Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fæ (talk | contribs) at 00:07, 2 May 2012 (→Requirement for declaring an interest after off-wiki canvassing: c). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers/Log
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 15 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

(Initiated 13 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 82 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 61 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

(Initiated 48 days ago on 10 November 2024) Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 was very clearly rejected. The closer should try to see what specific principles people in the discussion agreed upon if going with a no consensus close, because there should be a follow-up RfC after some of the details are hammered out. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727  13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: Still working on this? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Ugh… in practice, no. I'm still willing to do it, but it's in hiatus because of the three(!) pending challenges of my closures at AN, while I evaluate to what extent I need to change how I approach closures. If somebody else wants to take over this, they should feel free. —Compassionate727  22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Taking a pause is fair. Just wanted to double check. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

asking for an update if possible. I think this RFC and previous RFCBEFORE convos were several TOMATS long at this point, so I get that this might take time. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 461#RfC: Check Your Fact

(Initiated 45 days ago on 13 November 2024) RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Now archived. An uninvolved closer is still requested. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#RfC: Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?

(Initiated 43 days ago on 15 November 2024) This RfC expired five days ago, has an unclear consensus, I am involved, and discussion has died down. JJP_Master (she/they) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 20:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 21:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of fictional countries set on Earth#RfC on threshold for inclusion

(Initiated 38 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 36 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Matt Gaetz#RFC: Accusations of child sex trafficking and statutory rape in the lead

(Initiated 30 days ago on 28 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC tag and the last comment was a couple of days ago. Can we please get a independent close. TarnishedPath 10:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (music)#RfC about the naming conventions for boy bands

(Initiated 20 days ago on 8 December 2024) No further participation in the last 7 days. Consensus is clear but I am the opener of the RfC and am not comfortable closing something I am so closely involved in, so would like somebody uninvolved to close it if they believe it to be appropriate.RachelTensions (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable closing a discussion on a guideline change this early. In any case, if the discussion continues as it has been, a formal closure won't be necessary. —Compassionate727  13:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done. @RachelTensions. TarnishedPath 11:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 17#List of Neverwinter Nights characters

(Initiated 60 days ago on 30 October 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 November 27#File:The Musician (Erling Blöndal Bengtsson) by Ólöf Pálsdóttir.jpg

(Initiated 31 days ago on 27 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 December 2#File:Batman superman.PNG

(Initiated 26 days ago on 2 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Est. 2021/sandbox/CURRENT

(Initiated 23 days ago on 5 December 2024) If there is consensus to do one of the history splitting operations but the closer needs help implementing it I would be willing to oblige. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 December 9#File:Golden Lion size.jpg

(Initiated 19 days ago on 9 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Xplicit. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  01:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 95 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

(Initiated 73 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tesla Cybercab#Proposed merge of Tesla Network into Tesla Cybercab

(Initiated 71 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be better to leave that discussion be. There is no consensus one way or the other. I could close it as "no consensus," but I think it would be better to just leave it so that if there's ever anyone else who has a thought on the matter, they can comment in that discussion instead of needing to open a new one. —Compassionate727  14:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 61 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Stadion Miejski (Białystok)#Requested move 5 November 2024

(Initiated 53 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Expectation of privacy (United States)#Requested move 25 November 2024

(Initiated 34 days ago on 25 November 2024) I request that Admins address this discussion that has been going around in circles for more than a month with no clear resolution. There is a consensus that the current article title is wrong but myriad inconclusive ideas on a solution. This is a second request for Admin help and little was accomplished the first time except false accusations. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 31 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 2#Rafael de Orleans e Bragança

(Initiated 27 days ago on 2 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor El Beeblerino. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  01:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Loss of more and more and more established editors and administrators.

It has come to my attention that Misplaced Pages is slowly falling apart and will eventually crash. We are losing more established editors and admins faster than we can gain. I believe something needs to be done. User talk:Fastily has been driven from Misplaced Pages due its declining mentality. Any thoughts? Forgive me is I posted this on the wrong page.—cyberpower _{Limited Access} 10:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Nuke it from orbit? We are all very replaceable, despite what we may think. New editors will happily take our places. They'll just have to start all over again from scratch, I suppose. Doc talk 10:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Fastily's departure was far more complex than that. Editors & admins come & go, it's how it's worked for the 6+ years I've been here. GiantSnowman 10:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Editors are not light bulbs. If the reward for years of volunteer service is to leave with your feelings hurt, that's poor return and may explain the "death spiral".--Wehwalt (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly.—cyberpower _{Limited Access} 10:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It's been in a perpetual "death spiral" since day one. The sky is always falling. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy to those who see it like that. What more can be done? Just give up? That's probably not the best way to solve a problem. Not everybody always gets what they want. A "kinder, gentler" Misplaced Pages? A gold watch for your service. Doc talk 10:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

See this graph of the number of active editors. Once some people started looking at the encyclopedia as something to skew toward their notion of the "ethical" (or the useful?) by taking out various stuff they don't like, its decay began. Look at Jimbo Wales' talk page for the past few weeks for how thoroughly and absolutely this decay will end. It is not merely that there won't be any editors - there won't be any content judged acceptable for them to edit, and no permission for them to do so (except via reviewer) even if they could. Wnt (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

As can been seen from my own talkpage, I'm feeling it myself. When even your "colleagues" can't read worth shit, take un-necessary potshots, lie, and refuse to live up to their word, how do we expect anyone else to? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Not to say that this isn't a phenomenon of concern, but this example is problematic. The image-oriented Fastily has (demonstratively) shut down participation at en-WP and moved his focus to Commons, which isn't exactly losing him to the project. I'm far more concerned with the oppressive mentality against some of the sometimes prickly but extraordinarily useful content creators: Malleus, Kiefer Wolfowitz, Richard Norton, etc. That's a far more dangerous phenomenon affecting the longterm health of the project than a janitor or two moving from here to there, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an unnecessarily frustrating and nasty place. Top of that list is that the bad guys so often prevail at articles and battles, or just keep wandering and hurting people as long as they are clever toknow how to mis-use the system. It would take about 6 policy changes to 70% fix that. North8000 (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I find that Misplaced Pages seems a much nicer community if you simply take some of the most dramatic noticeboards off your watchlist. Try a month's holiday from ANI, AN, AN/C etc. and you will feel better for it. The fact that these notice boards have been plagued and polluted by an off-wiki coordinated travelling circus is a problem that we should take seriously, and look at how we can improve policies to ensure obvious external manipulation for soap-boxing and lobbying does not seriously corrupt our consensus process. --Fæ (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Excellent advice! Until your friend is on those boards. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought of several when I wrote this, one returned with an Easter egg tree, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You would give P.T. Barnum a run for his money when it comes to promotion. Congratulations. Doc talk 06:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Fæ, with all due respect, I think your statement here is actually an example of the very problem to which you are alluding. Critics of Misplaced Pages are not generally popular around here, but if there is a genuine problem with off-wiki sites that needs to be addressed, you should be starting an RFC/U or requesting that ArbCom start a case, instead of constantly making snippy remarks. If there is anything to your suggestion that "our consensus process" can be disrupted by a handful of editors who frequent off-site discussion boards where the discussions are publicly viewable, I wonder how that process is disrupted by those who hang out on the many un-logged IRC channels or who contact each other through email. It must be a very fragile process indeed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is the right place to hold such a discussion. Some editors may feel this way, and general consensus may say it's not the best place to be, but for us to be replaced one day, we need to give off a good impression to the new wave of editors. We need to remember that this is a project that we should contribute to in our own spare time and we are supposed to enjoy it. If you don't enjoy being here, obviously something is wrong and you either need to take a break, or leave for good. (note: this is just my own opinion and I am not suggesting anybody should GTFO or anything. MrLittleIrish 11:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well said. This thread is going nowhere and should be closed. Doc talk 11:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep - if there's a problem, just sweep it under the rug. Just remember, when the house falls down - that rug won't matter too much now will it? — Ched :  ?  11:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Responding to Mr little irish ....or fix the problems, which starts with discussions like this. North8000 (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think this is a great discussion to have and I recommend it should stay open for at least a couple of hours. I want to here what more the community has to say. I feel for Fastily. The point I opened this discussion is because of mainly civility issues editors are getting emotionally hurt and it would make perfect sense why they would no longer want to edit it. It's amazing to see how little things that could be easily fixed and it's blown way out of proportion here.—cyberpower _{Limited Access} 11:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Responding to North8000. The problem is people (not naming a single editor, new or old) are contributing here like it's a job. This is supposed to be an enjoyment for ourselves and the general public looking for information. The project should not cause stress. Yes, we all disagree every now and again, but over time, the amount of petty arguments that have developed are beyond me. If you're not having fun, you're here for the wrong reasons. This is not a job. MrLittleIrish 11:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that because it's not a job and editors are free to leave, that folks should not try to recognize and fix problems? That is contrary to how volunteer organizations and volunteer everythings succeed. And contrary to what got Misplaced Pages to where it is today

For those who feel that the people picture is irrelevant, look at the end result The end result is that 90% of articles are 90% in good shape, 10% of it (including near every article on a contentious topic) is an absolute uninformative mess, and that it has plateaued out regarding fixing those areas. You don't have to argue the straw man of whether or not the sky is falling to simply understand that it has some serious problems that require fixing. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Going off of what you're saying, who would want to edit this place of they got harassed for every little thing they do? You notion the fact that we are all replaceable which sounds so horrifying wrong in so many ways. It would say to indicate no one cares about each in the first place and if person disappears from the project, another will replace them and all is good. This brings me to my second point is the editor that will replace this established editor will most of e time have zero experience. That statement you made would be grounds to push me from Misplaced Pages because you basically reinforced the fact that we don't care for each other or support each other.—cyberpower _{Limited Access} 11:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break -losing editors

I agree, those are very handsome lampshades. What kind of leather did you say they were made of again?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I know what you're getting at, but have no idea why. Doc talk 11:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that the articles are not worth the human cost.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Not a good metaphor. There is no "human cost" on this project compared to what you're alluding to. Seriously. Doc talk 12:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

. And no, there is no organized campaign to murder. That don't make what goes on here trivial, or right.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3Most of Misplaced Pages editors are human with about 45% of them vandals where about 50% turn to good faith editing. A portion of those editors work really hard and establishes good credit and becomes well known among the community. Here comes this asshole of a new editor finds a minor mistake this user made blows it up into a major issue when it really isn't and posts it on ANI and there goes this well established user's credit. What's more, this manipulative user manages to turn the ANI discussion in his favor and really discredits the established editor. Imagine how that editor feels right now.—cyberpower _{Limited Access} 12:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

How do you determine these numbers? My impression is just the opposite: 10% are in good shape, 80% are two-line stubs (which is probably an exaggeration, but this is my imrpression anyway), and 10% are an absolute uninformative mess. Has any research been done.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of built articles, I was sort of ignoring stubs, so, with that context on mine, we may both be right.North8000 (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

If this isn't the right place, what is the right place? I agree with Ched, sweeping it under the rug won't make it go away. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

FFS - I wasn't suggesting silencing anyone. Let's analyze all the shortcomings of the project in this thread. Doc talk 11:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3All due respect Mr. Little irish, and indeed you do bring a very relevant topic to the table - but I offer you this. MANY people take this project VERY seriously. They have invested untold hours, days, weeks .. no YEARS into providing the very best they could. When a new users walks in, and can call someone with 5 or 10 years tenure onto the carpet to be chastised for either a mistake - or some misunderstanding - then yes, it's no longer fun. Since we are on an admin. board, and discussing this because of an admin. I'll offer this. Truly good admins. do not always consider this fun. Truely good admins. do not want to block. Truely good admins. take every step they can to protect the project first. Trulely good admins. actually care about the editors. EVEN the ones that find fault with at every chance they get. What is the result. Civility policy my blue butt. That is a tool that manipulative people play to goad honest hard working people into getting sanctions. Swap out the civility policy for one of honesty, integrity, and consistency ... and maybe we could turn this 500 mph train-wreck that's headed for a cliff around. Just IMHO. — Ched :  ?  11:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Right on, Ched. A VOA, that's one thing, but every other block (or even unblock--I had a big one not too long ago) is agonizing to some extent. At the time of my RfA some whippersnapper (actually the latest incarnation of a troll, I think) stirred up the shit pot, and got another hot-headed (more experienced) editor involved in a back and forth--and I was supposed to hypothetically decided in a test question on my RfA. I was unwilling to block though I did not approve of the disruptor's edits. So, I get two "opposes"--one from each one--and I guess I was lucky that it didn't spread more. But that's the kind of thing that easily happens: the pot gets stirred, and every jackass you ever offended gets in on it. There's two in this very thread who have gotten on my case and who no doubt will pounce next time I get dragged to the board, but I think I can take the project seriously enough to not take that so seriously, as contradictory as it may sound. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is an issue that needs to be talked about. I believe it's because or civility policies are under enforced and ridiculous ANI threads about such minuscule things that are blown way out of proportion. If you in disagreement don't see how that hurts an editor then I don't know what will. Sweeping it under the rug won't make it go away but tackling the problem will so, I propose we tackle this problem.—cyberpower _{Limited Access} 12:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, for some people, their idea of fun includes: ganging up, rumours, attacks, vandalism, treating others like shit - and while they're likely to do that sometimes in real life, it's even easier in the online world as they never have to face up to it. When that concept of fun interferes with the neurotypical meaning of fun, there's problems (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

One important step in tackling a problem is a clear articulation of the problem. I'm reading some heartfelt concerns, but if an outsider asked me to summarize the problem, and cite examples, I wouldn't be able to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 12:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @cyber - But that's the thing Cyber. "Civility" is such a subjective thing. BY POLICY, editor A can say "I feel it was a mistake for you to waste your efforts on such an article which is clearly worthless. (acceptable under policy as writen) .. editor B responds: "Kiss my royal ass" BZZZZ ... wrong answer. And because people are demanding "civility" - a 25 year old admin. trying to do what he thinks is right ends up telling a 60 year old scholar to go sit in the naughty corner. Do you really think that's gonna work so well? — Ched :  ?  12:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

(Responding to the unsigned comment). Well, the problem is that the environment is too aggressive here, and contributors and especially admins wear out very quickly. In many cases, nobody replaces them, in other cases, the replacement is much less qualified than the outgoing manpower. This the editor retention problem which is being discussed for years.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:CIVILITY is no doubt a dynamic concept and I'm sure that all of us in this discussion known the general picture of civility and most of the admins know when the line of civility is crossed.

I wouldn't focus just on civility. For me it is frustration realizing that it is impossible to fix the articles that most need fixing....contentious articles. And that the problem is easily 70% fixed by tweaking some policies, but that such is unlikely to ever be accomplished. North8000 (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Plus obvious uncivil behavior is easily reigned in. Once the nasty person has mastered wikilawyering, they become near-invincible and impossible to reign in. North8000 (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not only about civility. Making the project welcoming to Randy in Boise makes it unattractive to lots of other people. Tom Harrison 12:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) What's obvious to you and I might not be obvious to others. See, it'd be so much simpler if we could block for simple douchebaggery - that would cover sketchy and deceptive editing as well as personal conduct. But with a decade of inertia, it's harder and harder to shift policies in ways that might be obviously beneficial (there's that word again). It's a huge project, there should be room for everyone who's willing to put in the work and the time into discussion - but it doesn't always work that way, and we need to fix that. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Also @Cyber - I think you make some very very good points here. And indeed civility is not the only issue. A thread like this begins and 30 people rush to say their piece because it's been on their mind for ages - but it all goes down so quick that few actually read the entire thing. And who said what first? Who is talking to who? There is often a rush to judgment that has to be revisited - and rehashed over and over again. There's quantity vs. quality. Privacy vs. transparentcy. Admins. bickering amongst themselves is also not a good thing. It doesn't provide a unified and consistant view - and that would confuse anyone. (but anything we say has to be in front of everyone - we have no private room to discuss things.) But perhaps it's the age of the project too. There are some editors here that have been here for years now. They know each other, and what to expect from each other. But each new person is an unknown. People get paranoid and wonder ... is that so-and-so with a new name? Small disagreements fester and become long term grudges until the pot boils over. People have come to know each other and broken off into their own little cabals. Some that struggle for some percieved power, when at the end of the day - it's one individual behind a keyboard. That can get lonely, and it's easy to think "I'm all by myself, how can I ever deal with them?" The closest thing we have to an "authority" is Arbcom. And yet they are just volunteers too. And who tells them when they are right and wrong? Yep, there's lots to work through if this project is going to survive, and I do hope it survives. — Ched :  ?  12:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• True. If I had to guess how much longer Misplaced Pages would survive, I'd give it 5-10 years. After that Misplaced Pages will be total chaos. I'm going to head over to village pump in hopes of fixing some of these issues.—cyberpower _{Limited Access} 13:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• There's a difficulty in distinguishing between natural turnover and a death spiral. Misplaced Pages has been in decline for the past few years, the rate of new anything (articles, editors, admins, edits) have declined. The foundation is aware of this and is working to increase editor numbers through twee methods, be it wikilove or a friendly teahouse helpdesk. It's easy to see friends leave and draw the conclusion that the good editors are leaving, but in this very thread we have editors who've been here 6 years, and editors who've been here for just one. Editors who have tens of thousands of edits and others who have a few hundred. What am I saying? People come, people stay, people go. It's worth worrying about trends, but not individual cases. It is always sad when an editor leaves, especially when one who has put so much in, but if they push through the demoralised zone, they'll end up hating wikipedia, and that's not good. I know I'll leave one day, I'll probably do it quietly - there's only so much one person can do. Worm · (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  If you have me in mind as an example of an editor who is around for a year, I changed the account last year, but was editing since early 2007.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  I think my point still stands either way, indeed the original poster hasn't been here a year... Worm · (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• I would hate to see you go and hate it more if you didn't at least tell me. If you were to leave you would killing a big part of WP:ADOPT and Misplaced Pages.—cyberpower _{Limited Access} 13:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ha, that's very kind of you to say, but misses my point. I'd say no one here is essential, least of all me - but no fear, I'm not near burnout yet! Worm · (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• We all come and go that's true but, we go when an editor just as established replaces us. Now we go because we burn out too quickly and those that replace us, are not experienced enough yet. There is no editor experienced enough yet to replace you when you burn out.—cyberpower _{Limited Access} 14:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Coming back, "full circle" to the subject that was being discussed. Is there any empirical evidence that the project is in decline? The loss of any one contributor can be seen as problematic but is it indicative of any overall trend? or simply reflective of the eventual cycle of burnout? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC).

You know, this sort of sky-is-falling comment happens all the time, almost always in response to a resignation manifesto from a friend or being on the receiving end of some rudeness. The editor then assumes that because one person leaves, that we have an overall problem. I wonder whether any of you would be interested in the actual facts, which are these:

As you can see, it's pretty much steady. Notice, please, that these are all the kind of "established editors" that the OP is concerned about: not people who made their fifth-ever or 100th-ever edit that month, but people who made five edits or 100 edits just during that month. Overall, I think there's still a minor downward trend, but it's minor: it goes up one or two percent this month, and maybe down one or two or three percent the next. (There is a non-trivial seasonal pattern as well.)

I admit that this is significantly fewer active editors than we had five years ago—back when vandalism had to be reverted by hand (anyone else remember those pre-Cluebot days?), back before Facebook provided an outlet for a certain class of users, back when Windows Vista was new, back when our American university students were still in middle school—but that was a long time ago. When you look at the recent past, our editor base has pretty much achieved an equilibrium. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks WhatamIdoing, but I think (/hope!) you have your columns and row labels mixed up. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I really hope you've got that table the wrong way around ... --Dirk Beetstra 13:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did; I've fixed it. (Let's not think about how many edit conflicts I've had today...) WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Note, that number is, within error margins, stable. Could you add the number of articles-to-maintain to those numbers? Total number of edits per minute? How many of these are article-edits? How many of the edits-per-minute pertain mainspace? --Dirk Beetstra 14:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where to get all of those numbers, but a quick search suggests that (for those two months) we saw approximately a 10% increase in the total number of articles, a 10% decrease in the number of new articles created, and a 10% decrease in the number of edits made (to any page, including by bots and unregistered users). Someone else may be able to find the precise numbers that you'd like. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyways, that we are talking about negative spirals may be a better indication that people are not generally happy with Misplaced Pages than the real numbers are. --Dirk Beetstra 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The point what I am trying to make here is that experienced editors are retiring way before they plan to because of the problems we are facing here and the number may say one thing about our editors but it doesn't talk about their experience in my opinion.—cyberpower _{Limited Access} 14:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

There's lots of charts here, which do show that the project has dropped in the past 4 years, even if there's not an overall decline. Active admins have declined, per the graph on the right, as has the rate of recruitment of new ones. Article growth has dropped, per the graph one the left. There's definitely a decline, and like I say, it's something that the foundation is looking at. I personally don't see it as a "death spiral" just yet, but it could get that way. Who knows? Worm · (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

My own view (for what it's worth) is that the reason we've seen a slow-down is not anything to do with any bad atmosphere or animosity among Misplaced Pages editors, but simply a transition from start-up to steady-state. The encyclopaedia will never be complete, but studies show Misplaced Pages is already far more comprehensive in its breadth and depth of content than any traditional encyclopaedia. Essentially we've taken all the easy pickings and it's now much harder to find reliable content on subject matter that the typical editor is interested in that hasn't already been added to the project. The subjects that are left tend to be those that require specific expertise or a good deal of research, which leads editors to a choice of (a) leaving or taking a break, (b) putting in quite a bit more effort, (c) heading to an article they perceive as somewhat biased and trying to neutralise it. Those that have chosen option (c) obviously get into conflicts as a result and unsurprisingly don't like the grief it creates, but that's an indication that the project is alive and well, far from dying a death. waggers (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Not true. From April 12 to April 16, I ran across the following notable topics which need articles just in the course of ordinary editing and Refdesk answering:

• Phytobenzoar
• Antinutritive
• Gastrectasia
• Ascorbic acid oxidase
• Bangladesh National Women Lawyers' Association
• Centre for Equality and Inclusion
• Brodatz Texture

The reason why we don't see the incompleteness is that some people make a point of taking out every redlink because they think it "looks bad" to admit we don't cover everything in the world. Wnt (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Three of the above had articles already; I added the redirects. Phytobezoar is partially covered in bezoar but I will write an article on it specifically. I have a free picture somewhere if I can find it -- Samir 06:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Gastrectasia as defined as distension of the stomach is best dealt with on Wiktionary as it is little more than a dicdef, but I've redirected to gastric antral vascular ectasia as an accepted alternative name for GAVE. -- Samir 07:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

D'oh! I should have spotted the bezoar misspelling and searched better for articles to redirect to. Still, we haven't run out of work to do. Thanks for doing some of it! Wnt (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say there's nothing left to do, or that we have a complete, finished encyclopaedia. What I said was that there's now less content that's easy to add without doing lots of additional research. A few years ago I could add content using sources I had at my fingertips and on subjects I know well; to create the articles listed above I'd have to to a fair bit more work. waggers (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The way that I would describe it, in terms of the end effect on the project, is that, due to solvable problems, the project has plateaued out at a level which at a much lower level than what it realistically attainable. North8000 (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

As with many of the others I also feel that Misplaced Pages is in rapid decline. Just in the last few months we have lost more than a dozen prolific editors and more leave every day. The bottom line is that Misplaced Pages is not a fun and friendly place to edit. There is too much drama, too many battles being fought over petty things, the horrors of the admin process are legendary, and the list goes on. Misplaced Pages was founded on some good principles but as time goes on those principles are being twisted and distorted. Non administrators are looked at as being non trustworthy, administrators act as though they are infallible. We pick and choose when to and not to enforce policy based on whether its our friend or not. Regardless of what the numbers show Misplaced Pages is in a downward spiral and its almost to the point were it won't be stoppable. We need to start working together and stop fighting, the teahouse is a joke, if you are a new user you don't even know its there. If we want to be serious about its use it should be linked from the left hand links or the main page. Same with the article creation process. Having them buried in the bowels of the pedia don't do us any good. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Users come and go - the wheels are still going round - its absolutely normal. - let the good , and the not so good, go in peace, and welcome the new. Youreallycan 16:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Is anybody willing (and having the stats) and add the numbers of GAs, FAs, and FLs in the left graph? This would actually show if we improve the quality of the articles (which is only counting). mabdul 16:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope this is just one of those glitchy patches. There are so many things which can add up to create problems, and there are so many different types of people in here, and so many ways of looking at things. BUT ... the biggest thing is that Wikipedians are, by and large, passionate people. We're intense. We're the kind of people who would probably rather stay in and edit than go out and party. And we lack cues, in print, that would help us resolve things face-to-face. (And some of us, like myself, are on the autism-spectrum and don't do so well picking up on real-life cues, and we tend to interpret things slightly differently from neurotypicals.) Almost everything that goes wrong in here seems to stem, in one way or another, from each side not really "seeing" what the "other side" is seeing. Simple misunderstandings and misconstructions; and they get blown up into mega-dramahz conflicts. I wish I had a magic wand! The thing which would make the biggest difference would be if we could internalize a kinder approach. Not "letter of the law civility", because some people have it down pat how to be bloody unkind and deliberately hurtful-with-malice-aforethought with never a naughty word. It has to be an internal paradigm shift, towards genuine kindness. Pesky (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

@Mabdul I wouldn't bother collecting stats on the numbers of FAs etc as an indicator of quality. A few years ago you could get an FA without using inline citation. The FA standard today is significantly different to the FA standard of our early years - plenty of our early FAs have been delisted despite being better now than when they went became FAs. Better indications of quality would include the average speed with which we revert vandalism and the number of typos on the pedia per thousand words. I think you'll find both are improving, it is definitely harder to find certain typos now than it once was. Our best indications of improving quality remain the serious studies into our quality relative to other information sources - such studies are usually quite encouraging. ϢereSpielChequers 19:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Two thing I see repeated above in essentially every post: There is a perceived (real or imaginary) editor retention problem, and there is a civility issue around the community at large. However, aside from the occasional editor who fades into the night like a spent star, writing a manifesto about their experiences (as Fastily has done, leading to this discussion), is there anything that correlates editor retention to civility? How many editors do we lose because their lives change, because they become tired of writing, or because they've added all they feel they can to their topics of interest? I'm certain we lose far more editors to life than to inside factors. Another thought is the effects the social networking revolution have had on our community, and this civility issue. As Misplaced Pages has grown, so has the internet as a communication medium. In the last few years, social networking has made chatting on the web the preference over instant messenging programs. Could this contribute to editors spending more time on drama/talk pages and less on actually writing articles? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 16:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  The reasons why editors leave the project need to be investigated and I believe there were at least attempts (not mine) to do this, though I would not be able to point out to any conclusions right now. I am not sure incivility plays such a minor role. My personal experience was that I had to leave another WMF project for good because of incivility.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think what the problem (if that is what it can be called) is not people quitting Misplaced Pages on a whim because of some witch-hunt as a few editors have classified it as. It is more a point of people lacking knowledge and understanding in how to edit properly, and/or learning from any erroneous edits that may occur. In all due respect, as someone who is non-admin, I find the admin team are here to help, assist, and provide advice on the editing protocols of Misplaced Pages as a whole. If users are unable to comprehend that advice in a constructive manner, then it is a fault of those people, not a fault of the admin team. At the end of the day, everyone is human, and prone to making mistakes. But if those people aren't being encouraged to learn from mistakes, and rectify them accordingly, then that too is the fault of the individuals, not the fault of the people willing to help. I've made mistakes on here in the past, and if it wasn't for advice from admin or other more knowledgeable users, then I'd probably be still making the same silly mistakes. Whenever I come across someone who has made a mistake, I encourage them to learn from them, by providing assistance, or pointing them into the right direction by means of procedural links or simplified knowledge based on my own learnings. Yes, people get blocked and whatnot, but those blocks are only issued because A) the user is crusading into a childish battle, rather than reading the advice being given; or B) they had listened to the advice, but decided to ignore it for whatever reasons. The world and its people within it are always evolving, as is Misplaced Pages and its editorial team. People come, people go; but if you wish to slow down the number of people going, and maintain the number of people staying, then perhaps encourage users to learn from mistakes, rather than shoot them down for making them. Wesley☀Mouse 16:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I know of about 15 editors who got chased away by nastiness, plus another ~5 who were about to leave who I sort of mentored to stay. All of these were newer editors, (some of them experts in their field) so it's not exactly applicable to this discussion. But I can tell you that while ALL 20 were due to nastiness, NONE were due to simple/blatant incivility. About 1/2 were primarily sincere efforts to correct wiki-errors that the newbie made, but sort of teaching them the wiki-system by beating them with a baseball bat. The other half were pissing wars where the experienced person knows how to safely conduct agression and pissing wars (and win) via wikilawyering. North8000 (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Waggers is right on, the decline of article edits are because Wiki is much more established than it was when I first entered the project in 2005. And with established editors leaving, they claimed all the time (including myself) that they are leaving because of drama or whatever the situation is and they almost always come back eventually, some within a day. Only a small handful of established editors has left the project because of "drama" and so on and that's sadly includes are several of our best article writers. A few others left the project because of harassment off-wiki which it is tragic. But at least 90% of established editors who stopped editing was because they got a job, relocated, got married, children, college and so forth and it was a gradual reduction until they lost interest. Secret 17:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Lots of editors "leave" for different Wikimedia projects as well, mostly alternative language versions of Misplaced Pages. At some point in the future, I'm betting that there will be some sort of merger of the different language Misplaced Pages's into a single project which will have improved multilingual tools available. What's being used on Meta, Commons, and MediaWiki now is a start, but I doubt that it'll scale well to Misplaced Pages's size. But the fact that something already exists just goes to show, that's the path Misplaced Pages is likely headed towards.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Once or twice a year a thread begins saying that editors are leaving Misplaced Pages in droves and a lot of data is presented. The problem with data is that nobody ever seems to know how to read it or understand context or the bigger picture, and it results in misguided breaching experiments like WP:NEWT. Established editors leave from time to time, some of it is legit in that they're bored or burned out or feel the project has changed too much. Others are just DIVAS who will be back in a few days when the requisite number of people have begged them on their talk page to reconsider. Lots of established editors get tired of their identity and all the drama, typecasting and stress an extended presence can bring, they "retire" and then a short time later create a new account as per WP:CLEANSTART. Worrying about whether Misplaced Pages will be here or not is pointless and out of our hands for the most part. Misplaced Pages is just a website, and many other websites have come and gone, some of them better than Misplaced Pages. That's life. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
• Our core of active editors has dipped but now seems to have stabilised. Editing levels per day are less than the peak, but maybe not when you factor in the number of vandalisms and vandalism reversions that are not needed because of the edit filters. Our number of active admins has fallen by more than a quarter from peak, but seems to have stabilised in the 730-750 region, however it has only done so because the existing admins are staying around so long. RFA's drought has continued to worsen the first quarter of 2012 saw 5 new admins, the worst result since 2002. So at some point we will have to reform or replace RFA. More importantly, the vast majority of new editors do not stay, with only a tiny proportion joining the active community. The problems we found in 2009 with WP:NEWT are still here, lots of newby biting, incorrect deletion tags and assuming of bad faith. I suspect the ratio of {{fact}} tagging to simply reverting unsourced edits has continued to drift towards a de-facto requirement that all additions be sourced. Part of this is almost certainly due to the disconnect between our written and unwritten rules. The fifth pillar warning "all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited" might almost be rephrased "your initial contributions will probably be reverted". Part is I suspect down to the drift from collaborative editing to template bombing, a drift that the new Article Feedback tool is likely to exacerbate. Perhaps the time has come to fork EN Misplaced Pages, in one fork implement WP:ACTRIAL, and also extend sticky prod to all unsourced articles. In the other replace the maintenance templates with hidden categories, and introduce a 24 hour period of grace for new articles when the only speedy tags that can be applied are the badfaith ones such G3, G11, G12 and G10. If the Foundation hosted both forks within the SUL it would be easy to migrate stuff between them. ϢereSpielChequers 00:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems pretty impractical, as the drift between the version would increase as time went on, and reintegrating them afterwards would be a total nightmare. Better to use another wiki - like Simple English - as a test bed and compare the changes within each wiki. or something. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• I find something that needs to be written about all the time both in old articles and new. So, I don't know why people leave but they should if they do not enjoy it. And thank you administrators for your time. I guess that does not get said enough. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Cyberpower, you've been an active editor for what, six or seven months? Let me point out something that's obvious to people with ten times your history on the English Misplaced Pages, before you get too worried about editors who "are retiring way before they plan to": there is a dramatic gap between highly experienced editors saying that they are leaving the English Misplaced Pages (a popular pastime) and these editors actually leaving the English Misplaced Pages. In fact, although I've seen a lot of resignation manifestos over the last few years, I can't think of a single one offhand that actually result in a zero-edit retirement rather than (at the very most) a wikibreak of a few months. Presumably there are some, particularly among editors whose return is likely to be met with a block, but most self-identified retirees don't even manage to go an entire week without editing. (I do know people who have left, but none that first posted a long message about why they were leaving.)

NB I say this purely as a general statement, not about any specific case. But if I were you, I wouldn't worry too much about this. In the meantime, go read meatball:GoodBye. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

With regards to RFA, I'll note that I've considered it and may not even be opposed to pursuing it, but I'm frankly not comfortable with the idea of self-nominating for a process that's sure to result in (unintentionally or otherwise) some confrontation with perhaps negligible gains both for myself and the project. Perhaps more importantly, I can't see how my participation in the project would significantly benefit from my having Admin Mojo, though if others have ideas I certainly wouldn't be opposed to hearing them...perhaps there may be uses for my approach to this project that I have not considered. Alternately, perhaps there could be (or is?) a listing of areas of Misplaced Pages where more administrative help is desired, so that individuals who might be willing to go through the RFA process could also have some idea of where help is needed?

In general though, I would ask...if the project continues to produce and maintain quality articles, then does the number of active editors or admins particularly matter? I'd rather see 500 active editors with 10 million quality articles, than 3 million active editors with 500 quality articles. My point is that there seems to be a theory that increasing the number of active editors/admins will increase the quality of the project overall; I'm not convinced that that's true, at least at this point in the project's development. Doniago (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of responses have been to the effect of "the sky isn't falling, therefore there is no problem regarding losing editors". This is logically unsound, it is missing the whole middle ground which is: There IS a problem worth looking at and improving, and no the sky isn't falling. North8000 (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you North8000. I think there is a serious problem with editors leaving that needs to be addressed but it isn't quite yet at the point were Misplaced Pages is going to go under because of it. Wether that happens sooner or later is irrelevant, at some point, if we don't change some things, it will happen and simply turning our backs to it isn't going to help. Just look at the WikiProjects. There used to be a lot more active ones and now they are all dying off, that seems to me to be an indication of some problem. I also think that the numbers above are a bit misleading. They use editors with 5 edits but it doesn't say if those edits are vandalism, socks or valid edits. Why don't we look at the numbers of editors who made say 100 edits. This is low enough that it should have a significant number of users and high enough that it would wash out any vandals or socks most likely. It will also skip over the editors who only do a handful of edits and leave. It might also be interesting to see trends of edits in the different namespaces. Are they going up in nonarticle (Misplaced Pages, User, USer talk, Etc.) but down in articles space? Are they going up in talk spaces? Just showing the number of edits, IMO, does not give us an accurate picture of the problem. Kumioko (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, "losing editors" may be only one of many impacts from the causal issues, and only one of the many things that would get nicer if we fixed some of the causal issues. North8000 (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we look at the numbers of editors who made say 100 edits.

Kumioko, we did exactly that, as you'd know if you scrolled up to the table reporting editor activity. Between the end of 2010 and 2011, the number of editors making >100 edits per month went up (by 0.3%, a statistically insignificant amount) . WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The project is constantly renewing itself, continously evolving. It won't last forever, but it's been around for 11 yrs & counting. Therefore, nothing to worry about. GoodDay (talk) 04:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Semi-arbitrary break 2 - Losing Editors

If all article editing ceased tonight, how long would you guys go on talking about it at the noticeboards? See, guys? We'll never die! Someguy1221 (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

For me, personally (but then that's just me!), whether or not the encyclopedia is sustainable with a massive drop in editors (if there were such a drop) isn't as important as the principle of having left n-amount of hurt and wounded people crawling off to lick their wounds. That's just inhumane, and I wish I could think of a better way to address it. When I was doing a lot of new page patrol I pretty-much-as-standard left an easily-pasted lump of hints and tips (with a good section on referencing, courtesy of Chzz) on the talk page of every newbie or nearly-newbie I encountered. Mind you, I was working at the "cold" end of the backlog (new pages that had survived 20 - 30 days, so no quick-zap vandalism). I'm wondering whether something kinda-automated, to do exactly the same thing, could be added to Twinkle's repertoire. Mine was more personal than any of the standard welcome templates, but applicable to pretty much every new editor.

I got a thankyou message on 17 April for the tips I left on a talk page last October; I've also had messages from other people who've seen them on someone else's talk page and found them useful. In fact, leaving those spiels of stuff on newbies' talk pages may be the single most valuable contribution I've made to the 'pedia! Is something like adding that stuff as a Twinkle option feasible? It would make it so easy for people to do; it takes a few seconds. And I think that actual words on the talk page are more likely to be read than clickable links. Pesky (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's suggesting (at least, I hope they're not) that it's acceptable to drive editors away through incivility or such, but I haven't seen anything conclusively demonstrating that any decrease in editors or adminship is due to preventable situations either. And if the departing admin/editor "gave as good as they got", I'm not sure it's legitimate to say that they're leaving due to something that could have been avoided. I don't imagine WP has much in the way of an exit interview process for departing editors. Doniago (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

@Pesky. Friendly used to be the tool for adding welcome messages, but it has now been folded into Twinkle - and yes Twinkle does have dropdown menus for welcomes to newbies. ϢereSpielChequers 19:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

(Comment without having read any of the above very closely) It's concerning that the number of active editors has been falling while, if I remember correctly, the number of readers has been increasing. To a large extent this reflects the fact that Misplaced Pages is now largely past its 'build' phase, and is regarded as being somehow part of the establishment and so is unavoidable - after all, the goal has been to develop a credible Encyclopedia. That said, there's still tons of scope to improve existing articles and develop new ones, and the - probably correct - perception that Misplaced Pages is now hard to get established in is a problem. Harassment of established editors (many of whom are admins) is also a problem, though I'm not convinced that it's getting worse. It's certianly not confined to Misplaced Pages: boorish behaviour is common on many websites. I'd like to see a drive to reduce the amount of 'red tape' in guidelines and policies and replace them with simpler statements of the expectations for editors. However, all editors can contribute to a nicer and more productive environment by remembering their manners and complementing good work (glib, but often forgotten - including by me). Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

@NickD who said:"I'd like to see a drive to reduce the amount of 'red tape' in guidelines and policies and replace them with simpler statements of the expectations for editors." I couldnt agree more with you. Caden 00:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually plowed through this very long topic, and I thought I'd make it longer. I don't know where all the numbers come from and I find statistics misleading, so I have little confidence in them. The phrase "death spiral" automatically sets up red flags for me as melodrama. I think we should focus on the following things: (1) quality of editors and admins, not quantity; (2) quality of articles, not quantity; (3) more professionalism in our interaction. Personally, I've been tempted to leave Misplaced Pages at times because of the contentiousness, the lack of civility, and the obsession with trivia (was someone born on October 8 or October 9?) leading to interminable discussions, but I've found that the best method is to stop participating in the stressful discussion, whether it be on a noticeboard or about an article (someone else suggested a variation of this - Fae? - stop watching pages that upset you - I've done that, too). Another problem is we really don't do enough to support each other. Too much argument. We don't say enough that we agree with someone, we just comment when we disagree; we don't support others enough when they are unjustly attacked, we let it go, even if we think it's unjust. I have more to say, but in an effort to keep this of reasonable length, I'll stop.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. However, when I started this post, I meant that we were losing more editors that produce quality content than we are gaining. If you need me notify me on my talk page. I'm going back to me wikibreak.—cyberpower _{Temporarily Online} 19:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Obsession with trivia can be a good thing because it means people are determined to produce accurate content. Bbb23's other comments about people failing to support each other when unfairly attacked and lack of civility are spot on though. In the spirit of his suggestion I'm supporting and agreeing with him and others here and sincerely thank them for raising such important points.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not delicate, I don't mind getting bruised if there's good to be done. So/but for me the most stressful thing (and a very stressful thing) is realizing that many things are unfixable / hopeless because the policies are written such that they so easily and frequently mis-used contrary to their intended purpose. In short, because wiki-lawyering works and wins. And once a miscreant masters it, they can beat people up with immunity. North8000 (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Causes of editor loss

Strictly enforcing WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:EQ would go a long way in retaining editors. Who wants to volunteer for something when you are being treated poorly? 140.247.141.165 (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that overly strict enforcement would likely be used in editing disputes as a bludgeon against editors when the editor has expressed slightly intemperant comment out of frustration. Having to constantly take pains to express everything in the most civil of terms lest a minor breach of etiquette get you punished would drive away editors just as quickly or more so as the current civility issues do. Monty₈₄₅ 22:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with this; civility crusaders create the same toxic environment that serially abusive editors do. It goes both ways. On the one hand, having a lawless, caustic, Youtube-comments-section style free-for-all is sure to drive people away. But on the other hand, who wants to stick around when you have to sanitise your every word for fear of getting sanctioned for a slightly snippy phrasing? You can't "strictly enforce" a policy to be civil and unoffensive. That in and of itself creates hostility. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you've nailed it. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the OP, to expand on it a bit, however, the issue is not the occasional impertenent comment, it is people who have established that they have no desire to treat any other editors with respect, and who act with a sense of entitlement to do so merely because they have a few featured articles under their belt. It's not individual, isolated acts of incivility that need to be stopped, we can let the occasional outburst slide with no great problem. It is people who have established that they have no intention of abiding by the basic rules of decency and civility, no matter what, that we need to eliminate, as they poison the editing environment. --Jayron32 23:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You're living in some kind of a make-believe world. For instance, can you name even one editor who has "established that they have no desire to treat any other editors with respect"? Malleus Fatuorum 04:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, that may have been a bit of hyperbole. You are correct that no editor treats all people as such, but when conflicts arise, the difference is in how an editor treats others in the context of that conflict. Even in emotionally charged conflicts, all editors should be held to standards of decorum and civility, instead of personalizing and becoming insulting towards those with whom they have disagreements. We need to make clear that while a single isolated outburst of rudeness shouldn't be sanctioned, patterns of aggessive, incivil, or rude behavior should. When an editor frequently and over a period of time, shows that in multiple conflicts they often resort to insults, personal attacks, and other immature, incivil behavior, it needs to be dealt with, and dealt with harsher than it is now. That is, we shouldn't block an editor for the first time they call someone a rude name or tell someone to fuck off, but when such behavior becomes repeated and a regular manner in which an editor interacts with people they disagree with, again, when it becomes a pattern of behavior, then it needs to be stopped. We can forgive and forget over the individual outburst, but when it becomes a repeated occurance for an editor to treat those they disagree with aggressively or rudely, to the point of insult, it needs to be dealt with. --Jayron32 14:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

But once again it comes down to what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. There's lots of high fallutin' talk about administrators being held to higher standards than regular editors, but the truth is that they're not even held to the same standards. I could very easily name you several administrators who were they not administrators would have even longer block logs than they already have. I won't though, for to do so would undoubtedly be considered a "personal attack", but a look through my contributions may provide a few clues. Malleus Fatuorum 15:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

And as a supplementary question, do you think it's acceptable for any administrator to have multiple blocks for incivility? Malleus Fatuorum 15:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting question in and of itself, but I'm not sure that it's directly related to the subject that started this thread, which seems to me to be dealing with civility "enforcement" in general. On that topic, I think that the difference of opinion comes down to individual editor's priorities or focus. If the focus is on "policing" (as it usually seems to be on, for example, AN/I), then Jayron32's view that "all editors should be held to standards of decorum and civility" seems to dominate. If the focus is on content itself (as in a content dispute taking place on an article talk page or a User talk page), then Monty845's view that "overly strict enforcement editing disputes as a bludgeon against editors" seems to dominate. I think that where Malleus is coming to this discussion from is, essentially, having been caught between those two paradigms and trying to deal with it. The real problem here is that this push-pull goes on all the time, and it's something that many established editors are quite familiar with. I know that I've personally learned when to simply walk away for a content dispute, because as soon as any content dispute ends up on AN/I (or just about any other dispute resolution venue) then someone is getting smacked around and likely blocked. The content suffers, but I'd rather not get blocked or get someone else blocked because eventually the content will get corrected. Opinions on that vary though (Malleus, for example, obviously isn't one to back down... which I think is fine, it's just a different approach), and it would be nice to rectify things so we're not living with such different cultures here on Misplaced Pages.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Applying those policies to administrators and not just to regular editors would be a step in the right direction. Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What about something like a Misplaced Pages-version of Robert's Rules of Order for all editors, specifically when it comes to debate and decorum? Viriditas (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

As long as the donations come in, the project will continue. GoodDay (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not meaning to open a Pandora's Box of comments here (though I can already imagine how that will happen), but maybe what's needed is a process similar to WP:AN3, where civility complaints can be filed through a formalized process where multiple instances of recent and ongoing incivility must be provided along with at least one notification to the editor of concerns regarding their tone? Just an idea, and FWIW I'd recommend that more than 3 specific instances be requied. Five strikes me as a reasonable number if they are recent and the editor was asked to desist. Doniago (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The nastiest treatment is by people who know how to USE the Misplaced Pages system to beat up people. It's the nastiest because it can then be done with immunity. North8000 (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Another reason experienced editors leave is because they are tired of fighting day in and day out with vandals and inexperienced editors who burn up hours of their day. — GabeMc (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly rare for such an editor to present too much of a problem long term though, some return a few times but in my experience 95% of the time they don't cause long term stress. They certainly are a nuisance but North8000's point is the key one - it's the conduct of experienced editors (and just a general acceptance of incivility) which drives people over the edge and actually causes them to leave for good.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Want a solution? Here it is.

On this site, "experience" translates to experience with wikipedia procedures. That is the complete opposite of how things should be.

What to do?

Simple. Abolish all rules and start over from fresh. There can be a core team of admins left over, but they will be there to do the community's bidding ONLY and will be permitted to do nothing else - not even say anything, except to ask questions if they're unclear about what they're being asked to do. There can of course be admin bots with that too. And say good bye to the guidelines as well. And the essays. They'll all be archived of course, for historical interest and future inspiration. But that's it.

Then we build the wikipedia "system" up again.

Oh, and when we do this, we shouldn't be quiet about it. We should be loud. We should attract the best minds in the world to come and draft these rules, guidelines and so on. Richard Dawkins devising evoloutionary biology guidelines. Peter Singer animal welfare guidelines. Chomsky language. And some Wharton MBAs coming up with the new procedures. Give them a week or two to do it. Every means of communication possible - on wiki, IRC, email, SKYPE, phone, hell there'd probably even be TV time for something this big. This has to be a big discussion and I believe it could involve over a million people.

So yeah... this would be massive. My question is: does the community have the balls? Especially since, if you are currently a "prominent" community member, you ain't gonna be after this. Egg Centric 19:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly an interesting proposal, but like you, I'm not sure if the community would be willing to take it on. After being here for about nine and a half months, I think a fresh start of some sort for Misplaced Pages would be a very good thing. I'm not certain about scrapping everything, but yes, a fresh start for the whole project would be very nice. As a side note, I'm not sure that that admins' noticeboard is the best place for a discussion like this; perhaps Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals) would be better? Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 19:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that didn't work out so well when they tried it on "Blood on the Scales". Your solution is tantamount to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Not good. Viriditas (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You could use an even more thorough approach to the same goal: abolish the community when you start afresh. Ban all the existing editors at the same time that you abolish all the rules. Then just let in editors who you think are good. Change the domain name and servers too. In fact Misplaced Pages's content policies (specificially the CC licensing) is designed to allow exactly this, it's called a "fork", and multiple people have done it with varying degrees of success. Citizendium is probably the best known of them. It's better than Misplaced Pages in some ways and worse in others. Same for Wikinfo. Veropedia is of course dead. None of these really got all that much traction, but on the other hand, I half-remember hearing that a fork of the Spanish Misplaced Pages ended up supplanting the original one. Anyway, good luck with your fork; you might want to make another post once it's up and running. 67.117.130.107 (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Your memory is ok, but apparently ends in mid-2004. Enciclopedia Libre, a Spanish-Misplaced Pages fork, was indeed more popular. But that only lasted from February 2002 to ~March 2004. It's not quite dead yet, but it's not going anywhere either. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Just let in editors who you think are good" - who is this "you" deciding who is "good"? You've abolished all the rules, remember... JohnCD (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I prefer evolution to revolution. That isn't to say that revolutions aren't sometimes necessary, but when they are it is because some establishment has sat on all possibility of reform. We aren't in that position, consensus makes change much more difficult than majority voting would, but it is still possible and it does sometimes happen. ϢereSpielChequers 19:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

What is this...the "Six Million Dollar Misplaced Pages"? "Gentlemen...we can re-build it....." LOL! I think this all can be nutshelled down to this......stop looking so close and reading the freaking tea leaves over what is happening here on Misplaced Pages. It isn't rocket science and it isn't the end of the world or the site. Statistics are an awful thing in the wrong hands and just ask yourself - who is leaving and how is that determined. Can I delete my account? I don't think so? So what is this about established editors leaving. I think we are talking time only here. And some editors have twice as much editing in as I do with the same time and some editors with almost twice the time even less edits than I. It's all overblown and hyped up. The problem is getting people to stick around longer and getting thold ones to come back. That just seems a little too "social media" like for me. Misplaced Pages can improve a lot of things here and there. Maybe another update to the formatting of the page, maybe some different types of mark up allowance (what can be done on wikipedia), maybe just getting the discussions rolling more to change consensus on things that directly relate to ease of use, and overall look. Maybe something as dumb as allowing some set skins to certain articles, or just pushing projects more for a more interesting and yet somewhat controled experiance for editors. We don't have to re-invent the wheel....but we could loosen up a bit.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Loss of editors is a problem, and also indicative of some problems that we should fix. No, the sky isn't falling, but we're plateaued out due to some problems that we need to fix. Incidentally, IMHO the area where Misplaced Pages has the worst retention rate and where it most needs needs to have a high retention rate is newer editors who are experts in their fields. I have seen many leave and have provided some partial mentoring to get some to stay and become editors North8000 (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• You want solutions? Here are solutions... You want more administrators? Fix the dysfunctional RfA process, in which one NO vote counts as 3 YES votes and those holding the tools are regarded as members of some sacred priesthood rather than the Universal Set of Experienced Editors Who Are Vandal Fighters, as it should be. The tools really are NO BIG DEAL. You want more editors? Fix this lousy editing software that requires contributors to write code. Make it work as simply and intuitively as MS Word or Apple Pages or whatever WYSIWYG word processor you prefer. You want to reduce vandalism? Require registration an sign-in-to-edit. This is not rocket science.

I personally don't think there is a serious crisis in terms of participation. It's harder to make contributions now than it was in 2004. Don't believe me? Look at the quality of the referencing in ANY 2004 article you care to name and compare that to a decently constructed article of 2012 in terms of form and content... Things are at a much higher level now...

The project is a compendium of pop trivia on the one hand — which is much as it ever was. In terms of "hard coverage" encyclopedia articles, the project needs more experts, retired professors and the like. It is natural that there will be fewer people involved. If you want more of them, the editing process needs to be simpler, the difficulty of adding footnotes to form is the big barrier. Carrite (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

WP's loss of good editors has nothing to do with difficulty of adding footnotes, or even with random vandalism by unenrolled users. When I see a good editor leave, it's always because of frustration and burnout with the site culture, which mostly means tolerance of pushy jerks and every form of COI. WP:RAUL is kind of old now, but those not familiar with it might take a look. The current editing atmosphere is far more bureaucratic than it's ever been in the past, and the "reforms" that keep getting implemented are making it worse rather than better. The project lost its sense of purpose long ago, so what's left is slowly filling with poison. 64.160.39.217 (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As Jesus O'Buddah once declared, "The burned out editors will always be with you." The key is to make sure that the river flowing into the reservoir is equal to or greater than the water flowing out the spillway. That requires more editors. WMF thinks the key is User Talk pictures of kittens, kicking grouchy content creators out if they can't mend their ways, and adding thousands of random "crowd sourcers" through outreach campaigns targeted to a mystical youth demographic. I content that given the developing LEVEL of content, what are needed are more grouchy old content creators with specialist expertise — which requires, first and foremost, editing software that will make their contributions possible. Carrite (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I do think North 800 is correct however, and we do seem to be losing a lot of newer editors with expertise in their fields and much of that is over confusion as to how their edits may be COI, POV or OR. Some leave over continued disputes over their contributions for POV reasons and some leave when a simple warning turns into a bite and their simple misunderstanding of policy and guidelines gives way to a perception of them as an undesirable editor. Specifics in regards to newly formed ediors and guidance in these areas could help a lot. More emphasis on COI editing, what it is, how to work within guidelines on such articles that may be in conflict ets. Being an expert in a particular field does not make you a COI editor. Being directly linked to a subject does. However, having a COI does not mean you cannot edit and educating, even the more established editors seems to be of great concern. I wonder if an occasional ad at the top of the wikipedia page that remains, similar to the Foundation announcements, should be used clarify problem areas of concern to the general community. Anything else might be very difficult to implement, such as some kind of auto generated Newcomer page with clarification of editing for pay, declaring a conflict if desired, what POV is and how to reference a fact etc. I don't know if this is possible, or even already done in some form, but it could help to guide future editors in the direction of collaboration if nothing else and give them a much better chance of surviving the first edit, which seems to be the problem. Many new editors don't make a second edit. If they do, there may not be a third.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Removing a bad source

Spiritus-Temporis is an unattributed mirror of Misplaced Pages articles.

Given that wikipedia mirrors are not reliable sources and not appropriate External Links all uses of Spiritus-Temporis should be removed. Is there an automated way of doing this to save individually going into over 200 articles? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(for reference, all spiritus-temporis links) --Enric Naval (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Some of those links are on talk pages, and those could probably remain - our focus must be in the article space, and there are a lot of those as well. I see that this source has been discussed before, if the few talk pages I spot checked are an indication. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know how to get rid of them properly except by manually going through each page and chopping them. I've gotten rid of a few from mainspace so far, including about 20 today. Nyttend (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I hit another 25 by hand today, and will poke away more tonight. --joe decker 17:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

And another 100 or so down. Probably only a dozen or so left in the mainspace, but I'm bushed... --joe decker 05:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Orange Mike

New user Admarkroundsquare (talk · contribs) uploaded a new logo for Round Square and explained at the help desk that he works for the organisation and asked for help updating the article with new information and the new logo. So Orangemike (talk · contribs) blocked him without discussion and slapped an offensive template on his user page.

This seems inappropriate to me. Is this the way admins typically treat new users? Do you, as a group, approve of this kind of behaviour? I've notified Mike of this discussion. I haven't discussed it with him because he clearly thinks it's OK and I'm actually interested in what the admin community thinks. I'm not looking for any action, just opinions (unless there's a pattern of rudeness). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This is certainly the appropriate venue for this kind of discussion, Anthony; I am not even remotely offended. My reasoning was that the username Admarkroundsquare was clearly for advertising and marketing of Round Square, and thus was inappropriate. I will readily acknowledge that I am not hospitable towards advertising and marketing in Misplaced Pages, but did not think my actions were out of line. That "offensive template" was designed by Misplaced Pages's user interaction gurus, not by me, and is the standard template for spamusernames. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue at hand is not really blocking the editor, but your attitude in dealing with these people. Which is problematic IMO. --Errant 12:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• People with undisclosed but obvious affiliations edit articles like this every day, I see it all the time. If he was less honest, he wouldn't have disclosed it like most. I always like it when editors disclose it honestly.--Milowent • 12:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Mike has a particular... view.. of editors associated with organisations or their own biographies - which is that they are bad people, here for a nefarious agenda and must be immediately blocked with prejudice or put in their place. Part of the problem is that block notice (not his fault) which doesn't help explain the issue at hand to what is probably a well meaning individual who doesn't know how things work. But then we also have this from earlier today - Misplaced Pages:BLP/N#Keith_Gary - in which he bites heavily at a new editor on the basis of reading "my Misplaced Pages page" as asserting some kind of ownership. I've recently noted Mike's work through a recent AN/I and I have quite a lot of concerns about how he deals with COI, BLP subjects etc. as well as possible issues with content he is adding in his own topic field. An RFC/U might be in order, although it would be nice to see his response to these concerns. -Errant 12:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

content he is adding in his own topic field???? --Orange Mike | Talk 12:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

We'll deal with that in a moment. But reviewing the block procedures; why did you use a "bad faith" template for an account that has tried (and failed) to update their logo, then asked for help on the helpdesk? Certainly the username was wrong, but why not use {{Uw-softerblock}} in the absence of any actual promotional editing? --Errant 12:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ummm... "How do I delete a page from Misplaced Pages that was produced ages ago. I need to replace the whole page with up to date information and new logo." isn't promotional? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Misguided, sure. Aiming to be promotional. But assuming they can't have WP:NPOV explained to them is a succinct failure of assume good faith. --Errant 12:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think it would make more sense to wait until they had problematic edits. We're supposed to assume good faith, not shoot on sight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's a username block, and the username does contain the name of the organization. The discussion of COI seems relatively neutral. I don't see this as horrible. Possibly a little more tact was in order, but that's arguable.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I will readily concede that I have low tolerance towards paid editors and the entire COI/PR/spindoctor industry (which seems to have us targeted for conquest or destruction, if we don't yield to their demands). On the flip side of WP:AGF, I will point out that it was at my instigation that we created the {{causeblock}} template, for the clueless well-intentioned advocate who creates an account in the name of their cause or not-for-profit organization, but is not spamming Misplaced Pages. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a simple case of WP:ORGNAME. User had a clearly promotional username and was engaging in promotional activity. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:ORGNAME says:

• Users who adopt such a username and engage in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, are usually blocked.
• Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username. (emphasis not mine)

This editor did not make any problematic edits. In fact, they don't have a single edit in article space. Also, how is a newbie supposed to know about WP:ORGNAME? I've been on Misplaced Pages for 2-3 years now, and I've never seen that policy before. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh, the guy made it clear that he was here to construct a page for his company. Again, Advertising and Marketing. WP:NOTAD. The fact that you are ignorant of the relevant policy is really quite meaningless. I have been around for around the same amount of time and have known about it for quite a while. Spend a couple months patrolling new pages and recent changes and you'll learn these ropes right quick. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I think your response here rather highlights the problem... A new user is always ignorant of policy; treating them as a criminal rather than trying to educate them is simply bad faith. So what if they are here to market their company/organisation - doesn't make them a bad person incapable of changing. I hope to god you don't patrol new pages with that sort of attitude. --Errant 15:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This particular block I find to be justifiably "preventative". As outlined before, policy is pretty clear on promotional behaviour and usernames. If the guy is such a "good person", then why don't you go and suggest that he change his username and mentor him on policy? If you're right, then he should warm right up to it. As for myself, I grew tired of NPP about a year ago, to an extent because of PR guys like this one. I'm not buying your line. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Furthermore, speculations on whether or not an editor is a "good person" or "bad person" are really quite irrelevant. Such wishy-washy subjective labels are not part of the workings of this site. I have never seen a block that says "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Misplaced Pages because you are a bad, bad person." I am sure that many vandals, POV-pushers, and even banned users are great guys/gals in real life—they just cause issues for the functioning of the project. Character evaluations are utterly meaningless. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not understanding how {{softerblock}} is considered offensive – especially since it starts with "Welcome to Misplaced Pages", and kindly tells to "please take a moment to create a new account". --MuZemike 15:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Orange Mike originally placed {{Uw-spamublock}} on the user's talk page and it has since been replaced with {{softerblock}}, so it was the spamublock template that was referred to as offensive. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see why: We usually do that to direct users who have already made edits to change their username so that they get to keep their contribs when switching to another username (normally via WP:CHU); {{softerblock}} is more intended when there are no contribs under the username (or they have all been deleted) and when it would be easier for that person to simply create another account on his/her own without our assistance, unlike the other username blocks. --MuZemike 16:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This is now a non-issue, as the original {{Uw-spamublock}} has been replaced with {{softerblock}}. There is no evidence that the user even saw the harder block template—it was up for less than 24 hours—so the slightly too-harsh response by Orangemike is old news. Orangemike should be forgiven this very minor blip which was only a matter of degree of response. I am 100% supportive of anyone who stands between PR agents and Misplaced Pages, to make it more difficult to turn the encyclopedia into a promotional tool. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• The block and the {{Uw-spamublock}} block notification template were appropriate. Advertising is not permitted on Misplaced Pages, and the username indicates that this was the account's purpose. I do not see the problem here.  Sandstein  17:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  You might think that, but that's not what WP:ORGNAME says. If this is the new community concensus, then someone should make following changes:

• Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• The block was itself valid. So what would've happened if the guy had a non-promotional username and posted "Hey, this company's logo changed, see the link here", would we have blocked him immediately with a bad faith template? That's where I have trouble with this one. I think we can block, advise them why (and a template does not work well for this) and still accept valid, correct information. Someone says that an article is out of date, getting blocked doesn't mean they're wrong. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 17:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• I'm going to have to agree with Ultra on this one. I prefer the ErrantX approach much better. I'm not saying the block was wrong - but, if you're not "not hospitable" toward a particular group of new editors, then take a break from that area for a while. No need to wp:bite someone just because they don't know the rules. Personally I think admins. should strive to achieve higher standards than that. The guy/gal wants to update a logo, and we slap him with some "you're outta here" template? We can do better, and we should. — Ched :  ?  18:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, clearly User:Orangemike has declared a strength of opinion in this area that makes his use of tools in the area totally inappropriate - if you can't stay unemotional in a sector then stop policing it - Here is the user Orangemike very recently immediately attacking a user after a very good faith request to contribute a picture after the user opened a good faith thread at the BLPN noticeboard - Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Keith_Gary - Youreallycan 18:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I object strongly to that categorization. The user talked about an article about himself as if it was his MySpace or Facebook page, in language that implied ownership of the article; I firmly stated that the article was just that: an article, not a "page". It is him, but is not his' and is not under his control. That is not an attack in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    • You can strongly object all you like. Anyone is able to look at that discussion - you started on an attack position not a welcome one - you assumed a lack of good faith - you attacked , you didn't show any good faith or welcome at all - not at all - users can read that discussion and see for themselves. -How can I add photos to my wikipedia page? - did you help them in their question ? - no you didn't, not in any way - Youreallycan 19:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Mike; I think that is the crux of the problem. Because my reading of the comment was "the article about me". You assumed that meant he could control it, which is a lack of good faith - especially as a perfectly reasonable reading of the comment doesn't show that. When users ask for help you should give it to them nicely - not jump down their throats. You categorically & needlessly attacked him. --Errant 19:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Lord knows I've had plenty of disagreements with Youreallycan, but he's right in this case. Your response was not at all welcoming or friendly. You have no idea when they said "my article" if they meant "it's an article about me" or if it meant "it's an article I control". You assumed the latter, and not the former. It seems to me that newbie isn't going to be aware of WP:OWNERSHIP and probably doesn't realize that such language can be interpretted to mean ownership. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• The block itself was fine, if a bit too quick. Choosing to use {{softerblock}} would have been much better, but it's not required, It's a judgement call, and not everyone knows about it (or thinks about it, with the automated tools that many people use). I'd just like to point out that this is part of what is something of a campaign over Orange Mike himself (and Cla68, not coincidentally). Making decisions about other users through that prism, and with passions running high, isn't the best way to manage things. At the very least it opens people up, on both "sides" of the issue(s), to criticisms over their politics.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Whatever happened to assume good faith? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    • What's to assume? I don't think that I'm assuming anything.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" does not mean burying your head in the sand and pretending that nothing is going on. --MuZemike 19:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

And what exactly is going on? The only thing we know for sure is that they said that the logo in our article is out of date and the wanted to update it. I checked out their web site and it turns out Admarkroundsquare was correct. tThe logo in our article is out of date. Here's the new one. What's wrong with updating the logo to their current one? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"How do I delete a page from Misplaced Pages that was produced ages ago. I need to replace the whole page with up to date information and new logo."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You say that as if it contradicts what I said. Let me clarify. The only thing we know for sure is that they said that the logo in our article is out of date and the wanted to update it. What other changes they had in mind, we don't know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup; and I absolutely agree, Sarek, that they probably wanted to do exactly as you posit. But why does that mean they are not welcome? Do you disagree with any of our policies? I'm guessing there are some you think are wrong, or at least not perfect; but no one wants to block you for it! Because you have had the concept of community concept explained, and accepted it. But what you are advocating is not giving them the chance to have it explained... --Errant 19:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

What am I supposed to be "positing" here? I was quoting the editor verbatim. I'm not advocating anything, except not misrepresenting the information we have. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

heh. yes sorry a little sleepy here... consider my comment intended generically, then. --Errant 19:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that, regardless of what anyone here may or may not desire, "Indefinite" doesn't mean "permanent". This user still has talk page access, and is quite welcome to request a name change (which will likely involve and unblock, but there's nothing wrong with that). AGF can just as easily be applied to everyone in this discussion rather than just a few of the participants.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me draw a comparison - you are on vacation in some country which language you barely speak, looking for a hotel. Eventually you find one and walk in, but once you walk inside and try to ask the receptionist for a room you are grabbed by a doorman and tossed out. Once outside the doorman hands you a note stating that you are not wearing black shoes, thus you are not allowed entry again until you do. Now, what will you do - get some black shoes or be abhorred by your treatment and search for a new hotel?

What i am trying to explain here is that new editors are complete rookies who only just made their first edit, and often don't have a clue what they are doing. Just blocking them with a template message will scare people away - period (Unless they have a specific reason to "get the black shoes" such as marketeers). I utterly detest spammers and marketeers and i am only to glad to throw those out, but all to often we truly lack empathy towards new editors. Note that this is quite a general comment on newbie treatment, though it does somewhat apply in this case as well. Excirial 22:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't disagree. I'd like to see the policy changed so that "automatic blocks" are not issued, basically unilaterally, against users who certain administrators feel have "promotional" user names, and I've spoken out against that in the past on AN/I. That seems like a separate issue though.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Excirial, your example would make sense if there was no sign at the door of your hotel. But there is. In English. You walk in anyways. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed, there is. But have you recently looked at the sign up page and imagined what it looks like to a new user? It is so riddled with links, text, policies and so on which means that it is easy to miss the sign. How often do you read the entire EULA when installing some software, and did you ever you read the entire manual when you buy something from a store? I am not surprised that editors just see the two "Fill me in" boxes for username and password and ignore the rest.

I don't intend to state that not seeing the rules doesn't mean that they are there. My entire point is how we deal with people who go over the line - a friendly comment or even a softblock and a manually written explanation of the block are vastly preferable over a spamblock. Especially in cases where the editor did nothing to bad so far. Excirial 12:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Proposed blocking. --MuZemike 23:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

OrangeMike should be drawn and quartered. Now that I have your attention, everyone seems to be quoting WP:AGF without assuming any good faith on the part of OrangeMike; saying he "attacked" a new user instead of considering the fact that he was following what he thought in good faith to be the policy. No permanent damage has been done, and even as an admin who thinks WP:BITE is the worst problem on Misplaced Pages right now, I don't think any further action is required. The harsh template has been replaced by a more welcoming message, and instructions on requesting an unblock if the user wishes. I think we should also start a new policy: Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the admins. We are human after all, and no one has just straight-up asked OrangeMike if he'll agree to be less WP:BITEy in the future. So....

OrangeMike, could you please agree to be less WP:BITEy in the future, especially if they are posting in the correct venues seeking help? -RunningOnBrains 06:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Running, I try not to be bitey; but I simply cannot agree to any commitment which would preclude me from blocking blatant violations of our rules. Advertising and marketing by COI editors is one of the biggest dangers to our prized neutrality here, and it's delusional to pretend otherwise in the sacred name of AGF. Nonetheless: I'm already keeping this discussion in mind when choosing between a softerblock and a spamuserblock.

I am already, also, keeping this discussion in mind when encountering folks who genuinely don't understand the distinction between "my page" (which I control) and "an article about me" (which I do not).

I hope some of those who have piled on me will agree to spend more time at the Help Desks and maybe in the Tea Room, helping those noobs you are advocating for. (Yes, some of you already do; it would be obnoxious and unfair of me to pretend otherwise.)

I would also hope that this discussion might lead to some discussion in the appropriate venues about improving the wording of the standard templates, which some of you clearly consider a bit bitey.

I hope this response is satisfactory to those not of a lynch-mob mentality. For those who are of that mind: sorry, I have no intention of going away or of dropping the Mop-and-Bucket with which I have been entrusted. I've been shat upon by the best; I don't frighten easy.

I am, however, weary. I myself would like to go back to trying to improve the content of this encylopedia; I've got several projects I've been neglecting while this discussion dragged on. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a step in the right direction, but please keep in mind that WP:ORGNAME says that you cannot block someone for their account name until after they're had problematic edits. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thought experiment

I was thinking about how to demonstrate the perspective that is eluding some of the commentators here - and perhaps this is it. Imagine that I flicked through your contributions. I expect that, and this applies to all of us here, I could find something that violates one of our policies in some way or other (ostensibly or otherwise). Is it to be assumed you, being regular editors, know policy and therefore are deliberately violating it? Should I block you and whack a template on your userpage? Or is it more likely that an explanation would be of effect? This is the core of the issue; as regulars Misplaced Pages is as natural to us as breathing. To a new user - yes, even one who wants to make their article say nice things - it is a black box. By assuming the worst of faith & dumping an aggressive template note on their page (which they probably don't even know exists, yet) we don't even make an attempt to educate them, we just decide they are unsalvageable. What's the response? They are upset, create a new account and try to "delete" the article. They contact OTRS. They decide Misplaced Pages is obnoxious and tell their friends. Seriously, the way we treat newbies is disgusting. I'm sorry to Mike that he has become the current focus, because he is far from the only guilty one, but he is a strong example of one of our most pressing problems. --Errant 19:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, so our Standard Operating Procedure should be then, if we find usernames that don't fall within our policy, should be to tell the user to change his/her username and/or establish an account, and if he/she doesn't, then ignore the problem? --MuZemike 19:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh, I'm not sure how I would be suggesting that... if we take this case I gave you an example (by doing it) of what we should be doing - which is politely blocking the username, explaining why and then trying to answer the question posed. Ignoring the problem is silly, as is stamping around all over the place. --Errant 19:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the next question should be: Is a block ever a polite action? Because from what I gather above, the answer seems to be "no". --MuZemike 19:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I invite those who complain so much about our treatment of newbies to pop over to UAA and see what's actually going on there. If you don't like the way things are being handled, do it yourself; guess what, after the thousandth SEO upstart tries to spam about his company, your patience will run thin. We have a username policy for a reason, and people who violate it should change their usernames. It's not unlike requiring someone to put on a shirt before they walk into an establishment with a "No shirt, no shoes, no service" sign. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a bad analogy, because we don't have a sign of that sort. What we do have is a global invitation to edit... A lot of the UAA stuff is obvious, I agree, but many (such as this one) are not. It would certainly be worth having a discussion about improving the default templates to assume better faith, certainly. @MuZemike; of course a block is impolite, but often that is the only option. My argument is that it shouldn't be the first option if the situation doesn't seem utterly lost from the get go. --Errant 19:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Have no sign for that? Good — so make one. Should be easy. Oh, strike that. I just logged out, and looked at the "create an account"-page. There is a sign. Maybe make it bolder or colored. Or blinking. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

From the "create an account" page:

"Username policy prohibits usernames which are promotional, misleading, or offensive:

• promotional usernames:

• containing existing company, organization, group, or website names (including non-profit organizations)"

There is a clear warning. This isn't some obscure guideline, this is explained up front when a user creates an account. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC).

Might be nice if the process to change a username was made easier by programming. If this issue is one that some newbies feel bitten by, and administrators get tired of seeing, then a more 'self-serve' process, where admins can check a box or something might cause fewer problems for editors and admins also. -- Avanu (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

reality is that, as I suggested above, you could make the note blinking yellow with stars in 70pt, some people never follow it, either because they are dumb, illiterate, or just willfully ignoring it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

We can assume good faith, but I don't think we can assume people aren't stupid, illiterate, or ignorant. Some people have an amazing capacity to impress, not by their feats of strength, but by their ability to take something that seems foolproof and still find a way to mess it up. We do hope admins at least have one eye (figuratively), in order to lead the nation of the blind if needed. -- Avanu (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen much sense in that part of the username policy that says they can't include names of companies or organizations. It's a simple fact that we have lots and lots of editors who edit on behalf of their company or organization – often in a problematic way, often not; we couldn't stop them doing that even if we wanted to, and at present we don't actually prohibit their editing as such. It strikes me that as soon as we're stuck with working with these editors, we should actually encourage rather than prohibit their announcing their affiliations in their names. I've often found blocking such account to have been quite counterproductive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It's super clear

What Errant and others are trying to tell the admins is that POLICY states you need to try to resolve a problem without resorting to the use of tools, leading by example, and behaving in a respectful, civil manner. Using language or taking actions that feel like an attack on someone who is most likely 100% ignorant of policy is not in line with policy itself. It would be like a police officer shooting a suspect and later saying "I could just tell he was going to shoot me", even if he was just standing there and the officer hadn't said one word, and the suspect didn't have a gun drawn. I'm puzzled why those of you who are administrators can't simply say "yes, that is what policy says, I will recommit to being civil, and lead other editors by example". Rather what I often see is a zillion excuses why it simply isn't done. Every one of us understands that reality won't allow a perfect world, but there's no reason for admins to avoid saying, "OK, I see your reasonable point, I'll do my best." We end up in this long nitpicky discussions because of that simple lack of humility and human-ness that would put the issue to rest instantly. -- Avanu (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

hm. So what you're saying is that only admins are supposed to read policy, and are then under the obligation to explain to everybody else individually what the policies are. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. Without question Admins should know policy. But so should editors. Take another pass at what I wrote above; you're very much missing the point. -- Avanu (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, admins SHOULD know policy; even worse when the person who doesn't understand the policy is a director of a major chapter. Un-fricking-believable. How does one de-appoint? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Blocking a wikipedian in residence is pretty crass though, don't you think? My concern is that our instant-block practice just hides COI rather than makes it go away. Secretlondon (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

@Bwilkins, actually in looking at that diff, it shows not really an ignorance of policy in that he's not aware of it, but an ignorance of policy in a WP:IAR way. Look, in the end, why put the letter of the law over the spirit of the law? There are times when it seems like the bureaucratic mindset has pushed away the friendly neighborhood spiderman mindset. Peter Parker would be our greatest admin because he knows 'with great power comes great responsibility', and without an honest recognition of one's own weakness, you limit yourself. -- Avanu (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, it's you and the blocking editor and a whole bunch of editors on this page who seem to be ignorant of policy. Seem to be, but the policy, don't block has been pointed out several times here. So I don't know what's going on. Do you agree that the policy says we should discuss the name with unproblematic editors, and encourage them to change it? If you do, can you concede that you've been misreading policy? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Practice is generally nuke from high orbit if there is a hint of corporate editing. Username vios pick up all the COI ones, and we have a block first _practice_ Secretlondon (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

My page

One of the things that makes Misplaced Pages seem unfriendly to outsiders is that the use of plain English ("my page" or "our article" being shorthand for "the article about me, or the company I represent") triggers an immediate assumption of bad faith: the article subject must be claiming WP:OWNERSHIP of said article. Well, they may be, but probably they're just trying to communicate in plain English because they didn't realize that the "Misplaced Pages way" of referring to an article requires you use a bit of convoluted speech. "The article about me" is OK, "my article" will get you into trouble. 28bytes (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Another way to put it is: profound lack of empathy -- inability to remember that everyone here once didn't know squat about Misplaced Pages and made equivalent "mistakes". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hence this rather old essay of mine (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Clearly Mike breached WP:ORGNAME here, but clearly some ORGNAME/COI editors are a nightmare. I deal with obsessive fringe theory POV-pushers a lot, so probably have an inkling of what he has to deal with. In that light, I'm more than happy to cut him some slack.

I'm disappointed though by the response of most of the rest of you. He did cross the line in terms of civil behaviour and policy. This was an opportunity to quietly remind him of WP:ORGNAME and WP:BITE, and gently encourage him into line. A couple did, but most of his peers supported him in his denial that he'd done anything wrong. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The message I use is:

if the name you have used includes or refers to the subject of the article, you must choose another username. As explained in WP:USER, only individuals may edit. When you have a username that is or includes the name of your organization, you imply that you are editing officially, and have a superior right to edit the page. But that is not the way WP works--all editors are considered equal--and your contributions like those of any editor must be justified by sources. I'm sure you do not intend to give such impression, but that's why we have the rule. Therefore, please choose another name. On that user page, you should say whom you are working for.

I do say this for partial names also. I think that partial names also promote ownership,& perhaps our written policy needs to be changed to reflect that.

But I do not block unless they are being uncooperative, and then I word it something like "To ensure you make another account, I am blocking this one." ; since the usernameblock preset on Twinkle defaults to prevent their making another account, it defeats entirely the purpose of our policy on user names, they they should make another one. On the one hand we tell them to do it, on the other we prevent their doing it. It's time to fix twinkle: the default for username block should be a usernamesoft block. This meets the purpose.

Because of the widespread use of Twinkle and the need to keep things in sync, the procedure for changing these templates has now gotten so lengthy --requiring in effect a long period of experimenting with different versions under the guidance of the foundation, where after many months very little if anything has actually been accomplished, that we need to come up with something better ourselves. We have let Twinkle become our master. DGG ( talk ) 15:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's not quite true. The kinds of tests the foundation people did with some of the templates have nothing to do with the technical needs of Twinkle, and they certainly don't mean WP:BOLD no longer applies to templates. If you want to change the wording of a template used by Twinkle, just change it. I'm sure it's possible, because I've done it numerous times recently. It's only if you need to change Twinkle itself that it may get complicated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Precisely why I've never used any (semi)automated tools or scripts or anything like that on any WMF site, with the sole exception of the nominate-this-file-for-deletion script at Commons. It's not hard to write something out by yourself. Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins and others

Above, I pointed out to Bwilkins that he and others appear to be either misreading or deliberately flouting WP:ORGNAME. He hasn't responded.

• The policy says:

"This does not prohibit every use of a company, group, or product name as part of a username."

so it is not obvious that "Admarkroundsquare" is a breach of this policy, and yet Orange Mike simply asserts it is a blatant violation of our rules, Wehwalt says "and the username does contain the name of the organization" as though that means there's obviously a problem with the name, Lothar says it "Seems to be a simple case of WP:ORGNAME", MuZemike asserts the name doesn't fall within our policy, Blade asserts the name violates policy, Fut.Perf. says "I've never seen much sense in that part of the username policy that says they can't include names of companies or organizations."

I'd like Fut. Perf. to point me to the part of username policy that says they can't include names of companies or organizations as part of a username.

• The policy says:

*Users who adopt such a username and engage in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, are usually blocked.
*Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username.

which is pretty unequivocal. Applying either {{Uw-spamublock}} or {{softerblock}} is a block. And yet Sandstein says "The block and the {{Uw-spamublock}} block notification template were appropriate," UltraExactZZ says "The block was itself valid," Ched says "I'm not saying the block was wrong," Ohms law says "The block itself was fine."

There is an unambiguous disconnection between policy and practice. That policy seems to be worded as it is in order to expressly prevent the kind of behaviour engaged in by Mike and supported by others here. I don't know enough of the dynamics at NPP or the politics of PR editing to have an opinion as to whether behaviour should conform to policy or vice versa, but clearly your behaviour and policy need to be reconciled. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENSUS. When that many admins agree... Doc talk 07:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If admins are using a procedure "hardblock on sight" that is not supported in guidelines then it needs to be added to guidelines so that users affected by it can a, avoid it happening to them and b, so that they can be pointed to the reason they have been blocked clearly written down for them, - Youreallycan 09:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hardblock on sight should not be applied in situations where Misplaced Pages is not being harmed in some concrete way. Issuing hard blocks for soft errors is out of line with our civility policy. -- Avanu (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This behaviour is not only "not supported in guidelines" it is expressly proscribed by policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The blocking of MonmouthMuseumWales (talk · contribs) (discussed here at RFCN) is another example of an admin going straight to a block without first discussing the issue with a user who has made no problem edits. In this instance the user name was the same as the organisation, so a name change is usually expected, but rather than follow policy and gently explain the situation, the account was blocked. Bwilkins thinks that's fine, and accuses the unblocking admin of misreading --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• This sort of thing has been happening for years. It was exactly what happened to me when I started: (and no, JzG never did apologize). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Blocking usernames that explicitly promote a company/organization in and of themselves has been long practice here. The policy (WP:UN) is that:

  When choosing an account name, do not choose names which may be offensive, misleading, disruptive, or promotional.

  A username that appears to represent more than one person, or appears to promote a product/company will be blocked. That is appropriate, that is long standing practice. Whether Mike used the right template above is the question but the block and others of this kind are appropriate. Gentle explanation can happen afterwards but users with promotional names will not be allowed to use these (becuase using them promotes what ever it is they are promoting)--Cailil 13:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You're quoting that line out of context and claiming it says something that it clearly doesn't (i.e. no where in that line does it say anything about blocking the account). Here's the part about blocking accounts:

*Users who adopt such a username and engage in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, are usually blocked.
*Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username.

So, the block was an error. The admin should have gently encouraged the user to change their username. If anyone disagrees, that's fine: start an RfC and get the policy changed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

*sigh* As the guy who designed the much-used {{coiq}} template, I can tell you that we sure as heck are NOT going to RFC every single obviously promotional username. That would be a horrific waste of everyone's time. We have the very gentle {{softerblock}} template for a reason - it's an AGF template. Someone want to create {{SoSoftItsLikeCharmin}} instead? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that if you disagree with policy, then you should start an RfC on the policy, not the username. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This is interesting. Bwiklins seems to think that MonmouthMuseumWales and Admarkroundsquare are "promotional". What's promotional about them Bwilkins? They're clearly identifying an affilliation with the organisation, but they're not promotional. It's not MonmouthMuseumrocks or RoundSquareWillSaveYouMoney. Calling them promotional is weird. You can't just "call" any username that incorporates an organisation name promotional as an excuse for not following WP:ORGNAME. Follow that policy or change it to fit your behaviour. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The entire problem is that they are accounts that appear to be the organization's, rather than a person's. When User:Microsoft adds an unsourced fact to Microsoft, it's going to be left alone - because that's the official word from Microsoft itself (I know, it wouldn't, but play along). Thus, the prohibition. In this case, the block came from the confluence of having a username that matches the company AND editing in regard to that company. If the user had gone off to edit articles on hockey teams, no one would've noticed the username problem. My problem with this block wasn't that the user was blocked - he should have been and was - but that no one said why. He just got an angry wall of text, and no answer to the question. When I block such an editor, I template - but then explain below. "You got blocked because you can't have a username that matches the company. So you'll need a new username, which you get by doing X Y and Z. Now, you wanted to update your own page, and you can't because of your obvious Conflict of Interest - but if you show me what the inaccuracies are, we can figure something out." Engaging them, even if they don't end up unblocked, sidesteps all of the bad faith and bad feelings that seem to have come up here. They may respond, they may not - if they do, we get accurate information and (maybe) an editor who sticks around (with a new username and staying the hell away from his COI). If not, I've wasted two minutes of my life. But this seems to greatly reduce the "Misplaced Pages is a bunch of assholes" factor, which is worthwhile. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I like your attitude, but you're wrong on a couple of points. Notwithstanding what some admins may do, policy allows a username to incorporate a company name (e.g. User:Mark at Alcoa), and allows such a user to add content to the organisation's article. Neither is a blocking "offense;" we appreciate the transparency. Certainly, if they're biasing the article they should be pointed to the relevant policies, and if they continue they should be corrected, blocked if necessary. But that goes for anyone regardless of the username.

In this instance the problem is with the blocking editor. He breached policy and is supported and encouraged in that by Bwilkins and others. I see that they haven't changed the policy yet to conform with their behaviour. If that's not going to happen, they should conform to the policy. It's not a big deal, or even a difficult or complex issue to grasp. The policy says one thing. They're doing another. Now that this has been pointed out, if they continue summarily blocking people for having an organisation name as a username, or blocking people (or threatening to block them) simply for incorporating an organisation name as part of their username, they will be demonstrating contempt for community consensus and should be desysopped. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

A point of clarification, I don't believe the example you used is consistent with the username policy which states: "usernames that are specifically disallowed":

Promotional usernames are used to promote an existing company, organization, group (including non-profit organizations), website, or product on Misplaced Pages"

.

And no, that is not the problem as described in the original AN. It was about a template and a perception of editor conduct in regards to an overzealous nature to these types of usernames as I recall. Not sure if it was actually proven as such.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What's promotional about User:Mark at Alcoa? It identifies the user's affiliation with the organisation. That's not promotion. That's transparency; something we like. Blocking accounts like that has no basis in either logic or policy.

Not sure what you mean by "original AN". If you're referring to my original post in this thread, I was drawing attention to this very point. The editor was acting diametrically against policy. Personally, I have a problem with that. Particularly when it's an admin, and when it involves blocking editors. Just seems off to me. But it seems it doesn't bother the majority of admins commenting here. I have a problem with that too. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Even if it were promotional, we're supposed to encourage the user to change names, not block them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between a username like "Mark at Alcoa" and "Alcoa". The first clearly identifies an individual which is allowed. The second identifies an organization which isn't. The issue is less about promotion, and more about ensuring that an account represents an individual. This is made pretty clear at WP:ORGNAME. -- Atama頭 16:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

A Quest for Knowledge is correct. See also WP:UAAI: "users who adopt such usernames but who are not editing problematically should not be summarily blocked; instead, they should be gently but firmly encouraged to change their username." --JN466 19:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This is pretty much the point. Look at the username and how it reflects a breach in guidelines or policy. "Mark at Alcoa" does not breach any policy, as explained above. Then you have the example of something just without any identification to an individual ("Mark at...") and just "Alcoa", which, as you said would be more about ensuring the account represents an individual and less about promotion...then there is what this username was, "Admarkroundsquare". Which contained both an intent of promotion (advertising and marketing) as well as a specific company. This falls within the existing block policy and the original template could also be seen as simply meaning that new comers are not exempt from the block policy based soley on being new and not knowing the policy as you can read the policy BEFORE you register a promotional username AND we don't know if this editor was already editing with an IP to have even had such experiance while already contributing. While a more subtle warning with the block is better, it is understandable why a more sterner approach was selected and my experiance with Mike's similar blocks is that he has been in the right on all points he has made.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please re-read "users who adopt such usernames but who are not editing problematically should not be summarily blocked; instead, they should be gently but firmly encouraged to change their username", noting in particular the words I have put in bold? Thanks. --JN466 20:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request

I have raised an unblock request for Admarkroundsquare, at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unblock_request:_User:Admarkroundsquare. The user is currently hard-blocked, meaning they are unable to create a username policy-compliant account. This is an invidious and abhorrent way to treat people. --JN466 21:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well that's not quite true; they could use an unblock request and ask for a new username. But that would require reading the instructions, which didn't work out so well the first time around... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

They had no such instructions, because these had been replaced, by a well-meaning admin, with a soft-block template simply telling them to create a new account. --JN466 23:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone to chat with User:Serbia100

So, his talkpage has basically been MFD'd, he's been blocked (which expired), his work has been reverted - pretty much all because he a) fails to communicate, and b) uses his sole communication channel to copy/paste what appears to be existing in article already. However, we appear to perhaps have a language barrier. Is there someone who might be able to have a word with User:Serbia100 in a language that they might understand? You'll have to do it in a way that gets their attention - like blanking and locking their talkpage temporarily until they e-mail you or something. I want to AGF that he's doing some real stuff here - but it's challenging with no communication (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a mere language barrier can explain this behaviour pattern. The only explanation that I can think of is autism. Either way, I don't see any perspective of this user becoming a useful contributor any time soon. I've indef-blocked without talkpage access. I told him he is still welcome to contact an administrator per e-mail for an unblock, whenever he decides he wants to try doing something useful on this project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If I thought that was the best option, I would have done it myself (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Wekn reven i susej eht speaks Serbian. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I ja govorim na srpskom, treba li vam pomoć? I also speak Serbian if help is needed in translation. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Requirement for declaring an interest after off-wiki canvassing

After noticing over the last few months, Misplaced Pages Arbcom members, Admins and Oversighters creating and engaging with discussion threads on Misplaced Pages Review and Wikipediocracy, and then going on to use their tools and authority on Misplaced Pages in response to what I would consider to be canvassing off-wiki, I would like to propose a vote to clarify a possible interpretation of Involved admins:

Would you require users with sysop or other trusted tools on Misplaced Pages to openly declare their involvement of whatever sort in off-wiki prior canvassing when using their tools on Misplaced Pages?

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Absolutely support - anyone who thinks that they were wronged by anyone of authority (including the authorities of admins, such as deletion), should have the right to know such facts, as well as the community in cases where the decisions are appealed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I think that these types of discussions often suffer from the deliberate distortion of the nature of sites such as Misplaced Pages Review and Wikipediocracy. These exist primarily as forums where contributors discuss Misplaced Pages and related subjects. Those contributors are individuals with widely disparate views and motivations. There is a tendency here to pretend that these sites are monolithic entities and to classify discussion as either "harassment" or "canvassing", depending on the which is most likely to achieve the desired result. I was a frequent contributor to Misplaced Pages Review until recently and various editors here tried to use me as the scapegoat for comments made there by others. This latest volley in the fight against "bad sites" appears to be another attempt to discredit admins who participate at those sites by implying that their actions have been negatively influenced by reading or participating in discussions on those sites. Those discussions may result in admins becoming aware of an issue and acting on it as a result, but Fæ's suggestion here makes it seem like they are proxying for banned editors or acting as meatpuppets. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I have a conflict of interest which should be noted - I am the author of the blog post currently on the front page of Wikipediocracy, which deals with hardcore sex films on Misplaced Pages (not articles about them, but the actual films themselves). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• Off-wiki canvassing among admins and other functionaries has existed as long as I can remember, largely in the form of IRC discussion. I think that more transparency is always better, but I don't think this is a new issue nor one confined to the specific forums mentioned in the original post. MastCell  17:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Wikipediocracy is not the only site that has this issue, but the number of them doesn't really matter. Canvassing is canvassing and, for the most part, these sites are for a gathering of like-minded individuals, even if there are one or two outliers. So, it really is the definition of canvassing. This involvement should definitely be announced when becoming involved in a discussion as a result of this canvassing. Silverseren 17:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I find this comment especially interesting coming from you, Silver Seren, since you were a regular contributor to Misplaced Pages Review and should have a better sense of what really goes on there. About half of the regular contributors to Misplaced Pages Review were banned users and others did not edit Misplaced Pages at all. It is rather hard to "canvass" people who do not or cannot edit Misplaced Pages, even by your "definition". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Having been a part of WR, I would think that helps me know full well that canvassing does go on. There's more than enough users on there that are also active editors on here. And there is a group effort on there when a specific article is brought up to enact something on-wiki. It's rather obvious. Silverseren 20:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Can you think of a recent example where this happened? Since we obviously define canvassing differently, it might be helpful to see what you mean. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes, the Jim Hawkins incident is an obvious example. The AfD on it wasn't created until after this thread was created and it is likely to have been instigated from that thread itself. And Delete votes from a number of known WR/Wikipediocracy users and/or readers began pouring into the AfD after that. Silverseren 01:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
          • I started the Hawkins AFD after a report at the BLPN which you see I mention in the deletion rationale diff - my opening the discussion had nothing to do with any off wiki comments anywhere as I had not read them, after multiple on wiki reports about the article I felt enough was enough. Youreallycan 07:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Let me see if I have this straight. Hawkins had been complaining about this situation for years, as I understand it. A thread was started on Wikipediocracy to discuss it. After that, an AfD was started, which you suggest, without any evidence, was "instigated" by the thread. And after that, the thread which was opened before the AfD has somehow "canvassed" people to vote a certain way? What nonsense. This was discussed on multiple WMF mailing lists and Jimbo's talk page. Of course a lot of people participated. I didn't vote in the last AfD, but if I had, I would have voted to delete because that is what I think should be done in these cases, not because someone on WR or Wikipediocracy wanted me to. I imagine others hold the same opinion and would vote the same way. Perhaps it is issues like this that cause them to be contributors to those sites, and not those sites that cause them to get involved with the issues here? What an incredibly tone-deaf example. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
            • Weren't those discussions started after the AfD began? The Afd was really the starting point, all the talk page discussions and discussions elsewhere came after the fact. Silverseren 03:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
          • (ec)Do you feel that this affected the outcome of the on wiki discussion? Kevin (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
            • Likely would have, looking at the early parts of the discussion, if not for the subsequent posting to several noticeboards, which then brought in so many people and such chaos that no consensus was really the only option. Silverseren 03:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
              • The subject of the article requested that it be deleted in 2006, which lead to the first AfD. And again, same thing in 2009. All the while making comments on the talk page, on Facebook, on Twitter, and on the radio. And you think a discussion of the article on Wikipediocracy materially influenced the outcome? I was hoping you might come up with an example that had something to it, but this is just ridiculous. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Sort of support, ish, if it's amended slightly. I think the phrasing as Fae presents it here is imperfect when it comes to addressing the issue he wants addressed. If you want users (and I do believe it ought to be "users", not only "users with advanced permissions") to disclose when they've participated in discussion of a topic/action off-wiki, wording saying they must disclose when they've participated in "off-wiki prior canvassing" isn't likely to get you disclosures; it's more likely to get you a whole lot of neverending argument about whether thread X was canvassing. A more useful wording, I think, would be something like "users participating in discussions or actions on Misplaced Pages should disclose openly if their involvement was brought about by discussion off-wiki". In some cases this might be addressed by a one-time userpage notice - "This user participates in/on and may comment or act here on topics discussed or related to there". In other cases, it may be appropriate to add a note to an individual comment - "I came here because I saw the thread about this on site X" or, failing that by the commenter, a note similar in style to those we leave on SPA or unsigned comments "This comment left by a user who has participated in discussion of this topic on site X". There is a continuum here, ranging from things like "user asked for help in IRC help channel, so I helped them onwiki" all the way up to something like "I placed this block based on evidence I received in a private message from a banned user on Misplaced Pages Review". Even on the "clean" end of the continuum, I think there's little to be lost by just going ahead and disclosing, but I would hesitate to make it sanctionable to fail to do so for now, both because making it "encouraged practice" may be all we need, and because it may end up being used as a hammer against people ("You didn't disclose that you came here from Misplaced Pages Review thread X!" "That's because I didn't; I was just reading ANI and wanted to comment" "Impossible, you participate in Misplaced Pages Review, you must have come here from that thread. I demand you be sanctioned for failing to disclose!") and I'd want to see how that shook out before we started giving the requirement teeth. Why yes, yes I was bitten in the butt by drama recently because someone was upset about a topic being discussed on irc. Why yes, I do think disclosure is a good idea largely because it can help prevent situations like that in the future. Thanks for asking! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with the spirit of disclosing an off wiki reason that lead you to a particular discussion, but like Fluffernutter I fear where an enforceable rule could lead. Unless an editor has actively participated in an off-wiki discussion using connected identity, it will be impossible to tell if they saw an off wiki discussion and failed to disclose, or came to the discussion another way, despite frequenting the off-wiki location. If I were to idle in the IRC channel, and a discussion of an AN/I thread occurs, will I be imputed with knowledge of that IRC discussion even if I had IRC minimized and saw the activity on my watch list instead? Monty₈₄₅ 18:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - This strikes me as an effort via the backdoor to establish a BADSITES policy towards Wikipediocracy and its better-known-but-now-in-its-death-throes predecessor. An administrator participating there and then working at WP is no different than an administrator participating on WP mailing lists or IRC and then working at WP. People have lives, they spend their time as they will. Even if one accepts that so-called "canvassing" is a problem in the first place (and I personally feel that so-called "anti-canvassing" rules are merely a mechanism of clique control to the exclusion of more democratic mass participation), there's not the SLIGHTEST bit of evidence that there's a coordinated effort by Wikipediocracy or any other site to "canvass" for action at WP, using tools or not using tools. It's a paranoid perspective, in my view. Most of the obnoxious parties at Wikipediocracy not only don't have tools to be canvassed to be used, they're blocked or banned out altogether at En-WP. It baffles me how this is even perceived as being a problem at all. Carrite (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• So you're saying that Wikipediocracy is the same as the mailing lists and the IRC, both of which are considered on-wiki and are subject to the rules of WP:CIVIL? Clearly then, Wikipediocracy should also be subject to these policies. Also, do note that people on the IRC have gotten in trouble in the past for canvassing. Organizing a group of people toward a specific article is canvassing. Silverseren 21:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• So you're saying that the biographies of living persons noticeboard is canvassing and anyone posting there should be blocked? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• The BLP noticeboard is a neutral posting, since it is not a biased, partisan area. An IRC discussion between friends on Misplaced Pages would be canvassing and a discussion of known like-minded individuals on a forum is also canvassing, since in both cases, the purpose of notification would be to get votes or statements of agreement in the on-wiki discussion. Silverseren 03:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Seren, it was the BLPN that first drew attention to the Hawkins issue by way of a section started by David Gerard who had been canvassed by the original author of the Hawkins article. As an aside I do believe that the origional author of that article has been appaleed by the churlishness of his fellow wikipedia editors, their lack of empathy, and gross impertinence towards a fellow human being. Your own attitude of demanding a doctors note is included in that above. John lilburne (talk) 07:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I was originally mixed about this, but after further thought, I have to slip into oppose. Issues of canvassing in AfD's can be handled on a case by case basis, but a lot of the time someone saying off-wiki "Gee, this article about a BLP is a real hitjob" and people who read that forum who agree posting votes based on that reasoning (after reviewing the article themselves).. well, to ignore that a problem exists just because we don't like who's saying it would be cutting off our nose to spite our encyclopedic face. And while I deplore the actions taken by certain members of those sites (Self-disclosure: I am a member of two sites, one of which I have not made a single post, and the other I haven't posted at in six months or so), I think this action by Fae is motivated by the off-wiki attacks they have made against the proposer. I would suggest that such disclosure applies equally. SirFozzie (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • You may be confused about the proposal text, it asks for transparency, not that we should pretend that admins do not read off-wiki forums or to require that they can never take action if they have. Transparency is not "cutting off our nose". --Fæ (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Sir Fozzie, Fluffernutter et al. The proposal is symptomatic of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality whereby evildoers (i.e anyone associated with WR or Wikipediocracy) have to be fought and exposed at every opportunity. Oversighters, admins etc who act on information they come across somewhere else should not be assumed to be acting in bad faith without evidence or forced to don yellow e-stars just to please Fae.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose – There should be corners of the web where one can speak their minds freely, frankly, and naturally without fear of being punished on Misplaced Pages. People who speak freely outside of Misplaced Pages shouldn't be forced to display yellow stars on every discussion page, on every closing statement, or every edit or log summary. Reporting Misplaced Pages news and ongoings shouldn't be a crime. Should a columnist be forced to wear a yellow star for writing a op-ed column about a political debate? The proposal degrades those who use forums and blogs by forcing them to wear yellow stars. It's an insult to those users' dignities, and it discouraged frank, natural discussions outside of Misplaced Pages. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Except canvassing is something that users on Wikipediocracy do, including attempting to discover personal information on Wikipedians to use as chilling effects to stop certain people from editing, in addition to attempting to create legal actions against Misplaced Pages itself, such as through the chapters. I'm sorry, but "frank, natural discussions" are not what goes on over there. Silverseren 01:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• So where on Wikipediocracy is this discussion mentioned that Wikipediocracy members are being/will be canvassed from to oppose it, all while insulting Fae continuously in the process? Silverseren 01:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=305 – I don't see any canvassing or any insults. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The canvassing comes from the thread existing, because it directs their users over here. Though I am happy that there aren't any insults. That's also rather surprising. Silverseren 02:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Addendum: This isn't about canvassing – Read Fæ's statement again. This isn't about canvassing. Fæ's statement isn't about drawing attention to a discussion page. This is about someone on the Misplaced Pages Review or Wikipediocracy pointing out a mistake or violation, which results in a sysop fixing that mistake or removing the violation. For example (probably not the best example): http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=299. If someone on a forum points out an image's inappropriate or inaccurate name, should a sysop seeking to give that image a better name really be forced to say, "Misplaced Pages Review said…"? I don't really believe a sysop acting on a mistake pointed out by the WR or Wikipediocracy to be "canvassing". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• However, it is well known that Wikipediocracy is a group of like minded people, with only one or two members that disagree. Therefore, when one of the members brings up a discussion going on somewhere and berates it or praises it, it brings in the other members to vote or make a statement on-wiki to that effect. That falls exactly into the definition of canvassing, because it is notifying a biased, partisan group of people. Silverseren 02:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Becoming aware of a discussion shouldn't be a crime. Learning isn't a crime. Reporting news and events isn't a crime. I have the right to learn about these sorts of discussions. It isn't the quantity of !votes that counts. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• • It's that it is being presented in a biased manner. Learning of news from, say, Fox News is likely to prejudice one to a certain opinion because of how the information is presented there. Thus, in terms of informing people about a discussion, this type of biased informing is exactly what canvassing means. It's directly why WP:CANVAS exists. Silverseren 02:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too open to abuse -- look at all the screams that go up when someone says, "Oh, I saw someone mention it on IRC..." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• If they were mentioning it on IRC to a group of friend, thus leading them to join the discussion and side with that person, then that is canvassing, yes. Silverseren 02:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Nope. In the case I was thinking of, one admin said something like "Oh, fun, Admin B just blocked Admin C..." I looked at the case, saw that there was some related admin action that should be taken, and took it. Now, I wasn't canvassed to take that action, but if I had said that it had been inspired by an IRC conversation, I would have had to defend a perfectly normal action at far too much length.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I was concerned on how I would word this (and still am), but I'll give it a shot. First, I have to say that I admire any display of transparency and all statements of honesty from editors. Now - over time we've developed a ton of rules (aka Policies) that with the best of intentions; but in practice they now utterly fail us. "Policy" is used more and more to batter people over the head with club-like bluntness. (CIV, NOTORG, CANVASS, etc.), and the loopholes in those policies are used to manipulate discussions. Now, on a more "off-wiki" sort of thought: What another editor reads, hears, participates in, signs up for, and which websites, IRC or chat venues, or email they exchange is simply nobody's damn business. And by the way - the sheer irony of posting this tread simply astounds me. — Ched :  ?  07:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I like the idea, but Ched makes a good point — we simply have so many policies that nobody can keep track of all of them. Imposing yet another requirement will not help in building the encyclopedia, but it will help to inflame passions among those who are more concerned with building an encyclopedia than with keeping track of policies and thus reduce the number of people who are writing. Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support as a concept, though not a formal rule Wikiprocess should be open. I consider it wrong to proceed on private information or as part of a cabal. What is used to hit people over the head is these private arrangements. (but some types of things discussed I never see, as I don't use irc & don't participate in projects that require it. And to the extent I see something on my rare random looks at WR/etc., if I see a movement developing there, my normal reaction is to find some reason to oppose it. If I'm asked on or off wiki to intervene in anything, I normally say so, though I do not necessarily say who it was who asked me, especially if it was off wiki by private email. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support in general one should disclose when !votes are the result of otherwise untraceable canvasing. This includes IRC, and whatever else. I see no reason not to ask that people do so. It's not reasonably enforceable, but still... Hobit (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I agree wholeheartedly with Hobit above, but because it's not enforcable it would be a silly rule to have. Rules that can't be enforced or policed just serve to undermine the rest of the rule-book. But while on the subject I would say this: we have talk pages, we have essays, we have userspace, we have the village pump, we have the Signpost complete with "comment on this story" sections... there is absolutely no need whatsoever for discussions about Misplaced Pages content to happen anywhere other than on Misplaced Pages (unless it's a legal issue, BLP violation etc). So for somebody to set up an off-wiki discussion forum for things that should be discussed on-wiki goes clearly against the principles of the project in my opinion, and editors participating on such a forum are for the most part, knowingly/intentionally or not, damaging Misplaced Pages. waggers (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • If you would forbid articles like this, would you also forbid articles like this? How about articles like this? Should they be allowed, or forbidden as "damaging"? Should people be allowed to talk about Misplaced Pages on Facebook, and Twitter? I find what you say quite extraordinary. I imagine it's the sort of line the Chinese government might take, concerning discussions of the Chinese government. --JN466 13:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Ched and Sarek pretty much. Snowolf 08:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support: if the good folks at Wikipediocracy or WR point out a problem that needs fixing, they should certainly be given credit for doing so.

  BTW: Would this also apply to requests on IRC channels, email requests to delete one's uploads, discussions of prior usernames with the members of ArbCom, and the "in camera" discussions at WMUK? --SB_Johnny |  11:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

  • SB_Johnny As you mention WMUK, your question seems pointed in my direction - yes; though a common sense interpretation of personal privacy, harassment or legal considerations may limit how much of the prior confidential discussions can be released. If use of tools on-wiki is the result of such discussions then we should always be as transparent as possible. For example, as an OTRS volunteer, I had a photograph (uploaded a few years ago) of a young woman exposing her breasts for a fun dare at a public concert deleted from Commons, after she emailed in explaining how being personally identifiable in the photo was a problem for her now. In theory, we could reject such requests as we have a full copyright release, though I would hope everyone understands that Wikimedia projects ought to be managed with respect, compassion and in confidence where information or images have a credible case of causing damage or distress to the models or other people involved. In that particular case, creating a lengthy deletion discussion would only draw unhelpful attention to the image and massively increase the distress for the model. If in the future we force that to happen as policy, then we should be totally fair and add extreme and dire warnings about the risks of irrevocably releasing images to Wikimedia projects in order to fully inform our contributors. --Fæ (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Right. Agreed. (Putting a halt to uploading images of that nature from flickr (etc.) where people don't seem to understand the licenses would probably be a good thing for the same reason, but that's a whole 'nother topic ;-).) --SB_Johnny |  14:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as Presented Transparency is a good thing, but 'badsite' is not. This proposal is too enmeshed in the later.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • If you could suggest an alternative wording that can improve the policy and side-step a badsites debate, that would be helpful. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

  This discussion's to contaminated. It started as badsites, the clock can't be turned back to make it into a genuine transparency proposal. Not here and now.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Sarek. And per Ched below, to note this proposal runs counter to the position Fæ took in an email on January 26 in a different situation. MBisanz 18:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Please note, I have asked Fæ to no longer contact me via email. MBisanz 20:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support; rephrase. It should be clear that if a known editor is engaging in a heated debate with an admin on WR, and that admin then finds a reason to block him on WP, there is "the appearance of bias". I would, however, say simply that "WP:INVOLVED can apply regardless of whether interactions occur on or off Misplaced Pages", to be clear. Indeed, an admin could be involved due solely to a bitter e-mail exchange or IRC conversation, though proving it could be tough. Wnt (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo's request

For those keen to shoot down what I still believe is a mild proposal, that those with admin and oversight tools should be held to a reasonable standard of transparency, when using their tools if they choose to engage with off-wiki attack forums, I suggest you take a quiet minute to consider this request put out today:

Those who think of themselves as my allies on this issue I appreciate very much. I need your help. You do not help me by participating in a forum run by someone who I think is dangerous to myself and my family, who has posted a photo of himself online with a semi-automatic rifle along with a sick fantasy about a gun battle with me.--Jimbo Wales

Are you honestly comfortable that we are not just allowing this situation to happen, but as a collective we support those amongst our numbers with a trusted status on Misplaced Pages who are not open and honest about taking part and hence covertly legitimize the same forums that harbour and encourage people who make personal attacks, creepily engage in long term internet stalking and harassment, make false public sexual and personal allegations and issue anonymous on-wiki threats against established members of our community? My ethical compass is certainly troubling me greatly right now. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

reasonable standard of transparency???? Really Fae? Tell me - where was this reasonable transparency at your last RfA? HUH? How dare you try to point a finger at others. You sir have lost the last ounce of respect I might have ever been able to muster for you. Damn hypocrite. You dare try to point fingers at "those with admin ..tools". Good grief. — Ched :  ?  07:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

'

make false public sexual and personal allegations; a recent example, perhaps, in the case where an editor viciously attacked another on the grounds of homophobia, dragged him to a noticeboard and essentially forced him to out himself in defence of the charge? That sort of thing is pretty horrendous, I agree. Ethics is certainly a double edged sword. --Errant 08:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo's request (quoted above) seems to be a false and personal allegation as well (see diff). The hyperbole really isn't helpful. --SB_Johnny |  09:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I take seriously threats against people, real or perceived. That being said, his deletion of a post to his talk page is regrettable, since it seemed a serious response. I suggest that we close this thread. There's really nothing we can do.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Wehwalt, the clue about what we can do might be in Jimbo's direct request. Everyone here has their free choice of whether to support attack forums by taking part in them, or denying them oxygen. It is interesting to see the list of names here who appear to be resisting my request for transparency (even resorting to irrelevant personal allegations about me) and who are also known to be highly active advocates of Wikipediocracy, and frequently use free speech and transparency as their justification. I think we are all aware that personal attacks, hounding and harassment are not the same thing as free speech. Now, rather than rushing to find a reason to close down this discussion, why don't we let our opportunity for free speech have a moment in the sun? Cheers --Fæ (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

As I deleted nothing, your paean for free speech might be better directed to Jimbo.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I would not dare advise Jimbo on how to manage his own talk page, I've had my fingers burnt on that one before. Interesting reference to Apollo you made there Wehwalt. --Fæ (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh oh. Um, I hope I have not offended, I have not enquired into the, er, orientations of the Greek gods?  :)--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This is yet more WP:BATTLEGROUND nonsense from Fae. Greg Kohs does seem to be obsessed with Jimbo. He has also been criticised in such places as Misplaced Pages Review and Wikipediocracy for some of his posts on Jimbo and especially his daughter. However, it is inconvenient for Fae's Battle to mention that neither WR (particularly before the schism) nor Wikipediocracy have a monolithic party line. Also Greg Kohs isn't an admin or Mod on either of those sites and I don't think he has ever been one. Perhaps we should consider whether the attempt to pursue a battleleground mentality to the extent that Fae is doing here is appropriate in an admin.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi again Peter, could you do me a favour, as you regularly contribute there, could you confirm who legally owns the Wikipediocracy website? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What happened is that about a dozen people, Greg among them, got together to set up a new site when Misplaced Pages Review went downhill. For a while, we were unsure what to call the site, and Greg in particular bought a string of domain names people had suggested. One of these was for the name we eventually chose, i.e. Wikipediocracy.com. The site hosting is not paid by Greg, but by another member of the collective. We're hoping to have the domain name and hosting bills transferred to a non-profit within the next few weeks. Greg will likely be one of about a dozen trustees of the non-profit. It's correct that he has neither moderator nor sysadmin rights at the site. --JN466 12:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

(EC. Jayen's reply is going to be more accurate but I had written this already.) They are setting up some sort of not for profit trust to take over the ownership. I don't know the membership of the steering group and haven't been invited to join. Kohs may have paid the initial cash but doesn't manage the content and, although he might be a member of the steering group, he would be just one of several voices. As far as current ownership is concerned, I think he just happens to have been the person who made most preparations for a new forum in January after Selina was late paying for WR's registration then, when she fell out with him, Hersh/Herschel Krustovski and Gomi/Greybeard in quick succession they set in motion the alternative site. Although more people actively sided with those three, I think most people who have moved there have done so because it looks like being the only game in town rather than because they have a clear understanding of the rights and wrongs. But this is similar to lots of people contributing to or reading Misplaced Pages because it is the only show in town not because they necessarilly think it is superior to what Citizendium, Encarta or Britannica might have produced in its absence or that it has better policies than them. The fact that I contribute to Wikipediocracy is no more evidence that I support all of what Kohs and Herschel think or that I approve of them as individuals than the fact that I contribute to Misplaced Pages should be taken as evidence that I approve of you or Jimbo or agree with what you say. And that is the fallacy of your proposal here. The criticism sites are not monolithic and there is no party line. Various Misplaced Pages admins, functionaries and beaurocrats have participated on those sites and various other people monitor them even though they might not participate. This makes them different from the various closed lists that have featured in Arbcom cases regarding the Middle East and Eastern Europe.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your understanding of the future situation. I look forward to Gregory Kohs no longer being the registered legal owner of the website and finding out who will be the new owner. Until, and if, that happens, I think it entirely accurate for anyone to call it Gregory Kohs' forum. Note, you probably mean "directors" rather than "trustees" if it is to become a not for profit. I will be interested in seeing who is prepared to take personal liability for the forum and put their full legal names in the public domain as directors. Depending on how the company is registered, it may well be subject to hate crime legislation, an interesting position for the future directors considering the current culture which enabled the recent faggot "fae got" incident which passed without any meaningful sanction against the person involved.

Peter, as you appear to be arguing against closed lists, and presumably must highly prize transparency, you may want to review your opinion in the above discussion where you appear to be against it for those who have trusted authority on Misplaced Pages.

By the way, most of us with a Jewish heritage would probably find your immediate comparison of my proposal for transparency with the holocaust, an extreme and offensive viewpoint. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that the planned non-profit organization will be in the US, you have two potential sources of information:

• Assuming that they manage to get tax-exempt status on the grounds that they're supporting Misplaced Pages's educational mission (a little dubious, but it would probably work in the end), you will not necessarily be able to find out who all of the directors (or trustees; for charities, the terms are used interchangeably in practice) are, because their gross receipts will be so low that their public reporting will be the 990-N, which needs to list only one officer (who might not be a member of the board). Seeking tax-exempt status isn't mandatory, and if they don't, they can avoid tax liability simply by not making any profits (which should be very easy for a website to arrange; this is the approach I would take if I were setting up a similar program).
• Assuming that they incorporate, you should be able to find out (from the state) the names of the president, secretary, treasurer, and agent for service of process (could be all the same person if not a non-profit; may be as few as two people if it is). Incorporation isn't necessary, of course, but it provides some liability benefits. If they incorporate, the individual directors (and owners, if it is not a non-profit) will not necessarily have "personal liability" for the contents of the website. That, after all, is the primary point behind incorporation: you can sue the corporation, but you can't win the assets of the people who run it or own it except in specific, unusual, and very severe situations (and online insults isn't one of them).

Whether or not an insulting speech in the absence of an independently criminal action (e.g., yelling a slur vs yelling a slur while killing someone) counts as a hate crime is outside my area of competence, so I'll leave that to others, but free speech laws are generally very broadly construed in the US, so I wouldn't count on it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh I think we reached the point some time ago where some consider that anything less than abject brown nosing is a 'hate crime'. John lilburne (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It's probably not smart to scheme on a public noticeboard about how best to get around hate crime legislation; your call I guess. I fully accept John lilburne's implication that I am an abject brown noser. I'm naturally talented and have many years of experience in that department. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It's probably not smart to scheme on a public noticeboard about how best to get around hate crime legislation... - Is that REALLY what you're reading in the comment above yours? I find that baffling. So-called "Hate Crime Legislation" wouldn't seem to have anything to do with anything in this specific instance, let alone there being any attempt to "get around" it. Is this some sort of veiled legal threat? I'm at a loss... Carrite (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Fæ, what are you babbling on about? You seem to have the recipient of the brown-nosing confused, and the rest of your comment is just completely bizarre. John lilburne (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Am I the only one who thinks it a bit hilarious that Jimmy Wales' "Those who think of themselves as my allies on this issue I appreciate very much. I need your help." is being quoted by the proposer as bolstering his backdoor BADSITES proposal? What "issue" is it to which Mr. Wales refers? Hmmm? It is, pretty clearly, his desire for users to be able to filter sexual content at Commons, set in motion by the activism of some contributors to Wikipediocracy on the festering situation there. Wales is essentially saying, those of you with me on the image filter issue are not doing me any favors working through that site, which is "run by" a person that I see as a possible physical menace to me. The proposer is keen to hear what is useful to him, ignoring the basic issue involved and quoting out of context.

I'm not going to defend the words or actions of ANYONE at Wikipediocracy. Indeed, I find several of the principals there, including the Wikimedia-project-banned individual with whom the proposer is at war, to be obnoxious and consider them opponents. But the views and actions of a few are not sufficient to condemn that project as a whole, which in this case I believes serves a positive mission as a source of independent criticism of the systemic problems of WP. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Carrite, you may not be the only one who finds Jimbo's personal request for our help hilarious, but I expect you would definitely be in the fringe minority. I read his request as genuine and I think most readers would accept it in good faith. --Fæ (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Whew, difficulty discerning meaning or something. I find YOUR quoting his comments made originally in the context of helping offended users mitigate the porno catastrophe that is Misplaced Pages Commons to be hilarious, not his seeking of help for those who don't want to see, y'know, naked butts of boys in ropes and stuff like that. Carrite (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's see, Gregory Kohs has been in a long-running, online (entirely online) dispute with Jimbo Wales. The two men can't stand one another and Mr. Wales gives as good as he gets. Some time ago, Mr. Kohs posts a picture of himself with a friend's rifle on his Facebook page. In the comments thread, a friend asks him something like "I hope you're not planning on killing anything with that." He responds, "I understand that Jimmy Wales often carries a gun, so I have to be prepared with counter-fire." . Hmmm... Counter-fire. counter-fire. counter-fire. This is A. clearly a joke and B. A reference (in the context of the lame joke) to self-defense. Now, six month's later Wales (who would like nothing better than to shut Koh's up and smear his good name) writes: I think (Kohs) is dangerous to myself and my family, who has posted a photo of himself online with a semi-automatic rifle along with a sick fantasy about a gun battle with me. This is a classic, classic Misplaced Pages smear tactic against people you don't like/disagree with. Then Mr. Van Haeften, who has made a habit of accusing all and sundry of "homophobia" and "harassment" and "hate crimes" and posing a danger to his family, for the crime of criticizing him (I've been on the receiving end of this nonsense in the past) and for seeking for, well, transparency as to his past and current actions on various Wikimedia projects, tries to stir up a little wiki lynch mob against those who would dare to frequent the Misplaced Pages criticism site wikipediocracy.com because, because... the dangerous Mr. Kohs posts there too. If Mr. Wales is really concerned that Mr. Kohs is a threat to him or anyone in his family, he should seek a restraining order. As for the backdoor "badsites" policy, well, Mr. Van Haeften will just have to adjust to the fact that he's not going to get his way.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Dare I suggest it's probably a pretty heavy BLP violation... runs and hides --Errant 18:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

BLP does apply to talk pages. Suggesting that a living person is a danger is definitely a BLP violation. Although I'm not stupid enough to try editing Jimbo's page. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• As usual, a lot of the rhetoric here is overblown. At the same time, while I don't subscribe to the stuff about hate crimes and gun battles, it's obvious that there are individuals whose interest in Jimmy Wales and his family verges on the uncomfortably obsessive.

  The whole thing is sort of ridiculous; obviously, the people who contribute to Wikipediocracy are not about to stop just because Jimmy Wales asks them to. And in the end, a discussion forum is just a discussion forum. If a website lost all redeeming value simply because it was frequented by a few nasty, obsessive pieces of work, then Misplaced Pages should have been closed down long ago.

  That said, there's a sort of icky, vindictive, excessively familiar undertone that runs through a lot of posts on those off-site forums, and it's fair to consider whether we as Misplaced Pages contributors want to be associated with that. MastCell  18:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Observation & Admonishment The reference to yellow stars is in extremely poor taste. Please don't do that. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not going to allow political correctness and the insistence for the use of Newspeak get in the way of a frank comparison. I won't compromise my language, ideas, and thoughts for the sake of not hurting someone's feelings. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright backlog getting horrendous

• Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems
• Misplaced Pages:Suspected copyright violations

Well, I was hoping to make good ground on the backlog at WP:CP today, but that was before I discovered to my dismay that the WP:SCV backlog stretches back almost as far. This means we're likely to lose rather than gain ground, because I can't even keep up when SCV is kept up to date ... not even when I give it every spare moment of the weekend I can muster.

Please, please, please, people. This is important work. Yes, it can be tedious, but it's usually not that hard. And even if you just pitch in a little, you can be a big help. "Many hands make light work" and all that.

You don't have to be an admin to work at WP:SCV. The instructions are in the collapse box at the top of the page.

Much of the work at WP:CP is limited to admins, but it's not all hard. There's pretty comprehensive advice at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/Advice for admins, and I am so willing to offer on the job training. And hire a maid to clean your house. (Well, not really. I'd have to justify to my family why I'm not taking care of mine. :))

For those who like the idea of handling text-based copyright issues but for some reason shy away from WP:SCV and WP:CP, we also have backlogs of over a year at WP:CCI. (I really recommend that the less experienced don't start at the oldest. Those tend to get old for a reason...they're hard.) But I'm not really here today to plead for CCI. It's the far-more urgent WP:SCV and sometimes-urgent WP:CP that need you most.

Please. We are drowning. Or, less dramatically but more accurately, really falling behind. :/ --Moonriddengirl 18:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I looked at a few but without admin tools there's not much I can do so I stopped. All I would be able to do is just ask someone else to take action so I would mostly just be in the way. Kumioko (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, there's tons you could do to help at WP:SCV. :) WP:NPP pick up on blatant issues quite often, but sometimes they don't - and sometimes the creators remove the copyright tag and the new page patrollers evidently don't notice that they were there. In those cases, adding a speedy deletion tag can be helpful. Sometimes there is a plausible chance that the contributor could offer permission (if User:CompanyX copies content from the website on Company X, say), and in those cases especially the proper course is to blank the article and use the template that {{copyvio}} generates to let them know how to give permission. Anybody can do that, and admins are not supposed to delete articles in such cases until a week after they have. Sometimes it's a matter of talking to somebody about how to handle Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing or Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages. Sometimes the source is public domain or compatibly licensed, and they may need to be told how to attribute in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism. Sometimes it's a false positive, and a note just needs to be added to the entry to document that the article has been checked and is okay. --Moonriddengirl 10:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not able to assist at the moment, with finals coming up. But I can give it real focus after May 8th, so remind me then, if you would. And, dear god, that kitten is the cutest thing in the world. Silverseren 02:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of some content work with materials I have access to for a limited time (plus working on the RfC), but once the RfC (and school) are over, I'll try to help. I have decent database access through my library and community college, if that's a plus. Keilana| 02:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both! Access to sources is great (although I do sometimes run by WP:RX when I can't get ahold of one, and that frequently works). And, yes, that kitten is insanely cute. :) --Moonriddengirl 10:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Last time you asked I was willing to help and immediately ran into this problem. So no, sorry, not the second time until the problem gets resolved. I mean not this particular article, which is already fine, but the attitude that bureacratic procedures are above all does not matter what.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

While I appreciate your willingness to help, I'm afraid that we do have policies against even temporarily publishing content that may be against the law. This is why potential copyright problems are blanked until the listing is closed, and this is why matters that might violate WP:BLP are removed while we figure out if they do...and not left in place until after. This is to help protect the encyclopedia, our reusers and the individuals whose rights may be violated. Your help in copyright work would be much appreciated, but I don't think it would be a good idea to change this practice as a matter of principle given what could be a risk. --Moonriddengirl 10:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The point is that the copyrighted text was there for couple of weeks before I started editing (not obviously introduced by me, and it was not removed by anybody, though clearly identified and templated), was removed after I started rewriting it, despite the fact that I promised to finish the work in several hours, it was clear that I am currently working on the article, and my edits were reverted. Best luck with finding somebody willing to help.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

And the article was about events occurred 100+ years ago, so that it did not contain anything even remotely close to BLP.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't intend to imply that it was a BLP issue; I simply note that legal issues including BLP and copyright have certain handling. In terms of the principle, and not the specifics of this incident, once content is identified, there is a level of diligence that can help minimize legal problems. This includes immediate removal. I can see that you are upset about this incident, and I'm sorry about that, but it didn't have anything to do with me and the principle is sound. If you think the principle is being misapplied in a particular situation, you can discuss that politely with the contributor with whom you disagree and seek dispute resolution if the two of you can't reach consensus. In general, though, I'm afraid that I can't guarantee anyone a conflict-free experience helping with copyright issues. But I appreciate your good wishes. :) There are always people willing to help out. --Moonriddengirl 12:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I believe that the principle was being misapplied (in the end of the day, I was removing the copyrighted content, not introducing it), and I tried to discuss it with the editor, but the discussion did not go anywhere. I am absolutely sure they did it in good faith, and I am not so much interested in the article (and the article has been fixed by the editor anyway) so that I would go through the dispute resolution process, but it still remains by far my worst experience on this project since 2007, and I wish it would remain my worst experience still for some time.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I tend to avoid these lists, because of what amounts to OWNership issues by the regulars there. they have adopted a certain series of discrete steps, and I prefer to do things differently to get the same result. (I do not participate,in fact, in any Misplaced Pages project that uses coded symbols.) So I just work on my own with what I notice or what is called to my attention, which is in any case as much as I can handle. It;'s not just the machinery I dislike, it's the approach: in general the problem I have with the approach is the same as what Ymblanter noticed: those working at those boards prefer to remove, even if rewriting is feasible, and I prefer to rewrite when possible: both ways remove copyvio, but one gets us an article. An example is the list that MRG suggested for non-admins to do, she left out: rewrite to remove the copyvio, remove the copyvio portion, stubbify the article--all things that any editor can do. Similarly, unless someone is doing it repeatedly, the way to handle close paraphrase , copying within WP or failure to attribute a quotation is usually to just fix it, like any other error. And I disagree completely with the view that if something has been there for 100 hours, we are aiding violation of the law if we leave it in another few hours while we're working on it--it's de minibus--we should do whatever facilitates working on it. And for things that only might be copyright violations Misplaced Pages has no obligation, legal or moral, to remove until it's shown to be copyvio or we receive a takedown notice. In another direction, I do not blank and suggest giving formal permission if the material would be promotional--I delete using both G11 and G12 as a reason--there's no point telling someone to go through the trouble of giving formal permission if the material is unusable. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

<blink>Goodness. DGG, perhaps you didn't intend it to sound this way, but there are a lot of what seem to me uncivil comments in this, including your accusation that "those working at those boards prefer to remove, even if rewriting is feasible" which is demonstrably unfounded. I have personally rewritten from scratch hundreds of articles flagged for copyright problems and repaired or stubbed many, many more. In terms of ownership issues, you would be very welcome to join a constructive conversation about how to better handle copyright issues, although I can't imagine how symbols create an issue. They're simply easier shorthand than typing the same thing over and over again. They're not mandatory or hard. I do, however, disagree with you heartily that we have no legal or moral obligation to remove copy-pasted content. By the same token, we could retain BLP issues until they are proven to be defamatory - but this is irresponsible from a legal and moral standpoint. Copyright infringement, just like defamation, has the possibility of doing real world harm to people. --Moonriddengirl 21:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Chugging in on WP:SCV, which I did not know of before. Can't promise much, but I'll pick off some. Procedure is SCV -> CP if confirmed, right? --Alvestrand (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. :) CP is the right avenue if you think there's a chance of permission to be verified. If it's a blatant WP:CSD#G12, you can tag it for {{db-copyvio}}. Misplaced Pages:Text Copyright Violations 101 has some basic information. --Moonriddengirl 21:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

</blink>Moonriddengirl, learn to close your HTML tags :-) I have to agree with DGG's parenthetical statement: any page that requires me to use little coded symbols is confusing. It would help if the SCV process (and the RFPP process) suggested the templates rather than essentially requiring them. Nyttend (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

:D I have no objection to that. I'm pretty sure it'll be non-controversial and will add them immediately. I don't always use them myself, although they are easy at a glance to read when checking to see if a day is done. I created them for my own use after typing that an article had been cleaned for the billionth time - it's just so much easier to type {{CPC}}. Voila! It does it all for me. I've noticed the time you've been putting in at SCV, by the way, and really appreciate it. :) (Oh, but I won't take RFPP. It may not be noncontroversial there.) --Moonriddengirl 21:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Noted in the group edit header that they are not mandatory. I'll explain the issues if it turns out be controversial. --Moonriddengirl 21:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely an issue at RFPP; the first time that I worked there for a little bit, I left custom comments instead of the templates, and before long someone had left a message asking me please to use the template. Nyttend (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

DGG - With respect to your re-write comment, I'll be honest and say, yes, I have deleted articles and or content when a rewrite may have been possible. Did I want to do this, no, but given the backlog at WP:CP I thought it was more important to work through the backlog. What would we prefer - an article on something of marginal notability or stopping an ever growing list of blanked articles, some of which are bound to be high-profile. Personally I think it's the latter, hence the reason I sometimes delete articles I think could be re-written - although I will stub if I can. As for the symbols issue I'd agree with Moonriddenggirl that they're mainly there to help identify which listings have and haven't been dealt with and they certainly aren't mandatory. I agree with your comments on other tasks that non-admins can do but I don't see the point of your next sentence starting "Similarly, unless someone is doing it repeatedly,...". The reason we list these at WP:CP is to make sure they don't get missed, articles rarely get deleted for close paraphrasing and we fix the copying within Misplaced Pages problems by attributing properly. We also don't remove material that just might by a copyvio - if we can't find a source the tag is removed. Dpmuk (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Time for changes to the Username Policy? ROLE, ORGNAME and NOSHARE

Every policy has room for improvement, and the username policy is no different. I am not proposing (nor supporting/opposing) any changes myself. However, in hopes of drawing a wider audience to the conversation to achieve consensus I wanted to mention this here. In response to some potentially unclear wording in the policy we saw this RFCN and this conversation on Jimbo's talk page a number of editors are taking a stab at clarifying the policy. Admin who regularly review the backlog at UAA may want to review and comment. Your input on the username policy talkpage would be appreciated.  7  23:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You might point out that WP:ROLE is not actually part of WP:Username, but part of the WP:SOCK policy. I think part of the problem in interpretation might have been the different goals of these two policies. The naming of users is primarily focused on avoiding confusing names and giving basic guidelines for new users, while the 'Sock' policy is about stressing the 1-to-1 relationship (1 human to 1 account) that is strongly preferred because of security and accountability concerns. -- Avanu (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

... Except that that's not actually what WP:SOCK says. Users are allowed as many accounts as they can use in a policy-compliant manner. Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You're talking about the exception, not the general rule. The policy still says what you just said. But if you're summing up general user creation policy in 1 brief sentence, you'd probably say "generally one human to one account", which is what I'm saying above. -- Avanu (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Request pending for Template:WikiProject United States

A request has been pending for Template:WikiProject United States that's going on 10 days with no action. Is there a willing administrator that could update this template? The changes have already been made and tested in the sandbox so all you need to do is copy the change from the sandbox to the live template. Kumioko (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Agathoclea (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Admin refusing to participate in dispute resolution

There is a dispute over the structure of List of vegans, discussed at Talk:List_of_vegans#Legends.2Ftemplates. User:SlimVirgin has been claiming consensus for pushing changes through and I dispute she does have a consensus, so started a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#List of vegans. So far she has refused to participate in the dispute resolution, claiming she does not need to: . Administrator User:EdJohnston tackled her over her refusal to participate in dispute resolution, noting ...it seems to me that your insistence on removing the templates has no supporters but yourself. What consensus there is suggests that Betty's scheme is favored. SilmVirgin has refused to acknowledge this. She has also requested another editor on the article to write a program that will remove all the citation tempplates, which is expressly forbidden by Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources#Citation_templates_and_tools. Since EdJohnston does not believe she has a consensus for her changes, can you please compel her to participate in dispute resolution and to cease making structural alterations to the article until the issues are resolved at DR. Betty Logan (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Please remember to notify involved editors as required. Notifications to SlimVirgin and EdJohnston made. Monty₈₄₅ 02:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• This complaint is not valid and looks like forum shopping. Editors are not required to participate. Jehochman 02:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  If this complaint is not valid, I am going to take my efforts of Misplaced Pages. I have promoted articles to GA and FA status, but if there is not a legitimate process for settling a content dispute then I have no recourse. And this is not forum shopping; after filing a complaint at AN3 I tried being constructive by entering dispute resolution. Even EdJohnston said this was an appropriate step, and he advised me to come here if I was still dissatisifed, which I am. It is very clear that this would not be happening if the other editor was not an admin. Betty Logan (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• But if they don't participate, then that generally means that they are in the wrong and are trying to avoid responsibility. Silverseren 03:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've given three years of my life to this project working on articles and developing templates (just check my user stats), because I believe in free knowledge. You can't even give me one lousy dispute resolution process, where someone impartial decides what the consensus is. Betty Logan (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's pretty strange to defend SlimVirgin over Betty in this case. It seems that SlimVirgin has been ignoring all objections on the talk page, refused to participate in dispute resolution, and is allowing her personal distaste for templates to guide her actions here. She has been dismissive of Betty Logan's attempts to insist on reliable sourcing (and, lets not forget, describing someone as a vegan is a WP:BLP issue, where strong sourcing is an absolute requirement). I've reverted the article to a version prior to SlimVirgin's participation. I suggest that she not return to editing the article until she participates in dispute resolution and agrees not to include statements about living people that don't meet WP:BLP.—Kww(talk) 03:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Kww, that was out of order. You've undone a lot of work, including adding new names and sources. I advise you to look at the page history, the serial reverting, and the talk page. Please revert yourself. SlimVirgin 03:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's your changes. I'm seeing only 4 new people added and about 5 source changes. The rest is just decapitalization and such, which isn't all that important. It's certainly easier to do it this way than to have to manually put the color coded stuff back in. Silverseren 03:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Just as it was sorted out, Kww has stirred it up again. The truth is that Betty Logan has been a serial reverter on that page for two years, barely allowing anyone else to edit it, but without improving it either. I'm all for a bit of OWN when it helps, but what he has done has caused the page to stagnate. Now, because I tried to help a new editor he was repeatedly reverting over the last few days, he has turned on me, and has taken me to, I believe, four noticeboards since last night. You have just rewarded that behaviour, and have undone a lot of work in which I added names and references that he had been removing. Please revert yourself. SlimVirgin 03:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

And now we move onto the bit where, when you can't get people to agree with you, you try to discredit the person you're in a disagreement with. Really, I could make a checklist and mark each one as you follow it, you've done the pattern time and again. Silverseren 03:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't sorted out at all, SV: you were simply ignoring all objections to your edits. Pay attention to the DRN request, and enter into it in good faith, with the full expectation that you might not prevail. Sure, Betty is frustrated as all hell and lashing out, but I probably would be too.—Kww(talk) 10:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

SlimVirgin did not request that anyone write a program. I told SlimVirgin that I would write a program (at a later date, after I've completed my current project) and SlimVirgin agreed that it would be a good idea. The purpose of the program would be to convert templated refs to non-templated refs in order to see if makes a significant difference in the page loading speed. Certainly, neither of us had it in mind as a permanent adjustment as no permanent plan for the page had been determined. It was just talk during the discussion & testing phase that we are still in. --Andomedium (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Pain/Archive_4#Cite_ref; it has been tried manually and apparently does make a significant difference if there are many citations in the article (Pain has more than 100). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. --Andomedium (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Forget it

Forget it, I've just had enough. I loved Misplaced Pages when I joined and now I absolutely hate it. You don't have fair rules for settling editing disputes, and you allow editors to destroy other people's work like what happened to User:Armbrust, the best editor you ever had. And you always take the admin's side and provide no mechanism for editors to have a consensus judged fairly and impartially. This is not a nice place. You probably think I'm a troublemaker because I'm a redlink, but I've promoted articles and peer reviewed film articles, and practically held the snooker project afloat with Armbrust. I want you to know how good I was though so here are the two articles I am proudest of:

• Don't Look Now – This is my favorite film and the article was shit when I joined Misplaced Pages. I single handedly developed it from this to this.
• List of highest-grossing films – I wrote all the prose on that, and designed and implemented the expandible tables at the bottom. I thought they were so cool, and really elevated the article. Under my guidance that article went from this to this

I think those two articles show me in my best light, it shows what I'm capable off when I'm allowed to edit fairly, although I doubt you give a shit. And you insult me by not even giving me the opportunity to have my editing decisions and my point of view heard fairly, by someone impartial. Over and out. Betty Logan (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Betty, please don't leave. That was a really crass comment by Jehochman above, please ignore it. I'm sure there's people here that can help with this issue. Silverseren 03:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Betty, for what it's worth, I apologize to you that we have gotten off track here. I take responsibility for that. The situation now is that several of us are discussing on the talk page what the formatting of the article should be. We agree that the list needs something to prettify it, and there are several good featured lists that we could take our lead from. One consideration is not to add to load time (already slow) with unnecessary templates, and to make sure the page is easy for new editors to expand (i.e. not too fiddly -- the previous colour-coding was problematic in that regard). The discussion is going well, and you are welcome to join in.

My suggestion is that you take a couple of days away from the article, and I will do the same. Then when we're both refreshed, we can meet again on talk to discuss how to proceed. Nothing has happened at that article that can't be changed easily, so please accept this olive branch, then we can start again with a better relationship and work to improve the page together. SlimVirgin 03:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any agreement on the talk page with your view on the load times. Furthermore, I just tried loading both versions and there wasn't any time difference. You also don't have any consensus on the talk page for the removal of the color coding. Also, this polite, fake positive wording/speech methods that you use to imply that you're the one that has consensus and that you're the one doing all the work in the discussion is really just insulting to whomever you're speaking to. Silverseren 03:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you clear your browser's cache in between? It's (I've been told) a necessary step to get valid results in this instance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Betty Logan seems to be making pointed comments at EdJohnston now. Not good. Mathsci (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a pointed comment, i'm seeing someone upset and burned out. She isn't even being insulting or anything, so I don't see the issue at all. Silverseren 03:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No. A section headed "Thanks for nothing" seems to be a critcism of EdJohnston's closing of the report at WP:AN3. Mathsci (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think EdJohnston's close of it was appropriate, but I can fully understand Betty being upset as they are if I had to deal with a talk page discussion like that one with Slim Virgin. Silverseren 04:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Betty Logan objected to the close explicitly. The discussion on the talk page is proceeding in a calm and orderly way. Mathsci (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It was already going in a calm and orderly way. And considering there's been only one edit since then, Slim Virgin making an RfC on the color thing, there isn't really anything that has happened since to be judged whether it is calm and orderly. I assume these comments are just trying to defend SV, Mathsci? Silverseren 04:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No, SV is not the problem here. Meanwhile Betty Logan has forum-shopped elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you follow SlimVirgin's example, extend the olive branch and let this go. Its probably past time to close this thread before someone makes things worse. -- Avanu (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If only it was an actual olive branch and not a snake. Silverseren 06:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so every time someone else puts a message on Jimbo's page, it's not forum shopping, but now it is? Besides, there's no link back here or even an explicit mention, so it's not forum shopping. Silverseren 06:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Please cut back on the drama-producing rhetoric, personalised remarks and scarcely credible wikilawyering. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So, essentially, you're not actually going to respond to what I say. I see how it is. Silverseren 06:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see Ched Davis' comments below: your contributions here seem to be in bad faith. Mathsci (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not going to enter into the meat of the disagreement itself, but I must say that when an editor (Slim) states I apologize to you that we have gotten off track here. I take responsibility for that. and Then when we're both refreshed, we can meet again on talk to discuss how to proceed. Nothing has happened at that article that can't be changed easily, so please accept this olive branch, - I find it rather unseemly for other editors to use language such as: this polite, fake positive wording/speech methods that you use and If only it was an actual olive branch and not a snake.. Let's try to do a little better please. — Ched :  ?  07:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• "I'm sorry people got upset" is not the same thing as "I'm sorry for what I did". Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• I did go a bit overboard with that, but i'm extremely annoyed that everyone is ignoring what Slim has done wrong (and the canvassing below). Though I am, admittedly, not surprised at the response either. And now we've lost yet another editor. Great job everyone. Silverseren 07:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing

Right here. Saying "Please don't feel like you have to comment" is just a veiled attempt to pretend it isn't canvassing. Why wouldn't he feel compelled to comment after being informed of it? Silverseren 04:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to list diffs under a section titled "Canvassing", allow me to help by adding a few more: diff 2, diff 3, diff 4. — Ched :  ?  07:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

How is any of that canvassing? Those are all proper processes to be used in a dispute. The RSN discussion is in agreement with Betty. The AN3 discussion was no consensus, but noted that there was no support for Slim. And Slim refused to be involved in the DRN discussion. Again, how is any of this canvassing? It looks to me like a continually agreement that Slim has no consensus and is refusing to actually discuss anything. Silverseren 07:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see the RSN discussion is not the recent one I was thinking of, but one from a few days ago. What does that one even have to do with anything? Silverseren 07:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally I hope that Betty doesn't leave, and I hope she and SV can find a resolution to all this. I do understand that once frustration sets in, it's often difficult to see another person's side of things. I don't know Betty - but she seems to be a good-faith editor, and I hope she'll stay. I'm just saying that having seen Slim around for many years, I know that she too is someone open to reason and compromise. I haven't read through all the discussions on this, and I'm not really interested in the "vegan" topic itself. If it were me, then after a WP:3O my next step would be to start a RfC on the article talk page (perhaps even try to get it listed at WP:CENT - at the conclusion of the RfC, you get some sort of established consensus. If it can't be resolved that way - then some sort of WP:MEDCAB type of thing perhaps could help. (and I should have said earlier too - SS, I do admire you sticking up for another fellow editor - I'm just saying it's not necessary to "bash" one person, in order to "support" another.) — Ched :  ?  07:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Please Allow SlimVirgin to Proceed

My words may not matter much because I'm not an established Misplaced Pages user (I've actually made many attempts over the past seven years to become an active Misplaced Pages editor but each time I was discouraged by users like Betty Logan who are so eager to delete the contributions of other users) but I'd still like to show my support for SlimVirgin.

If you check the History pages for the List of Vegetarians and the List of Vegans, it's quite clear that Betty Logan is more interested in completely deleting new (valid) list entries than in finding ways to help retain them.
If a new entry has no reference, Betty completely deletes the entry.
If a new entry has a reference but Betty finds the reference unsatisfactory, Betty completely deletes the entry.
Betty doesn't try to help create a better reference.
Betty doesn't seem to care that the entrant's vegan/vegetarian status can often be easily confirmed with a quick Google search and a pinch of common sense.
Betty doesn't bother to list the entrant on the Talk page so that other users can try to find a better source (something that SlimVirgin has already begun doing).
Betty just completely deletes the entry and that's that. The name usually remains gone from the list unless the user who added it happens to return to battle Betty, or another user comes along at a later date to try to add the name again.

While viewing the page history, I found more than enough reversions to convince me that Betty Logan shouldn't be maintaining these lists. Unfortunately, I didn't keep a good record of my findings (I'll read through the history again if necessary).
One example that I can clearly recall is Kesha who was deleted from the List of vegetarians simply because the user failed to add her in alphabetical order.
I don't believe that Betty Logan knows, or even truly cares about, what's best for these lists.
I believe that SlimVirgin does know (or will soon determine) what's best for these lists and I believe that SlimVirgin truly does care about what's best for these lists. I've looked at a lot of SlimVirgin's past work and I am convinced that, if allowed to work on the lists unimpeded, SlimVirgin will produce better structured lists and a better system for expanding and maintaining the lists. --Andomedium (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. While edits like this are not a good way to behave, it's also important to source things. If the reference is missing, or unsatisfactory, then remove the sentence it's referencing. That's pretty standard for information about living people. SlimVirgin doesn't necessarily know what's best for these lists, because they're not her lists: they're lists on an encyclopaedia, and lists on an encyclopedia should always be referenced with good quality sources. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Certainly it is important to source things, and Betty Logan does not appear to be doing that. The reason we edit by humans is so the full range of appropriate actions should be considered. Before removing someone from a list of that sort, one should make at least a cursory check that there is not available documentation--at least by checking the Misplaced Pages article in case there is a link that can be copied over. Otherwise its operating like a primitive level bot, and we already have enough of these without turning ourselves into unthinking machinery. SV's edits over the years have shown her to be, in contrast, an extremely resourceful editor, who takes care in following the actual BLP policy. DGG ( talk ) 10:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

(Comment by Non-Admin.) SlimVirgin is one of the finest, if not the finest administrator I have ever encountered. I do not say this because she has always agreed with me. Quite the contrary. But she has ALWAYS been polite and informative and an encounter with her will make a better editor of you for it. Just thought it had to be said and this was a good place to say it. Mugginsx (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

(Another non-admin comment). Let me begin by saying that I, deliberately, have not reviewed the edits at the page in question. It isn't on my watchlist, and it's an argument I can do without. But I want to criticize what I see in a lot of this discussion: character endorsements or criticisms that, likewise, seem to be made by editors who know nothing more of the specifics than I do. I don't remember ever having crossed paths with Betty Logan, but I most certainly have done so numerous times with SlimVirgin. Comments that someone (who is, whatever else, a long-time active user) is generally resourceful or one of the finest do little to shed light on a specific incident, and are the kinds of things that give rise to the perception that we have so-called "vested contributors". Veganism is somewhat related as a subject to animal rights, and I have a lot of experience there, and have had some truly horrid experiences with SlimVirgin in that area. That doesn't mean that the same thing is happening here, but please forgive me if I have a Pavlovian response and worry that Betty Logan might have reason to feel badly. And yet, it has been my impression that SlimVirgin has been making a commendable effort to be on good behavior since her return from her illness. I, very sincerely, respect that and wish her well. So, reputations are not going to help us here. Actually, it ends up being a matter of looking at the edits rather than the editor, in the sense that the specific editing actions are relevant in ways that reputation is not. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Need a new Admin attitude

Disclaimer: Before I begin, let me say that I know full well we have an ample supply of perfect, abundantly helpful, and unfailingly charitable administrators. The following comments are not intended to change the behavior or process of those admins, except to encourage them to help those few administrators who manage to fall short in minor ways.

The PROBLEM

Its becoming a tired refrain that when people bring an issue to the admin board for help, asking for 'X', invariably admins and other editors chime in on 'Y' and 'Z'. Far too often, it degrades into personal attacks, nitpicking on policy from all editors toward all editors, and generally unproductive tangents. Admins seem far too eager to use banning and blocking tools, and far too hesitant to apologize for mistakes.

The QUESTIONS

Is this the exception? Are these things the few public opportunities we have to see a generally streamlined and efficient administrative process at work, and are people misjudging admin behavior because of a few abrupt or insensitive comments?

What suggestions might improve this? Do we say "no tolerance for incivility from our admins"? Do we remove admins from the process and allow community consensus to develop first before an admin is allowed to use 'tools'? Would things like this help or hurt?

Could programming fix some of these things? After all, we debated 'bad' usernames at length simply because we let people sign up almost anything they like. Perhaps 'suggest-a-name' algorithims? Or maybe allow admins to have a temp-rename ability that would allow them to 'fix' a username by amending it to something that they feel is acceptable, without having to block someone outright (assuming it is a non-vulgar type naming issue). It could have 1 month temp duration before a block is instituted, which would give a non-problematic user time to work through consensus processes before they end up blocked.

Back on TARGET

Some admins have to shoot so often, they probably end up in the middle of the street at high noon without even trying. While we end up getting rid of a lot of bad guys this way, you might lose track of who is who.

I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is an Administrator, the most powerful editor in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk? - Dirty Mopper

We love a cowboy; we love a person who stands up for what's right and don't take no guff from nobody. But even John Wayne's characters sometimes realized that they needed to gain some perspective. Yeah, they were usually right, usually brave, and usually honorable, but they weren't perfect.

The KEY

If we don't appreciate the impact our actions have on others, we end up locking them out. I can't tell admins what to do, any more than I can train a cat to use a toilet (although some people have). But I can tell you that I have seen a lot of people who feel very excluded by the behavior they see on these boards. I can tell you they don't walk away feeling helped, they don't walk away feeling appreciative for your hard work, they walk away wondering why they bothered. I don't think that is what admins want. I would simply encourage admins to hold one another accountable for civility above all else. Getting policy right is important, no doubt. Getting relationships right takes more work, but in the end more people will appreciate the hard work that you do and even scramble to step up and help. -- Avanu (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• To be honest, I'm very surprised to see no reaction to this thread. I was looking forward to various views. I think you've (Avanu) have made some astute observations. (and while "technically 'off the record' - I do enjoy the bits of embedded humor). — Ched :  ?  19:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I kind of finding it hard to come up with a response to this; there is no clear direction that the above comment is going in. --MuZemike 20:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Muz - how ya doin? .. yea - it's rather difficult for me to compose a reply as well. I agree with a lot of the observations though. In general, I think our project does need to re-evaluate our stance on many things. Definitely a mind bender IMHO, and I've seen more than one lately along this line. I think it's an indication that there are indeed things that need to change if we're to survive - and I do want to hear other view-points. — Ched :  ?  21:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

(non-admin Pesky) Is it possible that too many of our admins are getting a bit burned-out? People can subject themselves to too much stress without really noticing it happening. I don't know what the fix for that would be, but it might explain a part of the problem. Avanu's made some good points there (and I liked the humour, as well :o) ) MuZemike, I think it's a hard thing to respond to, so not surprised people may find it hard to come up with a response. It leaves me with a kind of hollow, empty, "Don't know what, don't know how" to do anything feeling. But, underneath that one, I also have a feeling that there may be things that could be done. It just might take a while to come up with them. Pesky (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I can't help but to conjure up the recent South Park episode where Eric Cartman tries to deflect attention from his misdeeds by claiming horrific deeds done by those around him, including alleged deeds of those accusing him. His friends and peers ignore this attempt at redirection and keep the discussion on-topic. This sort of action, I call it the Cartman Attempt, is employed with great regularity on these administrative boards. Much to my shock it actually succeeds in a great many cases. If this were a court of law an attorney or barrister would object based upon scope and evidence not in the record. Unless the judge was off his rocker that day a Cartman Attempt would be immediately shot down. We have no true impartial judges here (except maybe for the Arbitration Committee) and those pointing to a succeeding Cartman Attempt are not likely to succeed. Often folks point to the WP:BOOMERANG page but this isn't very reassuring for those who are truly interested in justice. I beg Misplaced Pages editors and administrators to see the Cartman Attempt whenever it is employed and to not let it muddy the waters. 140.247.141.142 (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It's basically a typical ad hominem response to others' points. And no, you're right; that should be discouraged. However, sometimes that can be difficult, as there are people who make rather ridiculous claims about stuff – of course, this is all dependent on your interpretation of "ridiculous". --MuZemike 22:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

More eyes on the article List of current National Basketball Association head coaches would be helpful

The article List of current National Basketball Association head coaches needs a lot more people paying attention to it. At present there are only me and two other editors making changes to it as needed.

--184.6.219.143 (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

That's good of you, but why are more eyes needed? Are the constant coaching changes becoming a burden? :)--Wehwalt (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much. And some of the information in the lead is horribly out of date.

--184.6.219.143 (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay

] - TPB is now likley to be blocked in the UK. This means that some citations will become difficult for UK based Wikipedians to confirm

The current links to TBP in Misplaced Pages are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.thepiratebay.org

I've removed some links to TPB already :http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Sfan00_IMG typically in articlespace, I've got no objections to admins carefully reviewing these removals.

The number of clearly 'bad' links is tiny though.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've got concerns about these links in general. For example this citation doesn't even support the material it is a citation for. I suspect some of these links are spam. The one Sfan00 IMG removed in this diff is another example. Material isn't supported, but it's a torrent to download the copyrighted track.--v/r - TP 22:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Sfan00 IMG planning to remove offline cites to foreign newspapers that are "difficult for UK based Wikipedians to confirm"? Exactly what's the point of this knee-jerk reaction? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 22:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No. Offline Cites to Journals aren't problematic. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Great, so ignoring the problem that they might not source what's claimed, why are you removing cites just on the basis people in one country may have difficulty confirming them? Since you spectacularly missed the point of what I just said.... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 22:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

That confuses me too. I can understanding removing the links on the grounds that they make us guilty of contributory copyright infringement, but removing a link from a userpage on the grounds of "Removing Piratebay link - Blocked in UK" doesn't make sense to me. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

What the what? There is no way an editor should be removing links on userpages based on that reasoning. Also, I agree with asking why the user would be removing valid links/citations in articles based on this same reasoning(may be blocked in the UK). That is not up to any specific editor to decide and, if it's not Wiki policy, is itself a violation. Dave Dial (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I just used a scholar source that costs $50 to read. Maybe I should remove it because some wikipedians might not be ready to pay that amount? Or how about books that don't have preview in google books (and are not available in pirate websites), should I stop using those because they are difficult to verify for some wikipedians? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

We should definitely be removing most of these for linking to copyright violations, but not for being inaccessible in the UK (although being illegal to possess might be a grounds). MBisanz 23:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I'll revert the user space link you mention. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

@Sfan00 IMG, I looked at a few removals and they look OK. People complain because you are copy/pasting "blocked in UK" in most edit summaries, you make it sound like a knee-jerk removal. use "copyright violation" for edits like . Use "primary source" for . --Enric Naval (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This is utterly ridicolous. We're not UK-based and there is no reason to remove links based on the UK status. I've reverted your removals when they were unjustified (several were just irrelevant/pirated stuff). For what it's worth, TPB has been blocked in Italy for years, and I didn't go around remove the links then. This is just utterly silly. Snowolf 23:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted a few my myself based on consensus here, I've also noted in the edit summary that one appears to be public interest (and is as far as I can see PD-US Gov in any event). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Links to pirated stuff should be removed, see WP:ELNEVER. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Reinstated items are not linking to 'pirated' material, hence the revert. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm satisfied that you get the gist of the complaints here, and most of your removals were justified for various reasons other than the one being complained about. In any case, good luck and happy editing. Dave Dial (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Also created {{CensoredLink}} Although the wording is more polite in tone than some people might want ;) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be better to switch the pirate bay links into direct magnet links, this avoids the issue of linking to a possibly censored site. At the end of the day that is how the Torrent is hosted on TPB anyway. It's entirely possible a site may disappear, but the magnet link is static. --Errant 08:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Shia Labeouf meme

A song named "Actual Cannibal Shia Labeouf" has ascended to memehood on tumblr and the internet at large over the past few days. There's already been some vandalism of the cannibalism and Shia Labeouf pages related to this, as well as some films that Shia Labeouf has been in, and I imagine that's only going to continue until the meme cools off a bit. So keep an eye out I guess. 184.35.8.119 (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

C:SD backlog

There's a pretty hefty backlog at C:SD. Can someone please chip it down? I've had two G6's in the queue for several hours now. Ten Pound Hammer • 04:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Are they really hurting anything? Does it actually matter if they hang out for a few hours?

If they're deleted in less time than a PROD or AFD takes to process, then they're still "speedy" (per definition at the policy). We don't have a mandate to maintain our two-minute historical average. Indications of a bit more thoughtfulness (say, like a three-minute average) might actually be desirable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

A bit confused here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

By this report to AIV. Vandalism reported by a user with only 25 edits, but whatever, I've seen random reports before. But the only edit by the reported party (User:Asdfkmsfa) has been revdeleted...only I can't see it, and it doesn't show up in the deletion log. Does this mean it was oversighted? If so, why didn't the oversighter also block the user if it was such a horrible edit? I want to respond to the AIV report, but I don't want to block a user over a mistake, and the user seems to have made no other edits. Forgive me if it seems like a noobish question, I've just never seen something like this before. -RunningOnBrains 05:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

PS, I haven't notified the user in case this is a pure vandalism case lest he spread it here. -RunningOnBrains 05:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the oversighter didn't block, but yes, the edit was oversighted and I have gone ahead now and blocked the account. MBisanz 05:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

K thanks. In the future, is there any indication to see that something has been oversighted (a log maybe?) Or do I just assume if a revision is missing that's where it went? -RunningOnBrains 05:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no public log of it. If you get the "You cannot view this diff because one of the revisions has been deleted." message instead of the "One or both of the revisions of this diff has been removed from the public archives. Details can be found in the deletion log for this page. As an administrator you can still view this diff if you wish to proceed." message, then you know it was oversighted. MBisanz 05:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

RPP backlock

There's a bit of a backlog at WP:RPP. I've done a little but there's still quite a list and I really need to go to bed. Could someone have a look? Thanks. ItsZippy 21:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I cleared out a bunch of them. Hersfold 23:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog