one. If the link between person and account wasn't explicit then I'd have no problem removing it from a template on sight. Better documentation needed, deletion not needed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you clarify what you mean by "if the link between person and account wasn't explicit"? Also, doesn't {{COI}} fulfill the function of a "there's a potential COI thing going on here" template? –Black Falcon 22:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I mean that user:RussNelson is definitely Russ Nelson, in a real-life admission sort of way. User:blah234234 is not Tony Blair just because he says he is. If we stick to verified links, we're fine here. And this template is a rather gentler way of pointing the issue out than a big warning banner in articlespace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
      • But that's the thing: this template is designed to be used regardless of whether there is a content issue, which is not the case with the other templates. Also, how do you know that User:RussNelson is Russ Nelson (I'm not saying that he isn't, but just asking on what the statement is based)? –Black Falcon 23:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons given, ironically enough, by Chris Cunningham (this one, not that one). If anyone knows the problems relating to this template, I'm fairly sure he would. As long as the user is verified as being the person the article is about, this serves as a useful guide to potential CoI edits. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • How do we verify who is controlling the user account? –Black Falcon 00:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
    • How do we verify who is controlling your account? Exactly. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
      • There's no need to, unless you want to place a tag on Talk:Black Falcon. :) –Black Falcon 06:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
        • FACT: In the several years i have edited here, no one from Misplaced Pages has ever telephoned me (my phone number is on my web sites) or emailed me to verify that i am User:Catherineyronwode. I may very well be someone else. In fact, i am feeling more and more like someone else every minute. catherine yronwode catherine yronwode"64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

How will you provide identifying information even via phone or email? Will you send them a fax of a Photo ID? Is this sufficient to conclude to the positive, since it works for financial institutions? Will we merely accept someone's word, or their electronic signature attesting to the fact? Is there ANY other tag that requires this scrutiny?self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Useful template. -- Avi (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep COI and Autobiography aren't broad enough. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Not broad enough for what purpose? Thanks, –Black Falcon 16:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but periodically verify use to ensure that the user account who performed the edit is actually the person who is the topic of the article. bahamut0013♠♣ 16:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • But that's just it: how do we verify that the user account is actually the subject of the article? Simply asking the user is not a viable option, since we can't easily verify whether the user is telling the truth. –Black Falcon 16:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This template is part of the textbook example of how not to handle COI. Sure, it has conceivable good uses, but it's far more likely to be used inappropriately, and I haven't seen it used correctly once yet. The potential benefits are far outweighed by the current abuses. Sχeptomaniac 21:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Some of the arguments for deletion, such as difficulty verifying identities, would best be solved by modifying the template, rather than deleting it outright. Can't fix what's gone. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete–if there is a COI problem, then the COI template should be used and then the specifics of it should be brought up on the talk page; this template just seems like a way to criticize other users, and its wording implies that the verdict is guilty, regardless of whether the discussion about the alleged COI is ongoing or not.--danielfolsom 01:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep -- Both examples given are examples where this template is applied in error. Shouldn't the criteria for deletion pertain to situations when the template is used correctly? When an article subject is also a Misplaced Pages editor, that's an important piece of information with regard to evaluating their edits. I've never put the template on any article except where the Wikipedian's identity is verified (such as through OTRS). --SSBohio 04:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • We should also consider the fact that the correct usage of the template constitutes only a small fraction of the total usage. I've looked through nearly one hundred of uses of this template and could not find a single case where actual verification of identity is given. –Black Falcon 16:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Patently useful in my own opinion. rootology (C)(T) 22:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Three reasons:

• (1) As a "notable Wikipedian" myself, i have found this tag more chilling than helpful. When some good faith edits about me stated erroneously that i had been raised in Sacramento, California (never lived there in my life!) i was left with no choice but to fix the problem. Another time, questions were posed about whether my role in some legal cases had been as defendent or expert witness; i stepped in to explain that i had been an expert witness in one and a plaintiff in the other -- and then supplied a multiplicity of good RS newspaper accounts of the events. And for all of the work i did, there's that stupid tag added, which makes it look like i was sneaking around trying to ego-glorify myself. It's hurtful.
• (2) The "notable Wikipedian" tag encourages dishonesty. I have seen a number of pages which were "gamed" by the subjects of the pages, but they had more deviousness than i did and used an unidentifiable user-name. The honest contributors, such as myself, are made to look bad, while the sneaks get away with being invisible.
• (3) As Ssbohio and others clearly and repeatedly note, there is no verification process by which Misplaced Pages admins seek to establish that the "notable" contributor is who he or she claims to be! I could get a new user account tomorrow under the name Rielle Hunter and start messing with the Rielle Hunter page and someone would soon tag her BLP page with this useless tag -- making Ms. Hunter look bad as a potential biography-gamer.

All in all, this is an ill-considered tag that should be deleted from the database. Use the CoI template instead. catherine yronwode catherine yronwode a.k.a. User:Catherineyronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• COMMENT Someone posting from an IP address that starts with the numbers "64" just posted here claiming to be me! cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Just because some people misuse the template doesn't mean it should be deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Unless we restrict this template to users with OTRS access (in which case it would be best to create a new template with a different format and name), there is no proper use. –Black Falcon 15:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The BLP issue itself is just too great, ignoring the other issues. We cannot label accounts as belonging to Joe Smith unless there is proof. For most uses of this template, the proof probably is not there. --- RockMFR 15:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - as argued by the nominator, the use of this template is misguided as the actual identity of an account generally cannot be verified. (At least by ordinary users; I would not object to keeping this template if its use was restricted to those with WP:OFFICE or WP:OTRS access.) As it is, this template is often placed on talk pages to subtly cast doubt on the accompanying article by insinuating that it has been the subject of non-neutral, conflict-of-interest-driven edits, when there is no evidence that that is the case. Moreover, even in the cases when it is definitively known that an article has been edited by someone related to it, what is the use of highlighting that fact? Conflicts of interest themselves aren't necessarily bad; it's only a bad thing when the user in question fails to reveal their conflict of interest, and/or it leads to non-neutral editing. So, this template adds little or no value to a page, and as such we would be better off deleting it. Terraxos (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I completely agree with the post immediately prior to this one by Terraxos.self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - When reviewing edits to a particular page, I don't want to have to go to Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians with articles to see which editor might be the person making changes. For instance, there's absolutely no way to tell that Bluemarine (talk · contribs) is Matt Sanchez, just by looking at the username. Since this template is on the Talk page, I can review the edit history and know about the username Bluemarine and his other accounts. Furthermore, COI doesn't replace it because a) it doesn't give a username, and b) it's in mainspace and designed to be removed once the article is cleaned up. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? Are you sure that Bluemarine (talk · contribs) is Matt Sanchez -- and if so, why? Because Bluemarine said so? Because Matt Sanchez said so? Did you see the post up above by self-ref (nagasiva yronwode)? He's posting from the same IP address that i am. Who is he? Is he me? Is he my sock? Is he someone logged into my network illegally? Or is he my husband? How can you tell? How do you know? Answer: You can't tell and you don't know. Answer: It was my husband. Answer: I *told* you it was my husband. Answer: Really, really, really, it *was* my husband. I promise! Do you see where this leads us? I am convinced that COI is all that is needed. It covers a lot more ground than Notable and until it is actually invoked and proved, it does not tarnish notables with the ugly implication of non-neutral editing. Sincerely, "Ol' What's-Er-Name When She's Not Logged In" a.k.a. "64" a.k.a. "No ... not HIM, he's my *husband*, i told you that already!" a.k.a. catherine yronwode the only, and realio-trulio, not nagasiva yronwode, who is in the room across the hall at his own computer. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• If you and your husband continue to vote together in concert on Misplaced Pages I will report you as meatpuppets. I would recommend you end the practice. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing toward the relevant reporting-tags about which i was previously asking. These appear to be the ones (add as you know about them): COI, Notable Wikipedian, Meatpuppet, Sockpuppet, Vandal. All 5 of these require identification or characterization either with respect to an item being edited or with respect to another user account or both. The same problem surrounds each of them and therefore they only have limited justification in usage. I suspect that there is merely 'slop' misusage, and that folx must feel that sufficient identification reliability obtains such that they are employed. By this litmus, it appears that sufficiently-resembling behaviour from an IP is the criteria for identification, and nothing more.

My impression is that the reason that any of this is an issue is because Misplaced Pages is in certain zones a battleground. People advocate against this because they want to see it stop, but the reality is that certain epistemological and cultural zones are contested and a variety of means are used, some uglier than others, to fight it. There appear to be 3 main areas of involvement which apply: vandalizing, IP-multiplicity, and perturbing bias.

• Vandalizing is easily seen and dealt with immediately based on strict and consistent behaviour from an IP. Its importance as a tag is obvious and its usage justified by retaining the integrity of the information and appearance.
• IP-multiplicity is dealt with by threats of Meatpuppet or Sockpuppet tagging such that if conformance continues disciplinary action will be taken. The primary problem that i can see with it is the confusion that it may sow and the barriers it places before what Misplaced Pages calls its consensus-process. Ultimately IP-multiplicity should not matter as long as people make individual IPs/User accounts responsible for their expression and consensus strawpolls aren't treated like voting. Its basis in usage is clarity of social interaction, and thus constitutes a strictly unnecessary crutch.
• Perturbing bias is dealt with by COI and Notable Misplaced Pages tagging such that if conformance with problematic behaviour continues, disciplinary action will be taken. The reason that this is important at all is because of the scarcity-model Notability standard which Misplaced Pages has developed as a guide due to the battleground that it has become. If it were a true and universal encyclopedia, then every object or phenomenon would become a focus of its inclusion (compare how it treats species; this is how we would be dealing with human beings), and the sustainability or reliability of information with respect to them would come more into focus.

Whereas vandalism and IP-multiplicity do not require strict identification, merely a comparison of what lies beyond the IPs, COI and Notable Wikipedian do pertain to strict identity in relation to the edited or written materials. It is for this particular reason that unless identification can be confirmed, BOTH tags should be deleted.

Not only should all identity-related tags be deleted, but the Notability guideline which fosters these kinds of tags and the contention, apparently deriving from perceived scarcity of resources in construction or reflection on paper encyclopedias, should be abandoned, and all objects and phenomena, whether or not perceived as 'notable' should be included in a truly universal wikipedia.self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• {{COI}} is actually different from {{Notable Wikipedian}}, because {{COI}} at least does not attempt to link a specific account to a specific person; it only notes a possible conflict of interest on the part of at least one (unnamed) user, thereby bringing attention to issues of content rather than something else. –Black Falcon 18:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Why, then, couldn't one argue that Notable Wikipedian is alike to COI in that it is a possible notability associated with an IP which would very similarly indicate a possible conflict of interest issue? With COI we have some kind of alliance to a group interest (unconfirmed) which may conflict, and likewise with Notable Wikipedian we have an alliance to an interest in a person (unconfirmed) which may conflict.self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I do not deny the existence of certain similarities, but merely wish to point out that {{Notable Wikipedian}} is significantly more problematic than {{COI}}. {{COI}} does not attempt to "out" a particular account and tries to draw attention to a possible content problem, whereas {{Notable Wikipedian}} is specifically designed to out particular accounts and to make unsubstantiated claims even in the absence of any content issue or problem. –Black Falcon 19:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Serious BLP issues, potential for abuse is too high and there is no way to independently source the information within the template. It's also not encyclopedic and provides no context for what constitutes notability. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - at pages such as Rosalind Picard this template is used by experienced Misplaced Pages editors to help them maintain their ownership of articles. They use this template to claim that an IP address IS a specific person but they provide no evidence to support the claim. The template use instructions say, "where username is the person’s Misplaced Pages username": that is, the stated use of the template is for user accounts, not IP addresses. After this template is used to label an IP address (without evidence provided) as being a specific person, the owners of Rosalind Picard then treat edits from those IPs as being worthy of being ignored/reverted. This is even done in violation of policy when the edits from those IPs are explicitly protected by Misplaced Pages policy, "In a few cases, outside interests coincide with Misplaced Pages’s interests. An important example is that unsupported defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved." This results in persistent and calculated violation of Misplaced Pages policy by editors who think they own the page and can silence good faith attempts to correct errors on a Misplaced Pages biographical page. From above on this page: "misuse of a template is not grounds for its deletion. I've always seen this as a "there's a potential COI thing going on here" type of template" <-- That (point out a "potential COI thing") may have been the intended use of the template, but the template is abused by some Wikipedians. The damage being done by misuse of this template goes far beyond any potential benefits from its use. There are other methods, with less potential for misuse, that can be used to say "there is a potential COI here". Some of the editors who have teamed up to claim ownership of articles such as Rosalind Picard and who have misused this template as part of their calculated violations of Misplaced Pages policy have commented in this discussion so as to voice support for keeping this template. Rather than just delete this template, it might be useful for Misplaced Pages to have a full discussion of editors who have been systematically misusing this template. --JWSurf (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Besides all the comments above, it also seems to blur the line a bit concerning Misplaced Pages:Outing. And I also can imagine this being used similar to Template:Sockpuppet, that is, for those "suspected", rather than confirmed. - jc37 19:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Succession box one to six

Template:Succession box one to six (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used. Same functionality available with {{s-bef}} with the rows=6 parameter, which conforms to the standards at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Templates. Bazj (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete — Didn't even know this one existed. Yes, delete. It is a redundant template.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 18:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete – One more step towards standardisation; let us discard these confusing multi-row templates. Waltham, The Duke of 09:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:S-fic

Template:S-fic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is no longer in use, and it won't be used as it is contrary to the MoS. Bazj (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This is the second time the template has come up on TfD; see Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 26#Template:S-fic for the TfD from last year (initiated by yours truly) for existing arguments for and against its deletion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete! — This should have been deleted last time, but oddly supporters of the template insisted that it stay regardless of the fact that it cannot be used. Delete this thing once and for all. Please!
  –Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 18:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I just remembered the war we all had over this template and how it did not work out. sigh...such a long time ago (not really) but some things need to go. This template was one of my best works for headers, but sometimes, our universe is just not ready for another one. We humans are selfish that way.-Whaleyland —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per EVula's reasoning in the July 2007 TfD. Aside from the fact that we should treat fictional topics primarily from an out-of-universe perspective (see Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)), succession boxes imply that time in a fictional universe operates on the basis of the same principles as time in the real world. This is simply not the case, since an author can quite easily make mistakes in the calculation of fictional dates, thereby undermining any attempt to specify a fictional succession of characters ... unless you have the lotion. –Black Falcon 18:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per me. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete – I remember how I supported using succession boxes for fictional subjects last year; I have since reconsidered. Succession boxes require relatively long and intact chains to function, and these are rare to find in fictional universes—navboxes are much more useful for such purposes. Deleting this template is the right thing to do. Waltham, The Duke of 09:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Magazine (Zine)

Template:Infobox Magazine (Zine) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Infobox Magazine. This template is not used anywhere and is not coded correctly (the fields are hardcoded and thus can not be specified on individual articles) while this can be easily fixed, the template is not necessary. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 03:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete A redundant and hardcoded template. JPG-GR (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:WPIreland Navigation

Template:WPIreland Navigation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

• Delete:- Unneeded per this April 2008 discussion, redundant because a newer better template exists, it is unused since its April 2008 creating when it was removed from use having been made and posted by indef blocked sockpuppet user User:Markreidyhp. ww2censor (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)